Get the meeting started.

Uh, if you wouldn't mind, please rise and join us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, staff.

Can we do a roll call?

Commissioner Frazier here.

Commissioner Mujica, she's here.

Commissioner Stone.

Here.

Commissioner Kirk here.

Commissioner Kalarski.

Commissioner Brady.

Here.

He's here.

And Commissioner Royman.

Live and in person.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

All right.

Thank you very much.

All right.

So the first item on our agenda is a public comment.

So at this point in the meeting, anyone in the audience may come down of the general public and make comments on the record.

The commission cannot vote or act on any of those comments, but you can feel free to come down and make them.

Okay.

Seeing no one coming down to make public comments.

We will move on to the next item on our agenda.

So I'm going to close the public hearing.

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

At this time, staff request the following.

We draw the following per the applicant.

Item number 11, VS 260109, and item number 23, SC 260136.

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

Item 45, PA 2670010, item 46, DC 260137.

Item 47, WS 260138, item 48 TM 26500033, and hold the following to the May 19, 2026 Planning Commission meeting and the corresponding Board of County Commissioner meeting to June 17, 2026 per the applicant.

Item 30, PA 26, 7000 04, item 31, ZC 260056, item 32, VS 260057, item 33, WS 260058, and item 34, TM 2650001.

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

The above public hearing items is going to be opened as a public hearing and immediately recessed until until the date previously stated.

This is for items 11, 23, 30 through 34, 45 through 48.

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

So thank you.

I think we also want to add another item to our hold.

Commissioner Roitman number 24.

24.

Yes, thank you, Chair.

I'd like to hold uh item number 24 so that the applicant may have an opportunity to present in front of the Spring Valley Town Board.

I believe that town board meeting is on April 28th.

So if we could hold this to the meeting occurring thereafter, that'd be great.

And May 5th, Planning Commission.

Yeah, May 5th would be great.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

There's a there's a motion on the sorry, may I get a motion, please?

Um motion to approve the agenda holding item number 24 to the 5526 meeting, withdrawing items 23 and 11, and holding items 45, 46, 47, 48 to the May 5th agenda, and holding items 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34 to the May 19 agenda.

Thank you very much.

There's a motion on the floor, cast your vote.

Thank you.

The motion carries.

Next item.

The next item on the agenda is approval of the minutes.

Uh the planning commission briefing and regular meeting minutes from uh March 17, 2026 are ready for approval.

Can I get a motion?

Motion to approve the meeting minutes as presented.

Motion on the floor, cast your vote.

Motion carries.

Next item.

For the audiences information, items on tonight's agenda are final action unless appealed to the Board of County Commissioners or otherwise announced.

All appeals must be filed in writing to the comprehensive planning department by 5 p.m.

on Wednesday, April 29, 2026.

And any appeals from tonight's meeting will be heard by the Board of County Commissioners on Wednesday, May 20th, 2026 at 9 a.m.

in these chambers.

Per title 30, an aggrieved per person may appeal an item.

An aggrieved person includes the applicant, someone who attend attended this meeting in person or through an authorized representative, or someone who has submitted comments in writing, which may include a postcard or letter.

Members in the audience must complete the meeting sign-in sheet found near the dais to come to confirm their attendance at this meeting.

Made notices of appealed application will be sent to the property owners within the same notification radius as the original application and to those listed on the meeting sign-in sheet.

Additionally, any person may call the comprehensive planning department at 702 455 4314 or go to the county's meeting agenda webpage and review the meeting notice of final action to find out if the any items have been appealed.

Next are the routine action items, which consist of items 4 through 22, except those items that were previously deleted.

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

If there are no objections, the planning commission or sorry, the public hearing is now open, and the routine action portion of the agenda stands ready for approval.

Thank you, staff.

So right now, this is a section of our meeting where the planning commission is going to vote on the routine action items.

Those that will be in one vote, and all of those that are not previously just notified to be withheld or withdrawn or or put on hold will be approved in one vote.

And so if you want something that's on the routine action item to be heard tonight, now's the time to come down and remove it from the routine agenda.

And certainly if you have a question, please come down, sir.

Name name and address for the record.

Steve Small 8565 South Warbonnet.

Which item would you like removed from the routine action items?

Uh 30 for uh 30 through 35, I think.

Okay, so 30 30 through 35 is on the non-routine action item.

So we haven't gotten to that part yet.

But I'll just let you know that.

For the items that are on the agenda, and that's what I'm speaking to.

Okay, so we so we we've already had the hard.

Hold on, sir.

We've already had our public comment action part of our meeting.

This will be the second polling.

Therefore, I want it to heard tonight.

Okay.

Sir, we've already had a public comment piece for tonight.

The routine action items are what is what we're voting on now.

So we haven't gotten to the non-routine items, but just for the record, that particular set of applications that you're talking about is being held.

So if you want to speak on this item, you'll have to do it at the public comment section at the end of the meeting.

Well, if you want something on the record, or you can come back.

I'm running up and down the streets for no reason.

Because they pull it twice.

Well, sir, sorry.

Thank thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

This is not okay.

So I recognize you.

I appreciate your comment.

We got to move on with our meeting.

Anyone else in the audience would like to come down and have an item on the routine action item withdrawn?

All right, seeing seeing seeing no one else coming down, we will you can take them to the side if you if you want to have a sidebar.

All right, so so there's a motion on the floor, or can I get a motion on the floor for the routine action items?

Mr.

Chairman, I'll make a motion to approve the routine action items.

Your vote.

All right, the motion passes.

Next item.

This is final action unless appealed, except for items 19 through 22, which will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners meeting for final action on May 20th, 2026 at 9 a.m.

unless otherwise announced.

The next item on the agenda is item number 25.

WS 250827.

Amended holdover waivers of development standards for the following.

One, increase the height of the proposed single family residence, which is no longer needed, and two, reduce the front setback of a proposed single family resident previously not notified on.29 acres in an RS80 residences, single family 80 zone within the Spring Mountain Overlay.

Thank you.

Name and address for the record.

Tell us about your application.

Yes, my name is Yi Hong Liu, Yi Hong Liu and Associates, the architects of the project representing the applicant.

This is a single family home at uh Mount Charleston community, and you know, because of the uh uh extreme topography of the site.

Um, so the design is a little bit unique.

Um, you know, the the reason we put the parking garage uh close to the street is because of the uh you know we wanted to build a a driveway from the detached roads because the road is um it's pretty far away.

Uh this is the street edge of the uh the street, and then this is the property line, and then between the street edge and then the property line, there's quite a bit of distance and also the slope going down dramatically.

Um so we're proposing to have the parking garage uh up front so that way we can move the move the house a little bit closer to the street, and then also you know minimize the disper disturbance of the uh the mountain.

Uh the footprint of this building is very very small, very compact, and then the idea is to make a minimal disturbance of the site uh you know for the sustainable area of the the you know the mountain area.

Um so the the previously we had the um application of the building height waiver and and later on you know we modify the design and then the building gets lower, um, the profile getting much lower, and then also we slope the roof.

Um so this is the uh this is the floor plan, so you can see the you know the two two-car parking garage, uh the ground floor, which is the main floor, uh the same street level, and then we have one level down uh you know to the to the to the basement, and then there's another basement below that.

Um so these are the these are the elevation, and then you can see we introduced the slope the roof to work with the mountain area, um, and then the the profile of the building, you know, we press the profile down.

Um so the the final the final height uh average height is 33 feet um under the 35 feet envelope.

Um so the only waiver we're looking for is the uh the setback, uh which is the right now we're having the three foot two to the property line, and then we're looking for your approval.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Um, so I'm gonna open this application up for a public hearing.

Anyone in the audience will like to speak on this item.

Now's the time to come down and do so.

All right, seeing no one coming down to speak on this item.

I will open it up to commissioners for questions or comments.

Let me just say I know town board was happy with this, and thank you very much for the work that you put in order to ensure that you kept that area as pristine as possible.

Thank you.

All right, so if there's no questions or comments, we'll entertain a motion.

Make a motion approve.

Ums-25-0827.

Um recommendations.

All right, sounds good.

There's a motion on the floor, cast your vote.

That motion passes.

Good luck.

Thank you.

This is final action unless appeal.

Item 26 is the next item, WS 260051.

Waiver of development standards to eliminate setbacks for an accessory living quarters in conjunction with an existing single family residence on point 13 acres in an RS5.2 zone, generally located south of Twain Avenue and east of Linewood Circle within Spring Valley.

All right, thank you, sir.

Um name and address for the record, tell us about your application.

Yes, sir.

Good evening.

My name is Jaime de la Vega, 69448 in Circle, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89145.

And I'm just uh represent the owner.

And uh this is the project.

They own this house, which is a five uh 1532 square feet, but they build this accessory structure like a little apartment, casino the backyard, which is uh 363 square feet, and as you can see, there's no setbacks on the south side and no setback on the east side.

Uh we know, you know, this is totally wrong, but uh in this particular case, this lady which is all she's like uh 83, 86 years old, and uh the person that built this house uh was an online contractor, and just tell them that uh she don't need permits, and she believed that and give them the money and build that and um this is the floor plan just is that like a little warebath sink, a full bathroom, and a bedroom with a closet, and um looks like this.

This is a west elevation, north, south, and east elevation is very simple structure, and uh I believe their only problem is the setbacks, and I wanna show you a couple pictures.

That little house, I mean, looks looks good, is still on finish, and uh it passes they need to hire a contractor and do oh not in point of few um uh arrangements to uh comply with codes, and uh I know probably at this time you're facing a lot of projects like this, and um another thing is we have two letters from the neighbors that they don't have any issue with this structure.

One of the neighbor is Joseph Valdez, the other neighbor is Grand Channing, I believe, and um I believe that's that's it.

We humbly ask you to consider this this project.

Oh uh one more thing, which is very important.

This little casera is not for rent.

The lady is going to live there, and the uh daughter and granddaughters lives in this house, but the the granddaughter is gonna live right here, so it's it's not for rent, and uh the tambour tambour, I think they approve so hopefully you consider this also.

All right, that concludes your presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

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

Anyone in the audience um like to speak on this item now's the time to come down and do so.

Okay, seeing the one we're gonna close the public hearing, and I will open it up to the commissioners for questions, comments, concerns.

Oh, sure.

Go ahead, Commissioner Workman.

Those those letters in support, where are they in relation to the neighbor, the direct neighbor, the neighbor behind?

Is uh the north north side and south side.

They don't provide any letter from the east side neighbor.

But basically, the affected neighbor is on the south side.

Staff, do we know if any of the looks like there's protest cards?

Do we know if any of the two protest cards that came in came from the direct neighbor to the east?

Um, we can try to look it up in a second.

Oh, okay.

I see it now.

I guess subject to finding out about the neighbor to the east.

I'm interested to hear what the rest of the commissioners have to say.

But if there's no one here with a problem, looks like the neighborhood has some more.

It's not it's not completely out of place, so I could probably support this, but definitely interested to hear what the rest of the commissioners have to say.

Um, Commissioner Kalarski.

Um, you asked the question about the the neighbor, but I'm gonna tell you that the next item on our agenda has got something like this that is very very similar.

In fact, the way I see the picture, it looks at like the wall on the next agenda is the wall for not on this one, on the next, on the next application.

They're using that wall as their wall.

So this here isn't as bad in my mind.

Thank you, Commissioner Klarski.

I I'll just uh stay for the record.

You know, we we try to look at all these applications on their own merits, and um, you know, I I also take into consideration um when someone comes in with something that's uh what I would consider egregious if the neighbors are okay with it.

Um I I tend to lean toward support.

Um I I agree that I'm looking at a Google Google image right now, and there are all kinds of accessory structures in the back, backs of these uh particular homes, and you know, if the neighbors are okay living next to it, I might not be okay living next to it.

But so I can support the application as as submitted by the but uh I'll I'll see what my commissioners have to say.

Commissioner Kirk.

Thank you, uh Mr.

Chairman.

I I just for the record, don't like this.

Um I have a question.

Um I guess this is for you, Rob.

Is there any way for us to track um an application like this so that when the property changes hands, this kind of structure would have to be taken down.

No, the zone the approval runs with the land, so if they sell the property, it continues to the next owner, and there's really no way to track it.

Okay, so what we do then is in essentially in perpetuity.

Uh yes, once you I guess you could have a review period, I suppose.

And the review period on something like this would be whether or not there'd be a neighbor complaining, I suppose.

Yeah.

One thing too, uh I don't know how I mean from the picture you showed, it looks like uh your roof is hanging over the neighbor's uh the roof actually hangs over in the neighbor's yard or on their part of their wall or whatever.

And on the other side, I wonder on uh like on the back side of this thing, uh if it's if it's a pitched roof, I wonder if the if the rain water would run into your neighbor's yard.

And so um, I mean, I don't like it.

I mean, I if it were up to me, I don't I'm not gonna support it, but uh hate to you know put a burden on someone, but this is exactly the kind of stuff we cannot do.

We can't do this.

Can you imagine if everybody did this, then we'd have a multi-family neighborhood where everybody has somebody living in their backyard, and that puts a lot of stress on the infrastructure parking, sewer system, the water system.

It's not meant for that, and so this is a this is a problem, and unfortunately I feel bad for the owner, but it is a it's a bad uh it's it's awful.

So um I guess if it's get if it does get approved, the only thing I would request is that um whoever makes the motion makes the the owner put a rain gutter around the uh roof line so that the rainwater and other things don't run in their neighbor's yard and any other thing that any on the anyone on the board can think of that would minimize the impact on the neighborhood, that would be good.

So I'm not gonna be in support.

I don't think this is what we ought to be doing, but uh I'm okay with the I'm I mean it's a it's a soft denial for me.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Kirk.

Commissioner Stone.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh I got a question for public works.

You're probably not ready for this question, but I'll sort of pose it in a typical situation.

So typically uh recorded subdivisions as part of the final plat map have dedicated public utility easements around all four sides of a parcel.

Is that fairly typical?

Public works for for uh wet and dry utilities.

For uh wet and dry utilities, I I happen to know a little bit about that, but that but there's a reason that they reserve our real estate agents on the board will will know what I'm talking about.

So those public utilities meant this could be old as if it was newer, it'd be probably more like five feet along the property.

This might be two, might be less than that.

But it just strikes me that there might be a legal conflict there putting uh habitable property um an existing public utility easement that goes with the land that was uh recorded with the land at the time the map was approved.

I know we don't know that here, but um you know, uh also if I could ask planning, maybe Jason.

So we all understand an accessory building.

If it was a tough shed at 200 square feet or less, no permit would be required.

Is that correct?

Um up to 200, any um sheds that don't have any electrical mechanical, that is correct.

Is they want is kind of loose.

This is 380 something feet square feet, right?

363.

363.

I don't like it.

I don't like it.

I think it sets a brand a bad precedence for other projects in our county.

And um, you know, the connex containers we see all the time, that seems to be kind of we let that go.

But I sure don't want to have you know, we have thousands of connex containers.

I don't have thousands of these accessory buildings on zero setback lines in the rear of a yard.

So I'm uh not so sure I'll support this.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you, Commissioner Stone.

Just one second, sir.

Um, Commissioner Brady.

Yeah, I I tend to be in agreement with um both commissioners down the way is uh um commissioner Kirk and um Commissioner Stone is the easements that you're talking about.

I agree with 100%.

Um when it comes down to also we're right on the wall.

And it if every single neighbor, if the neighbor behind you wanted to do the same thing, they couldn't.

The water would be it would be a pool in between both roof lines.

And I I that's where I'm just I want to say I'm you did it, and it was a beautiful job in the build, and even though I'm not sure if it was permitted or or whatnot, but it just I don't believe it belongs where it's sitting.

But that's just where I where I'm kind of sitting on that.

All right, thank you.

Go ahead, sir.

I think you want to make a few comments.

Uh yes, yes.

Well, I anticipate, you know, in case if we get the approval, obviously we need to submit these plans to build in department.

And the building department is gonna have a lot of issues, a lot of issues with this, but we try to solve this in this way.

This wall has to be fight-proof, and this wall has to be fight-proof also, at least one hour fight-proof.

That's one thing.

The other thing is the roof is going to be modified with one reach right here, and it's gonna be water to this side, you know, the one way or another, but the the roof needs to be needs to be redesigned.

So these this flat roof light like it is uh it won't be like that.

So obviously, we're gonna try to avoid the water goes to the neighbor.

That's one thing, and uh, I know uh uh it the is won't be easy, you know, for to get the approval with building department.

I anticipate you know there's gonna be a lot of issues, especially with the new quotes.

This is theirs.

All right, thank you, sir.

Thank you.

I I I'll just say that you know, I I could support the application, it doesn't look like it's going that way.

And you know, in a grand scheme of things, it it might it might be for the best to um to just do your you know do your modifications and attach to the existing residence and and do it properly.

But I will I'll leave it for Commissioner Wardman to make that um motion.

No, no.

Oh, I'm sorry, Commissioner Whitman and then Commissioner Vice Chair.

I totally agree with what everyone else has set up here, and it but I think if you pull back and you I'm looking at the Google map now, half of the streets on this block have similar things.

So this is what the neighborhood is doing, and again, if it's safe to have them tear down this building, I think would be very burdensome.

Um so again, I'm not lobbying anyone here, but I do think if you look at the Google map and you look even at the House Kitty Corner, they have two of these structures on the wall.

If you look at the house to the north, it appears that they have a structure on the wall.

If you look at the house across the street, you know, a little, you know, literally across lime wood uh on the other side there, they appear to have a building on the wall.

And I don't know that all of these violate the setbacks.

Did and one more point of clarification were any of the protest cards from the neighbor to the east.

I think that's 3749 lemon wood.

Um Commissioner, maybe I misunderstood.

I thought you were asking for support.

So we check that.

So that's I knew what you were asking for.

Jen thought you were asking for support too.

I don't know.

We're on the same wavelength.

It was not.

So we don't know exactly um if it was the person, but the address was on Lime Limewood 3720.

Uh actually, sorry, it was lemonwood, which is the street behind Limewood, and it's not uh adjacent to them.

There was one more 6604, which is a different subdivision to the north, so it's not close to their subject.

Um I'm sympathetic, but I agree, generally speaking, what do we do if we're just gonna approve these things after they're built and all of a sudden they're all over the place.

I know the incentives it it makes things difficult, but then again, to the chair's point, uh, we look at each one of these individually, and I don't see any neighbors here in person or presenting cards, or by their acts in this neighborhood who seem to have a big problem with this.

Uh I'm I'm gonna take a little, you know.

Um, I would also say that just to add, I I would agree with Commissioner Kirk that if we were going to go to order an approval that that there would be some type of review period on it, so that so that it would come back in front of the board at some point in time.

Um so uh now I would turn it over to Vice Chair.

Okay, this is a bit of a mess.

And you inherited it, and I'm sorry, because you're trying to do the right thing, you didn't build it on somebody else did.

Yeah, somebody um I agree with all my commissioners.

Um, but we're torn, right?

But uh you still have to go through permitting.

Yes, and I'll tell you the the reason why we're concerned is because this could be a firehouse.

I mean, I don't even know how did they get plumbing out there?

I mean, this is there's a toilet, right?

Yeah, that's crazy how they did all that without a permit.

It's and and the thing is it's not just installing gutters because clearly the roof is going over the other person's property, that's their property.

So I I am really torn between the two things.

Um I could I I like what you what you're going to do here.

You're gonna do the right thing by doing the fire stuff, but I think the entire roof needs to come out come off, and you cannot encroach in the other properties because right now, so see, like it's over here, so a bit of this is going into the other person's property.

That's not their property.

Um the whole idea is uh before we submit to uh building department, uh somebody needs to redesign the roof, you know, and uh in uh that one part, you know, the in uh these two walls is gonna be fight-proof or five retardant walls and uh by code, and that's uh mitigates you know the the negative impact to the neighbors, but also I know for a fact that uh Las Vegas Body Water, they're going to require to upgrade the the water meter, and we're going to need also the uh water reclamation approval.

So it's it's not easy, you know.

Um I know, yeah.

You gave us the approval for this zero setbacks.

Uh problem is you, you know, they need to fix the roof.

They they need to redesign the whole roof.

Um vice chair, before you move forward, um Commissioner Kirk has one more question.

Yeah, thank you.

Commissioner Mohica, thanks for letting me uh ask one more question.

Do you know anything about the footing foundation?

Is this slab on grade or was it a tell me how the was this thing just laid down on the dirt?

And is it tell me about that?

No, it it has uh it has uh it's standard 14 12 inch 12 inches wide by 18 inches.

It's like a 12 inches deep slab concrete.

Yes, concrete slab.

All right, thank you.

And also I I personally check in for insulation, electrical is done properly, and uh but I know uh we need to pass.

And also I I personally check you know for insulation, electrical is done properly, and uh, but I know uh we need to pass but it's but it was but it was never inspected.

Oh no, not not not yet, but it will be it is it's a hundred percent.

Are you an electrical contractor?

No, no, no, but uh I'm going to recommend somebody so we don't know.

I mean you can't say for certainty that it was constructed correctly, but uh if it's approved, it's certainly gonna be inspected for sure.

So and just to let you know, uh obviously uh uh uh they the owners, they're gonna hire uh uh a structural engineer, you know, for uh uh food in walls and roofing.

Because I know it's a requirement for building the and Commissioner Mohica's point uh I mean strikes me even uh a little uh harder in that her issue about a fire.

If we haven't had this thing inspected by our inspectors on the electrical side to verify it's up to code there, could be a fire trap right there, and we don't even know it.

So I'm I'm sure that it will I hope it will be done according to code if it's approved.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair, can I just ask one more question?

Sure, go ahead, Commissioner Corston.

When was this thing?

This casita built.

Uh to be honest, I have no idea, but uh probably let's say two to three years.

So not more within the last five years.

Yeah, less less than five years.

Okay, thank you.

And and uh let me show you, but uh some of this picture don't show that it's still on finish.

Still on finish and uh obviously um there's a lot of work to do, you know, especially on the roof and and the roof and the fire firewalls right there.

Can you put that picture back up?

That one that you just had up?

Yes.

Okay.

So I'm sorry, what is your name?

Jaime.

Jaime de la Vega.

Jaime, um you see how the the the wall is butting, I mean it's touching literally touching the other wall, right?

And if you follow that to the top, look how much of the roof is going into the other person's property.

Well this this section of the roof facing their property, you know, the same property and uh and just to um clarify this, you know, the separation from the existing residence to this little casera is uh eight feet eleven inches from wall to wall and seven feet eleven inches from the eaves.

So I believe it on at least on this side everything is fine.

So our big problem is south side and east side, and that's that needs to be you need to cut it so that it's not encroaching in the other person's properties.

Yes, uh just uh if you imagine if uh if we redesign the roof, it this is the walls.

I'm going to redesign the roof like this.

I mean, you know, we we want to divert this water, you know, like uh doesn't go to the neighbors on both sides, but it's you know, the the roof design.

Maybe just just one.

I don't exactly what's the right word to say, but it's gonna probably cost more to do all these retrofits and and things than it would be to rebuild it.

No, but if it with the new design, the roof just one i instead of like it is right now, you know, we're gonna cut the heaps right here and here, and the what just go just one way.

You know, okay to the back and also with gardens.

Okay, this is really complicated, but we we can't move it.

Um you would have to demolish it.

We can't move it.

So I would have to put a whole bunch of conditions on this.

Um re redo the roof so that it not not an inch, nothing encroaches into the two property sites where the properties are.

Um number one, number two, I mean, I know I know you're gonna need permits, and but I want to state that it needs to be fired.

I mean, that needs to be in the conditions that it it must be inspected properly and thoroughly.

And you mentioned the water, you you mentioned a whole bunch, all those things need to happen.

to proper sites where the properties are um number one number two i mean i know i know you're gonna need permits and but i want to state that it needs to be fired i mean that needs to be in the conditions that it it must be inspected properly and thoroughly and you mentioned the water you you mentioned a whole bunch all those things need to happen but in in addition to making this safe not only for the daughter and the granddaughter for the neighbors and for that person them themselves I mean this needs to be thoroughly inspected I don't know how we I mean I know it's gonna be inspected but uh I don't know what how else we can word it so that this is a serious thing yes and then how what kind of limit can can we say that we need to revisit this in a year is that what we're thinking Mr so so Vice Chair I I'm trying to to follow your logic and I and I think you're trying to find a win win on this one and I don't know if there is a win win on this one so I mean so you're you're asking the applicant to move those two zero setback walls.

Oh no no no you don't just we would we're dealing just with the roof yeah just the roof I don't know that I don't know that he can he can do that he said he could re no I think the constructibility I don't know I don't I don't I'm in construction and I don't I don't see how you can rearrange your roof to it's gonna be with the uh redesign all right well I'm not gonna argue with you here um let's um you can approve it with the review period and let him and let him fight with the building department on how he how he makes it construct constructible or you can deny it and have them and have them just tear it down and make it as a part of the existing house so if if I approve it with him uh reconstructing the roof so that it's not encroaching the roof we're only talking about the roof he can't move the building but the roof so that the roof is not encroaching upon the neighbors that nothing is possible that L section right yes yes and that it goes through rigorous permitting inspections and we put a condition of one year for review that's so if we put the one year review and he comes back in front of us and we see that the roof is still the same can I can we at that point have him tear the whole thing down you can you would just deny the extension of time and then we'd refer to the code enforcement public response office so you wouldn't order them to tear it down the denial would have that effect and then we would send out public response to issue citations and continue the citation process for the enforcement process.

So you would just come back and deny the extension time basically so if you approved it with the review time he doesn't get done within the review time when they come back for the review we would they would need an extension we would deny okay okay so I'm going to make a motion to approve item 26 WS 260051 with the condition that the roof be redesigned so that it is not encroaching on the neighbors agree and that this go through rigorous permitting inspections yes and we're going to put in a one year review for you to come back in front of us.

Yeah we agree and if I made uh your one last comment regarding to the inspections this kind of a structure does the one that required it QAA which is a quality assurance agreement because it's a uh separate structure I know build the building the department is going to require a QAA that's uh company that's going to inspect foundation vault and firewall fire okay thank you I know you're trying to do the right thing sir so things yeah I try and thank you so much for due attention okay there's a motion on the floor commissioner yes there was also a discussion about preventing rainwater from going onto the neighbor's property so that's part of the roof redesign oh yes and so but we'll add that to it as well make sure during the roof redesign that no water goes to the neighbors that's what you put a system in there I don't know if if if if you're gonna redesign it so that it doesn't encroach on them you still gonna need gutters to guide the water into your into your client's property.

That's correct that's okay all right can I clarify Commissioners so the one year we already have a condition for one year to complete which means they need to have the whole thing done inspected finaled by within one year if they do that you still want them to come back and show you what they've done yes that's what the review's gonna do.

If they do that, you still want them to come back and show you what they've done.

Yes.

That's what the review's gonna do.

Yes.

Okay, and then if at that point, even though they get the permits and final inspection, then they may have to tear it down.

I just want to that was my question.

The issue then would be is if they properly constructed the roof so it doesn't uh go over the property line, and if the water no longer runs on the neighbor's property, if they've satisfied that, then at the extension of time, you would likely approve the extension of time application.

If they have not satisfied it, then you can make the decision whether to approve or deny it or add additional conditions.

When he comes back, right?

Okay.

You guys got all that?

Okay.

All right.

That that motion clear as mud.

All right, very good.

Motion on the floor, cast your vote.

The motion passes.

Good luck.

Thank you so much.

This is final action lappealed.

Next item I is item number 27, WS260062.

Waiver of development standards to eliminate and reduce setbacks in conjunction with an existing single family residence on point 14 acres in an RS 3.3 zone.

Jerry located west of Crawley Way and south of Forsyth Drive within Sunrise Manor.

Thank you.

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

My name is Adrian Plata with Plata Design at 7219 West Sahara Avenue, uh suite 105.

I'm here on behalf of the client, the owner, property owner.

I have a impacted neighborhood statements that we had provided to the owner.

They got it signed with all the neighbors.

This is the uh location of the property.

One to sorry, number one, number two, number 56, number 12, 11, and 10 are all included as uh neighbors in favor of this application.

The one here to the south, directly adjacent, it's empty for sale, and the owner attempted over here and was unable to get a signature.

A lot of the items you already discussed in the previous application.

Are we brought up again?

We have a carport here in the front yard.

Um the owner has uh a rebuilds vehicles and stores his vehicle here, and he built a carport.

This intrudes in the front setback.

We have a patio over here on the south side.

This also intrudes on the setback.

This is a solid patio over here on the north side, is a lattice patio, and it is also intruding on the setback.

And over here, this addition is more of a patio sunroom, not a full enclosure.

Um you're aware of all the waivers we're requesting, and I'm good just going to show you some photos.

This is the carport in the front.

This is the south patio that's solid.

This is the lattice that is you know, it's open, and then this is the uh addition that they're calling it more like a sunroom.

And here more photos.

You can see we're also on the property.

This is the addition portion, and this is more of the addition, and then this is the carport.

We didn't build this structure, but we have worked on other projects in the past that required waivers, and if we're if um allowed, we will work with the building department to get an approved permit.

There's a five feet uh property fire separation setback, so everything within five feet has to be fire rated.

That is no advancer but it's required.

The diversion of water away from the property lines is also building code requirement.

We would have to comply with the building code to achieve that.

What we're looking for is to approve the intrusions of these setbacks so that we can work with our engineers and develop a plan for the homeowner to bring everything up to code.

If you have any questions, I'm here to help.

Thank you very much.

So I'm opening this application up for a public hearing.

Anyone in the audience like to speak on this item?

Now it's the time to come down.

All right.

Seeing no one coming down for the public hearing.

I will I think staffed applicant wants to give you those for the record.

Um I will close the public hearing and now open it up to commissioners and I'll start with Commissioner Kalarski.

Commissioner Kirk.

Thank you.

Can you put the picture back up?

Um show me the lattice.

Please.

Now is that lattice uh how's it supported?

It looks like there's some uh steel posts that have been um inserted down into the concrete wall or the brick wall, is that correct?

Currently that is how it is supported.

How long's it been like that?

Years one year?

Um more than a year.

I'd have to say uh less than five more than a year.

The South Patio.

Uh that's not open, it's not a lattice.

That is uh solid, and it it what's that?

Is that a is that a um is that a looking through a window?

Is that a piece of plastic hanging up there that I'm yeah, that's what I'm looking at.

I understand where I'm looking, but I'm looking at the picture there at the top.

Yep.

So we're standing right here in the south patio, we're looking out to the left.

Yep.

And that's the one.

What am I looking through here?

What is that?

This is the yard to the uh neighbor adjacent.

Yeah, I understand that, but what there looks like there's some kind of film or something hanging down there.

Is it window?

Is it open?

Is it a window?

What is it?

Uh looks like a uh insect uh film screen type thing.

It's like a screen, yeah.

Um can you slide that down just a little?

There you go.

Uh is there a rain gutter over there?

Or tell me what's uh what's catch what's stopping the rain from running into your neighbor's yard?

There currently is not a ring gutter, but however, we are um on the inside of the property on that one, so we would have the opportunity to put putting one, and that's based off my field measurements or the south package.

Was this work all done by the homeowner, or did he have it contracted out with someone else who convinced him that permit was not required?

Homeowner.

Homeowner.

He did it all?

That is correct.

Homeowner, unaware of permits, uh, got cited, reached out to us, and we are helping navigate uh so he reached out to you after he was discovered it was a violation?

Correct.

I find that I I'm I'm not doubting that.

I'm just finding interesting that um people have this idea that they can do whatever they own their property, they can do whatever they want without getting any kind of permission.

I just to me it's unfathomable, but whatever.

Uh this is a tough one for me as well.

I think at some point we see so many of these, you know.

And while we um consider each one individually, man, we're seeing more and more and more of these all the time.

And I I think there just needs to be a message sent to the general public that if you want to get the approval, you can go to the BCC and get them to see see it your way, but uh it's a ton, it's just really tip difficult for me to approve this.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Kirk.

Commissioner Reichman.

I'm I might offer a framework on how we think about this, and that we do have there are like these four different things here, and so I know at times we've seen again with the caveat that every application is taken separately, that we've seen a backyard with four gazebos, or you know, just like really overdone.

And so I guess I'm just sharing that in my mind, I might look at these the carport and the south patio and the lattice and the addition each somewhat separately, and see if we can find a way.

I I personally I don't know if telling this guy to tear all this down is gonna make it to the public at large in a way that's going to reduce this.

I don't know.

I I'm not saying it wouldn't.

Um yeah, we always tell people, yes, come to us, and you know, that'll that'll be better for you.

Don't ask for forgiveness, come ask for permission.

But man, I do I do not think we would have ever given permission for this.

Um I I don't know, I'm interested to hear what everyone else has to think.

But when I as I think about this, and for the maker of the motion, maybe we try to consider um whether we would allow a portion of this uh rather than either all or nothing.

Um you say that those neighbors you had a no written on there with an X.

Does that mean no, they are not in support, or no, you did not get an answer from them?

Uh no, I did not get an answer for them because it's empty for sale.

Because I'm 13, 13 across the street.

Yeah.

Oh, this one um they weren't able to get a hold of them.

There's an it made, but no answer, not disapprove.

Correct.

Thank you.

I'm aware of okay, all right.

So I I'll I'll give my two cents.

Um I I kind of agree with Commissioner Reuteman.

Um, you know, on the face of it, maybe the carport by itself is not egregious, or maybe the lattice by itself is not egregious, or maybe the backyard addition by itself is not egregious, or maybe the patio on the other side of the house by itself is not egregious.

But but we got all four these on the on this on this home.

And I and I and I hate to say it this way, I mean I I think that I'm I'm okay with the carport in the front.

We you know that that seems to be reasonable.

I'm okay with the lattice on one side.

Um I'm not a hundred percent okay with the patio on the south side, I guess that would be, and I'm not a hundred percent okay with the addition all the way to the lot lines on the back part of the house.

So maybe there's a reduction of the addition in the back.

Because since it's a sunroom, it can be modified and removal of the patio on the south side, and I'm okay with the other other two by itself.

Um that's kind of where I'm leaning.

And I think I've got a couple more lights.

Okay, so so I'll I'll do Commissioner Brady and then Commissioner Stone.

I'm I just I I kind of like what you were saying here.

Um is if these were all brought individually, would and this is just to keep it for your own minds is would you say okay to any of them?

Would you say okay?

Um, as I'm looking at the lattice work and it's attached to the wall, which then is attached to the home.

Um so would we have approved that beforehand?

And go to the to each of these, the carport, and it's over extending uh a setback.

Now that I've seen approved in uh everything in an individual basis.

So it's there's a there's a lot of things individually we might have actually asked for some modifications if if asked for up front.

And so I I'm having a hard time with that, and just like I did all the others.

If every single neighbor did this, it'd be one solid roof across the whole entire neighborhood, it'd look like a warehouse.

So that's just something I just want to keep in mind.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Stone.

Can I the applicant go back to a site plan?

Uh isn't it right under?

Yeah, that one there.

Okay.

So I'm just looking at the site plan.

What is the total square footage of the existing building and garage roughly if you have that?

Oh, there's yeah, 2,000.

Okay, so I see a grand total lower left of around 3700 square feet or thereabouts, roughly, right?

That 37 would include all the structures, the addition patios, lattice, garage, entry, and right, right, right.

And I'll I'll call that burnable square footage.

Okay, and so what I want to get at is Clark County code.

Clark County code for residential homes greater than 5,000 square feet require residential sprinklers.

And I just, and that's for that's for a brand new house, a luxury house, Commissioner Brady.

I mean, all these luxury houses we have were all fire sprinkled by code because they exceed 5,000 square feet.

Uh dare I say most of the houses that we approve on a day-to-day basis here are on the order of I don't know, a couple thousand square feet, maybe th maybe 25, maybe even 3,000 square feet.

Burnable square footage is what I'm talking about.

I'm I'm just what gets me is is the fire protection, the life safety that the county uh the county will provide uh fire response in the event of a fire or somebody getting hurt.

Well, we're almost at 4,000 square feet, burnable square footage.

And it starts to get into an area where I'm not really comfortable with a lot of things, but I'm starting to think now it could be a life safety issue as we get closer to 5,000.

We're not at 5,000 by code, but I'm asking myself as a reasonable person as a reasonable planning commissioner.

Would I be worried about life safety and something like this?

Would it be a fire trap?

I don't know.

I know that code, and uh if this were to be approved, they would they would look at the code and they they would make an analysis of it.

I'm just saying again, like the last item.

I'm just not comfortable with this, and I want to get that on record.

Thank you, Commissioner Stone.

Um, Vice Chairman.

Um I agree with my fellow commissioners on everything they said.

Um the lattice that so is that wood?

It is wood.

I'm thinking if I had a so again approving everything to me, I wouldn't.

I I can't support everything that I see here.

I can live with the carport.

Um but I think the lattice that's one of the easiest things to come down.

I would suggest that that be brought down.

Uh because that is again close to the residence and and almost encroaching on the neighbor.

Yeah, that's all I guess.

Thank you.

Um Commissioner Whitman.

I would just make one more point.

Um which is in the last I know we look at these individually, but on the last one, town board approved.

On this one, town board has denied.

So that's something that's weighing on my mind as well.

Thank you, Commissioner Whitman.

Commissioner Kalarski, some comments for the board, maybe a motion.

Yeah.

Um I was at town board.

This town board is very adherent to the code.

I mean, there is no gray, there is no room for waivers.

It's staff said no, which we know staff goes by the code, code only.

So staff says denial, they move to deny.

All right, this particular town board does that.

Um that's basically what happened here.

Uh, and it did on another uh application at the meeting.

I'm wondering if this lattice was not attached to me interrupt the wall.

I think that's a great idea.

Um, instead of it have being attached directly at that horizontal portion of the wall, we bring a post directly straight down to the floor, directing it off the wall.

Um that way he doesn't have to cut anything of the lattice above, but we can just bring down a support.

Well, I I don't know if if the waiver would still be required, that's what I'm trying to find out.

If the lattice was not attached to that wall, and it was as he said with uh with posts in the ground in cement, whatever you have, so it's not it doesn't degrade the wall.

Would he still require a waiver?

Um yes, because the setback to the property line is zero.

So then is it the post or is it the overhang?

So even if the post was further still the fact that it's zero set back to the property line.

Um because the way we measure it is three feet from the roof overhangs.

I believe that wouldn't eliminate the waiver.

So the waiver from that would be the side wall.

The setback is five feet.

Am I correct?

For the house, yes.

And for patio cover is three feet to the roof to the leading edge or the furthest point of the patio cover.

Okay.

And you're not certain if that is a wall a window or on that south patio wall that goes to the neighbor.

Uh this is definitely not a window.

This is it's it's uh let me see if I have another shot.

Um it's not an because when I was there, we had one, two, three, four posts supporting the solid roof.

So what you're seeing here on the south patio, it's it's open.

Uh you see right here.

Uh sorry.

Right here, this is the uh CMU property wall, and then this is the beam above supporting the roof, and then there are posts.

Here we have one, two, three, four posts.

Are the posts attached to the CMU wall?

On the south patio, they are not.

They go to uh concrete.

And how many feet from the wall?

Um I believe we're like a couple inches off the wall.

Um so that puts us trying to see if I have a I don't think I have a large drawing.

But from my recollection, we were a couple inches off the wall, which sets us like um what eight plus two, like ten, ten from the property line.

You know, the property lines right in the middle of the wall, ten inches from the property line.

You know, I've struggled with this since last week when I was at town board and I saw it.

I I have struggled with this one.

Um because as everyone says it's a lot, but I I firmly believe, I really do, based on the way we have voted on a lot of different applications over the years, is that if they had come in with this individually, I think we would have approved them individually.

I don't think we would have taken the look and said, well, that's too much.

Staff may have said that we're now we ex we exceed the uh the square footage for the accessory structures, and we've done that continually.

Um I don't think this is gonna fly if I vote to approve it, but I'm gonna do it anyway, and then I would suggest that you just appeal this to the the county commission.

But I don't have a problem.

I I I don't want it, I want anything that is attached to the wall removed.

Your post on the lattice needs to be brought in.

Okay.

Uh the the CMU wall cannot be used as a wall.

I'm okay with the card port.

And so I'm just gonna move to approve and then remind me what I've just said.

I'm gonna move move to approve WS26-0062 with stuff if approved conditions and whatever the heck I just said if I go ahead.

Um Vice Chair Moika.

So what are we doing with the lattice?

Well, that wasn't the whatever the heck I just said.

Remove the the post and bring them in too.

Let me let me try.

So the the motion as I heard it was the lattice which is attached to the CMU wall, needs to the attachment needs to be removed.

The south patio um also not attached to the wall.

I don't think when she said attached to a wall, I don't think she meant the addition to the back.

So I think everything else was as presented by the applicant.

Right.

That's the motion on the floor.

Cast your vote.

I'm still confused.

the CMU wall needs to the the attachment needs to be removed the south patio um also not attached to the wall I don't think when she said attached to wall I don't think she meant the addition to the back so I think everything else was as presented by the applicant right that's the motion on the floor cash or vote I'm still confused so that motion does not carry thank you for your time um we still have to make we have we we have we still have an the motion fails so we can have another motion we we need to have another motion um I will try a motion and we'll see where it goes so I I'll move for approval of 27 for the car port and the lattice removing the any support to the common CMU wall he should have never used that as support um I will leave the patio on the south side but a note to the building department that there's no support of the common CMU wall he should not use any of his neighbors portion of the wall to support something that he's building and we'll leave the addition in the back so that's kind of my motion for for approval.

I don't understand you don't understand it okay so so I I am did I just basically restate what she did yes I didn't want to do that.

That's exactly that's right I wanted to get rid of the patio the patio on the south side I wanted that to be torn down okay is it in the patio on the south man go ahead it's completely enclosed so there's like a wall and their wall comes down and so if instead we had more like an overhang that wasn't kind of completely enclosed but it right is that correct there's walls around the south we know there's the lattice we know there's the addition but so the the patio on the south side just has four posts okay other than that is open it just happens to be direct like a couple inches off the CMU wall the posts um so that way that's why in this image plus all the storage it looks like something's there but sorry sorry posts no you're no you're you're fine um I'm I'm on the fence because I I really don't like the addition in the back but I but I just said I I I would I would support it but I don't like it so I I'm on the fence you want to try Commissioner workman go ahead to one of the commissioners who voted against this any way that we can get to yes Nelson Commissioner Kirk Commissioner Brady you guys voted against it so oh you voted against it too yeah I voted I voted against it I I was I was gonna make a motion to approve some of it but not all of it.

Yeah I would let's remove the lattice that's the least egregious for me right I know but it's the easiest to remove all right let's move the south patio and then they can and then they can appeal to BCC.

The additions of it's an entire building so I I think Mr Chairman I think for me the the biggest problem is the addition right the zero setback at the back wall yeah I agree I could live with the lattice even I mean I don't like it but it doesn't seem to be uh that as permanent as a s of a structure as the back so the only way I think we get to a point where I'm comfortable is that addition making some kind of change where we get some kind of setback.

I mean even we we've approved things where there's a one and a half foot setback we've done that before but zero setback it's a problem and that's what we have here.

Okay.

So if so that's where I'm at okay I'll I'll try again Commissioner Christopher Brady wants to say something go ahead really really quick no don't take your time um I know that there's certain things here we're saying that we might approve on individual basis or or we're we're we're saying well oh we can live with the lattice we can live with these things but would we say okay if it wasn't brought in hole we're trying to see how do we save the pig and where how how do we how do we save it and I just don't know sometimes if you go and save it when we start something but I know I think everybody here has approved lattice work before but with the post in the wall I think is something that was been mentioned that it it affects the integrity of the wall.

Is I just with that amendment of pulling the posts off the wall, something I could probably get behind the car port, I could get behind.

But I'm I'm struggling beyond that.

Thank you, Commissioner Brady.

All right, so I'm gonna try again.

All right, so I'm gonna move for approval of WS260062 for the lattice portion with removing the structure, any support off of the CMU wall.

We're gonna approve the carport structure.

We're gonna deny the south patio, and we're gonna deny the addition, and he can go to the B BCC in appeal.

That's where I'm at.

And they're waiting for me because I'm debating whether or not I want to go along with this.

I want to approve this, but I want to approve it all.

Um, and so that's why I'm hesitating.

There were some mentions of reduced setbacks.

Uh, I'm sure the owner would be open to them if uh there's something that could be done.

Um 30 days, would you be able to do I also have the owner here too if you'd like to ask questions if that would help?

We have a motion on the floor.

We have to do it, huh?

Um motion to hold supersedes the motion on the floor if you want to do a motion to hold.

I I'll withdraw my motion if if the if the commissioner would like to do a motion to hold so they can try to figure it out.

Would would would it be possible to to do talk, see what you can get changed on this thing so we can give us some setbacks?

And we can hold this for say sixty days or 30 days, which will what would work for you?

Both are more than reasonable.

What would work for you?

You want to split the baby and go 45 days?

Take the time that works.

Okay.

Take the time, 60 days.

You know, take your time and do 60.

You think um, I think he should take, I think he should take the offer for all the time that he can get so that he can get so he can get the construction.

He's he's our construction guru, so I'm gonna listen to him.

So we'll hold this for 60 days, redesign, redo whatever, get setbacks, and then maybe we can get this to fly so it's it's done in its entirety.

Okay.

So to clarify, that would be June 16th.

June 16th would be the next meeting.

And I'm gonna give you my card.

No, I did give you my card.

No, I did not.

I believe you gave it to my associate, but we have your information.

So my motion is to uh hold WS 26-0062 until the June six 16th meeting.

All right, so there's a motion on the floor to hold cash or vote.

Just don't forget what we did here today.

That motion passes.

Good luck.

Thank you for your time.

Next item on the agenda is uh item number 28.

WS 260117, waiver of the Boban standards for the following.

Eliminate building separation and eliminate side interior setback for a carport in conjunction with an existing single family residence on point sixty one acres in an RS20 zone within the neighborhood protection RMP overlay.

Jury located uh north of Chap Chaplin Cove Avenue and west of Bermuda Night Street within Enterprise.

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

Paul Chandler, uh address 382 Chaplin Cove Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89183.

Thank you for the opportunity.

I'm requesting the setback waivers uh for a dual purpose carport proposed on the west side of my residence.

The primary purpose is to allow safe aggreg access for my aging mother of 89 years.

The secondary purpose is to provide shade for a vehicle parking.

Now I want to be clear that when I started this uh process, I went to a RV cover company and they built me a rendition.

We've called it an RV cover since day one, but that's not the in the primary intent of this cover.

Um more likely it's going to be a caregiver's car or one of my vehicles bringing my mom to and from the accessory dwelling unit.

In any event, the uh the setbacks create a condition that is makes it usable for only one of the two purposes.

As you can see here, we're building the accessory dwelling unit in the back yard.

Um this dwelling unit's specifically designed for my mom to age in place, which is a multifamily living concept intended to provide parents and grandparents, safe and independent style lifestyle with or very near their families.

This is also avoids the expense and sometimes adverse conditions for assisted living, nursing, or convalescent homes.

Nothing against those homes, but this by default separates your aging parents from their families.

So as you can see in the site plan, here's the uh the accessory dwelling unit, and this shaded area right here in purple is the proposed covered carport.

An elevation plan of the carport that shows the uh do I need to turn that?

Is it this way good?

Okay.

Shows the elevation of the carport.

It shows uh how it's built here.

And in this rendition, it shows the posts with uh what you would call a zero setback, but it's something greater than zero.

Um as much as possible, the in a final engineer would decide after, of course, you decide.

It shows the uh length and the width and a lattice work on one side of it, as well as a rain gutter to uh protect the neighbor's property from runoff.

This rendition it shows a front view.

Now, my RV or my carport company went ahead and superimposed an RV in there.

That's not my RV, that's not my vehicle.

Um but it does show two different renditions of the uh of the carport and the way it's built, with the red dotted lines being uh what we believe the setback requirements would cause, and that is uh the set the support columns would be three foot from the house and five foot from the property line, which is the center of the block wall, and then with the thickness of the post leaves us six feet four inches of of space between the two posts.

So, unless my mother's car or one of my cars is less than six foot four inches, then it won't fit between the two posts.

So, this would cause a caregiver's car or one of my cars to park out in front of the driveway, and about a 75-foot walk from where the car parks to where my mom's ADU, where your new home's gonna be.

So it could be a pathway, a nice shaded pathway for her, but only if she decides to take the track.

Um, I have a list of cars here that won't fit, the bore you with that.

Um, the second perspective on this drawing shows the poles moved out to what you call a zero setback, but it's not quite zero.

It's about 16 inches or so from the house and probably four to six inches from the wall, or about 10 inches or a foot from the center of the wall.

Now, this kind of exploits the fact that the one of the widest non-commercial vehicles that could park under this awning still leaves four foot six inches of usable space for a scooter or a mobile chair or walker to uh to utilize that space after you park a car.

Of course, in a reasonable car, you would have some space to open a door, so you still have about 42 to 48 inches of walkway after you even park the car.

Excuse me.

The next photo call your two sheets you're an organization called uh home access.

Um this organization, Oakley Home Access, prides themselves as the nationally recognized organization setting the standards for in home accessibility, of which we're using to design the ADU that's under construction right now, and a thing called aging in place, which is designed for senior citizens to remain independent for as long as possible while they age in place.

They state that 42 to 48 inches is the recommended space needed for safe passage, and they say it specifically for safety and independence.

Next picture is my neighbor's yard that shares the block wall with the lattice work and the proposed construction.

You can see that his home is 29 and a half feet from that block wall.

And there's plenty of space there for emergency access, should his home need it with an access gate approximately 10 feet from his house.

This is the neighbor's approved signature regarding he's seen and he doesn't have any objection to the construction of that proposal.

This next photograph shows the neighbor directly to the rear of my house, primarily doing exactly what I'm what I'm asking to do, where it shows his posts have what you would call a zero setback on the wall side, and the support columns on the house side are right up as close to the eaves as he can get.

Parcel map shows five neighbors that have that I have written authorization and no objection to proceed.

The two at the rear and the my neighbor to the west, my neighbor across the street, and the other neighbor.

I didn't talk to these two, they cannot see any portion of that project from their from their homes.

I submitted these drawings or this rendition to the Liberty Ranch HOA for architectural review, and they have approved that project, of course, with conditions, and that's what we're doing here.

Just for your submittal, I also have the copies of the other four neighbors who submitted their written authorization and approval of the project.

In reading the agenda states that the applicant has the burden of proof for three specific items.

Here I believe I've shown you that all the neighbors with the view of the project, including the one directly to the west, have written acknowledgement of approval of the project.

The West Neighbor's house sits 29 and a half feet away from our shared block wall, far more than enough room to prevent any impact on light or privacy or views.

The lattice work is a privacy screen for both property owners, and the rain gutters direct all the runoff away from their property.

The structure matches the color and material of our existing home, and the HOA architectural review committee has approved the design.

So I believe I've met that first burden of proof.

The second burden is the proposal will not material affect health and safety or be detrimental to public welfare.

This carport serves a critical family accessibility and safety purpose.

Our design achieves the 42-inch of open and shaded corridor recommended by a nationally recognized standards.

The structure is open on three sides, built with fire resistant materials and complies with all other building and fire codes.

It actually reduces the risk of fall and improves emergency access along the side yard.

Far from being detrimental, it improves the safety and welfare of our household and emergency personnel, all while maintaining the character of the neighborhood.

Number three, the proposal will adequately be adequately served and will not create an undue burden on public improvements, facilities, or services.

I can find no impact on any public services.

The property is already connected to sewer, water, and all utilities.

Drainage is fully handled with the new rain gutters shown on the plans, and no additional traffic, lighting, or infrastructure will be required.

So the request, in my opinion, require creates zero burden on the public.

Lastly, and uh I want to say this um very respectfully because I think everybody here will agree.

I'm not gonna tell you anything you don't know, but the staff analysis that I read on the sheet said that this request was a self-imposed hardship.

An arbitrary choice or self-imposed condition.

So our family believes that quality of life is the best defense.

The only hardship that could be imposed here is a denial of reasonable access and or my mom's stay.

Property that concludes my presentation.

Thank you very much, sir.

So I'm going to open this application up for a public hearing.

Um anyone in the audience like to speak on this item.

I see no one coming down to speak on this application.

Then I will close the public hearing and I'll open it up to our staff.

I'll start with Commissioner Workman and work my way to my head.

Okay, all right, all right.

Then you hang out.

Well we'll start with Commissioner Kalarski.

Of course.

Oh, you took a lot of commissioner Brady.

I just want to make one comment on this.

Is you know, I've kind of made my stance uh throughout the night on a bunch of different things, and people kind of know where I'm going with a lot of things.

There is one difference with this item, and this item is the material that it's made out of.

This is metal or sometime is it wait, can I ask that question?

What is do you know what the material this is?

I believe it will be a hundred percent metal because um I didn't have it engineered until I have the setbacks.

If I get a setback waiver, then of course it would have to meet all other fire building codes, which I believe mandates that it would be 100% metal.

So that that's one thing with it.

Um another thing is getting HOA approval.

That's that's impressive.

Um but that that's neither here or there on that.

Um carports uh and I I'm I'm not sure how everybody always rules on those that when they go on the property lines.

Um but the materials makes a big difference, and also no one's residing in it.

It's a car going to be there, not someone where there's not windows to to not be able to escape from and all of those different things.

So that's I just want to make I've kind of been making my stance and where I stand on things, and that's where I'm having a little bit more leeway, is uh and so I'm kind of open to hear what everybody else has to say.

Thank you, Commissioner Brady.

Let's just go to Commissioner Kalarski now.

Yeah, I I just have a couple questions.

I saw the one picture.

Um it's just so close to the wall.

I'm I'm concerned about water going over into the neighbors.

Okay, is there a gutter or anything?

Yes, there is.

Okay.

Let me show you that picture.

I must have looked down and missed it, but yes, there's a full gutter, and it also stops just short of the property line.

I'm not I don't intend to go to the center of the wall and then have a gutter as a last line of defense.

I intend to stop the awning, the the roof portion short of the wall, but the post itself is what is what uh limits the ability for the dual purpose carport, parking a car.

So moving the post probably within a foot of the wall, and then a very small overhang of the post, and then a gutter.

I believe the gutter, I could have it engineered so that the outer edge of the gutter is still within my side of the wall.

Double safety to keep the runoff away from the neighbor's property.

One of the big things staff always talks about is make sure that it is compatible in color too.

Is there any way to get it powder coated or whatever it is so that it kind of matches your house instead of it being that metallic gray?

I believe powder coated is the method of painting those, uh or yeah, even if it's aluminum, it's powder coated.

But I have submitted the color codes to the HOA for the architectural review, which takes specifically the color of the structure into account, and they approved that color code with the condition that I received, of course, permitting that process comes after I, in other words, I don't want to have it engineered.

I understand.

And what I'm saying is, in the end, your your intent is to have that structure basically the same color or compatible to your primary residence.

You know, and HOA rules and all that other good stuff.

Okay, good.

Absolutely, yes.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Vice Moore.

Vice Chair Moica.

Um if you could show the photo um where the RV was the post one.

I know it's not yours, but yeah, that one.

Um one thing I would like to state uh is that I agree with Commissioner Kirk on our earlier ruling that you should at least have one foot each way instead of eliminating the setbacks at least one foot away from each wall.

A twelve okay, a twelve inch setback.

At the very least, yeah.

And when you say wall, we're not talking about Eve.

If you look at the right here on this side of this photograph, that post is approximately 16 inches perfect from the wall.

Yeah, that's fine.

And then on the other side too.

Um my question to you is you keep can we negotiate that renewal 12 12 inches from property line would be six inches or 10 inches from wall.

So it it I don't disagree with what with what you're saying.

Obviously, I'm here to get the widest possible um what do you have it at now?

I I believe that shows the post about approximately two inches from the wall, but this is just a rendition.

I would design it of course to whatever recommendation this board makes.

But when you say 12 inches, if you said 12 inches from property line, because right now it was required five feet from property line, 12 inches from property line would be a new number that I would work with, and that would acceptable condition.

I will let somebody else comment on that.

But um, my question to you is um you keep re referring to your to your mother's uh accessibility, but my concern is um how is she gonna wait?

Can you point with your finger where the ADU is going to be?

I can.

It's all the way behind to the back.

So how is how is your mother going to get through with a wheelchair if your RV is sparked there?

That is not and that RV is superimposed by a company.

That RB doesn't exist.

Oh, you don't have an RV.

I do have an RV, but if you ever met my mom, there's not a chance in heck she's ever gonna let me park it there as long as she's living there.

I and it's much much smaller than that one.

And where does the RV park now?

Where is the RV parked at the uh storage facility?

It's not at your house.

No.

Oh, okay.

Yeah, because that that was my concern.

I I I keep hearing that it's for your mother, but then I'm thinking, but if there's a vehicle there, how is she gonna get through?

Well, they um I'm trying to go back to my front to the site plan that shows at the end of the property.

This is not the investment.

This dwelling unit, accessory dwelling unit.

Can you turn that so that it looks good to you?

Oh, sorry.

There you go.

So this is the proposed covered access to the property, this this purple shaded area right here.

This is my mother's new home to be completed in approximately um maybe by middle of January.

Um final grading to do and whatnot, but I anticipate because all of the services that may come with nursing home assisted living will be provided, but be provided to her in this dwelling unit instead of a care center.

Okay.

So full disclosure, right now at 89 years old, she could make the track holding onto one of my arms.

She could walk from the front of the driveway to 66 feet, and then this other 15, 18 feet through the entry door to her unit.

But in the years to come, I anticipate that won't always be true.

It's going to change.

So a caregiver is going to begin coming.

I don't know when, but some date in the future, I hope a long time from now, that caregiver is going to want to park right here and bring her to and from the house for hair and nail appointments and doctor visits and things like this.

The concept here is independent senior living.

I got you.

You don't have to go over all that again.

I I got it.

I just wanted to make sure that is the case here.

This is about not making her traverse.

If we don't widen the post so that a even a mid-sized vehicle can fit between them.

And the only reason I'm gonna build a cover there is for her walkway, which is gonna be 75 feet long.

Okay, I'm just gonna make a recommendation to um whoever's making the motion that we don't eliminate the setbacks, but have at least you know, one foot each side.

Okay, so um I understand what you're doing.

I don't I don't have any issue with what you've presented, and um I I will say one I would agree with Commissioner Brady living in a HOA does allow for some things to be done.

Living in an HOA does allow for some things to be done in order.

So so we appreciate you for getting it for coming for approval before you um actually get this done.

I can support the application as presented.

I'll turn it over to Commissioner Royman.

Yeah, I I think this application is completely different than the last two we just saw.

You came in advance, you spoke with me.

You're putting up a carport to keep the sun out.

It's 120 degrees in this in the summer.

Your neighbors have um this seems like a no-brainer to me.

I motion to approve.

Uh application number WS260117.

There's a motion on the floor, catch a vote.

That motion carries.

Good luck.

This is final action unless appealed.

Next item is 29.

WS 260132.

Waivers of development standards for the following.

One reduce setback and two eliminate building separation for a shed in conch sorry, in conjunction with an existing single family residence on point eleven acres in an RS 3.3 zone during located north of White Drive and east of Ray Charles Lane within Paradise.

Name and address for the record.

Tell us about your application.

Yeah, hello.

My name's Eric Jones.

I'm here representing Amelia Robriguez at 720 Ray Charles Lane, Los Vegas, Nevada, 89119.

We are here to get an approval for setbacks for a hundred and eight.

I know we repeating again, a hundred and eighty square foot shed, no electricity, no plumbing, no none of that.

Um I guess it was supposed to be a five-foot uh setback from the outer wall, the neighbor's wall.

There's a three-foot space in between and from the house where it should be.

I think it said five feet or six feet.

There's three feet between the shed and the house.

Um, also uh there's a slant.

There's a eight foot to six foot slant for where the water comes, will come down when it's raining.

I will show you that.

Okay, so first.

So that's from the house to the shed, the three and a half feet.

This is the three feet from the neighbor's wall to the outer shed.

This is on the other side of the shed.

They had a tree here.

They had another smaller shed where they had in there before, but they got so nervous that they got rid of it all because they didn't know what was going on.

So the slant from the shed is this is where the slant goes.

So the water, when it rains, it actually go in this area here.

This shows the slant.

Slant the shed is from eight feet, then it slants into like six feet.

Um that's an old picture.

All of those that's on the Google maps, all that stuff is gone there.

Everything that's X'd out is gone.

This is the neighbor's house.

This is the outer wall.

This is the front of the house.

Um this is the access where you can't get to the uh shed.

I know the town board meeting had an issue about fire fire department getting back there.

So they approved it once we told them that we had enough room to get to the back.

And this is not the side that you actually go into the side of the back, I mean the backyard that's on the other side of the house, which is uh here.

So you would go into the backyard on this side of the house, and the shed is on this side.

Uh this is the shed here.

This is the space between the property and the other house next door.

That's inside the shed.

They didn't want me to show that, but all the junk in there.

And uh that's that's all the pictures.

Like I said, there's no electricity, no plumbing, no none of that in there.

So that concludes your presentation.

Yes, sir.

All right, thank you very much.

So I'm gonna open this application up for a public hearing.

Anyone in the audience like to speak on this item?

Now it's time to come down.

Seeing no one rushing down, we're gonna close a public hearing, and I will open it up to the commissioners.

Any questions, concerns?

All right, go ahead.

Uh do we get any direct neighbors having a problem with this?

No, the neighbor that we the reason why we're here, we think the neighbors that was renting the house next door, they had a few issues with those neighbors.

They got the violation letter in October.

Well, in the November, those neighbors moved the next month.

Okay, and and the owner sold the house a couple of months later.

So, but yeah, all the rest of the uh neighbors were cool with it because you can't even see it from the front, you know, from the neighborhood.

And I don't mean to speed you along, but I I want to speed this thing along.

What about staff?

Do we have any did we hear anything from a neighbor contradicting with this with our the applicant here saying?

We have received four cards in opposition.

Um do we know if it's a direct neighbor?

We don't, as of now.

Um I'm glad you took out the rest of the stuff in the backyard.

And so keep it clean back there, no more structures.

That one's fine.

Uh with that, I can motion to approve.

Uh item number WS260132.

Thank you very much.

There's a motion on the floor, cash or vote.

Motion carries.

Good luck.

Thank you, guys.

This is final action on this appealed.

Next item on the agenda are items 35 through 39, which are companion and we'll be here together.

Item 35 is PA26-70006.

Plan amendment to redesignate the existing land use category from low intensity suburban neighborhood to neighborhood commercial on 1.25 acres, generally located north of Pyle Avenue and east of Rville Street within Enterprise.

Item 36 is DC 260081.

Zone change to reclassify 1.25 acres from an RS20 zone to a CG zone, generally located north of Pyle Avenue and east of RB Street with an Enterprise.

Item 37 is VS 26082, vacated and abandoned easements of interest to Clark County located between Pyle Avenue and Le Baron Avenue and Rville Street and Hinson Street Alignment with an Enterprise.

Item 38 is WS 260083.

Waiver of development standards for the following.

One reduce throat depth and two reduce departure distance.

Design review for proposed restaurant on point 1.25 acres in a CG zone.

Jerry located north of Pyle Avenue and east of RV Street via the Enterprise.

And last item is 39, TM 265022.

Thank you very much.

Name and address for the record.

Tell us about your applications.

Robert Robert Cunningham, 6030 South Jones Boulevard with Tanning Engineering representing the application.

First, I wanted to bring to the board's attention that we had previously submitted in October an application for residential development on this for six lots.

It's in the staff report under prior land use request.

We went to the Board of County Commissioners, and as we were dealing with the neighbors the entire time, uh Commissioner Jones had meeting on the site, and through multiple discussions, it was decided that and agreed that we should um withdraw this at the request of the neighbors.

They would prefer to see a commercial development on this property instead.

So what you have back before you is because of a lot of communication that had occurred in the past on the prior application.

It's a commercial development.

So I'll explain what we're doing now.

Our site's located at the intersection of two 80-foot streets, a pile, which runs uh east-west, and Rville, which runs north-south.

It's on approximately one and a quarter acre site right here.

What we're asking to do is change a land use from residential to commercial.

And we're asking to change the zoning from residential currently to uh commercial CG to allow a restaurant tavern.

This is the proposed site.

Uh a lot of consideration has been taken into the site and the way it was designed and how it connects to the adjacent properties.

The site is proposed with the building to be oriented on the south, right at the intersection of the two 80-foot streets.

This is a proposed signalized intersection.

The other two quadrants already have the infrastructure in for the future signal.

This site would, if it is approved, would have a uh third pole that would be installed for the future signal, and when it's warranted, it's expected this to have a full traffic signal at this intersection.

The site has an entrance uh that's located aligned with show you the next page.

This is the tender map, but our entrance right here is aligned with the residential street in the community directly to the east of us.

We share a common property line currently with this development.

If it is approved, we would propose to be building an eight-foot high CMU wall the entire way along this property line, and we'd also be building one along the north property line.

This entrance is set up in this manner so that the building is oriented and located adjacent to this existing building.

Traffic would enter and exit our site, even though there's an eight-foot wall aligned with what would be the street if it were to go through here and to the north of this as a parking lot.

One of the benefits of having this as a commercial development is that prior to this, when it was proposed as residential, we were asking for waivers of wall height and retaining walls up against the adjacent property.

Uh with the commercial development, we're able to work better with the grading of the property, uh having the parking lot slope, and we're no longer needing that.

The cross sections that we're submitting here show that we're not asking for waivers of wall heights or retaining walls.

We're proposing to vacate the 33-foot patent easement as you see here, shaded around the property.

The landscaping, this is an important component since we're adjacent to residential on the north and on the east.

We're putting in uh minimum of 15-foot intense landscape buffer all the way around it, adjacent to the building is where there is a 20-foot setback from the building to this, and we're proposing to continue that with evergreen trees located.

I believe they're spaced out in two rows of 20 foot on center, so literally every 10 feet, you're gonna have an evergreen tree all the way around that.

And as I mentioned earlier, there will be an eight-foot CME wall adjacent to that.

Currently, the building has not got an interior floor plan, but it's it's slated to be a uh a restaurant tavern, uh similar to many establishments here that would be uh serving food, liquor, and it would have gaming.

One of the things that was taken into account for the design was the elevations of the building.

The elevation of the building that faces the residential is slated to have no doors, no windows, and it's stepped in a way where the elevation of the building increases.

So the first I can show you back on the site plan here.

The first portion of this building that's in this area, roughly from here to here.

This is only, I believe, 19 feet.

Let me double check and 19 feet.

Then it steps up to 24 feet high further back from the property line.

So it's not 24 feet high until it hits that line, and then it's over here.

So it provides a relief, and this the adjacent building that's here is a single-story building that starts out at about 10 to 11 feet, and it has an apex of a roof of about 19 feet.

So we're similar in height, maybe a little bit taller with a parapet to disguise the uh roof elements of the building.

Uh, this is a detail of the trash enclosure.

If you wanted to see that, that will be located directly in the middle of the site as well.

Located right here.

Hey Robert, can I ask you a question?

I'm sorry to interrupt you, but go right ahead.

Is that an eight-foot wall between uh the restaurant and that resident?

Which residence?

This way, yeah.

Currently, no.

I'd like to show you what it looks like today so that you have an idea.

This is the common property line between our property and the residential.

What they have is a drainage easement that runs this entire length of the property with an iron fence, then they have a concrete channel that's located down here, and on top of that, they have a six-foot CME block wall.

What we're proposing to do is come right next to this and build an eight-foot high CMU wall that would even provide more privacy than this is today.

Thank you very much.

Sure.

That's gonna conclude my presentation.

I'd be happy to answer any questions the board has to be.

Thank you very much.

So we're gonna open this application, these applications up for a public hearing.

Anyone in the audience like to speak on on these applications?

Seeing no one coming down, we will close the public hearing and I'll open up the commissioners for questions, comments.

No, no, no questions or comments.

Um you know, uh town board here recommended an approval, but they they offered an opinion that the zone change be reduced to commercial neighborhood instead of the CG.

Is that sufficient for the anticipated use?

If staff tells us that is, then we have no problem changing the zoning as long as the use that we're intending can still be supported in that.

Uh I think that that's probably what I would want to vote for, but I will take the recommendation of uh the rest of the boards and of course.

Thank you, Commissioner Roitman.

I agree with you.

Um I'm on the same page with that.

Um and I and I'm and I'm also want to make this a win-win for the applicate for the applicant.

So if that's the if that's a that's a question for staff, I'd like to have that answer before I vote.

Um yes, the CN zoning still allows the restaurant to be there.

Okay, the the only thing that I do have a problem with, and and I'd like you to look into it, um, because I do not approve uh spit, but I guess let me ask the reduced throat depth and reduced departure distance.

Is that on valley view or pile?

The reduced throat depth is at the entrance right here.

We have 24 feet on this side where 25 is code required, I believe.

And on the other side on the egress side, we have less than that.

We have 14 feet or 15 feet.

And that's on our veil.

This is out to our what's precluding you from uh being compliant to code.

We would have to close off this drive aisle, making it a one-way situation.

This site is extremely narrow at 131 feet.

By doing that, it it makes it a challenge.

We were not able to comply on the egress side at 25 feet.

We're missing it by approximately I'm sorry, it's 18 feet, so we're missing it by seven feet.

Public horse, would you be okay with that?

Safety-wise.

They need the um circulation on the lot for fire.

So if we close off that drive that portion of the driveway, fire probably would not approve the design.

No, what I'm saying is uh would you be okay the way it's designed?

No.

Um we aren't supporting the way it's designed because between the mix of the reduced throat depth with the reduced departure distance, we find that it's going to cause stacking in the right-of-way.

Yes, and that's what I'm concerned about.

Um, but we might be okay with one if we could get more of the other, I guess it's the best way to put it.

How it is designed right now, we are not in support.

Um if you feel that it is okay, you could go ahead and move for approval.

Um that is just our recommendation.

Um, but for us to be able to support it, we would either need to get the driveway moved a little bit more to the north to give us a little bit more of the departure distance, or we would need more throat depth.

Okay, well, I I know we we keep saying this, we don't like the design at the podium, but I would like you to I would approve it if I can condition that that you work with public works and make this work.

I I just want to point out on the the separation on the uh departure distance.

Right now we're asking for 70 code requires 190.

That would actually take this driveway and push it right next to the residential home up here where we thought it was more appropriate to line it up with the street and not put vehicles entering and exiting right adjacent to the residential home.

Well, what get what what can you work with based on what public works just said?

They want something I will agree to meet with public works if if this board sees fit between now and the next hearing that it has to go to so okay.

So like I said, I will I will first of all um I guess I do the the plan amendments it can stay the same, right?

Uh yes, okay.

So I will uh motion to approve plan amendment uh two six seven zero zero zero six motion on the floor, cash or vote.

Lastly, what I'm sorry, Commissioner Kalarski.

You want a question before we finish the vote?

Okay.

All right.

There's a motion on the floor, cash or vote.

That motion passes.

Thank you.

Oh, Commissioner Kowski.

Yeah, I'm sorry.

On the waivers.

Yes.

Okay.

You just the map you just had up.

Can I see that again?

This one or the Yeah.

Okay.

That that's a trash can or the trash compactor.

Trash.

This is a trash enclosure that's required by code.

It has the six-foot wall all the way around it.

Yes.

Is there any way to maybe move that?

And that would help possibly give you more throat depth.

I think the throat depth is off by one foot right here.

We can work with public works to see if we can acquire that foot.

And on the egress side, it's off by seven feet.

So we'll see if we can work with public work somehow between now and the next commission meeting and gain the additional fee.

I'm just thinking if you can move that, maybe that might give you what you need.

But I I'm not an engineer and I'm not nothing.

Yeah, I the architect designed this and I'll talk to him.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Sure.

Uh so I will motion to approve the zone change to commercial neighborhood.

And that is ZZ260081.

Motion on the floor, cash to vote.

That motion carries.

Next item.

Motion to approve the vacation.

VS 260082.

Motion on the floor, cash to vote.

Motion carries.

And then motion to approve the waivers, uh item number 38 WS260083 with the condition that the applicant will work with public works to find the addition.

How do you want me to word this?

To reduce the waiver for throat depth on the I guess it's the north side of the throat.

It's the e-gress side.

What he said.

Motion on motion on the floor, cash your vote.

Motion passes.

Next item.

In motion to approve uh item number 39, tentative map, TM265022.

Motion on the floor, cash or vote.

Motion carries.

Good luck.

Thank you.

Items 35 through 39 will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners meeting for final action on May 20th, 2026 at 9 a.m.

unless otherwise announced.

Items 42 44 are companions and we'll be here together.

Number 40, PA 26708.

Plan amendment to redesignate the existing land use category from neighborhood commercial to business employment on 2.991 acres.

Generally located north of Patrick Lane and West of Topaz Street within Paradise.

Item 41, ZC260126.

Zone change to reclassify 2.91 acres from an RS20 zone to um NSCP zone to an IP zone.

Generally located north of Patrick Lane and west of Topaz Street within Paradise.

Item 42 BS 260125.

Vacant and abandoned a portion of right-of-way being Patrick Lane located between Euclide Street and Topaz Street and a portion of right-of-way being Topaz Street, located between Patrick Lane and Ocwander Road within Paradise.

Item 43, waiver of the uh WS 260127, waiver of development standards for the following.

One, eliminate and reduce buffering and screening, two modify residential adjacent standards, three, reduce throat depth, and four reduce departure distance.

Design review for a proposed industrial development with outdoor storage yard on two point uh nine one acres in an IP zone within the airport environments, AE65 and A70 overlay.

Uh generally located north of Patrick Lane and west of Topaz Street within Paradise and item 44 TM265031.

Tenative mapcast Cincinnati 1 industrial lot on 2.1 uh 91 acres in an IP zone within the airport environs A65 and A70 overlay, generally located north of Patrick Land and west of Topaz Street within Paradise.

Thank you, Staff.

Name and address for the record.

Tell us about your application.

Dustin Schweise, 632 Keel Street, Henderson, Nevada, 89015.

I'm looking to build four roughly 10,000 square foot industrial buildings with enclosed storage yards at Patrick and Topaz.

I think there's some miscommunication as far as one of the waivers as far as the block wall height I'm requesting.

There is basically it's hard to see on here, but there's some existing zoned residential properties along the north side.

Really, these are owned by Clark County Aviation or being marketed.

They were just in the past auction to be zoned for industrial projects.

So really there are two residences that are affected.

This one right here, which I've been in huge communication with as I've been going through the process.

I've also got letters of support for the project as well as supporting other waivers.

This is zoned residential, but I be it's currently being occupied as a church.

Um that are secured yards on both sides here.

Um of the waivers is uh landscape buffer that's required on the back here.

It's a 15-foot intense landscape buffer.

Um as you know, uh in the valley here, we're pretty short on water.

I feel like in a product like this, what happens is when this gets built, the minute that they're occupied, they're just they're just ripped out.

Um so I feel like that based on the fact that there's one residence that doesn't want any additional landscape, and I have the letter of support for that.

I feel like that this is a waiver that could be supported.

I'm not asking for any different waivers along the exterior, as well as the block wall.

Plan on doing a standard eight-foot um standard block wall, just non-decorative along the back.

Um not looking for any waivers on this side one on Topaz.

I feel like that definitely needs to be built decorative as designed.

Um, as far as the sorry, I'm not a huge builder.

This is one of my first projects here, so I might mess this up.

Throat depth, yes.

So I am requesting a throat depth waiver because of how I'm trying to solve and departure distance.

So the departure distance, currently, this is two lots.

Um, there's one lot on this side, one lot on this side.

For the point of this project, we're combining them, and then we end up breaking them into four separate parcels.

I think the departure distance sits at 140, and we have it what is the requirements 190, and we're sitting at 140.

Um, the reason for that is to center that entrance here because of the apparatus requirement by fire.

Um, by centering that, it allows it to get in both directions without requiring an additional exit.

As far as the throat depth.

Um in order to maximize the usable space on the development.

We narrowed that up slightly.

Um, and then part of that, this is going to be a very low uh we have the I have the brought the traffic study with me showing that uh in the morning is the busiest in the afternoon.

We have about 15 in the morning coming in, 14 in the afternoon going out at max times.

There should only be one car every four minutes pulling into the project with only one car leaving every 20.

And the way that they measure, um, I have another drawing here.

Yeah, there it is.

So that the way the way that they measured the throat depth, um, it comes from the back of the BCR, so they're showing that.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

They're showing it at 14 instead of 25 because of the way that it goes from the back of the BCR.

Um, the actual one from the BCR on this side is closer to 23.

Um, and also keep in mind there is a turn lane in Patrick that would eliminate any stack up from them trying to get in there.

Um forgetting.

Yeah, as far as that, um, I think that's all standard operating procedure, right?

That you guys do on every project.

Okay.

And the tend to map as far as remapping, right?

Um, as discussed, like I said, I've been in total communication with the main residential property that's impacted by this site.

Um, I've got a letter of full support.

And I brought both of those with me also.

All right, does that conclude your presentation?

What's that?

Does that conclude your presentation?

Yes, it does.

Very good.

All right, so um, I'm going to open this application up for a public hearing.

Anybody in the audience like to come down and speak on this item?

Now it's time to do so.

Seeing no one come down, we're going to close a public hearing.

And I'll open up to commissioners for some comments and questions.

I I think uh I'll I'll start.

I just have somewhat of a similar question about the the throat depth.

You know, I'm looking at some of the other commercial properties on Patrick, and I see the church that's adjacent.

I I have no issue with the with the application itself.

I just want to get some context on the throat death throat depth.

I mean, I mean, do we really have an issue with that?

Um public works recommends denial as um the um with the reduced throat depth and in combination with the reduced department.

Um departure.

Yeah, departure distance.

It'll create stacking in the vehicle um vehicles in the right-of-way.

And um, Patrick Lane is a collector street, and it's really important to keep it free of any um conflicts.

All right, all right.

So thank you, staff for that.

Um commissioner Commissioner Kirk.

Uh anybody else have anything?

This is my area.

We met uh earlier.

The only there are a couple things I was a little concerned about.

One is uh on the on the north side of the property, there's gonna be an eight-foot high wall.

Is that correct?

Yes, sir.

Non-decorative?

Yep, non-decorative.

I think there was a miscommunication, they have it marked that I wanted to put a six foot, which I don't know how they did that because all the plans show eight foot.

Okay, so it's eight foot, no problem.

And then uh on the east side, uh, you're not asking for any uh landscape waivers or anything else, right?

Topath?

Absolutely not.

Okay.

And then the 15 foot uh landscape buffer you're takeout is these are in closed yards.

Uh tell us the kind of things that you'll be that you anticipate will be storing.

That'll be stored in here.

I anticipate that this will be more than likely a contract that lands here.

There's a huge shortage in the valley.

Um I'm assuming that most leave will be stored in there as trucks, vehicles, trucks, um, so maybe some miscellaneous leftover materials, stuff like that.

And they'll be shielded from the from the public view on Patrick Essentially, yes.

Yeah, the gates will be in closed, so they won't be able to view any of that.

Okay.

All right.

I don't have any problem with this, and so if there's nothing further, I'll I'll I'll make a motion.

Go ahead, Commissioner Kirk.

Uh make sure I get back to the right one.

Sorry, just give me a second.

Move to approve PA 26700008.

Motion on the floor, cash your vote.

The motion passes.

And then can I do all the other ones together?

Rob Then I will move for approval of item 41.

Item 42, item 43.

Item 44.

With staff approved if approved conditions.

Thank you very much.

There's a motion on the floor, cast your vote.

That motion passes.

Good luck.

I told I told you it would be nine o'clock.

You were right, you know this better than I do that.

Thank you guys.

I appreciate it.

Good luck.

Items 40 through 44 B be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioner meeting for final action on May 20th, 2026 at 9 a.m.

unless otherwise announced.

Uh next item on the agenda is items number uh 49 through 53, which our companion I will be here together.

Item 49 is PA26 uh-700011.

Plan amendment to redesignate the existing land use category from ranch estate neighborhood to low intensity suburban neighborhood on 2.43 acres.

Generally located south of Shelburne Avenue and west of Miller Lane uh within Enterprise.

Uh ZC and item 50 is DC 260139 zone changes for the following.

One reclassify 2.43 acres from an RS20 zone to an RS5.2 zone, and two remove the neighborhood protection uh RMP overlay.

Jerry located south of Shelbourne Avenue and west of Miller Lane within within Enterprise.

Uh 51.

We S260140.

Vacate and abandon easements of interest to Clark County located between Shelbourne Avenue and Cameroon Avenue and between Warbonette Way and Miller Lane, and a portion of right away being Miller Lane, located between Shelburne Avenue and Camero Avenue within Airprise.

And item 52 is WS260141, waiver of the Bowman standards for the following.

One modify residential adjacency adjacency standards and two reduced street width.

Design review for a proposed single family residential subdivision on 2.43 acres in an RS5.2 zone.

Generally located south of Shelburne Avenue and west of Miller Lane within Airprise.

And last item is 55 TM26503 500034.43 acres in an RS5.2 zone.

Generally located south of Shelburne Avenue and west of Miller Lane within Air Prize.

Thank you very much.

Name and address for the record.

Tell us about your application.

Robert Cunningham, 6030 South Jones Boulevard with Tanny Engineering representing the applicant.

First, I'm gonna draw your attention to the site where it's located in Aerial.

So it's approximately two and a half acres located at this southwest corner of Shelbourne, and this is Miller.

Adjacent to us, I just want to point out some things that are on the aerial.

Directly to the north of us is vacant property.

Directly to the south of us is mostly vacant property.

It's owned by the same people that are to the west of us, and they only have like a fence up for uh what was a horse practice or horse exercise area.

Directly to the east of us is small lots, uh 3300 to 4,000 square foot in size.

So this is the transitional area, basically right where the RMP and the NPO area uh but up against non-RNP NPO area.

What we're requesting to do is to change the land use uh from two units per acre to allow up to five units per acre.

I just want to point out on this map that other areas in this adjacent immediate vicinity have had similar changes.

There's a five-acre piece that's located right at Buffalo and Wigwam that had the same change.

And this is the zoning.

We're asking for RS5.2 zoning on this two and a half acre property as well.

And you can see this piece similar was zoned.

What we're requesting.

What's being proposed is a 12-lot residential subdivision with a cold-de-sac.

The access is Miller Lane.

Uh Miller Lane has those residential homes that are on 3300 to 4,000 square foot lots facing Miller Lane, so there's already driveways, residential uh character to the street.

We're asking to take our street off of this so that the entire development would only have access to where there already is higher density development and not um abut directly any of the half acre or RMP lots directly to the north, as I mentioned, is vacant property and directly to the south.

This is the only known improvement that exists on this property that I was able to find.

What we are asking to do here is we have lots.

Um there's a couple of waivers that we've requested.

The two lots here, um, which are directly butting developed RMP property to the west.

Uh they're required by code to be 10,000 square feet in size.

Uh we have them slightly under that.

We're about 8800, 8900 square feet in size on these two lots right here.

Uh we are providing the 10-foot setback as code requires on these two lots abutting this as well.

Uh, the rest of the lots in the subdivision.

Um, we're asking for the lot sizes to meet the RS52 zoning requirement.

Majority of these are 6,000 or greater in square foot.

Most of the ones on the north are 6200.

Two adjacent to the hammerhead are the two smallest ones at 5600 square feet both.

We're also asking for another waiver.

Uh Miller is a 60-foot street currently dedicated.

It dead ends in a T at Shelbourne.

Um one of the waivers we had to ask for was to reduce the width of Miller Lane from 60 to 48 feet.

We feel it's it's better representation of it being a residential street, uh helping reduce the traffic as vehicles drive up and down it with residential homes facing the street.

So we requested that Miller from Shelbourne to the next intersection to the south be reduced down to 48 instead of 60.

The other waiver that we've requested is adjacent to the RP, the rear setbacks to the vacant property that is still on the RMP to the south and to the north.

County requires 30 foot setback on these lots, and we're asking for it to be allowed to be 20, which is what RS52 allows.

I will point out on the north though, we have a 15-foot landscape buffer, and then we have 20 feet.

So technically from the back of the curb to where the setback would be is actually in excess of the 30 feet, but on these south lots here, it's proposed to only be 20.

We're proposing all the correct landscaping, asking for no waivers of landscaping code at all.

The tender map has a drainage pattern, uh, allowing for drainage easements in the middle of our our hammerhead where there's a currently a low point on the adjacent property taking water through here.

We're proposing full off sites, curb gutter sidewalk.

We're not requesting to waive any of the off-site improvements at all.

That matches with what exactly is built directly adjacent to us and what we're connecting to to the east of our site.

There's two different single story homes that Toll Brothers is currently proposing on the site.

Uh the homes range in height from 17 to about 20 feet in height.

They all have two car garages and uh have three to four bedrooms in each home.

These are some of the proposed elevations, different styles of architecture.

They meet all of the county code requirements for uh architectural enhancements on all four sides of the building, and they range from 2,000 to 2300 square feet in size.

They also all have a built-in covered patio or area for shade in the backyard.

Showing you the vacation.

So this is the area proposed for the vacation.

Um we're proposing to vacate the entire area adjacent to us to 48 feet, and at the request of public works, we're tapering the right-of-way from 48 feet here to 60 feet here.

The site does not have any proposed fill waivers, retaining wall height waivers, any of that nature.

So I'm gonna conclude my presentation, be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much.

So we're gonna open this up these applications up for a public hearing.

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

Yeah.

Okay, I got you.

Steve Small.

Okay.

You've got it before.

Is it okay for the same?

All right.

Yep, yeah.

Uh sorry about my uh slow trip I had.

No, no, no, we're gonna work.

We're gonna we're glad you're up and standing.

Uh on this project, it's spot zoning.

They tried for the full long strip at five acres, and that looked got shot down.

The next parcel over, and the horse corrals and house on the corner of Warbonnet, and uh Camaro for that whole long strip.

They tried to get that rezoned, but all of these were real estate pushes, in which if they get the zoning, they'd sell the lot.

Otherwise, no.

Well, when the attorneys show up and they hold things over, all they're doing, they know they're gonna get shot down.

They're just bleeding the project.

So when you go along with that, it raises everybody's time.

This is another spot zoning.

And again, if they start on this corner, it may go down straight to the next parcel south, the next open five acres, and then try to take which they had tried before, the horse ranch.

Spot zoning for the upper areas that are already half acre left.

Separate.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you very much, sir.

Appreciate your comments.

Name and it name and address for the record.

Andrew Acunia, 8460 war bonnet way.

Most of you know me as a home developer.

I'm here wearing a different hat.

I'm a homeowner.

I live nearby.

Um I like Robert's presentation.

He always does a really good job for the first time ever.

We're probably not on the same side.

Um I think this map kind of gives you the best representation here.

I think what's one big issue here is all this green area here.

I'll use this map.

You can see all the yellow.

That's all on the RP.

Miller is not a major right of way.

It's not Buffalo, it's not Durango.

It's not rainbow.

There's 60 foot ride of ways on Shelborn and Miller.

Would it be a significant impact to the area?

All these homeowners right here.

So if you reduced it down to 48 feet, you wouldn't even go to five food of Miller because it wouldn't be wide enough.

All these homes, the adjacent seven and a half acres is owned by one property owner.

There's currently only one home sitting right about here.

And this is an entire riding stable that's still being used almost daily.

These are all half acres.

These are all half acres.

This is actually a new project being built by Lenar.

I think when they started, they were trying to get 10 lots matching to the adjacent less than property.

They were down the half acre parcel owned by one person.

Going back to this map, the only area that has 5.2 density is a law.

That making sense along Buffalo because it is the major arterial.

I'm pretty sure it's a lot of wide, and that's why I'm here opposing this project.

I think it's too dense.

Another thing I'd like to point out is neighborhood meeting was done the day before Christmas Eve.

There was 10 of us that still were in town that showed up.

This entire site went through before with different developers asking for that half, five to the acre density.

There was 45 homeowners showed up, and when I checked the documents for the applications, I noticed there was like 13 opposition cards turned in by different homeowners in the area.

Only one in support.

So now I'm here in opposition.

We could compromise somewhere down the road, but I don't think 12 lots is appropriate.

Thank you very much for your comments.

Questions of the applicant.

Start with Commissioner Klarski.

No, no real questions.

But excuse me.

One of the things I got told many, many years ago was that to protect the RP, you had to work it from the edges.

And that's what this 3.3 was possibly said to us.

South below that seven acres, are gonna say the same thing.

We are the transition to the RP.

And so you're gonna have now a bunch of other 5.2 requests to come in.

I think that we need to keep the integrity of the RP and not start chipping away on the interior any longer.

Miller was the demarcation line.

Buffalo is great.

And you gotta, if you're gonna do it, you gotta keep the density right there.

But I think that you really need to maintain what is there with the uh with the RMP, because that is a really viable viable uh RMP at this point in time.

I cannot support the plan amendment, and therefore I won't be supporting the rest of the application.

Thank you, Commissioner Kalarski.

I I'll just go on the record before I I go down the go down the line.

I I know I I'm pro development too, you know that, and I I cannot support the application as presented.

I I do think that I I would love for you to come back with some 10,000 square foot lots or something that's that's more appropriate for the for the area.

But having said that, I'll move on to Commissioner Kirk and then Commissioner Whiteman.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Chairman.

No question about one thing, and that is this is a transition piece.

There's no doubt about that with what's been built on the east side uh as opposed to what's on the on the uh west side.

And I could go with quarter acre.

I could I could probably swallow a quarter acre lot, but down to six thousand square foot lot is just a little bit too small.

Uh you know, we would sometimes I think sometimes we we need to draw a hard line in the sand.

And I think for me, if particularly because of the amount of uh you know incremental um zoning that has happened around where we've allowed uh a lot of different things to happen in the RP.

I think there needs to be a line in the sand and say, look, the 10,000 square foot is our is in the code, and that's our position.

I realize that most people come to the planning commission because they don't agree with the code or they want a waiver from what the code says.

If we just went along with the code, we wouldn't need to be here because the code would determine everything.

But I think in the case that um with the RNP and how we've encroached on the RP over the years, I I gotta stay with the 10,000 square foot minimum.

I could handle a quarter acre lots with a a couple uh right adjacent to the RNP, you know, um the existing uh RNP with uh 10,000 square foot loss, but this just feels a little bit too dense, and I think um we in fact we know that the message will be sent to uh future uh development uh proposals that come forward within the RP if we deny one or two.

In fact, we've seen it on this board where we've denied something, and then six months later something comes back and it's better.

So that's where I'm at.

I'm not gonna support it.

Can you put your your your site plan back up for me while while Commissioner Whitman is making his comments?

Thank you.

Yeah, and uh I tend to agree with the comments that have already been made here, and especially with the neighbor.

I think you know, I've I have approved changing the RMP since I've sat on this board.

Um, but I think the manner in which it's done is important, and um again, as the neighbor said down on Buffalo, maybe that's a little bit more appropriate.

Um, and I won't try to design here from the dais, but uh yeah, I'm not gonna support this uh application.

All right.

Um other comments.

I'll go to Vice Chair Mohica.

Uh I I agree with what's been said, so I am going to uh make a motion and and you and I do want to make a statement though.

If comprehensive planning and public work say that in code says that we don't like hammerheads, why do they keep doing it?

Uh I I guess that's a question for you.

Why do they keep designing it with a hammerhead?

You're asking why we designed subdivisions with hammerheads.

I mean, did you you didn't design this, right?

Yeah, I designed it.

You did?

Okay.

So um, and this is just a question, it doesn't have to be for this, but for the future.

I need to I would like to understand if comprehensive planning doesn't like it and public works doesn't like it, hammerheads, why do they keep being designed?

We typically only see hammerheads in small lot developments.

In this case, there's only 12 lots in this entire development.

And then we usually see them where there's adequate access to park in the driveway.

These two lots at the very end of this have oversized driveways.

You could probably park four or five vehicles in each of these driveways.

So this allows more lot to be utilized by the developer or the individual homeowners instead of taking it up with a cul de sac bulb that reduces their lot area and the amount of land that they could utilize.

And I guess I I ask public works, why don't we like them?

We prefer the bigger radius, the as the applicant said, the bigger radius allows for fire trucks, trash trucks all to go down there and circulate, and it prevents a lot of parking too on the street and gives that adequate room.

So safety, life safety.

And and I I know I know the developers want to cram in as many units as possible because it's money, right?

So I'm just I'm just saying this for future purposes because these keep coming in front of us, and uh we as you can see from uh from from what's happened tonight is we're we just we're not gonna just keep approving things.

And um, so maybe if you come back with the same lot and not have that.

Um so I'm gonna make a motion to deny 49 PA267011.

Motion on the floor cash or vote.

The motion for denial passes, and then motion to deny items 50 51, 52, and 53.

Motion on the floor cast or vote.

Motion for denial passes.

Thank you.

Items 49 through 53 will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioner meeting for final action on May 20th, 2026 at 9 a.m.

unless otherwise announced.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, so that was our last item.

And so the last item on the agenda is public comments.

So now's the time for anyone to come down and make public comments.

Seeing no one rushing down to make public comments, we're gonna close that part of the meeting and adjourn for this evening.

Thank you, staff it just