All right, good evening, folks.

We'll we'll start the briefing this evening and we'll start with roll call.

Good evening.

Chairman Fraser.

Here.

Vice Chair Mujica.

Present.

Commissioner Stone.

Here.

Commissioner Kirk.

Here.

Commissioner Kilarski?

Here.

Commissioner Brady.

Commissioner Boydman.

Ready to rock and roll.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you, Staff.

Go ahead and get started with the briefing.

No, he's spontaneous.

Good evening, uh planning commissioners.

Um my name is Romeo Gummerang, uh, principal planner with comprehensive planning, and then I will be leading at tonight's uh planning commission briefing.

And we will I'll retract that and we'll start over.

Well no, I don't think we're good.

I think I'm uh I I've I got I was um remiss, and I guess the first item of business is public comments.

So I'm gonna open this this item up for public comments, and anyone in the audience can come down and make a public comment.

See coup public comment, seeing no one coming down.

We will close public comments and now we can go to staff briefing.

Uh let's do this again.

Uh good evening, planning commissioners.

Uh my name is Romeo Gummering, uh principal planner with comprehensive planning, and I will be leading uh the planning commission briefing for tonight's meeting.

Uh the first uh items are routine items, item uh number four, extension of time.

In this case, a second extension of time uh of a use permit for an outs outside dining in conjunction of an existing restaurant and eliminate pedestrian access.

Staff supports the extension of time since there is an active uh building permit and no substantial changes have occurred on the subject site or or on the surrounding properties.

Spring Valley Town Board recommended approval.

Uh there are four cards in support and three cards against uh this request.

Item number five, the tenant map for uh for a condominium.

Uh this the site was previously uh reclassified to RM18 zoning via zone change 230935 for a multifamily residential development.

We had an approved extension of time.

Uh 264017 to extend that associated waivers of development standards and design review for two years.

This tentative map require uh meets the requirements and standards of title thirty Indian Springs Town Board recommended approval.

Item number six, uh vacation uh to vacate a portion of the right-of-way for an installation of a detached sidewalk.

Paradise tile bo town board, uh recommended approval.

Uh approval that there are two cards uh in support of this request and three cards against uh this request.

Uh the following items uh our companion seven in uh items seven and eight.

Uh the way we're this includes the waiver development standards in to increase the height of the retaining wall and design review for modifications to uh previously approved mini warehouse facility.

Uh the subject site was previously approved for mini warehouse uh facility in May twenty twenty twenty-four under 24 use permit twenty-fero zero nine three.

The increased retaining wall and fail height results uh from necessary drainage and grading adjustments.

The site will be lowered relative to the uh adjacent uh homes reducing potential impacts.

Uh existing wall along the commercial properties um already reach at twenty point five feet, and uh proposed increase adds up to five feet above the current conditions.

Staff supports the request and added height will not negatively affect surrounding properties.

Item number eight is a proposed tenative map consisting of a one commercial lot and meets Title 30, matches the accompanying design review and previous approvals on the site.

The Spring Valley Town Board recommended approval.

Item number nine, this is a PA plan amendment to redesignate the site from neighborhood commercial and C to ranch estate neighborhood RN.

The existing rural residential development on the subject site and the adjacent parcels to the south and east.

It is not determined that commercial development at this location may not be appropriate.

And redesignating the parcels to the ranch estate neighborhood category will help maintain the consistent and compatible development pattern in the area between Sagebrush Street and Pecos Road.

Paradise Town Board recommended approval.

One card of in support and one card or letter, I should say, against the request.

The following items, item number 10, 11, and 12, 11, 12, and 13 are companion items.

This is to uh redesignate the existing land use category from mid and 10 city suburban neighborhood to urban neighborhood.

The proposed land use category is compatible with the surrounding area.

Board of County Commissioners have already approved an R4 zoning for the site per NZZ22-0068 in May 2022, which allows a density that would be conforming to the proposed urban urban neighborhood land use category.

The request complies with the policy 1.1.1 of the master plan and staff finds the requests appropriate for this location.

Two cards of support has been received.

The following against 10 cards, five letters, and one petition has been received.

Item 11 is a zone change to request to RM32 zoning.

It's compatible with the surrounding area.

The abiding properties in the north and south are uh planned for neighborhood commercial.

The adjacent property to the west is planned for corridor mixed use and zone CG.

The abutting property to the east is developed as uh as in RS-33 zone, single family residential subdivision.

The adjacent property to the east of that subdivision is zone RM18.

Uh staff finds the request to RM32 zoning is appropriate for this location.

Item number 12 is uh is to vacate a portion of the right-of-way to accommodate detached sidewalk and patent easements that is no longer necessary for the development of this site.

Spring Valley Town Board recommended approval.

Uh three cards of support has been received and the following uh against 13 cards, five letters and one petition.

Item number 13 uh request for waivers to reduce parking, increased uh building height and reduced setback for proposed multifamily development.

The request to reduce the on-site parking to 330 spaces were where 342 spaces are required.

Uh increase in the height to 61 feet where the maximum is 50 is allowed, and reduce the site street setback for carports to six 16 feet where 20 is required.

Previously approved uh NCZ 220068 had the same number of parking spaces provided with 27 more dwelling units and was at the time in compliance with the code.

The increased height is oriented away from adjacent single family residential units uh uses rather and required uh setbacks and existing right-of-way widths provide uh adequate buffering.

Staff finds the request not appear to create adverse impacts to the site operations or surrounding streets.

The proposed height does not introduce new or greater impacts than the previously approved design.

The setback uh reduction is only proposed for carports, and the location of the car parts matches the previously approved plans, therefore steps require uh supports uh all the waivers.

Uh Spring Valley Town Board recommended approval to uh cards of support has been received, uh 10 cards of protests, five five letters against, and one petition uh one against uh a petition against uh request.

The next item uh the next following items uh are companion uh items item number four items number 14, 15, and 16.

Uh first one is a plan amendment to redes redesignate the existing land use category from open lands to corridor mixed use.

The request for CM land use uh category is appropriate for dislocation.

There are properties plan CM directly west of this site and farther south near the intersections of US 95 and uh state route 163.

The proposed uh amendment to CM meets policy uh 1.6 of the uh master plan, which encouraged the viability and livability of Clark County's outlying community sub staff supports this request.

Um there are no uh town board on this one.

Um there were eight cards uh of uh of support that has been received, one letter of uh protest against this request.

Item number 15 is a zone change to reclassify the property from an H2, general highway frontage to CG commercial general zone.

This is this area is vastly surrounded by undeveloped RS80 and H2 zoning and rezoning of the subject property to CG should not be detrimental to the area.

The conversion to an appropriate zoning district is encouraged by the county.

The rezoning will adhere to the policy of uh policy 5.5.1 of the master plan, which encourage uh redo redesignating or designating and supporting the development of industrial and employment uses in areas are approximate to major air, rail and highway facilities.

Staff supports this request for the CG zoning district is appropriate for this location.

Uh there were seven cards of approval received and one letter of uh protest.

Item number 16 is uh waiver development standards.

This is for the proposed communication utility building compound and all uh ancillary and associated equipment.

This development includes waivers to eliminate the street landscaping along US 95, where 10 foot 10 foot wide street landscape area containing large trees in every uh uh every 30 feet on center is required.

Eliminate buffering and screening requirements along the north, east, and south property lines where 15 foot foot wide landscape strip consisting of two offset rows of evergreen trees are required.

Uh the proposed design of the community communication utility building compound is similar to those found in other parts of the county.

Uh the structures are relatively small in relation to the overall site and are set back significantly from US 95 right-of-way and the surrounding property lines.

The buildings are painted in neutral desert way and blends into surrounding areas.

While no landscaping is being provided, uh, the maintenance and restored restoration of the existing natural desert landscaping uh will better serve the site and the non-native species.

Uh staff finds proposed communication utility building compound will support the master plan policies and support and staff supports this request.

Uh there were six um cards of uh support and two letters of protest against this uh request.

Uh that concludes the uh non-routine items.

All right, sounds good.

Thank you, staff.

So um, I'll turn it over to our commissioners for questions on the routine action items, and we'll start with Vice Chair Wayuko.

This is regarding item number 16 that you just read.

What assurance do we have or what what's the procedure or guidelines for um restoring the natural elements?

How are we gonna make sure they do what they're supposed to be doing?

Because we're giving them a waiver of landscape, right?

So that they can keep the natural right.

So um the upkeep of I'm sorry.

Can you repeat the question?

The upkeep of the natural, you just read it.

Natural elements, item number 16.

Right, so um, without the new introduction of landscaping material on there, they will preserve the natural landscape of the surrounding in the area.

So that basically just saying that um no new landscaping is being introduced in that area in terms of um species.

Right.

So preserving the natural area, I mean, how how do we make sure that they're not gonna let the plants die and it's just gonna be without.

I mean, what assurance do we have that they're gonna preserve the natural area?

So I think this is in regards to uh eliminating um landscaping overall.

So what staff is saying is that if they stop providing all these code requirements, it's kind of out of character for the area.

Um we don't gener generally support these standards to be waived, but they're saying basically uh given the lack of residential development to the east of U.S.

Highway 95 and the difficulty of maintaining uh non-native uh desert landscaping for this area.

Staff finds the site would be enhanced by maintaining the existing native uh desert vegetation.

So basically, we are saying instead of bringing all these uh airban standards to this area, we better just keep the natural vegetation as is, and we don't have any issue with that basically.

And nobody maintains it, so it's just if they die, they die.

I mean, uh, we have a section in the code for maintaining the landscaping.

We don't have a code enforcement, you know.

Our department doesn't have a code enforcement, but if they are in violation, they are in violation, so there is standards for maintaining landscaping.

So that's their responsibility to there is code violation if they don't maintain it and preserve it.

Correct, yeah.

We have sometimes code violation for uh dried vegetation trees, so uh they bring it to us and we make sure that they comply with code.

Okay, there's no police.

All right, all right.

Any other questions on routine?

All right, let's let's go to non-routine.

Uh moving on to non-routine action items.

Um, item number 17, um, use permit uh 260049.

This was the holdover from the early uh April Planning Commission meeting.

Uh just to um just to re recap this is a use permit to allow for outdoor storage um along with waivers of the outdoor storage adjacent to residential districts.

Um also to allow for six-foot high screen wall along the northeast property line, uh eliminate street landscaping along Fremont Street, allow chain link fence along Fremont Street, uh, where for instance and wall along the streets shall be decorative decorative.

Uh the increase in the height uh within the front setback of six feet, uh where three feet is the maximum allowed in that in the front yard area, and step the um recommend denial on this request.

Uh the centerized manor town board recommended denial.

Uh no for uh letter support or cards and uh protest against uh this item has been received.

Uh just a note that this item has been held twice.

Item number 18 uh waiver development standards uh WS260154 holdover.

Uh this is a waiver to reduce the um uh set uh rear setback uh in conjunction of the existing single family residence to legalize the home gym and uh storage building that has been constructed.

Staff is recommending denial because the required setback reduction for the addition is self-imposed hardship and construction without a permit.

This item was previously held by the planning uh by the planning commission and is returning uh tonight for consideration.

Uh the Sunrise Manor Town Board recommended approval.

Uh there are three cards of support and three cards against the request.

Item number 19, waiver waiver development standards, request to reduce the rear rear and rear and site interior setbacks for an existing detached carport.

Uh staff finds that uh similar request was approved for the property to the south for a detached metal uh carport.

Staff is concerned that the carport does not match the primary residence in colors or materials, and requests may have a negative impact on the surrounding properties.

The request is as stated as a self-important imposed hardship and cannot support the waiver development standards.

Enterprise Town Board recommended approval.

One card and one letter of support has been received, and no protest cards has been received.

Item number 20, uh WS 260178.

Waiver request to eliminate the site interior for detached carport and uh side street setbacks for of an existing patio cover.

Uh request to reduce building separation between existing carport and the house.

The subject site has an active code enforcement case for building without a permit.

The RV cover is too large for the area and resulted in a self-imposed hardship.

The site has sufficient area to build the patio cover, could have been constructed to meet the required setbacks.

The applicant has provide letter of support from the adjacent neighbor to the north.

However, elimination and reduction of setbacks and separation generally decrease the aesthetic appeal of residential areas and pose negative impacts for the surrounding neighbor neighborhood.

Staff cannot support this request.

The support uh Sunrise Manor Town Board recommended approval, three cards of uh approval uh for approval, and three cards or two cards rather uh against the request.

Item 21 waiver to request uh to reduce the uh side interior setback and allow the site interior setback for the primary structure to not be in accordance with RS20 uh district standards.

The site has enough space on the lot to comply with Title 30 setback requirements.

Uh proposed addition may have a negative impact on the adjacent properties and the parcel in the neighborhood protection overlay.

The overlay seeks to preserve the required setbacks for primary structures per section 302026.

Uh staff has uh staff uh uh considers this request to be self-imposed hardship and cannot support this request.

The Lone Mountain uh commit uh CAC recommended approval.

Uh there are two cards of uh uh cards of support and three cards against the request.

Uh items 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26 are being held to the um July 7 uh Planning Commission meeting and likewise to the um August 5th, 2026 uh Board of County Commissioners.

Uh companion the next items are companion items 27, 28, and 20 uh 29 and 30.

Plan amendment to redesignate the site from neighborhood commercial to business employment.

Uh the request to redesignate the site to business employment is too intense for and not compatible with the areas to the west side uh on the west side of Edmond Street.

The site is adjacent to existing single-family residences in the RS20 zone within the uh NPO neighbor neighborhood protection overlay to the west.

The request does not comply with the policy 6.221, 6.2 of the master plan, which promotes ensuring that design and intensity of the new development is compatible with the established neighborhoods and uses.

The uh request is no, not consistent with the policy 1.4.4 of the master plan, which encourages in field development that is compatible with the scale and intensity of the surrounding area.

Therefore, staff cannot support this request.

The spring town uh Spring Valley Town Board recommended denial.

Uh one card of uh of support has been received, one uh six cards and one letter of uh letter against the request.

Item 28 uh the zone change to reclassify the site from RS20 and CP.

RS20 is the ring uh residential single family 20 and CP uh commercial professional to uh industrial park IP.

Uh staff finds the request for industrial park zoning district is too intense for uh the the surrounding area, especially on the west side of West uh the west side of uh Edmond Street.

Uh industrial park zone allows for various light manufacturing use, including vehicle maintenance, distribution centers, warehouse, flex space, uh technology, and light industry.

The site is adjacent to an existing ranch estate neighborhood to the west.

The proposed um industrial park or IP would permit higher intensity uh uses for to further encroach into the established NPORNP overlay.

Admin Street should function as a border between the industrial uses to the east and the NPORNP farther to the west.

For these reasons, that um staff finds that the IP zoning is not appropriate for this uh location.

Uh the next item uh is to uh vacation to request an abandoned uh easements and portions of the right-of-way uh as these easements are no longer needed for the development, and the vacation of uh the right-of-way is are being requested to be c to be vacated to accommodate for the uh detached sidewalks.

The Spring Valley Town Board recommended approval.

Uh one card uh and support has been received.

Uh seven cards and one letter received against the request.

Item number 30, so waiver development standards.

Uh the applicant is requesting waivers for the reduced setback for the proposed uh fire pump building and for loading space adjacent to residential uh development.

Staff finds the uh pump building uh the fire pump building uh can be relocated elsewhere on the site without the needing a waiver, so staff uh can cannot support this request.

The loading area on the office side of the main building from the residential area and then is fully screened with the added buffer uh setback and architectural treatment.

Uh that uh staff can could support the waiver.

However, staff is not supporting the companion items, including the design review.

Staff is unable to support the waiver request.

Uh Spring Valley Town Board recommended uh denial.

And uh one card of uh um support has been received.

Um six uh cards uh and one letter against the request.

The following items are um item 31, 32, 33, and 34.

Uh first is the plan plan amendment to re-designate the site from neighborhood commercial to compact neighborhood.

The master plan encourages higher density uses.

Staff finds that compact uh neighborhood land use designation appropriate for this location.

Uh the enterprise town board recommended approval.

Uh, three cards and one letter uh for support and five cards for against the the request.

Item 32, zone change to reclassify from CG to RS2.

Staff finds that the uh site is no longer viable as CG or commercial general.

The area has transitioned more towards residential development.

The RS2 zoning on the site is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and is in harmony with the development trends for the area.

Uh staff finds the RS2 zoning is appropriate for this location.

Uh Enterprise Town Board recommended approval.

Uh two cards and two letters of support and five cards uh against the request.

Item 33 uh waiver development standards for attached single family residential development with waivers.

Uh the applicant uh submitted revised plans and was previously uh subject to previous hold by the uh request of the applicant.

Uh the building height has been reduced to 35 feet, uh meaning that meeting the maximum height permitted by section 30208B.

Therefore, uh waiver number one is no longer required.

The west facing balconies have been removed, eliminating the need for the waiver.

Therefore, waiver uh 2B is no longer required.

The perimeter uh wall has been revised to provide a six foot tall wall along the north and the east property line, uh satisfying the applicable uh wall height requirements.

Therefore, waivers 3A, 3B are no longer required.

Uh however, existing waivers remains in place in steps recommended uh recommendation of denial is unchanged.

Enterprise town board recommended denial.

One card and one letter uh of support has been has been received.

Seven cards and two letters received against uh the request.

Uh item 34 is a tenative map for uh for 19 lot uh residential subdivision.

Enterprise town board recommended denial.

The following items uh 35, 36, 37, 38, and 39 are companion items.

Uh plan amendment to uh redesignate the site from neighborhood commercial to compact neighborhood.

Uh Russell Road separates higher density uses from the RS20 RNP area to the south, and the adjacent parcels are planned for ranch estate neighborhood.

CN is too dense, uh conflicts with the policy 1.5.1 and places future residents next to uh gas station and vehicle wash built, assuming commercial use.

Uh staff find CN is an inappropriate at this location.

Uh Spring Valley Town Board uh recommended uh approval, one card of uh support received and six cards received against uh request.

Uh item 36, the zone change uh to currently uh plans and uh plan uh uh NC and zoned RS20, which is uh already allowed, uh airport compatible uses changing to CN slash uh land use and um RS2 would add any more, add many more homes uh directly under the aircraft uh overflights.

Uh the parcel lies fully within the uh AE60 noise contour with long established and increasing flight activity.

Staff recommends denial because the proposed uh residential density is incompatible with the current and future airport noise levels.

Uh Spring Valley Town Board recommended approval, one card of support received, uh six cards and what uh one letter of protest received for this uh request.

Item 37 is uh vacation abandonment to vacate portions of Russell Road and uh uh Red Rock Street.

Uh the red the Russell Road segment is needed to accommodate for uh detached sidewalks.

The full stretch of the uh Red Rock Street between Russell and Quail is requested for vacation to allow development uh on the site.

Uh Spring Valley Town Board recommended recommended approval.

Uh two cards of uh of support received and six cards uh protest received.

Item 38 um waivers development standards to the applicant proposes a town home development with attached units.

Um the applicant has uh submitted revised plans affecting the site plan, uh landscape plan, floor plans, elevations, cross sections, and companion uh tenanted map.

The revisions reduce the unit count from 54 to 50, increase the minimum lot area to 1848 square feet, uh consolidating the open space and common elements, uh revise wall heights, adjust private street widths and interior walkways, relocate uh stub streets, reconfigure parking, update interior landscaping, and modify building layouts and architectural features with the tentative map uh updated accordingly.

Um as a result, uh waiver number one is reduced in intensity.

Waiver two A increases the wall from eight feet to 10, 10 feet, and waiver number two can be withdrawn while the remaining waivers remain unchanged.

Uh based on these revisions, that maintains the current uh recommendation as the change do not substantially address concerns concerns regarding the lot size and the wall height.

Spring Valley Town Board recommended approval, one card of support received and seven cards uh of protest received.

Um item 39 is uh TM uh tenative map uh 450 four lot attached single family subdivision.

Uh Spring Valley Town Board recommended approval, and that uh concludes the non-routine items of this agenda.

Thank you.

Thank you, staff.

Um, so what I'll do is I'll turn it over to commissioners for any questions on the routine actual items that were reviewed.

Um, Commissioner Kalarski.

Yeah, I just want to say that on item number 17.

We heard it well, they've come down twice, we've held it twice.

Um today, staff received today, and this was a month ago that we held it, a revised set of plans on what they want to do, which has created some problems.

So I'm gonna hear it again and then I'll just decide.

Uh I believe Commissioner Stone asked them to do a professional uh drawing.

I believe it was this particular item, but I'm not quite certain.

Yeah, I think I just said you know, professional to scale drawing.

And did they provide that?

I don't know if it was a professional to scale, but I do know that they they did send something.

It appears that we receive professional to scale drawing, but they are incomplete, they're not uh it's literally just a box basically of the proper showing the property line.

It's not showing any of the requirements we already uh basically uh work with the customer on, so it's not something we already told the applicant this is not uh it wouldn't be acceptable as it either even um accepting the application with those plans.

So you know, Commissioner Kalarski, I I would just be willing to just tell them to hold it and hold it a third time and not waste our time and go ahead and continue to work on making it right.

And if I may uh actually the plan we received today triggers at least two more waivers, uh, or maybe three.

That was not listed when you when on the agenda you see tonight.

So there you have it.

Sorry, um any other any other questions from the commissioners on routine non routine action items.

Okay, no other questions, and we'll move on to the next item on the agenda.

Um are there any new up and coming ordinances?

There are none.

Okay, and then the next item on our agenda are discuss any administrative items.

Uh none as a sign.

Okay, and that brings us to the last item on our agenda, which is to open it up for um public comments from the general public.

Um, this is a section of our meeting um for the briefing that you can come down and make comments.

We can't act on any of them, but you can certainly put it on the record.

Seeing no one coming down for for public comments, we'll close that section of the meeting and adjourn the briefing until 7 o'clock.