Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Residential Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commission approves amended variance for patio cover in Southern Highlands with condition to flush fascia

5734367 · June 3, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The commission approved an amended variance for a patio cover in the Southern Highlands planned community with the condition that exposed tubes/fascia be made flush with the house; staff had recommended denial but the Enterprise Town Advisory Board and neighbors supported the applicant.

Clark County planning commissioners on June 3 approved an amended variance to reduce rear and side setbacks for an existing patio cover in the Southern Highlands master-planned community, attaching a condition that exposed structural tubes be flush with the house.

Staff recommended denial of VC25-0283 for the 0.10-acre property in an R-2 (medium-density) residential zone inside the PC (Planned Community) overlay. The Enterprise Town Advisory Board recommended approval, and the record contained 15 cards in support and one letter in support and one card and one letter in protest. Jacqueline Apiar of COTA Patios said the patio cover was attached up to an existing portion of the house that already had a three-foot setback variance; the built cover has a rear setback of 7 feet 3 inches where 10 feet is required.

Owner Patrick Nixon told commissioners similar patio covers are common in the neighborhood and that the structure could not be located elsewhere on the lot. Commissioners discussed safety and setbacks; Commissioner Millhica (speaking from the dais) asked that exposed tubes be made flush with the house. The commission moved to approve VC25-0283 with the added condition that tubes (fascia) be flush with the house; the motion passed.

Discussion vs. decision: commissioners debated compliance with setbacks and neighborhood context as discussion. The formal decision approved the variance subject to the flush-fascia condition and any building-department inspections and permits required.