Oh right now we have the discussion about this one.

Good morning and welcome to the January seventh meeting of the Clark County Commission zoning agenda.

Director Riel, I'll turn it over to you.

The first item on the agenda is public comment.

Anyone wishing to speak on an item on today's agenda can come forward at this time.

Just again, anyone wishing to speak on any item that is not for public comment later can speak at this time.

Okay, seeing none, Director Real.

The second item is the approval of the agenda after considering any additions or deletions of items.

Commissioners, there's no request for additions or deletions of items, therefore the agenda stands ready for your approval.

Mr.

Chairman over approval of the agenda.

So motion for approval, cast your vote.

Motion carries.

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

The minutes of the December third, 2025 zoning meeting are ready for approval.

I'm over minutes.

Next are the routine action items, which consists of items four through twenty-eight, except items fourteen through seventeen will be whole uh will be pulled and heard separately.

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 public hearing is now open and the routine action portion of the agenda stands ready for approval.

It's a motion for approval.

Next on the agenda are companion items 14 through 17.

Uh item 14 PA twenty five seven hundred zero three four.

Holdover plan amendment to redesignate the land use category from RN ranch estate neighborhood to LN, low intensity suburban neighborhood on two point zero nine acres, generally located on the southeast corner of McLeod Drive and Viking Road within Paradise.

Item fifteen BS twenty five zero five five nine.

Hold over, vacate and abandon a portion of right-away being Viking Road located between McLeod Drive and Mojave Road, and a portion of right away being McLeod Drive, located between Viking Road and Flamingo Road within Paradise.

Item 16 WS 250560.09 acres in an RS five point two residential single family five point two zone, generally located south of Viking Road and East of McLeod Drive within Paradise.

And then item 17 TM25500140 holdover tentative map consisting of ten single family residential lots and common lots on two point oh nine acres and an RS five point two residential single family five point two zone, generally located south of Viking Road and East of McCloud Drive within Paradise.

Good morning.

Good morning, Jennifer Lazovich, 1980 Festival Plaza Drive here this morning on behalf of the applicant.

The aerial shows you the location of the property, which is on McLeod and Viking.

This property has some history that I'll just take a quick moment to talk about in working with the neighbors and listening to some of their concerns.

When we started the neighborhood meeting process, we originally proposed a total of 14 lots.

The neighbors expressed some opposition and concern to that.

And working with Commissioner Segerbloom, we reduced the number of lots before we filed the application to be a total of 10 lots.

So the application that's in front of you today includes this site plan.

We filed that site plan.

So from the very beginning we uh after getting the neighborhood input at the neighborhood meeting we started with 10 lots as a result um staff recommended approval which we appreciated also town board and planning commission.

The reason why this item has been pulled from the agenda or the consent agenda this morning is to deal with some additional conditions.

Right before the holidays Commissioner Segarbloom myself and Rick Barron met with the neighbors on site at the property and it was really because of their concern over the inconsistencies that exist out in this area in some locations farther to the west on Viking there have been some applications approved where there will be a detached sidewalk which is part of what your code is now but as you move along portions of Viking particularly to the west and portions of McLeod to the south and also to the north there's an attached sidewalk and so the neighbors really their appeal was we just want it to kind of look like one cohesive community so can we do attach sidewalks and then the other thing that came up was again with this notion of patchwork but sitting between our site and to the the south right here is the Vegas PBS building there is one privately owned loth they have dedicated but there are no full improvements on their side so there's no curb gutter sidewalk or even paving so as a result you see how McLeod traveling north bottlenecks right here and it only allows for one lane and particularly as you get to the intersection at Viking and McLeod there's only one lane if you want to go right you got to wait.

If you want to go straight you got to wait but they asked if we could work with public works when we do the additional paving on our side and do a right turn lane with an arrow that would allow for a through lane on northbound on McLeod as well as a right turn lane for the people that want to go eastbound on Viking.

So that is the the purpose of the additional conditions that I'm about to read into the record it will allow us to do an attached sidewalk on both McLeod and Viking with six feet of landscaping behind and then you will hear a longer condition where I talk about the pavement that we will do and the transition with the right hand turn on to Viking so we would ask to add the following conditions install a five foot wide attached sidewalk with six feet of landscaping between the sidewalk and perimeter wall along Viking Road and McLeod Drive adjacent to the project the next condition would read paving along McLeod Drive will connect to at the south to the existing asphalt paving adjacent to APN 162-13-801-016 which in parentheses Vegas PBS and we'll extend the two lanes of travel headed northbound where one lane will then become a right turn only on to Viking Road full street improvements to include curb and sidewalk begin at the project's southern boundary which is APN 162-801-001 and finally we'd like to add a condition that says applicant is not required to install a sidewalk or street lights adjacent to APN 162 1380108.

We also included a an exhibit that shows what that paving will look like and you can see the right hand turn arrows here you can see this oil on the east side of McLeod you'll have that through lane that can continue you'll have the ability to go right and it'll help with the paving and transition from the PBS building moving forward so that the neighbors don't have as much in and out in and out depending on how the projects around the area have developed.

I know that sounds kind of complicated.

I think it makes a lot of sense to myself, certainly Commissioner Gibson.

We provided these conditions and this exhibit to public works and planning in advance of the meeting.

And so I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Oh, one other thing, I'm sorry that he did want to note.

We are installing street lights adjacent to our property on uh Viking and McLeod.

That was important to the neighbors that we put in street lights, and we are doing that as we don't we didn't ask for a waiver, but I wanted to make it known that we are putting in street lights.

Thank you very much.

This is a public hearing.

Anyone wishing to speak on items 14 through 17 can come forward at this time.

Seeing none, I'll turn it over to Commissioner Sagerblum.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, and I apologize for your first vote having to be against uh um that item, but honestly, we went and met with the neighbors, and there are attached sidewalks everywhere, and there was a when you're doing these infill projects, you want the neighbors to feel that it fits into what's already there.

So, with that, I reluctantly agreed to have the attached sidewalk, but I I promise this will be the only time I agree to that.

Um, but anyway, we did work, Mr.

Barron and Jennifer worked with the neighbors, and so I think we have a really good plan and and uh so I just get that thank everybody so much.

So with that, I would make a I guess there's nobody here, so I'll make a motion to approve subject to what Jennifer put in the record.

There's a motion for approval.

Cast your vote.

Motion carries.

Commissioners, if we can take some of the items out of order, I'd like to jump to items 39 through 41 and then go back to uh the beginning of the non-routine action portion of the agenda.

So item 39, ZC250802, zone change three classified five acres from an RS20 residential single family 20 zone to an RM50 residential multifamily 50 zone, generally located west of Harvin Street alignment and south of Loretta Lane with an enterprise.

Item 40 VS 250803, vacant abandoned easements of interest county located between Loretta Lane and Barber Lane Alignment and Rivero Street Alignment and Parvin Street Alignment with an enterprise.

And then item 41 WS 250804, waivers of development standards for the following reduced side street setback, reduce street landscaping, reduced parking area landscaping, and reduce throat depth.

Design review for a proposed multifamily residential development on five acres and an RM50 residential multifamily 50 zone, generally located north of Barber Lane Alignment and West of Parvent Street Alignment within Enterprise.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Good morning.

My name is Nancy Amundsen, 520 South 4th Street.

I am representing the applicant on this project.

Commissioners, um, for your information, this project came before you on a Tuesday business agenda for affordable housing funds in August of this year.

They received money from the CC community Clark County Community Housing Fund.

It was the additional awards, it was item number 41 on that agenda.

We've been working with staff on this project, and we have we are very pleased to bring this forward to you.

I do apologize for some things going on.

I have I don't have the full display.

I'll give you everything I can, but I don't have um some of the aerials.

This area is south of Star.

It's actually south of Neal.

It's an area off of Parvin.

We have a multifamily development to the north east, and we have approved multifamily developments on Barbara, which is one of the corners of the site.

We worked um with staff to make sure that we try to meet all of their requirements of note.

They had requested that we item waiver number two.

Um they had requested that we add trees in between the sidewalk to make sure that we had the appropriate landscaping.

We're withdrawing waiver number two without prejudice, and we have a landscape plan that we have submitted to staff a couple of weeks ago showing that we will put all the required landscaping.

The initial concern was that the landscaping, they wanted more landscaping on the project.

This is affordable senior housing, but we do understand that as the properties to the east are developed, we're gonna have more people walking, walking to Las Vegas Boulevard, walking in the area, and we do need landscaping between the sidewalk and the back of curb.

The other item that we have is we have a reduction in a we have a reduction of five feet on this corner of the building.

That was found after everything was accepted.

Staff did a wonderful job of finding it, and it's just one corner, but at that point we had totally designed the project.

So I would request that the five foot at this corner be allowed to encroach.

The reason for the five feet is the engineer was um measuring between the corner and back of curb, but the way the code reads, you have to go in five feet.

So that's that's the issue here.

The other the other two concerns or the other three concerns.

One was the fact that there's only one landscape island here.

There's eight and eight with one landscape island.

We had to request a waiver because they need to be six parking spaces on either side.

Umscape plan, you'll note that there's landscaping everywhere on the site.

So we feel there's sufficient um shade.

Also, they are proposing a lot of parking spots with all of the Xs are going to be parking lot covers with solar on it.

They're also going to put solar on the roof.

So this project not only is affordable housing and it's a hundred percent affordable senior housing, it also is um it also is sustainable because of all of the parking lot landscaping, and because of the um covering.

The other two items are public works items, and we'd like to be able to work with public works to make sure that the entrances are they work for public works.

We feel that the main entrance eventually, right now, the way to get to the site is Neil to Parvin to Barbara, and the main entrance will be Barbara.

But eventually, there will be multifamily on either side of side of Barbara.

So when that's built through, Barbara will be the main entrance.

Um, Public Works told us they had concerns.

One is this little area here.

They're afraid someone's gonna park there, and I'm not gonna argue at that point, but we'd like to be able to work with public works to make sure that the entranceway is meets their standards.

They had said one of their if approved conditions would be to work with public works, and we absolutely would.

The other is public works requested off of parven that we remove seven parking spaces here.

We really don't want to reduce the parking that much.

Although parking is reduced because of its affordable housing and because it's senior housing.

We still don't want to continue reducing it, but we will work with public works to meet whatever needs they have.

Um and with that, I'm trying to be short.

I'll open it up for questions.

This is a public hearing.

Anyone wishing to speak can come forward at this time on items 39 through 41.

Uh seeing none, uh, I guess just to highlight what you said.

This is an item that we have funded through CHF funds in part.

Uh, so we have all conceptually at least seen this design before.

Um, you have withdrawn waiver of development standards number two uh for the record, and then there's two conditions that I would like to highlight from public works.

Uh, you mentioned the seven spots on the uh parven entrance.

Yes.

Um I'm I I don't want to dictate that you remove seven spots because if you can find them somewhere, that's fine.

But I do want to condition that there be a minimum of 75 foot uh throat depth on that entrance.

Um and then the second condition related to public works, which you also already mentioned and agreed to would be the Barbara entrance, uh, that there be a redesign in working with public works to make sure you're accommodating what they need.

Absolutely.

Okay, um, Mr.

Papazion, does that capture the commissioner?

It does appreciate it.

Okay, I'll turn it over to Commissioner Kirkpatrick.

Did you have a question?

No.

Okay.

In that case, I will move for approval of items 39, 40, and 41.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you and happy new year.

Thank you for moving me up.

Commissioners, I'm gonna go back to the first item off of the non-routine portion of the agenda.

Item 29, ET25400 124 for AR 23400 123 that's related to UC 210332.

Application for review for use permits, second extension of time for the following.

Swap meet fairground recreational facility with accessory food, beverage, and retail sales, waiver development standards to eliminate landscaping.

Design reviews for the following swap meet, fair ground, and recreational facility on 4.6 acres in a CG commercial general zone, generally located west of Bulldar Highway and south of Indios Avenue within Paradise.

David Anderson, 4700 Boat Highway here on the behalf of ERBR LLC.

We're here for a second extension of time for the get the landscaping done on the rear of the property of Boat and Highway Swap Meet.

The requirements were for 14 trees to be installed on the rear of the property.

Right now, we currently have eight installed as of uh last month, and we just uh need a little more time for the rest of them.

Does that complete your presentation?

Yes.

Thank you.

Uh this is a public hearing.

Anyone wishing to speak on item 29 can come forward at this time.

Seeing none, we'll turn it over to Commissioner Sagerblown.

Good morning.

So how much time do you need?

Um not much, six months, a year.

How about four months?

That's fine.

All right, Sammy, can we?

I was gonna if it's four months.

Uh I would recommend that we hold this application for four months, and then that way they can come back.

It keeps this application alive.

We don't have to approve it, and then they have to reapply.

The only thing they would be required to do is pay a renotification fee, which uh is saving them some additional funds.

All right, so is that okay with you?

Yes.

All right, so I make a motion to hold it.

Uh the town board uh voted against you, so I mean this is your last chance, so please put those trees in.

Yes.

Thank you.

And then just to confirm the first meeting in April, if that would be April, February, March, April, May.

Sorry, so we'll go to May.

That would be May 6th.

So it'll be held to May 6th.

That's my motion to hold it to May 6.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Please cast your vote.

Motion carries.

Next is item 30, ET 25400-126.

Use permit, second extension of time for a cannabis establishment, cannabis retail store, waivers of development standards to reduce landscaping a design review for the following commercial building and finish grade on 0.37 acres in a CG commercial general zone, generally located west of Fort Apache Road and south of Hacienda Avenue within Spring Valley.

Good morning.

Good morning, Mr.

Chair.

Commissioners, my name is Tony Sless.

Address 1980 Festival Plaza Drive here on behalf of the applicant.

As you can see, our site is highlighted here on yellow on Fort Apache and Hacienda.

Uh by way of background, uh, on in November of 2021, uh, this body did uh approve a retail cannabis store with drive-through.

Um, the reason we are coming in for our second extension of time is that this site was the subject of a protracted litigation that did go up to the Supreme Court, in which the county and the applicant um were successful in.

Uh notwithstanding that though, we have um if you go out there today, you can see not only do we have building permits, but the building is built, certificate of occupancy has been issued, and our business license as well.

Uh, the business license was issued um after the extension was to expire, so that's why we did submit this out of abundance of caution.

So uh despite all that, they are now open and operating, and so we appreciate uh not only town board's recommendation of approval, but planning staff's recommendation approval.

We agree with all the conditions and happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Uh, this is a public hearing.

Anyone wishing to speak can come forward at this time.

Seeing none, I'll turn it over.

Item 30 to Commissioner Jones.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

And uh just this the only reason this wasn't on consent is because as a board we voted to have all cannabis related establishments um go to main uh portion of the hearing.

So with that, I'll go ahead and move for approval agenda item number 30.

There's a motion for approval.

Please cast your vote.

That motion carries.

Thank you.

Next is item 31.

UC250794, use permit for a batch plant, waivers of development standards for the following.

Increased structure height, waifull off site improvements, reduced throat depth, and permit existing driveways where commercial curb return driveways are required.

Design review for a batch plant and associated accessory structures on five acres in an IL industrial light zone, generally located south of Richmar Avenue and east of Redwood Street within Enterprise.

Good morning.

Good morning, Mr.

Chairman.

George Rogers Architect 6325 South Jones representing the applicant in this item.

This is a batch plant that has existed since 2003.

It's uh applications expired, and so we reapplied in order to make the batch plant um properly entitled.

It uh the new ordinance um requirements complicated the issue just a bit and caused some of the requests for waivers.

Um perhaps the most uh important waiver is the off-sites.

There's access on Richmar only and no access on Gary, but there's no off-sites constructed, and they haven't been.

This is at the end of the street right now, just about one more lot to the east is um the end of the street, and it's a dead end, and there's just private industrial parcels that exist down there in the old railroad yard um that used to be down there.

And so we're asking for a waiver of off-sites.

However, we recognize that what off-sites can't be waived forever, and we certainly would be willing to consider anything, uh, an agreement for later a review, something to satisfy public works and you uh in that.

Other than that, the site, the the the uh the site conditions are just as they've existed for certainly 12 years, longer, 20 years, and uh there's been no changes to it, it's just the way it's been operating.

So we ask for your approval.

I can answer any questions you may have.

Thank you very much.

This is a public hearing.

Anyone wishing to speak on item 31 can come forward at this time.

Seeing none, Commissioner Jones.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, thank you, Mr.

Rogers.

Um I talked to Mr.

Pozian uh before the meeting today, and he and I both agree that it would be helpful in this whole area to really pull together stakeholders and talk through what the real improvements that we want to see over there.

We've had this discussion a couple times over the last year or so.

Um so I'm gonna go ahead and move for approval of agenda item number 31 with a one-year review, and we're gonna commit within the next 30 days or so to pull together stakeholders over there and just really talk through what we want to see in terms of um off site improvements, curb and gutter, etc.

And work with you on what that looks like over the next year.

Great.

We'll be available to you.

Thank you.

Okay.

That was in the form of a motion for approval.

That was yes.

Okay.

There's a motion for approval on item 31.

That motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next companion items 32 and 33.

Item 32, VS 250807, vacant abandoned easements of interest, Cork County, located between Grand Canyon Drive and Park Street, and Regina Avenue and Centennial Parkway within Lone Mountain.

And then item 33, WS 250806, waivers of development standards for the following.

Eliminate street landscaping and waive full offsite improvements.

Design review for a single family residential development on two acres in an RS20 residential single family 20 zone within the neighborhood protection RNP overlay.

Generally located east of King Grand Canyon Drive and north of Regina Avenue within Lone Mountain.

Good morning, uh Mr.

Chairman, members of the commission.

Uh I don't know if it's too late or not, but happy new year.

Uh wish all of you and staff uh pleasant year moving forward.

Uh we're here tonight.

Uh we presented before the CAC, but no vote had happened that night.

Uh but we are moving forward today with a plan that it was somewhat similar to what we did a few months back along uh Regina and Grand Canyon, just opposite.

Just sorry, could you can you just say your name for the record?

Oh, I apologize.

Michael Bradshaw with uh Toll Brothers, 1140 North Town Center Drive Suite 250.

Uh so to continue the uh this site uh uh to the south had eight lots.

This one has two or four.

Uh uh as you can see.

Uh we do have the landscaping as we provided to the south as well at the entry to the development.

Uh we have a sidewalk that is laid out uh along the uh Regina.

Uh uh Grand Canyon will stay as is.

Uh any additions that we would need to make if during construction uh will be replaced.

Um we uh appreciate that uh staff recognizes that our design plan uh the design and floor plan and elevations are nice enough to approve.

We have four lots with nine different elevations to provide to our uh customer.

Um would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Uh again, this is uh North S20 site, uh, an RMP district.

Uh so we do want to maintain the uh integrity of the neighborhood and what we have uh seen uh approved uh with the previous 34 lots that we did in the northwest.

Uh so with that I conclude and uh look forward to any comments.

Thank you very much.

This is a public hearing.

Anyone wishing to speak can come forward at this time.

Saying none, Commissioner Becker.

Uh yes.

Um for these waivers that you've requested.

Um they do match the rest of the area, so I'm comfortable with that on both of the waivers for one and two.

Uh, with one having the conditions on the record.

Um, so I would move to approve with the conditions.

There's a motion for approval.

Please cast your vote.

May I may I add just for comment?

Uh the condition that reads today uh says the optic to construct a five-foot asphalt path along Regina and Grand Canyon.

Yes.

Since it does exist on Grand Canyon, we wouldn't be installing, just improving what we would obviously uh have to correct during construction.

So we make that adjustment to that condition.

For the record, yeah.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Uh, I think we should leave that condition there.

We we want to ensure that the asphalt path that's there is not damaged during construction, and if it's not damaged during construction, we'd be okay to leave it.

But if it is damaged, we we would want to make sure that um you know that the people in the area, kids in the area had somewhere to walk and not on damaged asphalt.

So do you understand those conditions?

I do.

Uh but it does say five, and it's currently six along Grand Canyon.

So I just want to I don't want any situation to arise with that.

I mean, I know we're it's a more than less.

I think we will work with it.

That stopped selling once you sold, but uh leave that to Commissioner Bell.

Maybe splitting hairs, but I just want to be clear.

So do I.

Thank you.

So that's my motion with the conditions that we have on the record.

Okay, thank you.

There's a motion for approval.

That motion carries.

Very much.

Thank you.

Next companion items 34 through 37.

Item 34, PA 25, 7004.

Plan amendment to redesignate the existing land use category from open lands to industrial employment on 7.5 acres, generally located west of Jones Boulevard and north of Serene Avenue with an enterprise.

Item 35, ZC250726.

Zone change to reclassify 6.33 reclassify a 6.33 portion of a 7.5 acre site from an RS20 residential single family 20 zone to an IL industrial light zone, generally located west of Jones Boulevard and north of Serene Avenue with an enterprise.

Item 36 VS 250728.

Vacate and abandoned easements of interest to Cart County, located between El Camino Road and Jones Boulevard and Oletta Avenue and Serene Avenue, and a portion of right-of-way being Oletta Avenue located between El Camino Road and Jones Boulevard with an enterprise.

And then item 37 WS 250727 waivers and development standards for the following.

Eliminate street landscaping, waifull off site improvements, and alternative driveway geometrics.

Design review for proposed office warehouse complex on 7.4 acres in an IL industrial light zone, generally located south of Oleta Avenue and west of Jones Boulevard with an enterprise.

Good morning.

Good morning, Liz Olsen, 1980 Festival Plaza Drive here on behalf of the applicant.

This is just over seven or just under seven and a half acres.

We're located off of Jones, adjacent to the railroad tracks here.

The right-of-way to the south of us is Serene, and to the north of us is OLEDA.

The property is located as you can see, really essentially in the middle of industrial, adjacent to that railroad.

This particular parcel, we have two parcels.

The southern parcel here is still planned and zoned for residential half acre lots.

Obviously, we don't believe that this will uh develop out as residential since it is surrounded by industrial uses.

So we are requesting that we have a plan amendment and a zone change to match the surrounding area and our um northern parcel here.

That will allow us to develop an office warehouse development as you can see here.

We have four separate buildings.

All of our loading docks are in the center of the buildings.

We have some outside storage yards, which are completely screened.

The entire property as well is screened by an eight foot fence or eight foot wall.

We have detached sidewalks to the north with two access points here.

Um a couple of our waivers were requesting to uh remove all of the offsites and landscaping along Serene.

I'll get into that in a moment.

And we also have a throat depth waiver up to the north here.

Um we worked with public works on this.

Um they were comfortable because we added some additional landscaping in here, but more importantly, we are at a dead end, so you don't have that traffic coming through.

So this is a photo if you're standing on Jones looking at Serene, which is to the south of us again here.

The reason we're requesting no offsites and landscaping is because the two adjacent neighbors to us are currently developed in the right-of-way.

So you cannot actually drive on to Serene currently, which is why we do not have any access points as well along Serene.

Um, Serene is also planned uh for the future either overpass or underpass.

So if that overpass or underpass does go in eventually down the road, you wouldn't even be able to see any of that landscaping.

So we'd like to just keep the back of our building here.

Um there has been some concern by one of our adjacent neighbors to our north here that we are not providing any access along Serene, and we're only providing access along OLED.

Um, we'd love to have access on Serene.

Unfortunately, we just can't access it.

So we did provide two here.

Um, there was some discussion about uh concerns of parking along the north.

So we have um provided a proposed condition at planning commission that we would be happy to provide some no parking signs along Alita if that um would be helpful to the board.

But otherwise, we're very thankful for staff and uh town board and um planning commission, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This is a public hearing on items 34 through 37.

Anyone wishing to speak can come forward at this time?

Good morning.

If you could just state your name for the record.

My name is John Goss.

I live at 2435 jointland street.

I own the property uh across the street from where this project is going in, and I'm not opposed to the project.

I actually sold the railroad, I developed OLED originally.

I sold the railroad, their property.

I'm happy with the no parking signs, but I want that all the way around Oletta Street, not just on the on the south side.

I want all through there, because right now we're currently out of a lot of vehicles are parking there, and so it's just gonna get worse with staging for these trucks.

So that's I'm happy with everything else.

We spoke with Mr.

Jones' office.

He was very nice.

Mr.

Petonion in uh public works or Antonio, I'll just say that.

And he was great and uh explained everything to me.

So as long as we can do the no parking signs, I'm gonna be happy.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Seeing no one else, I'll turn it over to Commissioner Jones.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, and I just want to say thank you to Antonio and uh crew for meeting with uh the gossips and really trying to understand their concerns.

Um my only question is we we're gonna condition this on uh no parking signs in terms of the parcels that are not included in this application, so across the street, the Union Pacific site.

Is there something that we can do in order to ensure that no parking signs go on that other side, even if it's not part of the condition?

Thank you, Commissioner.

I was looking to see if we had uh easements.

I pulled it up and it was a little unclear.

Um we could look at it typically our right-of-way goes to the back of sidewalk, and we could probably push those sign as far back on the sidewalk as possible.

But um we could we could work with them to to get it not only around the hammerhead but on the north and south side as well.

Okay.

So my my commitment is that uh Union Pacific owns their portion on that other site, so we will try to work with Union Pacific.

It's very difficult to work with, just FYI.

I'll be able to work with them to uh try and get no parking signs on the other parcels there.

And do you do you have no parking signs on your parcel?

Currently no, sir.

Okay.

Well, we'll work with you to get them up on Alita over there too.

Okay, whatever they do.

Sure.

Okay.

Well, that I'll go ahead and move for approval of agenda item number 35 with the additional condition that applicant is to post uh no parking signs along OLEDA, and we will coordinate for posting on um parcels that are not within this application.

And then motions for items 34 through 37.

What was that?

Sorry, 35 through 37.

34 through 37.

34 through seven.

Thank you.

Is a motion for approval?

Cast your vote.

Yeah, motion carries.

Thank you.

Next is item 38, ZC250786.

Zone change to reclassify 0.5 acres from a CP commercial professional zone to a CG commercial general zone, generally located west of Jones Street and north of Perkins Avenue within Moapa Valley.

Hi, my name is Melissa Skinner, 8672, Cactus Creek Drive.

I am the applicant here requesting for the conforming zone change.

I did want to put on record that ownership has changed from the stance dance studio B to MK3.

I did provide that ownership documentation to the planners earlier this week.

And with that, are there any questions?

Okay, this is a public hearing uh on item 38.

Anyone wishing to speak can come forward at this time.

Seeing none, Commissioner Kirkpatrick.

Uh thank you, uh Mr.

Chairman.

And so just to be clear for you and I said I would clarify it.

Um if the zone change does happen, it stays with the property regardless of who put in the application.

So you're good to go.

Uh so uh I would make a motion for approval on item number 38.

Um I do want to just reiterate what I said in my office.

There may be some additional hoops because we didn't review all of the information.

So just work with us and we'll keep you moving.

Okay.

Thank you.

There's a motion for approval.

Please cast your vote.

That motion carries.

Thank you.

Next is item 42, AG 25901075 is a request to consider uh an application for reconsideration.

UC 250762 and direct staff accordingly.

Commissioners, this application uh was for a medical dispensary on the last agenda.

The applicant had requested a uh cannabis dispensary uh for a lounge that they're uh currently working on on the subject site.

However, uh the state does not issue medical dispensaries anymore.

They should have requested a retail store, so we're asking for reconsideration so we can renotice this application as a retail cannabis retail store and bring it back for consideration.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Sagerbloom, anything to add?

Yes, just turns out there's confusion about under our ordinance.

We have a different category for a medical dispensary as opposed to a regular dispensary.

And so they applied for the I'm not sure which one they applied for, but they applied for the wrong one, but uh if we can reconsider this, that we can fix that.

And also I've talked to Sammy about bringing back an ordinance at some point to just combine the two because the truth is the state doesn't issue medical marijuana licenses anymore.

So I I would clarify what Commissioner Sager Bloom said on the record.

So we have historically had two different types of cannabis sales establishments.

One has been a medical use and one has been used to be recreational, now it's adult use.

We still have those categories.

The state in the legislative session, I think two one or two sessions ago, um, had changed, even though they still regulate uh medical cannabis and they still regulate adult use cannabis separately.

They are no longer issuing medical uh dispensary licenses anymore.

They are just issuing adult licenses, and then anybody who has an adult um sales license can also sell medical.

So what I'll do is I'll bring a discussion item back to see if the board wants us to uh to direct us to um merge those two uses together so we're just dealing with cannabis sales versus distinguishing between medical and adult use, similar to what we did for production testing and uh cultivation facilities.

So I'll do that in the future.

Thank you.

There's nothing else.

There's a motion for approval of the reconsideration.

Please cast your vote.

That motion carries.

Next are ordinances for introduction.

Um quite a number of them.

So uh item 43, ORD 25900516 is to introduce an ordinance for the adoption of a development agreement with L V Erie LLC for commercial development on 3.53 acres.

Item 44, ORD 25900 867 is to introduce an ordinance for adoption of a development agreement with TFC Mountains Edge LLC for commercial development on 3.88 acres.

Item 45 ORD 25900930 is uh ordinance to consider the adoption of a development agreement with TRIP Family Investments LLC for a restaurant with outdoor dining.

Item 46 is ORD 25900950 is to consider an adoption of a development agreement with Czech development for an expansion of an existing shopping center on 4.17 acres.

Item 47, ORD 25900961 is to consider adoption of a development agreement with cool storage of Las Vegas LLC for a warehouse and distribution center on 2.12 acres.

Item 48 ORD 25900977 is to consider adoption of a development agreement with Pasern Bermuda LLC for a multifamily residential development on 12.2 acres.

ORD sorry item 49 ORD 25900990 is to consider adoption of a development agreement with Toll South, L V L L C for a single family residential development on 15 acres.

And then lastly, item 50 ORD 25901051 is to introduce an ordinance to amend the official zoning map reclassifying certain properties as approved by the Board of County Commissioners on April 20th, 2022, and October 22nd, 2025.

Commissioners, we ask that you set the public hearing for January 21st, 2026.

We'll set the pub public hearing for January 21st, 2026.

And then this is the last time set aside for public comment.

Anyone wishing to speak on anything that's on your mind can come forward at this time.

Preferably related to the work of Clark County.

Good morning.

Good morning, Canada Jones 5645 Obama Drive.

I want to go back to Gen J Agenda 8 that was skipped over, number eight.

Everybody should have been aware because I did send out an email that we had issues with this.

We don't care that the business is there.

We don't want them to have access to our neighborhood.

We've been out getting a petition.

I have 37 names here against it.

Half of them houses anymore or Airbnbs.

We have an issue with people walk driving in our neighborhood.

We have semis, we have cars test driving constantly.

We need help.

And if y'all would like to have another copy of the let the email I sent everybody, you can sure make a copy.

So agenda number eight.

We do have an issue with it.

You shouldn't have flew on past us all.

We're sitting here waiting.

There's four of us at least here.

People are working, they can't get here.

We do the best we can, but we have an issue.

We don't want them driving in our neighborhood.

We've got enough.

Thank you for your comment.

Okay.

Uh I I have time after this meeting if you guys would like to meet with me.

If you'll just stick around, ma'am.

We're almost done, and Commissioner Becker's offered to meet with you when we adjourn in a few moments.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Best.

Paul Bannon, 5710 O'Bannon Drive, Las Vegas 89146.

You know, we've been going through a lot of changes in our area.

We're an old community.

You kind of know the area.

Jones, Vicator, Sahara, Oaky.

They call it the uh island.

It's in the county.

We're surrounded and we're engulfed by city.

Now most of the things that happened in the last 20 years there, 10 years, they didn't have the ordinances and the good folks like yourself to protect the citizens in the community.

Now, if you try to put in certain like this type of facility, you're not gonna let them drive on O'Bannon.

You're not gonna give them access and make the actual entrance that's in the waiver.

To put the in and out on a residential street.

I've been coming to these meetings for 25 to 30 years.

And you just don't do that.

You won't do it.

And I know you won't.

And I know there's no one here that can say you would.

We are a residential community.

This complex backs the wall has residential houses next to it behind it.

They want to put the driveway on Obama in the residential house is 30 feet from what they want to do.

Now the city has a professional complex across the street.

We came down with that.

And they won't wouldn't let them put.

They wanted a street too to come on an off O'Bann, and they wouldn't let them do it.

So and then to come here.

We've always had the opportunity to listen to the person that's trying to get the waivers or wants this things done.

We've never just been I don't know what word to say.

Um ignored by you fine, ladies and gentlemen.

This it being approved or whatever has been done to it.

I object, and I want to state it on the record that we object to this procedure being conducted this way.

You have a sign here with integrity and professionalism and all these things.

These haven't been these haven't been addressed to our concerns and issues.

How did this get passed and approved without making the applicant come up and express his wants?

And to give the citizens of the community when they're building it on a residential.

I object to all this right now, and I think that this hearing should be reconducted and re-evaluated and reassessed.

And I want it on record that we say this.

We have 37 some people that have objected.

We've spent hours walking in the neighborhood.

Um it isn't right, folks.

It's not right.

Um we've been fighting this for so long, car lots.

If you take an aerial map, I didn't think we needed one.

But O'Bannon is just engulfed with the Sahara, car lots, traffic.

Anyway, I think I've said enough.

Thank you.

Again, I'd like to have a new hearing.

And uh thank you very much.

Um Mr.

Warhol, I I think Commissioner Becker has already offered to meet with the individuals, but there might be some action that she might be willing to take now.

I I would uh like to move for a motion for reconsideration for this item so that we could hear more about the issue and hold it.

Could she have a little bit more?

We'll do a reconsideration and hold.

So it'll it'd probably be at least what 30 days, I think.

Yeah.

So it'll be 30 days after the agenda item for reconsideration.

May I ask a legal question then?

So um typically it's 10 days after um, right.

We pulled it to make sure it goes through the no fun all that.

So are you we're making the statement now so that the applicant will know that it's not approved and that the opportunity will for it to be reheard.

I just I'm I I'm wondering why we just couldn't reopen the hearing and do it today, um, or if that's just messier.

It's public comment, we can't take action to the public comment section, and the items already passed, and in theory, perhaps some.

I guess the applicant was probably here and left, and so they're not here for the if we took action right now.

So the process is that we have to put it on for reconsideration.

You vote on the reconsideration like we did with Commissioner Siegerloom's item, and then we put it on an agenda at that point.

So we we can let the applicant know that we're gonna have an item to reconsider it on the next agenda.

Well, I just think it's important for the residents to understand our process so that they might get a second chance at it.

Thank you.

So, Commissioner Becker's expressed an interest uh after your public comment of uh on the next agenda in two weeks' time, there will be an item on our agenda that we'll vote on to reconsider uh what was item eight on today's agenda, and then it'll be heard the following two weeks.

Everybody understands the following month, the following month.

Yes.

And new notices, new meeting notices will also be sent out.

Okay, thank you very much.

Uh if this concludes the public comment.

Um I apologize, but having been spoiled for two years about having two screens.

I now realize that what a pain in the whatever it is to have to flip back and forth to see things.

So I know I'd asked for a to have the our our electronics evaluated.

I would ask Ms.

Kramer uh if you could find out where what's going on with that request.

Um, because honestly, it's embarrassing to have to flip back and forth with your finger.

Deputy County Manager Kramer is nodding in agreement.

Uh, if there is nothing further, we will adjourn this meeting of the Clark County Commission.

Thank you.