Good evening, folks.

We're gonna we're gonna call this meeting to order and can I get staff to get us roll call, please.

Vice Chair Frazier here.

Chair Frazier.

Sorry, apologies.

Vice Chair Mujica.

Present.

Commissioner Stone.

Here.

Commissioner Kirk.

Here.

Commissioner Kalarski.

Commissioner Gibson.

Here.

Commissioner Reutemann.

Present.

Mr.

Chair, we have a quorum.

Um and did we get Commissioner Kirk online?

Yeah.

Do we?

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay, very good.

All right.

So we're welcome to the Planning Commission meeting for Tuesday, January 20th.

If you would um please rise and join us in Pledge of Allegiance.

Oh, this is gonna not gonna be so good evening, folks.

First item on our agenda is public comment.

Uh so uh we would like to open this uh item up for public comment.

Anyone on us can come down and speak.

Um you know the this the board can't act or on anything that's said.

Um so seeing uh no one wanting to come make a public comment, we'll close that item.

Staff, next item.

Good evening.

Uh the next item on the agenda is approval of the uh agenda after any additions, holds or deletions at this time.

Staff request the following.

Hold to the February three, twenty twenty-six PC meeting per the applicant.

Uh these are items um eleven, VS twenty-five zero eight three zero, item twelve zero uh UC twenty-five zero eight three one.

Item number twenty, WS twenty-five zero two seven.

Uh uh also a hold to February third, twenty twenty-six for the planning commission.

Item number eighteen, uh WS twenty-five uh zero seven three four.

Or for the applicant's information, additional renotification fees may be required in a di in accordance with title thirty for the items held or deleted.

Or if there are modifications to the original application.

The above public hearing items are going to be open as uh public hearing and immediately recess until the date previously stated.

These are for our items eleven, twelve, eighteen, and twenty.

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

Thank you very much.

Can I get a motion for approval of Mr.

Mr.

Chair?

Can I just ask and see if the applicant for item number five is here?

Seeing not, I would like to pull that item.

Okay.

Okay, at the time that we're we do that.

All right, we we will do that.

So looking for a move for approval of the agenda.

Uh Mr.

Chair, motion to approve the agenda holding items eleven, twelve, um excuse me, five, eleven, twelve, eighteen, and twenty.

No, we're not, we're not gonna hold five.

We're gonna we're gonna pull five and hear it.

Yes, so motion to approve the agenda holding items eleven, twelve, eighteen, and twenty to be heard on February third.

All right, there's a motion.

Commissioner Gibson, I think wants to add something for the sending the item number twenty to the town board.

Yeah, it's being held.

I the note on here says that the applicant actually requested it to be held so that they could make it to the uh where is it?

January twenty-ninth, Mount Charleston.

Yeah, Mount Charleston Town Advisory Board.

So that is correct.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

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

Commissioner Kirk, yes.

All right, the motion carries.

Next item.

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

The uh 122 25 and 1216 25 briefing and regular meeting note uh meeting minutes are written.

Go ahead.

Motion to approve the meeting minutes as presented.

Motion on the floor, cast your vote.

Commissioner Kirk, yes.

Sorry, that motion passes for the audience's uh information item on tonight's uh agenda or final action unless appealed to the board of county commissioners or otherwise announced.

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

on Wednesday, January 28, 2026, and any appeals from tonight's meeting will be heard by the board of county commissioners on Wednesday, February 18 at 9 a.m.

in these chambers per title 30.

An agreed person may appeal an item.

Agreed person includes an applic the applicant, someone who attends 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 uh sign-in sheet found near the dais to confirm their attendance at this meeting.

Mail notices of appealed uh action applications 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 page web page and review the meeting notice of final action to find out if any items have been appealed.

Uh the next uh the next are uh the routine action items, which consists of items four through sixteen, except the uh items that were previously deleted.

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

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

Uh thank you, staff.

Uh so this is a second point of the meeting where we're going to approve the routine action items.

The board is going to make the routine action items all in one vote for all of those items.

So if anyone in the audience wants to have one of those items removed or heard separately, now's a time to come down and do so.

Seeing no one rushing down, I know the board's going to pull number five to be heard separately.

So I I'll entertain a motion for the routine action items.

Motion to approve routine action items, except for 11, 12, and 5.

And five is to be heard in its order.

So um there's a motion on the floor, cast your vote.

Councilman Kirk, yes.

That motion carries.

Thank you.

Next item.

Uh, this is final action unless appealed, except for items 13 through 16, which will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners meeting for final action on February 18, 2026 at 9 a.m.

unless otherwise announced.

The next item on the agenda is item number five.

Uh UC 25068, holdover use permit to allow a vehicle rental facility in conjunction with an existing shopping center, Fashion Show Mall, on a portion of 42.8 acres in a CR commercial resorts resort zone, generally located west of Las Vegas Boulevard South and north of Spring Mountain Road within Paradise.

Thank you.

Um there's an applicant in the audience for this item.

I see none.

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

Anyone in the audience like to speak on this item?

Seeing none, I'm gonna close the public hearing and I'll open it up to the board.

Go ahead, Commissioner Klarski.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um just for the record, this item has been on the agenda for town board four times.

The applicant has not showed up at any of those.

The last two, the town board denied.

The applicant asked to be able to go back at our last meeting to go back to town board and asked if we could hold it.

So I gave him his wish.

He did not show up at the town board meeting.

And so with that, uh I understand that he's thinking about withdrawing, but I'm not certain.

And so with that, I am just going to move for denial of UC 25-0668, and he can decide what he wants to do.

Commissioner Klarski, would that be without prejudice or with prejudice?

I would just like to do it without.

And I think is isn't it common now that everything is without unless we say differently?

I thought I heard that a long time ago.

Yes, it used to be the opposite, but now it is, yes.

If you don't say with prejudice, it's without prejudice.

Okay, so it would be without prejudice only so that if you if he wants to down the road and they decide to, they they're able to.

Thank you for the clarification.

So there's a motion on the floor.

Um cash of vote.

Councilman Kirk, yes.

Motion passes.

Next item, thank you.

Hold uh holdover use permit for a vehicle wash facility.

Wait uh waiver development standards for modified residential adjacency standards design review for a vehicle wash facility on 3.7 acres in a CG commercial general zone within the airport and Byron's AE60 overlay.

Generally located south of Russell Road and west of Jones Bolo Bard within Spring Valley.

Is there an applicant in the item audience for item?

Yeah, come down.

So give us your name and address for the record and tell us about your application.

My name's Don Shively.

I represent Quickwack.

With me is uh Isaac Anslevar, um, who represents the architect of record.

Um, our address is 6020 West Oaks Boulevard in Rockland, California.

Uh we are here to uh ask for approval of our application.

We've been working with staff over a number of months uh to come uh with a design that would be uh acceptable.

Um we have met with multiple uh planners during that time period, and no one expressed uh concern about our project at this point.

Uh at the end, we were told that staff had a concern.

Um we are here asking for the same consideration that our love car wash across the street from us has and was given when they were approved uh when they could not meet the same justification that's been placed on us at this point.

So we're just asking for fairness at this point.

Um to speak to the project.

I have Isaac here who can speak in detail to our project.

Uh thank you.

Um he gave your name and address.

So if you want to speak on the item and then maybe whatever you have to show us, if you put it on the dot, so it looks good to you, it looks good to us.

My name is uh Isaac Anslavar, and I work for Core States Group.

I'm the project manager on the architectural side for this project.

And our um office is based out of Kent Washington with the address of 18215 South 72nd Avenue.

Um, as Don mentioned, we have worked with the planning staff to uh um prepare our site plan to comply with the code.

Um, besides the 200 foot, the required 200 foot residential adjacency requirement that requires the car wash facility to be to be set back 200 feet from the neighboring residential property.

That residential property is this property here.

We do not share an actual boundary line with that property, it's just this adjacent corner.

Since the town board meeting, we have a revised the site plan um to address some of staff's concerns.

This includes flipping the um vacuum base so that the uh the vacuum uh equipment enclosures are located outside of that 200 foot buffer and on the east side of the vacuum rows.

This is key as the vacuum equipment um produces um some of the most noise on the site.

And in addition with that shift, the number of vacuum stations within that 200 foot buffer is has been reduced from 10 to 8.

We were not able to rem to remove the 200 foot.

Sorry, we were not able to remove the vehicle queuing lanes outside of that 200 foot residential setback.

This is due to the need to preserve this east to west drive aisle that provides access to the Mavericks site to the east, as well as this location provides adequate stacking for vehicles while they wait to go through the the car wash without spilling over onto the neighboring drive aisles and public roads.

I would like to speak as also to the staff's recommendation and their justification to their recommendation.

After the town as they they cite the noise impacts as being an issue.

After the town board meeting, we prepared a noise study, which should have been included in your planning commission packet.

That noise study found that the car wash facility would not raise noise levels at the residential property to above the existing ambient noise levels that currently exist.

That report analyze the car wash building, the vacuum bays, and those drive aisles.

Staff also identified possible pollution impacts to that residential property as the justification to their recommendation.

This is likely the pollution impacts are likely very minimal.

Quickwack is a membership-based business, and they utilize license plate readers at the pay stations.

This reduces the amount of time cars sit idling in the vehicle queue lanes while waiting to go through the car wash.

In addition, I'm going to switch up my exhibits real quick.

In addition, the amount of cars that we are anticipating to be within those queue lanes is nine cars at the peak business hours.

In addition, the residential development has a CMU wall along the border.

This has been constructed as of now as well, just to highlight right here.

And in addition, as I pointed out, the building is set back from that property line.

So that wall plus the setback will likely screen the car wash from view of that residential property.

Lastly, as Don pointed out, I do want to mention that precedence that the for the Love's car wash that is across the street from the project site.

It's on this property right here.

It's kind of hard to see.

All aspects of the car wash operations are within that 200-foot residential adjacency buffer.

I mean, sorry, setback, including the car wash itself, vehicle queue lanes, pay station, and vacuum stalls.

And um when entitled planning commission approve the the SUP as well as the planning department recommended approval.

So in conclusion, I we recommend we request that the planning commission reconsider planning staff's uh recommendation and approve the project special use permit, waiver of development standards, and design review.

I believe I believe I've provided sufficient evidence that impacts from this site will be very minimal, if not any on the adjacent residential property, and that there is precedence uh in past approvals that planning commission has uh approved um car washes with similar similar circumstances.

Uh with that, uh if planning commission does move forward with approval, I do request that you can include the in it.

Sorry, I do request that you include a condition of approval requiring that the project comply with the revised site plan and the provided noise study.

Thank you for your time.

Uh thank you very much.

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

Anyone in the audience like to speak on this item?

Now it's time to come down.

Okay.

All right.

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

I'm gonna open up to my commissioners.

I'll start with vice chair if you you got your light on.

Yes, um, so I have a question.

You just said revise plans.

Is are those different than what was submitted to planning commission?

To planning comprehensive planning.

This is the revised site plan.

It should have been included with your planning commission packet.

Um so it's the only difference between this one and what was submitted through the planning department um originally was that the vacuum bays were flipped so that the um so the vacuum producer enclosures are located on the east side of the um site plan.

So this question is to staff.

So when you came up with your recommendation, it was it based on this that we're looking at or the one before.

Commissioner Mohikott, uh it was based on the original plan uh which had the vacuum station along all the um roads to the south.

Uh however, that was not all uh our only concern.

We had concern with the drive-thru because we can uh include basically we consider that as part of the facility.

Uh so we meant when we mentioned that the facilities within 200 feet, we include that queuing line basically as part of the facility.

So that's still within 200 feet.

So the revised plan doesn't change our recommendation, basically of deny.

Okay.

That's I I find that kind of disturbing that there was a revised plan, and that your that they don't match.

I mean, this isn't there some type of rule that they cannot submit a revised plan after the fact, or uh they can still provide revised plan.

Uh to my understanding, the only change is that they removed uh basically three uh spaces that are vacuum stations and they converted to regular spaces.

Uh applicant can't confirm this uh on the southwest portion of the site.

Um that's what uh I was informed that the change was.

We did not remove uh standard uh stalls, they were just flipped from the east side to the west side of that route.

What I meant is not that you removed, you just basically convert them to regular spaces rather than vacuum stations.

But you're saying that the number of uh vacuum stations are the same and the number of uh parking stats are the same, you just flip them basically.

Yes, that is correct.

Okay.

Um yeah, we we uh re-receive those plans basically, but our recommendation doesn't change based on the queuing lanes of the car that are still within 200 feet of the residential.

And based on your assessment, it's possible to reconfigure this or move this in a way that it would comply with what we're asking.

This can be redesigned so the proposed vehicle wash meets all the code standards?

Uh it could, or uh, that's why we recommended deny on the use permit too, because uh sometimes the site is not um uh basically appropriate for that use being so close to the residential.

So we consider all that with the use permit request.

And the only reason why I keep bringing this up is because the gentleman that spoke first says that he's been working a lot, and and uh if if I'm not saying exactly what he said with planning commission.

So if he's been working a lot with planning commission, um how is it that we miscommunicated this?

Not the planning commission, the planning staff.

I'm sorry, not planning commission, I meant comprehensive planning with staff.

Right.

And so as they provided their comments to us, we went back to the drawing boards and came back with revisions to that for their review and consider consideration.

Again, there's restrictions within that within that project that we could not move the entire project out of the 200 feet, but we moved out the noise that can sit that was a concern to the staff, and we move that outside of the 200 feet, and again, all we're asking for is the same consideration that the plan commission staff provided to Loves when they built their entire project within 200 feet of the residential buffer.

Okay, well I we're not unfortunately.

Um we're not talking about that other site.

We don't know what other differences there are on that site.

Maybe maybe the homes are facing the other way versus this way, or again, unfortunately, we're not addressing that right now.

So I don't know why that was um, but I am concerned with the noise and with the assessment from staff.

And we demonstrated through a sound study that the noise is meets the the standards of the um noise ordinance, and it will not it will not increase noise levels at that property line.

All right, thank you.

Um Commissioner Klarski.

I just want to make sure that I've got this clear.

We're asking for a use permit for a vehicle wash facility.

So does the convenience store and the gasoline already exist?

It does.

Okay, so they exist, and so what you're doing now is you're trying to wedge of a better way to put it.

Wedge a car wash in between the gas station and the properties south and south of you.

Yes, we're we're we're building a car wash, proposing to build a car wash on the surplus land next to their car wash.

I mean, next to the gas station.

Okay, so you're putting it south of the existing gas station.

All right, that's I just want to make sure that when I read this, that's what I was understanding.

It's to the west of the gas station on this vacant lot right here.

Well, like I said, you're wedging it in between the cat the convenience door, and right now I see that the property is vacant south of you, but it's uh although it's uh zoned for RE, it's also land use plan for commercial.

So uh we have to go take a look at that, and it seems like commercial would more than likely be what would we put there.

So okay, thank you.

Uh thank you, Commissioner Croxy.

I'll go to Commissioner Stone next.

Quick question of staff.

The 200 foot proximity in our code, is it's from an existing residential house to the vacuums?

Is that the 200?

Uh it's to the facility, uh, and we consider the queuing lanes as part of the facility too.

Okay, so it's it's queuing.

I see all these different 200 foot lengths, but it's it's it's essentially to the queuing.

Okay.

That is what we considered, yes.

Yeah, I'm okay with it.

Thanks.

All right, so I'm gonna go online to Commissioner Kirk before we we finish up down here.

Commissioner Kirk, any questions, comments for the applicant?

No, no, I don't have any questions.

I uh satisfied with the noise study.

That's not any worse.

Uh I'm I'm okay with it.

All right, thank you.

I'm gonna support I'm gonna support it.

Thank you, Commissioner Kirk.

Before I turn it over to Commissioner Roykmin, I I just want to offer to the applicant.

Um, I don't have any issue with the application, you know, it itself in general, but I just just for you just for your education.

You know, I look at all applications on their own merits.

So if I were looking at this application, um, and maybe I voted for the other one, I don't know.

I can't remember when it was, but if I were looking at your application and there were a bunch of neighbors out here, and there was a bunch of concern about you being a good neighbor, and a bunch of concern about what that noise would be to the to those particular people in that lot, I would look at it differently than what I'm at when I'm looking at it today.

So I'm just offering that as a you know, for your information.

Um I can support the application, and I'll turn it over to Commissioner Royman.

First, I have a question for staff.

It's a holdover use permit.

Does that mean what is the holdover part of that mean?

Sorry, I didn't get to this in our briefing, but um, I believe it was held last time.

Um we can search or applicant can provide some clarification whether it was held last time.

Okay.

So it they don't currently have permission to do a car wash facility here.

This is the first time they're asking for.

Okay.

I'm also satisfied with this the noise study.

I think I appreciate you working with the staff to move some things around.

That's our big problem here now, staff is the noise study.

That's the reason for the way we're developing.

Could you please repeat the question one more time?

Sorry, sorry about that.

Our major issue is this is the noise, right?

And that the two that is the main purpose for the 200 feet residency standard, and that is the major concern being noise.

Noise pollution, yeah, in general.

Okay.

Um yeah, I can support it.

I'm glad you guys worked with staff.

I'm glad you guys moved it to the other side.

Um I understand staff at the queuing is an issue, but I expect that it sounds like you guys got that handled with the scanners.

I just went to one of those the other day, and I didn't even stop.

I just pulled right up and it scanned my life's plane.

I was right in.

Yeah, it it's it's very much like that.

Um motion to approve item number 17, UC 250761.

Commissioner Kirk.

Thank you, Commissioner Kirk.

All right, the motion passes.

Good luck.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This item is final action unless appealed.

Uh next item number 19.

Uh WS 250822.

Waiver development standards to eliminate the front setback for a carport in conjunction with an existing single-family residence on 0.09 acres in an RS 3.3 residential single family 3.3 zone.

Generally generally located south of Sabora Avenue and east of Lorelita Street within with me.

Is there an applicant in the audience for this item?

Oh, come on down, sir.

As you're coming down.

So give us your name and address for the record, and then tell us about your application.

Hi.

Uh my name is Corim.

Corim Ben Roma.

And I live on 5178 Floralita Street.

Uh the reason it's about 2023.

Uh we decide to uh to make a carpool.

Uh the carpool, it's like 23 feet wide.

On the on the um garage on the garage uh side, and then 20 feet uh on the other side.

So I got a notification from the city about the permit, and then I went down, and then they told me there's specific uh there's a specific uh request about 20 feet.

The 20 feet start from the street towards my house.

And I'm basically three feet before I reach the corp on the street.

Okay, so so that if you could just um that concludes your presentation, maybe you could show us some some elevations or photos of which you're what you're trying to do.

Yes, sir.

If it looks good to you, it looks good to us.

Yes.

So from the garage from the garage door towards the uh on front, just 22 feet.

And the other side is 20 feet.

There is uh a setback on this street.

Do you have any photos of of the of the of your of the carport?

Yeah, that's one of the pictures.

All right.

And it looks pretty nice.

It's aluminum wood, which is uh received strong winds, rain, and the heat to heart cooler.

I want to show you another picture.

And then finally, I have another one which is no, no, no.

If it looks good to you, it looks good to us.

Yes, thank you.

Okay.

How close?

Um I'm close to that court.

The course on that one.

Yep, I I think we got it.

Um does that conclude your presentation?

Yes.

Okay, very good.

Thank you.

So you're welcome.

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

Anyone in the audience like to speak on this item?

All right, seeing no one rushing down, we're gonna close the public hearing and it opened up to the commissioners for any comments or questions.

I'll start with Commissioner Stone.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Chairman.

Uh Commissioner Kirk, are you able to see video of this presentation?

Yep, I just saw the picture.

Yep, I can see that.

Yeah, the the picture that's on the screen right now shows the applicant's existing cover on the left.

But if you look down the frontage of the street, you'll see at least one or possibly two more similar structures in this neighborhood.

And I would ask staff.

Do you know if those were legally permitted, or do you have any sense of that at all, one way or the other?

Uh we did a quick research and there were some active code enforcement within the neighborhood as well.

Okay, so there is some active code enforcement.

Okay.

Anyway, thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh thank you.

Uh got a few lights, so uh I'll go with uh vice chair.

Go ahead, vice chair.

I have a quick question.

Does it match the color of your house?

Yes, it is.

Thank you.

Um Commissioner Gibson.

Yeah, I'm just gonna go on the record.

I don't like these, I don't like your neighbors.

Um I mean, I I would much rather see you plant some trees that are gonna shade your driveway than put some patio cover on your front driveway.

So that's where I'm at.

Uh thank you, Commissioner Gibson.

Uh I I I would just offer before I turn it over to Commissioner Roitman that you know it's you know, oh Commissioner Kirk, that's right, he's online.

That's right.

Take it back.

Well, I'll do this.

I'll I'll save my comments.

Go ahead, Commissioner Workman.

Your lights on uh I'm probably echoing some other folks here, but it does look like there are quite a few of these in your neighborhood.

And the fact that you don't there aren't any neighbors here tonight up in arms about this.

Um yeah, I'd like to hear what the rest of the commissioners think, but I'm counting like uh I've like run down and up and down your streets on Google Maps here, and I count at least like four or five since we've been sitting here, so for what it's worth.

Thank you.

All right, Commissioner Klarski.

Okay, I'm I wasn't gonna chime in, but I'm going to now.

Um when I look at this, the one thing that if if when I read on the background, this development is one where there's zero lot lines, which means that the lots are very small, but also look at it, it's also a one-car garage.

So if somebody has two cars, one is always gonna be out in the sun.

And so I can support this.

Thank you, Commissioner Kalarski.

I I I would just offer that um, you know, being that if if it was built without permits, the applicant still has an uphill battle because you have to go get those permits and and and get everything completed.

Um I would also offer that it wouldn't be something I would want to live next to.

I I kind of echo Commissioner Gibson's you know comments on that, but I definitely can support the application because that seems to be the tenure of the neighbors.

Uh so now I will turn it over to Commissioner Kirk.

If you would like to make a motion, or you can let me do it.

You tell me what you want to do.

Yeah, if you'd like to do it, uh Mr.

Chairman, that's fine.

Thank you.

Okay, all right.

So if there's no other comments from the commission, I'm going to move for approval of WS 25082.

There's a motion on the floor.

But Commissioner Kirk, yes.

All right, that motion passes.

Good luck.

Thank you.

This is final action unless appealed, and this is the last item.

I'm sorry.

So that is uh I'm sorry, go ahead, Commissioner.

So out of curiosity, what happens with code enforcement?

What are they gonna do?

Uh they they have one year to um get I I mean with permitting.

Yeah, what is billing power?

What is permitting gonna do?

Are they gonna tell them to take it down?

Um so sorry, you're asking if they need to still follow up that process basically.

Yeah, yeah, they have one year.

We added a condition that they have one year to get the building permit and uh finish the uh inspection process.

So code enforcement case will not be closed until they finish that process.

All right, thank you.

No worries.

Okay, so so that concludes our agendas for this evening.

The only item that's left is public comments.

Um so at this is an another opportunity for the public to come down and make comments um to the board.

We can't act on any of those comments, but if anyone would like to do that, please come down now.

All right, seeing no one, I will close public comments and adjourn the meeting.

Thank you, everybody.

Thank you.