Welcome to the Clark County Zoning Meeting.

Before we begin, we'd like to briefly explain how today's meeting works and how you can participate.

Today's agenda includes different types of items the Board of County Commissioners will discuss and may vote on.

Some items are routine and may be approved together in one vote, while others are considered individually and may include a public hearing.

Sometimes an agenda item may be held at the request of a commissioner or county staff.

When an item is held, it will not be discussed or voted on during today's meeting and will be brought back at a future meeting.

There are two opportunities for public comment during this meeting.

And it's important to understand the difference.

The first public comment period takes place at the beginning of the meeting.

This public comment is only for items that are listed on today's agenda.

Comments during this time must relate to a specific agenda item.

If you wish to speak about a particular agenda item, you may comment at the beginning of the meeting, or you may wait to see if that item is discussed later and includes an opportunity for public comment when the item is being considered.

Some routine items may be approved together as part of what is called the consent agenda.

If you do not agree with a staff recommendation for one of these items, you must request that that item be removed before the board takes action.

If it is not removed, it may be approved early in the meeting as part of a single vote.

Items that are not routine are considered one at a time and may include an opportunity for public comment before the board votes.

When it's time to speak, please come forward.

There are three microphones available, including a handheld microphone if you have documents you would like to show.

If you wish to show a document, an overhead camera may be used at the direction of the board chair.

Please do not display documents that contain personal or sensitive information.

When speaking, please talk directly into the microphone, clearly and at a steady value.

This helps ensure your comments are heard and recorded as part of the public record.

Speakers are required to state their name, spell their last name, and state their address.

At the end of the meeting, there is a second public comment period.

This final public comment is for items not listed on the agenda.

No action may be taken on those comments at that time.

All public comments are limited to three minutes unless otherwise announced by the chair at the beginning of the meeting.

During all public comment periods, board members may listen but are not allowed to respond.

Thank you for being here and for taking the time to participate in your local government.

Today is February 4th, 2026.

Seeing no one, we'll close the public comment and turn over to Ms.

Real.

Good morning, Commissioners.

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

Commissioner Staff has the following request.

Hold to the February 18th, 2026 zoning meeting.

Item 22, UC 250870, and item 30, WS 250461.

Hold to the March 4th, 2026 zoning meeting, item four DR250849 and withdraw item 34 WS 250843.

The above public hearing items are going to be open as a public hearing and immediately recessed until the dates is previously stated.

With these deletions with these deletions, which are items four, twenty-two, thirty, and thirty-four.

The agenda stands ready for your approval.

Mr.

Chair, with the recommended changes were into the record, our move approval of the agenda.

Thank you.

There's a motion for approval.

Please cast your vote.

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

The minutes of the January 7th, 2026 zoning meeting are ready for approval.

Chairman will approve the meeting minutes from January 7, 2026.

So motion for approval, please cast your vote.

Next to the routine action items, which consist of items 4 through 20.

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

Additionally, staff has the following request for two companion applications.

Item 11, VS 250796, and item 12, WS 250797.

Add a public works condition to read applicant to vacate post road between Lindell Road and Mohawk Street.

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

With the changes of writing to the record, our room approval of our routine action items 4 through 20.

Thank you.

Please cast your vote.

Motion carries.

Next is item 21.

SDR 250848.

Sign design reviews for the following.

Allow an electronic message unit video.

Modify residential adjacency standards and propose signage in conjunction with an approved restaurant on.46 acres in a CG commercial general zone within the Maryland Parkway overlay.

Generally located south of Elizabeth Avenue and east of Maryland Parkway within Paradise.

Good morning.

Good morning, Mr.

Chair.

Commissioners, my name is Tony Slus address 1980 Festival Plaza Drive here on behalf of the applicant.

As you can see this uh from the aerial, the site is highlighted here in yellow.

It is located on the southeast corner of Maryland Parkway and Elizabeth.

Uh just quick background.

Um, this site came before you a little less than a year ago.

Um there was a uh previously existing 7-Eleven building.

That building um has been repurposed into uh two restaurant uses.

One will be uh which is being developed out right now, tenant approvements going in for what is called a Buffalo Wild Wings to go, so kind of a grab and go concept, not really a sit-down restaurant.

Um as we now move forward, we're asking for some signage in this case in particular a pylon sign.

Um the site is all with it um zoned CG, and in fact, this entire corridor is zoned CG, and generally speaking, in CG, you can have signage up to I think it's 50 feet in height.

We're proposing a sign at 35 feet in height.

The one caveat here is that we are really the only site that's adjacent right here to a residential use, and because of that, the residential adjacency standards do apply.

So that's why you see an additional design review for a sign height increase to 35 feet, um, as well as some of the other additional design reviews that were triggered by the adjacency here.

Um we can um here's our site plan.

It's uh been slightly updated, not revised, but updated, and it has been provided to planning.

And you can see we have shown that our nearest portion of the sign, the edge to the residential is over 100 feet.

It's about 113 feet.

Um, and because we do meet that requirement, I can withdraw sign design review 2C, uh, which right there is what we were originally weren't sure if we were gonna meet that hundred feet, but we do.

We in fact exceed it, so I can withdraw that.

As part of this, we also are have here's our sign.

We do have an EMU video sign.

EM view EMU video does require uh an additional design review in the CG zone district.

Um I will note though that this sign right here is between from the grade to the bottom is 12 feet and then only about four feet in height is the actual EMU sign, so it is stops at about 16 feet there.

The existing building on site, which is located right here, is over 22 feet in height, so that EMU video messaging will be shielded or uh buffered by the building to the residential immediately to the east.

Um, we also had on here um originally a requesting to allow full illumination where in the residential adjacency it requires a 25% reduction.

We can agree to that 25% reduction, so I'm also withdrawing sign design review 2D.

Um that is what was specifically approved uh or recommended for approval by Paradise Town Board.

So we respectfully request um approval today, subject to Paradise Town Board's uh approval, which was um approval in the entire application with us withdrawing items 2C and 2D.

Uh and with that, I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you very much.

This is a public hearing.

Anyone wishing to speak should come forward at this time.

We're on item 21.

Seeing none, we'll turn over to Commissioner Gibson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

This building has taken an awful lot.

Uh I can't think of I I don't know that I can count the number of times that I've had meetings with you or a colleague in terms of the new use.

But I think you've done a good job uh in every way, and I think under the circumstances it's appropriate, and I move approval subject to the uh planning commission conditions.

There's a motion for approval.

Please cast your vote.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next are companion items 23 through 25.

Item 23, VS 250811.

Vacate and abandon easements of interest to Clark County located between Arville Street and Shrill Street Alignment and Pebble Road and Raven Avenue within Enterprise.

Item 24, UC 250809, amended use permits for the following stables no longer needed and increase the number of large livestock in conjunction with an existing single family residence on.81 acres and an RS20 residential single family 20 zone within the neighborhood protection RP and airport environs A60 overlays.

Generally located east of Arville Street and south of Pebble Road within Enterprise.

And then item 25, UC 250810, amended use permits for the following.

Waivers development standards for the following reduce parking, eliminate buffering and screening, eliminate parking, lot landscaping, modify residential adjacency standards.

Waive full off-site improvements, reduce driveway throat depth and allow a non-commercial curb return driveway.

Design review for a proposed stable in conjunction with a proposed single family residence on 1.25 acres in an RS20 residential single family 20 zone within the neighborhood protection RP and Airport Environments A60 overlays, generally located south of Pebble Road and east of Arville Street within Enterprise.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Morning.

My name is uh Adrian Plata at 7219 uh West Sahara Avenue on behalf of the applicant.

I'm just gonna go through here and just explain it real quick.

So we have the the um this is uh pebble here, and then this is our ville, and these are the two lots in question.

So we're gonna start with the West Lots.

Um there is going to be a uh this is the single family residence.

This is the well house.

This is an ADU with e attached stables.

So they're requesting for the increase of horses, and this is the total pasture area, which uh meets the required uh area for the number of horses that they are requesting.

The lot to the uh east, um we have a single family residence up here, then we have um some attached stables and ADU, more attached stables, and um while they were only allowed a um a smaller amount of horses.

We're and that's the reason why we're here to request more.

We were able to figure out that this total pasture area is enough for the total amount of horses, which is why we're requesting that waiver.

Um we realize that in the process, we have to provide parking, and this is the parking layout that we were able to come up with.

And the SFR requires two, and then the ADU requires one, and then the um here we we required a total of nine, so we're um here at four for total of the stable and the ADU and the SFR.

We are also not able to meet the throat depth, but however, because this is a rural area, that's the reason why we're asking for that waiver.

Um, just to keep it a more rural area, no curb, gutter, sidewalk, any of that.

Um I do have elevations and floor plans of each of the buildings, but we can if you have want me to show those, I can show we'll take a pause there and open up the public hearing.

This is a public hearing.

Anyone wishing to come forward and speak on items 23, 24, 25, can do so at this time.

Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and turn it over to Commissioner Jones.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um I'll just be straightforward.

I don't have a problem with with 23 and 24, but with the request on 25.

I don't understand where you're coming with the parking um for what is a commercial uh stable facility.

Um and the throat depth is remains a concern.

So can you I you've got this up there showing parking, but I'm not seeing the parking that would be necessary for the number of horses that you're gonna be using for um stable facility.

Yeah, the um we're required six for the stable, or we have four.

I understand we are under, and that's also one of the items that we're requesting a waiver for.

And um if uh the throat depth is a concern, the uh owners have considered redesigning to um take away to meet the throat depth requirement, which could probably also help give the parking requirement as well.

Yeah, I'm I'm gonna request uh I'm gonna suggest that you uh that we hold this because I haven't really had a chance to talk to you guys about this, and I have I have concerns.

I'm not concerned with the the project overall, but there needs to be some changes so that we can get to something that our staff can support.

So I'm gonna make a motion to hold agenda items 23, 24, and 25 for do you want two weeks?

Do you want a month?

How long do you need in order to make it happen?

Two weeks.

Two weeks.

All right.

Um, then I'll make a motion to hold for two weeks and um suggest that you reach out to my office immediately and uh we'll have our planning and public works teams get with the get with you to try and figure it out.

That would bring us to February 18th.

Okay.

Uh there's a motion for this item to be held till the 18th of February.

Please cast your vote.

That motion carries director Riyal.

If we could take a moment and go back to item 21, Commissioner Gibson has a comment.

I think I misspoke.

I think I may have said the subject of planning commission uh conditions, and I meant the town board commission uh conditions, and I know myself, so I probably did that based on just too much history and with a planning commission.

Anyway, let the record reflect that change.

Thank you.

Next are companion items 26 and 27.

Item 26, VS 250819, holdover, vacate and abandon, easements of interest at Clark County located between Michelle Crestway and Egan Crest Drive and Bright Angel Way and Azure Drive within Lone Mountain.

Item 27 WS 250820, holdover waivers and development standards for the following.

Reduce stepbacks, increase retaining wall height, increase fill height, eliminate street landscaping, waifull off site improvements, and increase driveway width in conjunction with a proposed single family residences on 2.13 acres in an RS20 residential single family 20 zone within the neighborhood protection RP overlay.

Generally located north of Bright Angel Way and east of Michelle Crest Way within Lone Mountain.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Uh Jesse Patchett uh on behalf of the applicant, 2685 South Rainbow Boulevard.

The first item is for a vacation of patent easements uh that are on the site.

Uh those are shown in red uh on on the screen.

They're the legacy uh kind of straightforward patent easements that we're requesting to vacate as part of the development of this project.

Uh was an item that was requested by public works and map mapping.

So that is the uh first item the uh larger item, the waiver of standards.

Uh we want to withdraw without prejudice item one B, which is the setback for the uh side yard setback for the south lot.

And we want to withdraw item number four, which is the would you mind just maybe trying the other microphone?

I think that's given some feedback.

Sorry, is this just give him one second?

He'll turn around in a second, I'm sure.

Is this better?

Is this better?

Testing, testing.

We'll try that.

All right, excellent.

No.

It is not better.

Is there a we've got a third option?

Is there a handheld microphone in the center?

Yeah, it is.

Testing, testing.

All right.

We'll work with that.

Um the vacation of the patent easements shown in red on the uh the screen here.

Uh those are the BLM patent easements that are uh part of these uh rural lots.

We're vacating that as part of the request from public works and mapping as part of the development of the project.

Um the overall project, as you can see on here is is two residences.

Um we are withdrawing without prejudice item one B, which is the setback request for the side yard for for this garage.

We're working with public works to uh uh modify that that south area.

So we're I withdrawing uh item one B, uh the side yard setback without prejudice.

We're also withdrawing the item number four, which is the street landscaping setback.

Uh the owner has agreed to put in the street landscaping uh setback.

Um overall project, uh let's see.

I think we have uh reduced setbacks.

So there the setback we are requesting the waiver for is this northern lot uh supposed to have a 10 foot setback.

We are requesting to reduce that to five foot uh setback here.

Um the increased retaining wall height.

There's a significant amount of elevation change across the light, the the lot.

This uh these internal retaining walls are basically keeping the house and pool area level, and then there's a significant elevation change down to get down to the uh the garages and the in the back.

And so it's an interior retaining wall uh height and the fill associated with that.

Um, and then we are also looking to waive the public works requirement for full off sites.

This is a rural area, so we're we're requesting to waive curb gutter sidewalk streetlights uh in this area.

Thank you.

If that completes your presentation, we will open these items for public hearing.

We're on items 26 and 27.

Anyone wishing to speak can come forward at this time.

Seeing no one, Commissioner Becker.

Okay, um with the withdrawal of one B and four, I'm going to move for approval of 26 and 27.

There's a motion for approval of 26 and 27.

Please cast your vote.

Motion passes.

Thank you.

Next is item 28.

WC 2540137 for UC 240034.

Waiver of conditions of a use permit requiring three years to review to evaluate the continued use of the temporary parking lot and outdoor storage on five acres in a CR commercial resort zone within an airport environments A65 and AE 70 overlay, generally located west of Las Vegas Boulevard South and north of RB Avenue within Enterprise.

Good morning again, Commissioners.

My name is Tony Sliss.

Address 1980 Festival Plaza Drive here on behalf of the applicant and property owner, along with me is uh Chip Johnson, who is the property owner.

Um as you can see from the overhead, the site is highlighted here on yellow.

We're about 600 plus feet uh west of Las Vegas Boulevard.

We are just south of the 215 here.

Um just says uh as mentioned uh about two years ago.

Uh we were approved for a parking lot in outside storage uh along with a three-year review.

We have developed this parking lot.

Um as you can see right here.

This was what was approved right here uh for 492 parking spaces, um, as well as for the ability to do outside storage.

Um it is uh fully uh uh built out.

We have our off-site improvements in uh the walls, landscaping, striping, uh lighting, um, etc.

The last thing we are uh need to do is pay our tree in lieu of fee.

We have submitted that application.

Um now we're just waiting for the invoice from Clark County, and we will pay that fee.

That fee I think will be somewhere between 55,000 to 60,000.

Um we have spent about 2.8 million dollars to date um on the development of this with the paving, the grading, the landscaping, the off-site improvements, the wall security, um, etc.

Um we have um so we've met the the uh conditions of the approval.

Um we are coming in obviously a year early from our required review.

The reason for our request now to remove that review is we do have a uh negotiations with a potential long-term tenant for parking on the site.

Um so because of those uh negotiations and right now the uh restriction on the review, it does make those negotiations to advance that that agreement at this stage difficult.

So we are asking to remove that condition.

Um when you look at the the site here, um it is zone CR, however, one of the biggest impediments to any type of other development or uses on the site is this is our zoning map, and right here you can see the contour lines.

Most of this site is in the AE 70 um overlay.

Um, the A70 is one of the most restrictive uh overlays with respect to allowed uses.

Most of those uses are more industrial type uses, storage, etc.

Parking lot is one of the allowed uses.

Can do hotel, um, but however, in this area, it's probably very unlikely.

So we do think that the long-term parking is appropriate.

Like I said, it is off Las Vegas Boulevard.

We do not have frontage, it is adjacent to other industrial uses.

We are right here on the curve to the 215 I-15 interchange.

We sit up a little bit high.

We do have our screen wall there.

So we've done all the things that we think would make this a successful uh parking lot for the long-term future.

Um, but we do we are asking for some flexibility with respect to the review condition.

Um, with that, um, I will I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This is a public hearing on item 28.

Anyone wishing to speak can come forward at this time.

Saying none, we'll close the public hearing.

Uh I am comfortable with the outdoor storage because it's it's needed for what you're trying to achieve on this site, but I'm but that's a really wide uh uh uh use, and you can do a lot of things in that category.

So I'm gonna apply a condition that uh the site be used for operable vehicles only with a maximum of 492 vehicles fitting into the stalls that you've been approved for.

We can accept and agree to that condition.

Thank you.

Okay.

And if there's nothing more with that added condition, I'll move for approval of item 28.

I apologize, sorry.

Can I get clarification?

So I heard as part of the motion that the vehicles need to fit within the stalls.

Does that mean because the request for outdoor storage was for truck parking and trailer parking?

Um, that the trucks and trailers can extend over two spaces if they needed to.

Yeah, well, let's condition it that it be the maximum of 492 operable vehicles.

And I assume there's trailers in that as well if they wanted to store trailers.

Okay.

And no uh further review just for clarification.

Correct.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And Mr.

Chairman, it doesn't necessarily apply to this case, but do we have are we allowed to just have unlimited asphalt?

Are there requirements for trees or something?

Yeah, so when we approved this previous two years ago, we required uh all of the exterior landscaping and the interiors.

What they're actually gonna be the I think the first, pretty well the first in the county to actually pay into the tree in lieu fund.

So that's what Mr.

Celeste was indicating that they'll be contributing towards trees in that taxing district that we can apply elsewhere.

Thank you.

There's a motion for just to point out the fact that there's off-site parking or um the the sidewalk.

You always get me on.

I just want to there's a motion for approval.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

We greatly appreciate your support.

Next is item 29.

WC25400-140 for NZC 22028.

Waiver of conditions of a non-conforming zone change requiring no certificate of occupancy can be issued for any structure within the project, unless and until a certificate of occupancy has been issued for the clubhouse, adjacent project to the north for a previously approved single family residential development on 4.9 acres and an RS2 residential single family two zone.

Generally located north of Oletta Avenue and west of Conquistador Street with an enterprise.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Lexa Green 1980 Festival Plaza Drive here on behalf of the applicant who is American Homes for Rent.

This application is a request to waive a waiver waive a previously approved condition.

The subject sites located on the northwest corner of Conquistador and Oletta to the south.

We have South Wallop Highway further west with Blue Diamond to the north.

As you can see, highlighted in blue is phase one of the development, which is completely constructed and rented out.

Highlighted in yellow is phase two, which I will speak on today, as well as highlighted in red is the clubhouse that was approved as well.

Included as a condition of approval for phase two was a condition that the certificate of occupancy for the clubhouse be issued prior to any certificates of occupancy for any of the residential units in phase two.

We are requesting to waive that just for the first 15 units of phase two.

We're developing the clubhouse and also phase two concurrently.

We are expecting the clubhouse to be done around April or May, with the first 15 units being done five in March, five and April, five in May.

So with that, we're looking to move forward with the rental of the first 15 units.

With that, I thank you all for your timing uh consideration, and I'm here to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

This is a public hearing on item 29.

Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward at this time.

Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing.

Commissioner Jones.

Thank you.

I have personally observed the progress than made on the clubhouse, and so I'll move for approval agenda item 29.

So motion for approval, please cast your vote.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioners.

Have a great day.

Next is item 31, WS250798.

Waivers of Development Standards for the following.47 acres in an RS20 residential single family 20 zone within the neighborhood protection RP overlay.

Generally located south of Craft Avenue and west west of Grand Canyon Drive within Lone Mountain.

Good morning.

Good morning, County Commissioners.

My name is Susan Florian from Tanney Engineering, 6030 South Jones Boulevard here on behalf of the applicant.

The site is located uh uh west of uh Grand Canyon, uh south of Kraft.

Uh right now it has a zone, uh a zoning of uh RS20.

It's in an RNP and PO area.

Uh the planned land use is RN ranch estate's neighborhood.

Right now, uh we are not requesting any modifications to the zoning or the land use.

Uh what we're proposing is a one uh uh one home uh residential subdivision.

Uh we are asking uh for a couple waivers though.

Uh for landscaping, uh we are asking to eliminate uh landscaping along craft in Grand Canyon.

Uh however, we will uh have an alternative.

I do have um it will look more like the bottom one.

Uh it'll be tiered.

Uh so there'll be three uh for Grand Canyon, there will be uh three tiers uh with an iron rod fence uh with landscaping on each tier.

Uh we have a total of 30 trees on um on Grand Canyon and eight trees along craft, so the three-foot wall also on along craft and then the six-foot uh landscaping behind it.

Uh sorry about that.

It's not not you.

We also have um a uh reduction of uh five feet between uh the garage and the north carport.

Uh I know that the uh the rec uh the right um the requested uh separation is six, but we're asking for five.

Um we're also asking uh for uh no uh offset improvements on Grand Canyon and Craft as well.

Uh everything around there is uh rule.

Uh we're intending to uh keep it that way.

Um I would like to uh withdraw without prejudice uh for the building height.

Um we are asked we were asking for 39, um but now we're we're going uh with code um to reduce this to uh 35.

And then uh the last two waivers are um access fill.

Uh we're asking for uh nine feet uh for the five foot and the the 20 foot, and then for the retaining wall, uh we're asking for eight.

I I do understand I do want to thank uh public works and uh the commissioner as well as Michelle uh for meeting with us.

Um I do understand that there will be a condition uh for the retaining wall and uh the access bill.

Uh with that I conclude my presentation.

I'm here to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you very much.

This is a public hearing.

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

Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing.

Commissioner Becker.

So, yes.

Um, the height I'm glad you're withdrawing that.

Uh, it will be there's no waiver requested.

Uh it'll be what's allowed by code.

Um, and for the fill, I just have the condition that you'll work with public works development review to minimize the amount of fill necessary to balance the site as determined by the drainage study.

Um, and with that, uh, with the withdrawal of number two and five C, the height.

Um, I would move for approval.

Uh, did you public courts want to add to that?

Thank you, Commissioner.

We would like to add one more condition.

Uh, the maximum retaining wall height necessary to retain the allowable fill as determined by the drainage study.

We just want to make sure and monitor the amount of fill that they're putting on this lot through the drainage study.

We can agree with that condition.

And with that, I would move for approval.

So motion for approval, please cast your vote.

Motion carries.

Thank you so much, County Commissioners.

Have a good day.

Next is item 32, WS 250828, waivers and development standards for the following.

Reduce parking lot landscaping, allow attached sidewalks, alternative driveway geometrics, and weigh full-off site improvements.

Design review for a restaurant tavern with outdoor dining and drinking on a portion of 5.04 acres in a CG commercial general zone within the Red Rock Overlay.

Generally located south of Blue Diamond Road and east of Erskine Junction Road within Red Rock.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Um, my name is Oleen, address 1950 East Dewarm Springs, um 89119.

Um, we're proposing um a tavern.

Our site is located on the southeast corner of blue of Blue Diamond and Erskine Junction Road.

Um total square footage for the entire site is like a little over five acre.

We're only proposing to develop a portion of it.

Um we're proposing a two-story tavern with uh with a rooftop deck with the total square footage of like a little over 13,000.

Uh we're providing a hundred percent parking, um, a hundred percent uh landscape.

And um the side's gonna be accessed through Earth's conjunction road only.

Um total square foot total height is gonna be 34 feet and eight inches, which the allowable is 35 feet for the red rock overlay.

And uh with this, we would like to um because we're we were asking for a waiver for an attached sidewalk.

We would like to withdraw that uh waiver, and with this updated site plan, we are providing the detached sidewalks.

Thank you.

This is a public hearing on item 32.

Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward at this time.

Please state your name for the record.

Good morning, Mr.

Chair Randy Black Jr.

Address is 1077 West Wayne, suite number 300, 89134.

My questions are more related to staff.

Is this site approved for a restaurant bar under a use permit from the old Title 29 or is it under 30?

As um an approval process for the use on that five acres.

I'll in just a second, I'll close the public hearing and we'll address that.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak, please come forward at this time.

Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing.

Director Riel.

It's being processed under Title 30.

There's no locked-in code uh for this site that would have the regulations from Title 29 apply.

Thank you.

Uh I'll turn it over to Commissioner Jones.

Um thank you.

Ms.

Mr.

Block, did you have some specific thing that you wanted to address?

Or I'm just curious about the separation distance from the approval that we have, Kitty Corner from this for the same use.

I believe they did the distance separation and it was more than 1500 feet, right?

I'm assuming they're talking tavern to tavern.

We don't have a separation.

This is a restaurant.

We don't have alcohol uses in Title 30.

And here we go, learning the difference between 29 and 30.

Thank you for the clarity.

Okay.

All right, with that, I'll go ahead and move for approval agenda item uh number 32 with withdrawal of uh waiver number two.

Commissioner Jones has moved for approval of item 32.

Please cast your vote.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is item 33, WS250841 waivers of development standards for the following.

Reduce the interior side setback and waive full off site improvements in conjunction with the proposed minor subdivision on 4.47 acres in an RS80 residential single family 80 zone.

Generally located north of Willow Avenue and east of Metcalf Drive within Moapa Valley.

Good morning.

My name is Amy Hughes, H U G H E S, 1580 Metcalf Drive, Logan Dale, Nevada.

The property is here on Metcalf Drive.

And the waivers we have submitted to subdivide our property into two partials.

And the two waivers I am asking for the first one is for the five-foot setback.

The structure here is currently four feet nine inches away from the property line, and the code is five feet, so three inches off.

So I'm asking for that waiver, and then the second waiver I'm asking for are for the full off-site improvements off of Metcalf and Willow.

Both are dirt roads.

We live in a rural neighborhood, a rural area.

No such development of street lights, curving got our even paving, even or anywhere around where we live.

So I'm asking for those waivers in congruence with our rural area.

Thank you.

Thank you.

If that completes your presentation, I'll open the public hearing on item 33.

Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward at this time.

Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing.

Commissioner Kirkpatrick.

So let's address these.

So and I try to be really consistent out there.

So as much as it's rule, they blow up our phone about paving their road, right?

So it's great until the kids get on the you know OHVs and right through there.

And so we want to be consistent.

So one we're okay with waving the setback.

I mean, it's three inches.

Most people are not gonna even recognize that.

And two, we're we're gonna waive the full offsites because to your point, there's no one out there.

We typically require the um partial paving, but because there's no access for somewhat public roads out there, we are going to waive that this time.

And I I want to put it on the record because my phone will be blowing up about uh playing favoritism, and I want to make sure that they understand why I did that.

And then three, we just want to make sure the town board and you all agreed to keep the three sides agriculture or something.

Yes.

Yes, yes.

Okay, all right.

That would be my motion for approval with those conditions.

Thank you.

There's a motion for approval on item 33.

Please cast your vote.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Carey, thank you.

I'm commissioners, I'm gonna read in 35 and 36 into the record at the same time.

They're not companion, but they're essentially the same project, different locations.

So item 35, WS 250866, waiver of development standards to reduce the front setback design review for single family residential models in conjunction with the previously approved single family residential development on 12.45 acres and an RS20 residential single family 20 zone within the neighborhood protection RP overlay.

Generally located south of El Dorado Lane and east and west of Shrills Street within Enterprise.

Item 36, WS 250867, waiver of development standards to reduce the front setback.

Design review for single family residential models in conjunction with the previously approved single family residential development on 14.39 acres and an RS20 residential single family 20 zone within the neighborhood protection RP overlay.

Generally located south of Warm Springs Road and east and west of Henson Street within Enterprise.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Good morning again.

Uh Mr.

Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Tony Sless.

Address 1980 Fest Festival Plaza Drive.

Here on behalf of the applicant Pulti homes for both 35 and 36.

I appreciate these being taken together because they while on different sites, the exact same issue.

Just for reference, uh the top aerial is uh item 35, El Dorado and Shrills, and then item 36 is the bottom uh uh bottom area over here on Warm Springs and Henson.

Uh both of these projects came in uh last year.

These are Pulti's large lot, these are RMP uh about 1.75 units to the acre, large home developments that were approved by this board.

Um when we came in with our elevations, we missed one of the elevations, which had several different options on it, and because of that, it does trigger a uh waiver that we're seeking on front yard setbacks.

So, what this is showing is this is the main floor plan.

There is an option for a casita, and there is also an option for an RV.

If both the casita and the RV are both options implied, then this waiver does not is not needed.

Basically, the waiver is to allow 10 feet front yard setback for greater than 50 percent of the house width.

So this is a total of 75 feet.

If all three of these features are in there, it's uh 38 feet, so it's less than 50 percent.

However, if one of these options are not in there, then we tilt a little bit over that 50 percent threshold, which triggers that that uh waiver request.

I will note this only applies to the one-story homes.

Um, however, because all of our products do match on the lot, all these lots we are asking for some flexibility on the design for these this waiver to apply.

Um, with that, I appreciate both of these uh being taken together.

Happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

This is a public hearing on items 35 and 36.

If you're wishing to speak, come forward at this time.

Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing.

Uh I think it is highly unlikely that this happens, but I'd like to just for some protection condition that uh that that only applied to a maximum of 50 percent on each site.

So that would that condition would apply to 35 and 36.

And we can accept it and agree to that condition on both 35 and 36.

Thank you.

If there are no further questions, I'll move for approval of items 35 and 36 with the additional condition.

The motion carries.

Thank you.

Next companion items 37 through 40.

Item 37, PA 2570049.

Plan amendment to redesignate the existing land use category from neighborhood commercial to business employment on 4.61 acres.

Generally located west of Edmonds Street and south of Russell Road within Spring Valley.

Item 38, ZC 250767 zone change to reclassify 4.61 acres from an RS20 residential single family 20 zone to an IP industrial park zone, generally located west of Edmonds Street and south of Russell Road within Spring Valley.

Item 39 BS 250768, vacate and abandoned easements of interest to Clark County, located between Lindell Road and Edmonds Street and Russell Road and Quayla Avenue, and a portion of right away being Russell Road, located between Lindell Road and Edmond Street within Spring Valley.

Uh and item 40, WS 250769.

Waiver's development standards for the following increase retaining wall height and alternative driveway geometrics.

Design review for a warehouse and distribution center on 4.61 acres and an IP industrial park zone within the airport environments, A60 overlay.

Generally located south of Russell Road and west of Edmond Street within Spring Valley.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Good morning, Mr.

Chairman, Commissioners.

My name's Bob Gronauer, 1980 Festival Plaza Drive.

I'm here representing the applicant in these uh four matters that are before you.

The first thing I'd like to do is just orient you to the location of our property.

As you can see here on the overhead, highlighted in yellow, we have approximately five acres of property that is just south of Russell Road, which runs uh east and west in this way, and on the west side of Edmonds.

If you take a look at this area here and you're familiar, and especially with this hard corner, you'd see a lot of the business employment that's already existing in this area.

We do have some higher density residential to the north on on um Russell, and then we have some uh some single family residential homes over here to the west of us, which is about as you can see here, about half of our property backs up adjacent to that, and then we have a drainage channel that goes up and through the northern portion of our property.

When you take a look at the area of how it's planned and how most of this area is zoned, as you can see here, you see a sea of blue, which is for the business employment area, and along Edmonds, what is very important to note that this is all master plan and plan for neighborhood commercial uses, along with also the frontage if you go along Russell in that area.

So what we're asking to do is change the land plan to business employment.

Uh the way we look at this is is with the neighborhood commercial type of commercial uses that you can have here, subject to spit special use permits or other waivers that you come in with, you can come in with more intense commercial uses, and those commercial uses could be convenience stores, fast food restaurants, and so on, which could have an impact to some of the existing residential that's in this area.

As I already mentioned, is so one way or the other, you either have uh for some form of neighborhood commercial subject to use permits, design reviews, and potentially waiver development standards up here on this hard corner, or what we're proposing, what we believe is a better uh use for a buffer in this area and a much needed use, also, which is for an industrial park, which is uh the zoning that we're asking for.

So as I already showed you the overhead and in the land plan that's located here, one of the things I want to get into next is the design of what we are proposing here.

Uh, the design that you see actually on the I'll start here on the right is essentially where we started in this process with respect to the building, and I'll orient you, and then I'm gonna go through some of the changes to address some of the public works concerns and some of the of the other design changes that we've made through the neighborhood process and meeting process.

So this is the first plan that we submitted.

This is Russell Road, this is Edmonds.

This building here originally was about 76,000 square feet of uh office warehouse building where we had all of our docks, loading dock areas facing out here on Edmonds, which was in conflict with the ingress egress that we're having on Edmonds.

We have some office space uh located on the southern portion of our property and the northern portion of our property.

The idea here is is instead of having the building up adjacent Edmund and Russell, where you'd have some truck traffic and other parking issues in this area up adjacent to half the property where the residential is, we thought it would be better to have the building back to the western portion of our property as much as possible.

Uh, what we are proposing in this area, as I'm showing you in the green areas 20 feet of intense landscaping where we have double row of trees that's in compliance to your uh uh code and Title 30 requirements.

Uh we are providing an eight-foot high wall in this area.

It goes up a little bit more in this area here because of drainage, and we have a higher wall, but this is adjacent to future commercial and/or industrial type of uses uh in this area here.

Down in this area, we have a minimum of 25 feet of landscaping.

Uh, as you can see, as we get a little bit closer to the southwest area here, we have more than 25 feet of landscaping.

Uh so this was the original plan uh that we had coming in.

Um public works had some concerns with our ingress, egress, and throat depth.

So, as you take a look on the right-hand side here, here are some of the changes that we've made, at least with the site plan.

One is we've lost a couple parking spaces up here up north to create a deeper throat depth in this area coming off of Russell Road.

We also, as you can see, as we remove parking spaces, I believe about approximately 17, 18 parking spaces along the east property line of our building here.

In addition, what we did is we put trash enclosures on the east side of the building to ensure that we have two trash enclosures in this area that's located here.

And as you can see, we added the future use of office space in this area, and we separated our docks in this area.

This has made public works more comfortable with the design on the site plan of what we're asking for, so you don't have that creative that that uh potential conflicts of trucks and cars coming in and out off of Edmonds, which is similar, not much different than other industrial projects on the other side of Edmonds that has been approved for throat depth waivers, where they've resolved those potential conflicts as I just mentioned to you.

And so we also reduced the building size by about 6,000 square feet and making some additional changes here.

And so, what we believe is at least with the changes on the site plan here, we've addressed some of the public works concerns with respect to the throat depth and circulation on the property, and also we wanted to make sure we included the the uh buffering on the property.

What the next thing that we worked on is the uh elevations, and I just want to show you quickly.

Um, this is the initial elevations that we were proposing.

Uh, this is a third this is a 35-foot high building.

Um, although we can go higher.

Uh this is on along quail, this would give you an idea along quail with the landscaping with the DCAT sidewalk.

The initial building design that we had, as you can see here, this was a more modern look.

And I I'm gonna get into the west elevation that we would be backing up to the two homes that are residential and the commercial that we'd be backing up to.

And I'll get into that when I show you the redesign of our building.

But this is the back design of our proposed building when we first initially started the process.

Uh, what we have today is we've changed the colors of the building itself from the blue and the white and the gray to more of a gray, white, and blue uh blue area, and some areas in tan and brown, and I'll show you as I go to the rear elevation.

So you can see the design itself as far as the elevation, the changes that we have.

But what I want to make known is along the west property line, instead of having just a flat gray wall of a tilt-up concrete, what we've done here is we've broken up the building in every 22 to 26 feet.

What we've done here is we've broken up the building in every 22 to 26 feet.

What you will see here is there's a break in the building.

So this is approximately about 22 feet in width, and then there's uh about a four-foot recess in this area here, and then there are two other blocks here of 22 and 26 feet, and then there's a recess back into the building here, and then in these areas I'm showing you where the beige area is.

So for the height of the building, it goes from 33 feet in that area up to 35 feet in the blue area.

What you will see here are windows that we are proposing on the west side here.

These aren't windows that you're going to be able to look out from a building.

These are windows that will allow the light to come into the building, but it's also an architectural feature that we're proposing, just adds more character to the rear elevation.

And one of the things that we did, um, we also added the metal canopies because we have metal canopy canopies around the front of our building, which is about four feet in uh in width to use it for cover and shade.

Back here, we would provide two-foot canopies above our windows that we have here that are letting in the light, so that gives us some more character in the back here of the building.

So we believe by the changes that we've made here with the rear of the building here, it's more congruent with the uh to the residential that we're backing up to.

Uh, we believe with the eight-foot wall with the intense landscaping that we're proposing that that gives it a good enough buffer in that area, and that similar type of developments of uh industrial park developments, such as this uh warehouse office type of use has been approved against other residential properties as a buffer, and we would ask you to approve our applications that are before you.

Thank you.

If there's nothing further, this is a public hearing.

Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward at this time.

Good morning.

Um, I don't know if you can hear me.

There you go.

My name is Stephanie Reiner.

I live at 5330 West Quail Avenue.

Right there.

That's where I live.

And this is going right by my house.

So that's why I am here.

Uh Bruce Cowan, I live at 58.

I'm sorry, you guys have to present us one at a time.

Uh we're novices.

Unless you want to combine your three minutes, but Stephanie.

I'm opposed, of course.

Um, to rezoning from neighborhood commercial to business employment.

The reason I think before the county decided that there was a buffer that was going to be Edmund.

Edmund was going to be the buffer between business industrial, which is all of this over here, and RP.

We're in the RP.

We're RS20.

And they changed it to neighbor neighborhood commercial for a reason.

We are okay with that.

We feel if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I don't want a 35-foot wall behind my house, which I'm sure it's coming down Lindell.

I don't want to stare out my backyard and see a 35-foot concrete wall.

And I bet if you all had that behind your house, you wouldn't want that either.

So I'm here to put on the record that I oppose this zone change.

Sorry, I'm nervous.

Um it doesn't fit with the RMP.

We moved into these houses.

I've been in there 26 years, and I've watched the city come to us.

And like I told you, progress is great until it isn't, until it starts interrupting our lives.

We live there every day.

We drive down those streets every day.

And every day we're gonna see that.

I'm okay with neighborhood commercial.

We have the power as the people that live in that area to choose what we do.

What we want, if we have that down the road, we don't know what that's gonna be down the road.

You're betting on something that's a fact right now against something that's down the road that you don't know what that is.

I'm willing to see what that's going to be instead of having a warehouse 24-7 business right behind my house.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Since we know the since we know this mic works, my name is Bruce Cowan.

I live at 5840 uh Mohawk on that property right there.

Um part of the concern is that there will be also a development uh that the same firm is representing for this spot.

Uh this is the industrial area.

This is kind of a buffer zone.

The county staff uh recommended uh denial, and the county town board voted 5-0 uh unanimously in opposition to this.

Um the county staff um said that it this violated policy six to six point two point J and N4.4, the master plan.

We support the master plan.

Okay, we support the staff's view and and the strategy.

We think that this is wrong that just because a big developer wants to come in and do this, that they should get what they want.

Um so most parcels.

This is the east side, and these are the warehouses.

And this is the west side, and these are uh have a lower level of intensity.

This is a buffer zone between rural preservation and the industrial area over here.

Um you have a situation where this is what it would actually end up looking like.

Um you see this guy right here, that guy's six feet tall.

Um that's what it's gonna end up looking like right behind these people's houses, as well as the idea that they would do this further down for a straight quarter of a mile.

It won't even look as nice as this.

It'll look worse.

I understand that you know they're talking about trees and mature trees and and a wall and trying to make it look architecturally pleasing, but it's a quarter of a mile of cement that's 35 feet high, is what we're looking at.

And it doesn't, and it doesn't fit the plan.

And it also doesn't match up what is further south on the west side, on the west side of Edmund down this way, is what that looks like.

It's a very nice um office building, fully occupied, uh beautiful looking, and and the neighbors don't oppose that.

Um so we would hope that you would vote no uh and think about the fact that we have to live there.

And that you know uh you're you're playing with our lives.

So please vote no.

Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak, please come forward at this time.

Seeing none, Mr.

Gronauer.

So the I guess the comment to you know, think about if you live there, we have to live there.

Uh that is that's what I have been thinking about.

Uh the alternative, and I know I'm not gonna convince public speakers today.

We've for my colleagues' sake, we've had the opportunity to sit down and discuss this item.

Uh uh, and uh and there is some thought that has gone into it.

Um that part of my consideration here is as in commercial by right, they can go to 50 feet.

They could have active uses there that every traffic study would indicate would create more issues for that neighborhood.

Um, what was just on the screen is not what in reality this is going to look like.

Um, and maybe Mr.

Gronar, if you have what you are presenting, at least what we believe it'll look like, um that's more reflective, that might help.

Uh I I also do want to ask if you have the site plan too.

Could you just point out there were some comments not today, but prior about trash enclosures.

Could you point out where those have been moved to?

Yeah, the uh trash reclur uh uh trash enclosure is located here and located here.

So we wanted to put it on the east side of the building as far away as we can.

So we have the two trash enclosures that are located on the north and south of the building here.

Okay.

And then before we get into aesthetics, uh Mr.

Papazian, do you want to just confirm that the significant issues from public works have been addressed with the redesign?

Absolutely.

Thank you, Commissioner.

As you could see, uh Bob's put up the very first uh the the one on the left was the initial uh design that they had, and we had concerns with this design because we were worried when uh one of the large trucks that we see uh on the roads um enter the site that the maneuvering was gonna be happening adjacent to the driveway, and that would put the additional vehicle, truck, whatever was coming in into Edmund right-away.

So they worked with us, we appreciate uh many phone calls with Mark Muhal and uh Bob Gronaur meetings with them to actually come up with the design as shown on the right where they separated the roll-up doors and nothing in between the driveways, so no maneuvering will be happening adjacent to the driveway.

They've removed parking spaces, they've add lands, they've added landscaping, and they've moved the trash enclosures to help with the queuing on Edmond.

And with this design, you probably can cue, you know, two or three on the north and two or three vehicles on the south, and these are the big trucks that I'm talking about, the 74 foot length trucks before a fifth vehicle would be queuing on Edmund, and that's if they're all coming in at the same time.

Okay, thank you.

And then as it relates to some of the aesthetics, I I don't want it, the picture that was presented, I don't want it to look like that.

I don't want it to be just a concrete wall.

I want to be sure that the what you present to the front to the customer say facing side and all the money that you spend on enhancements on that side uh is on all four elevations.

Uh I think that will I know that that will help uh break up some of what uh the speakers today have pointed to as far as just one long concrete tilt up wall.

So could you talk to some of the some of those aesthetic things?

Yes, and that's a great point.

And you can add that as a condition because this is one of the late additions that we put in.

So the canopy that you see here in the back above the window is the canopy that you would see in the front here.

This is the north elevation.

So the where the windows are.

So the difference is the front canopy is going to be four feet in width, and then in the back, because it's not for shade, it's more for architectural purposes.

We have a two-foot uh metal canopy.

So that would be over the window itself.

So that takes that four-sided architecture that you're asking for, where the front and the back is treated the same.

Uh, and typically on industrial buildings, you don't have windows in the back.

You typically, if you're familiar, just have just the gray wall, or you might have a couple of other things that will break it up.

So, what we put it in here are the windows that will allow light into the building.

So it creates but you won't be able to see out.

No, you won't be able to see.

No, you won't be able to see those those are too high in the that area there.

And then what as I was mentioning is in the 22 feet to 26 feet here, you'll have an architectural break in here, which is about four feet of where we'll indent allow I'll call it just indent a bit, and then you got 22 and 26 feet where into these areas here, they're broken up also with the different colors that we're proposing.

And then in this area here, for about another 20 something feet, it is also pushed in in this area here.

So the building's not just a flat elevation.

So you're gonna have some movement of the building that goes in and out as you go down on the um rear elevation, as I'm showing you.

And then also what we wanted to do to add some uh character is in these areas, uh it's 33 feet, not 35 feet.

So you don't just have a flat roof going straight across in the west elevation, so you do have some movement on top also to create some character in that area.

Okay, and then next you uh showed a demonstration with some pretty trees in it.

Uh our code wouldn't necessarily require that the trees uh be mature at the time of planting.

The condition that I'd like to apply is on the trees that are to be adjacent to existing residential, that those trees be minimum of 10 foot at time of planting uh and will eventually grow into what you're actually demonstrating on paper.

Yeah, that's fine.

Okay.

Um and then I guess just to recap for me at the end of the day, the the only differences between this and commercial from an aesthetic perspective is you don't have loading docks and truck traffic and and uh a road in the back up against residential, which other neighbors have talked to me about not wanting.

Uh you don't have the high level of traffic that comes with it, and you're 15 feet shorter than when what than what would be allowable in a commercial area.

Um so for me, uh plus I I think if you look at the broader picture, and I'm not gonna deny the impact to the individuals who live abutting this.

That's significant and it's real.

Um, but if you look at the broader picture of this area, um this does make sense, and I think with those additional conditions provides for some protection of the existing residential.

So it looks like Director Rial has some questions.

I do have some clarification.

At first, I thought that I heard that the canopy would be provided along all the windows, and I thought I heard all elevations.

Um there's not canopies shown on the plans that we don't have, but we can condition it that are shown on the north and south elevations.

So I just want to get clarification that the canopies that are requested to be added are just along the west elevation uh for all the windows shown.

Yeah, that that is the intent.

We want to make sure in the back, in the front, there might be a couple windows that don't have those canopies, but they do have canopies up front also.

So on the front, there's more than a couple because each of those smaller.

So we have our in our doors.

If you take a look in our north elevation, those those are canopies right there.

Uh along on our east elevation, we have some canopies in there, as you can see there, and over here on our east elevation.

Correct, but there's still windows shown without canopies, so that's why I wanted to get clarification that it was just the west elevation that we were adding the canopies, or did you want canopies along all the windows?

No, I think the requirements is on the west is my concern.

Okay, if there's nothing else, I move for approval of items 36, 37, 38, 39, and 40.

I'm sorry, starting with 37, 37, 38, 39, and 40.

Thank you, and have a good day.

Thank you.

Next is item 41, UC 250762.

Reconsideration of a use permit for a cannabis establishment retail store in conjunction with the previously approved cannabis consumption lounge on 1.6 acres in a CG commercial general zone within the airport environments, A60 overlay in the Maryland Parkway overlay.

Generally located north of Desert Inn Road and west of Maryland Parkway within Winchester.

Good morning.

Good morning, uh Chair, Commission.

Uh Michael Cristali on behalf of the applicant.

Good morning.

Good.

I uh we we were here, I think, uh last month in regard to uh the use permit as it relates to the transfer or change of location uh for the dispensary to its adjacent location.

Um what we failed to realize was apparently the use was for a dispensary and not a retail use.

Uh really I'm unsure of the uh difference between the two.

Um we had some discussions with the county with regard to that particular issue.

I think we've worked through it.

There may be some changes which now treats both both uses the same, hopefully in the future.

Uh but essentially what we're here is to get the approval on the retail use as well as the dispensary use.

Thank you.

This is a public hearing on items uh 41.

Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward at this time.

Seeing none, Commissioner Sagerblum.

Thank you.

And I think you actually accurately reflected that that we were we have two conflicting issues.

Um you applied for apparently uh medical transfer as opposed to a retail transfer.

That's just something we don't need to have anymore.

So the next item is actually gonna be to correct this uh ordinance.

So thank you for doing that.

I apologize for the inconvenience you had to go through, but uh I'll as well it ends well.

I hope so.

Thank you.

I'd move for approval.

There's a motion for approval on item 41.

Please cast your vote.

Thanks.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is item 42, AG 2690013.

Discuss whether Title 30 should be amended to address changes in the licensing of the cannabis establishments and direct staff accordingly.

Uh commissioners, as you've heard in the in the prior item, um state law currently still has two types of cannabis regulations.

Uh, there's still a medical and there's still a rec uh adult use or recreational.

Um what has happened in the 2023 uh legislative session is the state was instructed to no longer issue medical licenses anymore, and uh for those states that opted to have recreational, so because or states, counties, because the county uh Clark County has opted to have recreational or adult use cannabis.

Um what the state has done is they have basically have eliminated all of the medical licenses and have merged them, and so anybody now who has a recreational license or an adult use license can have uh medical cannabis.

So this is a request that the board direct us to essentially eliminate uh dispensaries, which is the medical recreate or the medical use of cannabis for sale for the I don't want to say retail stores, but for a dispensary where they could sell medical cannabis, and then we have some additional findings that were added back when we first added um medical back then it was called marijuana, and then uh recreational uh cannabis and it's it's our recommendation that some of these findings be removed because they're either regulated by other agencies uh and or they are no longer apply to the current conditions in Clark County.

Thank you.

Are there any comments or discussion on this item?

Does that require a motion?

No.

Any direction other than the direction that we've been asked to give.

Great.

You've got direction.

Perfect.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Next are ordinances for introduction.

Uh item 43 RD 25901008 is to introduce an ordinance to consider adoption of a development agreement with Diamond Star Hills LLC for a single family residential development on five acres.

Um item 44, ORD 26 9000 is to introduce an ordinance to amend the official zoning map reclassifying certain properties as approved by the Board of County Commissioners on November 19th, 2025.

And then item 45, ORD 269034 is to introduce an ordinance to modify Title 30 fee schedule and to amend Title 30 regulations for accessory living quarters, multifamily dwellings, and commercial districts, street landscaping standards, parking requirements for many warehouses, sidewalks, street width, single family residential private streets and access, review procedures for affordable housing projects, procedures for administrative extensions of time and extensions of time for off-site improvements, definitions for inflatable amusement device, community facility, and recreational vehicle, and make other corrections and clarifications as appropriate and providing for other matters properly related there too.

Commissioners, we asked that you set the public hearing for these three ordinances for February 18th, 2026.

I'll set the public hearings for these three ordinances for February 18th, 2026.

That concludes our agenda.

Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward at this time.

Good morning.

Uh hello, commissioners.

My name is uh Al Rojas.

I came uh to uh give you guys a summary of we had a fantastic town hall meeting, and you guys being in zoning, you know that we have to address this homeless problem because it's getting bigger and bigger.

California spent 32 billion dollars and it's getting worse, and we got to take some uh preventative action.

So I wanted to give you my opinion since I've been involved in this.

It was a fantastic meeting.

I recommend that all commissioners do a uh homeless uh encampment meeting with their group.

We've had two of them, one with Tick Seegerbroom yesterday was with Commissioner Gibson.

Uh my when I talk about all the positives, the only things that I felt there was lacking was that we didn't discuss RVs, which we were still seeing a problem, and code enforcement wasn't there.

So yesterday, you know, I showed you guys the diagram I had the triangle of success.

Uh hopefully one day I'll show it.

I wanted to bring it and show it to TIC.

Tick wasn't here, but you know, we all got to work together, and the community has to work together to be part of the solution, otherwise we are gonna end up like California.

Um the basic conclusion that I came is that we gotta start controlling the dumpsters and these shopping carts because Metro is going in there and cleaning this up.

Next thing you know, these guys go and rebuild these encampments.

Where are they getting the material from?

From the dumpsters, from the shopping carts.

So we gotta slow down that process.

I was gonna make a comment earlier where uh they talked about the two enclosed dumpsters to support that, but you know, since I don't live in that area and there were other people, I felt it was inappropriate.

But I do believe that we have to start moving that all new development has to have an enclosed dumpster and maybe start getting on these nuisance companies like Cardinals, which I made a video on, which has not only their dumpsters open, but their management, you can't even get a hold of them there in California.

Now, of course, I don't expect you guys to do that.

I just made a statement, but I had said that if I had the authority, I'd revoke their business license, that we don't do business like that in here in Nevada.

That you gotta start closing your dumpsters and you gotta make your managers accessible to our commissioners to our code enforcement to start getting on top of this problem because it's getting out of control.

Um the other thing is uh what we're seeing is uh um I made a comment and uh Commissioner Gibson correctly uh uh corrected me, was that these people that were throwing out regularly and violating the uh ordinance are not getting arrested, and the ordinances and anybody who violates any part of the ordinance should be arrested, and we should do that.

So that's something we do and I'm gonna bring that up to my commissioner that we have one guy that we've just been trespassing left and right and I thought he had to be repeatedly um uh he had to get trespassed but all he has to do is show that he's been violating this so I'll I'll send that to my commissioner.

Thank you very much.

This concludes the meeting of the Clark County Zoning Commission.

Have a good day