Good evening, everyone.

Welcome to the Planning Commission meeting for February the 17th.

Um, if you wouldn't mind, everyone please rise and join us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

One nation under God, individual with every team adjustment as well.

Thank you.

Uh staff roll call, please.

Commissioner Chair Fraser.

Here.

Vice Chair Mohica.

Present.

Commissioner Stone.

Here.

Commissioner Kirk.

Here.

Commissioner Kalarski.

Here.

Commissioner Gibson.

Here.

Commissioner Reutman.

Here.

Mr.

Chair, we have a quorum.

Uh thank you.

Um first item on the agenda is uh public comments.

Um section that's set up set aside by NRS for anyone in the public to come down and make general comments.

The the planning commission cannot act on any of those comments, but you're more than welcome to put anything you would like to on record.

All right, seeing no one coming down, we will close public comments and we'll get the meeting started.

Go ahead.

All right.

The next item on the agenda is approval of the agenda after any additions, holds, or deletions.

At this time, staff has the following requests.

Uh request uh withdrawal per the applicant, item number five, UC 25-0017 for the applicant's information.

Additional notification fees may be required in accordance with Title 30 for items held or deleted, or if there are modifications to the original application.

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

Thank you.

Uh can I get a motion for approval of the agenda?

Mr.

Chairman, I'll move that we approve the agenda as amended by staff.

Thank you very much.

There's a motion on the floor.

Commissioner Vice Chair Mohica.

Uh yes.

All right.

That motion carries.

Next one, please.

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

Uh there are, however, no planning commission briefing and regular meeting uh meeting minutes ready for approval at this time.

So we'll move on to our announcements.

For the audience information, items on tonight's agenda are final action unless appealed to the Board of County Commissioners or otherwise denounced.

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

on Wednesday, February 25th, 2026.

And any appeals from tonight's meeting will be heard by the Board of County Commissioners on Wednesday, March 18th, 2026 at 9 a.m.

in these chambers.

Per title 30, an aggrieved person may appeal an item.

An aggrieved person includes the applicant, someone who attended 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 sign-in sheet found near the dias to confirm their attendance at this meeting.

Additionally, any person may call the comprehensive planning department at 702-455-4314, or go to the county's meeting agenda web page and review the meeting notice of final action to find out if any items have been appealed.

With that said, next are the routine action items, which consist of items four through eleven, except for the item that was previously deleted.

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

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

Thank you, staff.

All right, so this is the part of our meeting where we will be approving the routine action items.

And for the public's knowledge, that's going to be in one vote.

We're going to approve all items four through 11, except for the item that's being held in one vote.

So if you have an if you want to have one of those items heard, now is the time to come down and request that we pull it from the agenda.

And young man, so you're coming down.

Um name and address for the record and tell us which item you'd like to have heard.

Tim Victor 4753 Westbury Road, Las Vegas 89121, uh, Montreal States.

Uh item number five.

You see 25017 BFA.

H Vegas LLC.

Thank you.

We'll we'll pull it and hear it.

That item it's been with the code.

Oh, I'm sorry, I wasn't paying attention.

Sir, um, so so I'm I apologize, I was not paying attention.

So that item has actually been withdrawn.

Well, it was.

I mean I just walked in the door.

So yeah, yeah.

So yeah, thatems been withdrawn.

Okay, uh, thanks so much.

Thank you.

Welcome.

Um, so I think we're ready for a motion.

Mr.

Chairman, I'll move that we approve the routine action items four through 11 with uh omitting item number five.

All right, there's a motion on the floor.

Vice Chairman.

Commissioner Mahika approved.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

That that um that motion carries, and now we'll go to the next item.

And that will be final action on those items unless appealed.

The next item on the agenda is item number 12.

Uh this will be UC 250875.

Use permits for the following one Avo A vocational or vocational training facility, two, instruction or tutoring facility, three, emergency or urgent care, four equipment rental or sales and services, five parking lot, six office, seven outdoor market, eight financial services, nine outdoor dining, drinking, and cooking, ten live entertainment, eleven banquet facility, twelve vehicle maintenance and repair, and thirteen vehicle rental or sales in conjunction with an existing shopping center on 28.66 acres in a CR commercial resort zone, generally located north of Serene Avenue and west of Las Vegas Boulevard South within Enterprise.

Thank you very much.

Name and address for the record.

Tell us about your application.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Levenue Ohini, 520 South 4th Street, representing the application with me is the applicant and the owner of the shopping center to orient you to the site, this existing shopping center, uh, which was constructed in the late 90s and was the first outlet mall in Las Vegas prior to the one on Walmings and the one across the street.

Um it is located on the north side of Serene Avenue and west of Las Vegas Boulevard, close to the South Point.

To give you a little history on the shopping center, it was originally zoned in uh in the 90s and constructed, and subsequent to that, 2004, um, there was a zone change to H1 zoning, which the equivalent now is CR zoning, and it was always a shopping center with changes to code and the different zones now CR and even under the H1, most users need special use permits.

This shopping center was cannibalized by the new outlet malls that were constructed.

And so leasing of these spaces.

This is a shopping center.

Um interior is over 280,000 square feet with more than a thousand parking spaces uh based on the code under which it was built.

So even with Proud Title 30, this was um there were difficulties with leasing because of the H1 zoning.

The intent of this application and the history of it is since almost every use needs a special use permit, previous codes you could do an application, call it a shopping center, list the uses, and it would have been fine.

But current code, uh, you couldn't you can't really do that, so you would have to list uh list the uses.

The owner has been having difficulties and has had, and the commissioner of the districts has had issues with all the individual use permits that come through.

So if you look at the proud land uses, you would see over the years, almost every six months there's a new use.

So the intent of this is to really to revive the shopping center, allow more uses, and most of these uses, yes, uh CG uses, and I understand staff's analysis of it, but it was built as a shopping center.

The intent is to operate and allow users so that individual tenants do not have to come before the board for every single use.

The users we're asking for, some of them already exist, so we didn't list them like places of worship recreational facility.

Now, in addition to that, there's the requirement that some uses be within be outside 200 feet to the east, and going back to the aerial to the and uh maybe I should go to um to the west are two apartment complexes.

One happens to be owned by the applicant.

This is RM 18 dwelling units per acre, and to the north, it's RM32.

So those are the residential uses.

Um based on the code and and looking at the master plan, this area is generally um commercial um commercial, well, it was commercial tourist, but it's EM now and CT zone um H1 zoning with CT previously.

So um the only residential use, primarily residential use, is to the west and to the south east.

All the remaining uses are basically commercial uses, even though they may be residential, they are commercial uses based on code definition.

So our site plan shows the 66 feet to the residential to the west.

There's the 200 foot line, which is things within 200 feet, and then this is 500 feet for um live entertainment.

We did ask for an outdoor market, which is east of that line.

And so with these lines, the only use is if any use came in and it was within here.

That's why we asked for the reduction to the 66 feet.

We do understand that generally some of these uses are not uses the county has ever really entertained along the boulevard.

For instance, item number 13, which is the vehicle sales, we're more than happy to withdraw that particular application.

Um staff did analyze it and thinks we should have gone to this CG zone.

But this property is within the Las Vegas gaming corridor as defined.

And so, and even though it's master plan, it will be downzoning to go to CG zoning when they've had H1 now CR zoning since 2004.

So their intent is to keep the zoning.

This is not a zone change.

The intent is to keep the zoning, and it does have the master plan, but there's no guarantee in 10 years from now if the master plan or zoning wouldn't change.

So the intent is to keep the zoning, ask for these uses and make it easier to lease the spaces and revive the shopping center.

It's a huge shopping center.

Our client has spent a lot of money redoing the uh with towering and paving the parking lot.

He's doing everything just to draw more people in.

And with assets, we would appreciate approval with the app of the application with town board recommendation.

There's two things I needed to point out.

Equipment rental based on county code, it's a very expansive definition that includes things like bobcards, just heavy construction equipment.

That's not the intent.

The intent is to lease things, tools, like you would find a harbour frites, which is within the building, and so we want to clarify that.

And if the commissioner is willing to put a condition on it that it's only interior tools, there's no outside tools, we would accept that.

We know that sometimes ACE and some of the other ones may put some stuff outside.

We don't, our owner really does not want to do that.

He wants to keep as clean as possible.

So with that, I'm here to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

So with that, I will open this application up for a public hearing.

Anyone in the audience like to speak on this particular item?

All right, seeing no one coming down, we will close the public hearing and I'm going to open it up to my commissioners.

I see a lot of lights.

I'm gonna start on my right.

Commissioner Kalarski.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

You say you're going to withdraw item number 13.

Yes, which is for the vehicle sales and rental.

Okay.

We would rather not have that.

Um I know in my briefing with you.

My concern with your vehicle maintenance or repair.

Yes, ma'am.

I believe that needs to be as far away from the residential as possible, even though you have all these others.

Um it's up to the maker the motion, really.

But I would be more supportive if I knew that the uh repair portion number 12 would be uh adjacent to Las Vegas Boulevard because you can have the bay doors facing the parking lot.

Um there's no residential, whether it's condos or apartments or whatever, anywhere near there.

So I would be more inclined if uh we kept it as far away from the West property line as possible.

We am in a little to doing that as I said, it's up to the maker with a motion.

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Klarski.

Commissioner Gibson.

Um, so question first is for staff.

So the the item number for the equipment rental rental or sales and service.

We don't that's just one big broad thing.

So like it could be heavy big bulldozers and loaders versus it could be saws and drills.

That's that's correct.

So we don't have any definition in the it's it's a it's pretty broad.

So it's like you said, it could be um something like a lawnmower, it could be uh uh hammer, or it could be uh you know, kind of like a backhoe or something much larger.

Um the use table or so the what allows the uses.

There are certain restrictions towards the larger the larger equipment in some of the low more low intensity commercial zones.

Okay, thank you.

Um so yeah, this isn't my area, but I I your intent of small tool rentals, I really don't have a problem with.

Um and I can definitely see where staff and town boards did have with that being such a broad definition, I don't think anything same thing with the vehicle maintenance.

Like I would think that we would want to make sure there's no outdoor storage of any type, which would then limit them to small tools, and then on the equipment maintenance side too, they couldn't have a parking lot full of half broke down cars.

Anything they're working on would have to be kept within the bay.

So that's the only thing I had.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Gibson.

I'll go to Commissioner Kirk.

No worries.

So I'm gonna I want to go online to Vice Chair Mohica.

Any questions or concerns for the applicant?

Yes, I actually uh agree with Commissioner Gibson and Kirlarski.

Um I also want to thank uh Commissioner Kirk for asking the question earlier today about the vocational um permit uh because I I would agree with staff uh that this is an entertainment area um off of Las Vegas Boulevard.

I don't know if I mean I don't know if I would like to see a school, a vocational school in that lot, and that's my comment.

Uh thank you, um Vice Chair Mohica.

I I uh before I turn over to Commissioner Roykmin, I you know I'm I'm okay.

I'm okay with the application, I definitely can support it.

I I do agree that 13 should go away.

Um I did have a question to staff.

Can we condition the use of permit permit number four where it talks about equipment rental?

Is that mean can we condition it to set that's only interior?

I'm sorry.

Uh yes.

Okay, okay, all right, fair enough.

Um so actually 12 and 13 are our issues for me because I agree with Commissioner Gibson.

I mean, if you're going to be repairing things that you wouldn't want, um a series of of vehicles being worked on in your space as you're trying to sell maybe some dolls next door.

So I I really think anything that you're going to do has to be kept inside the building.

Um having said that, I will turn it over to Commissioner Worton.

Thank you, everyone, for your comments.

Um yeah, so I'm good with number one.

I'm good with number two.

Uh I'm pretty good with number three, but are we gonna limit that to urgent care only per the town board removal or yes?

So that'll be urgent care only.

Can we do that?

Great.

Uh on four, uh, I'm okay with it, but no outdoor storage, so it'll have to be limited to equipment and tools that can fit inside the building.

Yeah.

And sorry, just to clarify what I said earlier, heavy equipment is prohibited in the CR in the CR zone.

Okay, so no heavy equipment and no outdoor storage.

So we'll double whammy them there.

Uh I'm okay with the parking lot, I'm okay with the office.

I'm okay with the outdoor market, financial services, outdoor drinking and cooking, live entertainment, and banquet, except for the outdoor market, the outdoor drinking, dining, cooking, live entertainment, and banquet.

We're gonna keep that away from the neighbors, right?

Yes, the residential.

Yes, we we're east of the 500 foot line uh for the live entertainment to the west.

Do we need a condition for that?

Um Commissioner, um for outdoor uh for outdoor market, uh they are currently conditioned to be uh at least 500 feet.

That's how the plan shows for other ones.

We are not conditioned right now.

So if you want to add a condition, uh we we can.

Does that work?

It worked condition uh conditioner.

It works, Commissioner.

Um we are east of the line.

This is that blue line, so we understand.

Thank you.

So we can do that.

Yep.

Thank you.

Uh and then so do we do you still want 12 if you're going to withdraw 13.

Um I think that discussion is that maybe we come in, maybe talk to staff, make sure it, you know, the roll-up doors are facing interior.

Um we would want to sit down with staff.

Um if the owner gets someone who needs to do any use that may need pulling vehicles in, then they come in and take a look at it.

For instance, um car alarm sales, they may want to install it, but with something like that, you have to pull it in, and they'll roll up doors so we keep it into uh the interior of the shopping center, maybe north to south, so it's not facing east-west, so you it's not visible from Las Vegas Boulevard.

Okay.

Uh so commissioner, I'm sorry.

Uh actually to clarify, vehicle maintenance and repair is a use that is in C D in CR zone is only permissible if it's in conjunction with the vehicle uh sales.

So it's gonna be prohibited if uh they don't want to have a number 13, they can't have number 12 either.

Sorry.

If even with the waiver, so sorry, so can I approve number 12, but not 13 with only indoor no, I can't.

I'm looking at Jason.

It cannot because uh code says these conditions cannot be varied or waived.

So basically if they re-draw number 13, number 12 is needs to be vone at this point.

I think that's the direction I'm gonna go.

I'm sorry.

We no, we we can live with that.

Okay, okay, fine.

So then no on 12 and no on 13, with the understanding that we're not gonna do sales, so we can't do the via the other ones.

And I'll redraw both then.

So we'll do withdrawal 12 and 13.

Okay.

Okay, yes.

Staff, do you want me to repeat that one more time?

Motion to uh motion to approve UC 250875.

Um approval of one, two, three with respect to urgent, denied with respect to emergency, four without heavy equipment or any outdoor uh storage, five approved, six approved, seven approved outside of five hundred feet from the residential uh properties to the west, eight approved, nine approved uh outside of five hundred feet from the properties to the west, the residential, uh ten approved with the same condition regarding the 500 feet from the properties to the west, and 11 approved with the same condition with respect to the property, the 500 feet with respect to the properties on the west, and denied with respect to 12 and 13.

Um Commissioner, if I may, I would rather withdraw those two.

I'm sorry.

Withdrawn for 12 without prejudice.

Right, without prejudice.

And I think these days everything is without prejudice, right?

Unless we say otherwise.

Yeah, very good.

All right, so there's a motion on the floor, cast your vote.

Um Commissioner Vice Chair Mahiko.

That would be a yes.

All right.

That motion carries.

Good luck.

Thank you, Commissioner, have a good evening.

That is final action unless appealed.

Uh our next item is item number 13, WS 250817 waiver of development standards to reduce the rear setback in conjunction with an existing single family residence on 0.15 acres in an RS5.2 residential single family 5.2 zone, generally located south of Cherokee Cherokee Avenue and west of Rosewood Drive within Paradise.

Thank you.

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

My name is Ira Patrick, address 3981 Cherokee Avenue East, Las Vegas, 89121.

And I am requesting setbacks uh to to be uh reduced.

Uh originally I put this uh pulled out permits for this thing uh 83, and I didn't follow through, complete it, and I resubmitted it for 85 and got had permits done and drawings and started construction and had some uh signings inspection and I had some personal problems come up and I didn't finish with the final inspection, so I'm and in such time they've changed the setback from 10 foot to 20 foot, and my addition is 17.9 feet.

So I'm trying to get a variance or waiver.

All right.

That sounds good.

Do you do you have um a site plan maybe to show us?

I don't know if this is uh perfect.

Okay.

All right, so what I want to do is I'm gonna open this application up for a public hearing and see if anyone in the audience wants to speak on this item.

Anyone want to speak on it?

So no one's coming down to speak, so I'm gonna close the public healing hearing and I'm gonna open it up to the commissioners for comments and questions.

Commissioner Gibson?

Commissioner Gibson.

So this is looking at your pictures already built.

Yes.

And are we we're talking about this addition that's a garage?

Uh no, not the garage.

That's a room addition in the back of the property.

Uh you can see portions of it right here.

But the garage is already built.

I permitted that and had that done and completed.

But this uh room addition, like I said, I didn't finish it up or get the final inspection, and they change the setback rulings on me.

Okay, do you have any other pictures of your set of the whole backyard?

Rather than just this piece of a wall of the addition?

Excuse me, Commissioner Gibson.

I do have a question.

Okay, okay.

Well, all right, quite there we go.

That's that's the room addition completed.

Okay.

Um, so that 17 feet is going from that rain gutter eave to the rear property line or the face of the wall.

Base of the wall.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Gibson.

Could you remove that photo for a second?

And could you, I think on your on your elevation four, is that the addition, the last piece that's off to the to the which it would be to your left?

This here.

No, go up the rear number four, the root the rear elevation.

Nope, nope, number four.

Number four, three, four.

That's the addition.

Okay.

Yes, this is the addition here.

And then on the side elevation number three, is that it down there at the bottom on the right?

Very the last piece, the last portion of the right.

Is that it?

Is that your addition right there?

Uh yes.

Okay.

I see it now.

And the wall here is the garage that was installed.

The wall for the garage.

Okay.

All right, fair enough.

Um any other questions from the commissioners on the board.

I seen uh no lights on.

Um, Commissioner Um Vice Mohica.

Vice Chair.

No questions by Mr.

Chair.

I'm I'm really I'm really betting a thousand a night.

Uh all right, so um let's see.

This is yes.

Okay, great, Commissioner Kalarski.

If you want to take us home.

You know, when I went to look at and what you're looking at here, just so that you know, Commissioner Fraser or Chair Fraser, these are the elevations for the wall that eventually went in between his house and the neighbors, because I was at your house.

I don't know if you recall that.

I was at your house.

Went in the backyard.

I don't remember the addition at all.

I remember the detached accessory structure, but I don't remember the addition.

But seeing that it was already done, and uh all we're trying to do is get the final inspections done so that it can be legally permitted.

Uh we've got that, so what I'm gonna do is I'm going to approve WS 25-0817 with staff if approved conditions, which means you've got to get it completed.

Inspections and everything.

Okay.

Within a year.

Well, I have permission or for the setback, actually.

That's I'm approving the setback reduction.

But you have to get the permits for the inspection of that addition and everything else that went with it.

All right, so there's a there's a motion on the floor.

Cast your vote.

Vice Chair Mohica.

Yes.

That motion passes.

Good luck.

Thank you.

Talk to your planner in the next couple days, okay?

Mr.

Patrick, thank you.

Next item.

All right, that is final action unless appealed.

Uh our next item is item number 14, which is in companion with number 15, 16, and 17.

Item 14 is PA 25-700057 plan amendment to redesignate the land use category from ranch estate neighborhood RN to neighborhood commercial NC on 1.69 acres, generally located south of Cactus Avenue and west of Bermuda Road within Enterprise.

Item number 15 is ZC25-0883.

Zone changes for the following one to reclassify 1.69 acres from an RS20 residential single family 20 zone to a CG commercial general zone, and two, remove the neighborhood protection RNP overlay, generally located south of Cactus Avenue and west of Bermuda Road within Enterprise.

Item number 16 is VS25-0884, vacate in abandoned easements of interest to Clark County, located between Gillespie Street and Bermuda Road, and Cactus Avenue and Urban Avenue.

A portion of right-of-way being Cactus Avenue located between Gillespie Street and Bermuda Road, and a portion of right away being Bermuda Road located between Cactus Avenue and Urban Avenue within Enterprise.

And item number 17 is WS 25-0885.

Waivers of Development Standard for the following.

Thank you, staff.

Name and address for the record.

Good evening.

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

And I'm here to present these four items.

The first item, as was noted, is a plan amendment for the southeast or southwest corner of the intersection of Cactus and Bermuda.

For your information, in 2019, the county started a master land use plan update.

This piece was in that uh master land use plan update that request for the same thing that we're requesting today.

It was heard by the Enterprise Town Board recommended for approval by staff.

It was heard by the Enterprise Town Board in May of 2020, then COVID shut everything down.

We ended up having to um stop the land use update process.

So it remained as it was.

So they're coming back in to get the same approval that they had requested back in 2019 into 2020.

So with that, they're requesting a and by the way, the um neighborhood commercial exists on the north of the site, the northeast of the site.

Quarter mixed use is um on the east on the south side of the southeast corner.

Corridor mixed use allows up to 18 units to an acre and other mixed use amenities.

The request for the zone change is for CG, they want to match the CG on the other three corners of the intersection.

The um the reason for the vacation is because they are provoked they're they're required to and they will be providing detached sidewalks.

So they're providing sidewalks, the sidewalks will end here.

There's no more sidewalks.

Um, even though there's curb and gutter along cactus and along Bermuda, it's just landscaping beyond that.

But this uh property will provide the detached sidewalks because of course all four corners are going to be commercial.

There is commercial to the northeast of the site.

The the waivers that are requested, one A and B would be to reduce the width of the landscaping on the west and on the south side to the um they go down, it's 13 feet eight inches in the staff report it's 13.

The reason for that is although there is 15 feet from the edge of the property line to the end of the landscaping, and they are still providing all the landscaping that would be required, plus a little more.

They are putting in an eight-foot redundant wall, or they're requesting a eight-foot redundant wall.

There is an opportunity to work with the neighbors, and we have talked to the neighbors who would be more than happy not to have a redundant wall and have their wall taken down and put up an eight-foot wall between the two properties, but at this time we don't have a commitment from the neighbors to have that, so we have to request the reduction to the 13 feet eight inches because that would be the width, or that would be the additional redundant wall that would be in there.

The roll-up door is next to the loading zone.

It's a small door here, so that when deliveries occur, they can just roll it in.

Um, just so you know that when we were at the town board, the property owner for this property that would be the most affected, noted they don't have a problem.

We also spoke with the property owners to the west, who also were at the town board, did not did not comment, did not speak at the town board meeting.

At in addition, we also had the president of the homeowners association that would be most impacted, and they had no issues either at the town board.

The other two waivers that are requested is throat depth.

There's a reduction on the cactus entrance, and that would be a right in and right out, and the other would be the um departure, I believe, but that's because of the size of the lot.

We can't move the entrances and exits any further away from the intersection.

We're moving them as far as we can, and we're providing the landscaping, and that's my presentation.

Thank you very much.

Um, so I'll take this opportunity to open the application up for a public hearing.

And anyone in the audience want to speak on this item.

Come on down.

Okay, seeing no one coming down to speak on this item.

I will close the public hearing and open it up to the commissioners for comments.

Seeing no lights on right now.

Um Vice Chair Mohica, any comments on this application?

Uh but I I would agree with neighborhood commercial and not commercial general, which is an attempts use and you know, height, it's taller and everything.

So that's my comment.

Uh thank you, Vice Chair.

And I and I I can support the application, so I'll turn it over to Commissioner Workman.

Any thoughts on this town board recommendation to go to commercial neighborhood instead of general.

In discussing with the applicant, we could do this plan under um commercial neighborhood.

We would like to go to commercial general only because there are some there's more flexibility of uses as well as the fact that the other three corners are commercial general.

Can you pull up that map for me one more time?

And then but the and then on the zoning map, sorry, on the plan amendment that will match the others as well.

And yeah, I'm okay with that.

Okay.

I'm gonna motion first to plan to pass item number 14, PA2570057.

Motion on the floor, cash your vote.

Vice Chair Mahiker.

Yes.

Motion passes.

Next item.

I will vote to pass 151617 ZC 25083 VS 25084 and WS250885.

Motion on the floor, cast your vote.

Vice Chair Mahica.

Yes.

The motion passes.

Good luck.

Thank you.

All right.

Those items will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners meeting for final action on March 18th, 2026 at 9 a.m.

unless otherwise denounced.

Our next item is item number 18, which will be which is companion with items number 19, 20, 21, and 22.

Item number 18 is PA25-700058.

Plan amendment to redesignate the existing land use category from ranch estate neighborhood RN to mid-intensity suburban neighborhood MN on 9.39 acres, generally located south of Windmill Lane and west of Cimarron Road within Enterprise.

Item number 19 is uh zone changes for the fall is ZC25-0887 zone changes for the following.

One reclassified 9.39 acres from an RS20 residential single family 20 zone to an RS 3.3 residential single family 3.3 zone, and two remove the neighborhood protection RMP overlay.

Item number 20 is VS 25-0886.

Vacate and abandon a portion of right-of-way being windmill lane, located between Cimarron Road and Gagnir Boulevard within Enriborough Enterprise.

Item number 21 is WS 25-0888, waiver of development standards to increase driveway width.

Uh design review for a proposed single family residential development on 9.39 acres in an RS 3.3 residential single family 3.3 zone.

Generally located south of Windmill Lane and West of Cimarron Road within Enterprise.

Number 22 is TM25-500216, tentative map consisting of 57 single-family residential lots and common lots on 9.39 acres in an RS 3.3 residential single family 3.3 zone, generally located south of Windmill Lane and West of Cimarron Road within Enterprise.

Thank you, Staff.

Name and address for the record.

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman.

Commissioner Stephanie Grown Hour 1980 Festival Plaza Drive here on behalf of the applicant Lenar Homes.

This property located here in yellow is a little over nine acres.

It's on the south side of Windmill Lane.

It's east of Durango with Rhodes Ranch right here to the west of Durango.

And then Buffalo is over here to the east.

Lenar actually bid on this at auction.

This was an aviation parcel.

So it is master planned in the RMP, but I'm going to show you the reason for our request here in a second, and what Lenar was thinking when they bid on the property.

At least along Windmill, but also is planned differently than RP along Windmill.

This plan is the master plan for Clark County that you can see here.

Windmill goes here between Durango and Buffalo.

Everything in that stretch is basically master planned for over eight units to the acre, with the exception of this small section right here that's existing homes.

There's two homes that front on to windmill here that have been here since the 90s, way before windmill was the street that it is today, which is a hundred-foot ride of way.

And then this development was part of a project that was developed by William Lyon Homes.

The entrance is off of Mistral and Durango.

And I remember when this project came through, the higher density homes are here along Durango, and then it transitioned into the RP.

But this is blocked off along Windmill.

The only two homes in the RMP that front windmill are located right here.

So you can see from a master plan, this red is actually mixed use entertainment, which is really extremely high from a master planning perspective.

This portion here is RP.

The pink is commercial.

These beige lots here are eight units to the acre and then commercial, eight units to the acre, commercial.

On the north side, you see all of this is actually commercial in pink, and then the green is public facility, which extends down from the James Regional Park, soccer park, and that whole area there.

So this is all public facility right now.

Everything in that stretch is master planned something higher than eight units to the acre for a reason, and that's usually along a 100-foot ride of way.

You don't build half-acre lot homes.

You build something more intense and then you transition into the RMP, which you can see in yellow that's existing here.

When Lenar looked at it, not only did they look at the master plan, but they also looked at the zoning.

So here's the zoning on the property, which you can see actually developed out differently than that master plan I just showed you.

Most of it has developed out at eight units to the acre.

Everything in orange is eight units to the acre.

And then you've got commercial as well, some office professional here, and then some commercial on the corners.

This is RS2, so it's even higher density than the RS 3.3.

The commercial, which is immediately adjacent to this property, was just approved in December.

And it is a very intense development.

I'm sure some of the neighbors involved today may have opposed this project, but this is this is what's currently approved and going to be constructed immediately to the east of our property.

On the corner here's a tavern.

This is a retail shopping center right on the property line.

This is a mini storage that was approved back here.

And then you have two QSRs, so those will be drive-through commercial.

So that's the project that's going immediately adjacent to the property.

And then you can just see the RMP, of course, that's to the south of it.

But when Lenar was looking at how to lay out a site plan that they won at the auction, they had to factor in all of these factors.

And they really are thoughtful in making sure that they buffer appropriately the RMP that's existing and developed in the area.

So what they came up with was this site plan.

While they're asking for higher land use and higher zoning, their density is at six units to the acre.

So it's not that up to eight that you saw on all of the orange, but it's at six units to the acre.

And the reason is they've done the buffer lots along the western where the RMP is west of them, and along the south where the RMP is south of them.

They've put the smaller homes adjacent to that intense commercial that's approved and coming, and adjacent to windmill, which is a 100-foot ride of way, and also across the street are homes that are similar size with this RS 3.3.

The only access point is off of Windmill Lane, so it will not impact the RMP from a traffic standpoint.

It really won't impact the RMP at all, with the exception of on the south side, Mistral Avenue will be developed and there will be a wall adjacent to this existing half-improved cul-de-sac.

Currently, you see we're proposing full off sites and landscaping.

So the residents to the south along Mistral will see a wall and some landscaped area and have a detached sidewalk.

All of Mistral for the most part is rural, so this will be slightly different and actually an added improvement to the area with the trees, but the rest of it is rural all the way up and down Mistral, other than there is a sidewalk just around the cul-de-sac.

So here's a picture of Mistrel the way it exists today.

This is the sidewalk that's along that colt-is sac.

The cul-de-sac ends and the sidewalk ends, and then you can see the rest of it is rural.

This is the south side of Mistral.

Again, the south side of Mistral.

And then this is the area that we would be improving.

Um, you know, the property here where we would add that um off street improvements and and landscaping on Mistral.

We are open to suggestions from the neighbors or from the commission if you would prefer that this area look differently or be developed differently to better buffer the RMP.

We're we're putting in the full off sites because that's what your code requires.

But certainly if residents or this commission want differently, we're open to that suggestion.

But the only access point again is on windmills, so that's where all the residents will come.

There will be zero impact to the residents in the in the RMP that are the south or to the west, with the exception of this access point here on Windmill.

We'll have all one-story homes on lots 11 through 21.

So Lenard has a beautiful large one-story product that they'll have.

This is an example of it with three and four car garages.

I think Parker, who's here with me, told me the highest point is about 19 feet.

So these are not tall homes.

Also, the site sits lower than the property to the west.

So there are some horse properties to the west of us and some single family and two-story homes, but these will have a lower elevation and then obviously a low impact with that one story elevation.

The remainder of the property will have the two-story homes internal and again adjacent to that more intense commercial.

The only waiver we have is to allow larger driveways for those one-story homes on lots 11 through 21.

The code doesn't allow us to do the wide driveways with the three-car and four-car garages, so that's the reason for that waiver that you all have approved in the past.

But other than that, we'd very much appreciate your approval.

We think this is a thoughtful way of buffering the RMP, coming in with a density that's much lower than everything else up and down windmill, with the exception of those two homes that are next to us, and and the one development slightly to the west of us.

Everything else has come in at eight units to the acre or is commercially planned or developed.

So at six units the acre, we think this is more than appropriate and compatible for the area and also protects the RMP at the same time.

So we'd ask for your approval.

Thank you very much.

Um at this time I like to open this application up for a public hearing.

Anyone like to speak, come on down.

Um, give us your comments on the record.

All I'll ask for is your your name and address for the record, and then you can provide your comments.

Bob Glau, G L A U 8260 Gagnar Boulevard, Las Vegas, 89113.

Um how you can say it's buffering the RP when you're taking away the RMP is beyond me.

Uh, there's many half acres along Windmill, just about three blocks east of there.

There's uh I think it's 15 or maybe it's only 10 or 20.

But anyway, several homes, half acre size lots right on windmill.

That's because it was in the RP as well.

This is in the RP.

It was not zoned out of the RMP prior to it, so it should be half acre homes and it should stay half acre homes.

The RP has been chipped away at out in our area for many years now.

It's shrinking, shrinking, and shrinking.

And to call it a buffer when you're taking part of the RP away just doesn't even make common sense.

So you're not buffering the RMP, you're taking it away.

We need to have half acre homes there, stay with the community and stay with the RP.

Thank you.

We quest denial.

Thank you very much.

Name and add name and address for the record.

Heather Stone, 8335 West Mistral Avenue.

Um, yes, exactly what Bob just said.

We are in the RMP.

Why do we need that buffer?

Um, what's around that specific neighborhood are one acre up to one and a half acre lots, in fact, with a one and a half acre horse facility.

So now we're, I feel like they're coming in on us.

We purchase their not even just the minimum lot sizes, which are the half acre, but the acre up to quarter one and a quarter and one and a half acre lots.

And again, we've fought very, very hard to keep this RP in the RP.

And uh it just seems like it is, it's just taken away.

You can't, you know, purchase in a neighborhood that you think is gonna be what the county says it's gonna be, even just two years ago, just two years ago that overlay was put into a hard RP overlay, and now we're back fighting for it again.

Um, the commercial on that corner that's being spoken of on Cimarron, that's been in the that's been for there forever.

The other um smaller lot areas were completely surrounded by vacant land.

There was nobody even that came in to fight for what they wanted as you know, wanted their neighbors to be.

The other developers that are developing on this vacant land on Gagne specifically, on Camaro, on Cimron, are all doing half acre lots.

Pinnacle homes happens to be the home builder that you know.

I see their signs, I've been to the meetings.

They're all complying with it.

If you're purchasing land in an RP, two units to the acre, build that.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Name and address for the record.

Um, Dina Young, my address is 8345 West Mistral.

I'm Heather's neighbor.

And um, as the newest neighbor in that region, um, we specifically purchased there just for the lot size.

Um, didn't really know anything about RMP or anything when we purchased there, but we're very delighted to find out that it would be protected, that we would be insured to have the space that we had grown to love.

Um, we're very deliberate in our in our um landscaping, and and we really just love having it be rural and be natural and and as native as possible.

And so I was quite delighted when the town board um denied the request, and I would ask that you all do the same.

Thank you so much.

Thank you very much.

Anyone else want to speak?

All right.

So seeing no one else, I will close the public hearing and I'll open it up to commissioners for comments, questions.

Commissioner Clarski.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I've been kind of sitting on the fence on this because I agree somewhat with what uh Mr.

Grohnauer says.

Uh it's a good plan.

But as the neighbors say, we have been chipping and chipping and chipping and chipping.

And I and I understand that we don't want to build half acre lots on a street like Windmill.

I get that.

Um not today.

10 20 years ago, maybe, but not today.

It's just it's not, but I can't go with the uh with the mid-intensity.

I would I would have to go something way lower as far as a plan amendment goes.

And so I would have to say that your interior would have to be the lots in there would have to be increased because you're looking at uh very small lots in comp in an RP.

And you're taking it out of the RP, and I get that, but it's still really a part of that RP in my mind.

So I can't support the plan amendment, and therefore I can't support the rest of it.

But I do like your layout there.

I think it's a good plan, and I and I thank you.

I thank Lenar for for really going out of the way and trying to put a good product out.

Thank you, Commissioner Klarski.

Commissioner Gibson.

Can you throw up your other map showing the densities?

The master plan or the zone that one.

So I mean, you've got roads ranch to the west, you've got Nevada Trails to the east.

I get this particular site being on the south side of Windmill, but it was just a commercial piece, and then it looks like more higher density stuff.

I mean, I look, I definitely get here the neighbors.

I do think your design is a reasonable design in the fact that the high density faces what's across the street doesn't face them as neighbors.

A couple concerns I have is that property that directly borders the west is a horse property.

Um what are we doing to figure that one out, right?

Because it comes with noises and smells, and what's the builder's plan?

So the plan is um they will definitely give and we could agree to a condition to to require home buyers to sign a disclosure that they know there's horse properties in the area, which includes noises and sounds that they're buying into that rural area because you're absolutely right.

There's a horse property here.

To my knowledge, I don't think they've been involved in any of the meetings, so I have not had any specific request to that horse property, but we will have a wall um adjacent to it.

They have some open fence, so um, and that's whether it was a half acre property or our property, whomever the developer that would be coming in would have a redundant wall there.

As I mentioned, our site is a little bit lower than the site to the west, so we'll be a lower pad elevation, and then the homes are 19 feet adjacent to it.

So really the impact is probably as low as you could get to this property, whether it's half acre or quarter acre, because you've got a single story home at a lower elevation, and as I mentioned, we're happy to agree to that disclosure about the animals in the area.

Okay.

And I'm trying to look at a aerial view on Google, but Mistral, I'm actually unfortunately familiar with that one.

Um I've never understood the cul-de-sac to nowhere, let alone the sidewalk to nowhere.

Um I know we've got codes and rules and whatnot, and you're gonna have to extend that over, but I mean, if I was living on Mistral, I definitely wouldn't want to see street lights.

I want the integrity of my RMP being taken care of.

I would want to see landscape, but I also think extending a sidewalk to nowhere makes no sense.

I would rather that area be more landscaping.

So again, I don't I'm curious to see what Commissioner Mohica has to say on this.

I like the plan.

I think you have been put consideration into the neighborhood.

Um, but that was my things I wanted to voice.

Uh before I turn it over to Commissioner Roykman and then Vice Chair Mohica, I I I would agree with Commissioner Gibson.

I with pretty much everything he said.

And um my only heartburn would be the interior piece.

I would like to see maybe maybe less lots, but I get it, it's interior, and and I and I understand the neighbors' concerns about taking out an RMP, but this is a difficult piece.

Um, I believe to to develop adjacent to some commercial property.

Um I'm good with the application.

Um I do want you to answer.

I'll make sure I get all get all my stuff.

No, no, I'm I'm good.

So I'm I'm good with everything, and I'll turn over to Commissioner Rockman for some questions.

Uh yeah, I can support this application.

I I hear the neighbors' concerns, um, but with that commercial property there, I don't think you're gonna get half afer half acre lots on the east side next to that commercial use.

Um it is vacant land, so the buffer with the larger lots over there on the east side, I think does meet the expectation that if your house is there and you're in the RMP, then you're gonna have these larger lots edged up next to you.

So I I don't have much to say about mistral.

You know, I think work with the neighbors to make sure that you get it as as close to what they want as feasible, but um I can support the application.

Thank you, Commissioner Roitman.

Um, Vice Chair Miku.

Um, thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I'm sorry, I'm sorry.

Yeah, um let me let me interrupt you, Vice Chair.

Um, Commissioner Cork wants to wants to comment first, and then I'll come to you to take us home.

Sorry, I'm a little late.

Getting to my button.

Um so your uh proposal is uh what are you gonna do on Mistral?

Are are you gonna improve that?

Is the idea to improve it or to not improve it?

Uh landscape it, uh half street improvement.

What's the what's gonna happen?

So right now our application shows the full off sites, which is um a detached sidewalk and landscaping in the middle of it uh to block the wall, and then the half street improvements.

We're happy to work with the residents if they want to see something different.

No streetlights is an easy one.

We're happy to agree to no street lights.

Um if they want it to be more of a rural standard, we can certainly work with public works between now and the Board of County Commission.

There's some nuances on the cost um cost comparison that you have to put forward if you don't do off sites, so uh, but I can work with public works between now and the board of county commission.

Okay, so long story short, we're flexible on mistral.

That's great.

And I and I uh appreciate the fact that you're doing 10,000 square foot lots adjacent to the RP.

And it is uh believe it or not, it is a buffer to go from commercial to uh you know this project, what we have, and then the larger lots uh the further you go west.

So I mean, if you look at it from strictly a land use perspective, this is a pretty good buffer.

Uh I know it's not exactly what the what the uh neighbors want, but all up and down windmill on both sides.

I mean, you have the huge park to the north, but all up and down windmill along uh I mean there's eight units to the acre or more intense than that.

And then with the fact that you have that um uh commercial piece there on Cimarron and Windmill, it makes it a little more difficult.

So I'm gonna support the application.

I I think you've done a good job, and I I'm I'm gonna be in support.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Kirk.

Um, I'm sorry, Vice Vice Vice Chair Mohica, your turn.

Okay, uh, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I appreciate my fellow commissioners' comments.

Um, and I agree with you.

I I am concerned about the neighbors and and I do hear them.

Um I do agree that this is a uh a great project.

Um and I would like to see uh less intensity in the middle, but I don't think that's going to make the neighbors happy either way.

Uh even if we try to shave off um you know make those lots bigger in the middle.

I think it's all about the adjacency to the RNP.

Um I do I I would like the applicant to work with the neighbors regarding uh the concerns to preserve the rural lifestyle on Mistral.

Um and have the neighbors have some input on whether they would like to see off sites or not.

Uh I do agree with uh Commissioner Gibson about the sidewalk to nowhere, but again, I would like to leave those decisions to the neighbors, especially the ones that live uh on Mistral.

So I will uh so I will add that as a condition that the applicant work with the neighbors in regards to the off-sites and have the neighbors have an input, if not have their decision be the final one on whether we go with off-sites or not to preserve the rural lifestyle.

And the other condition would also be the disclosure about the horse property, the smell and the noise.

And and with that, um, I am ready to make a motion.

Please do.

Okay, so motion to approve PA257058.

All right, there's a motion on the floor, cast your vote.

Commissioner Mohica, yes.

All right, that motion carries.

Next item.

It uh next motion would be for items 19, 20, 21, and 22 for approval.

All right, there's a motion on the floor with the conditions, yes.

Yes, ma'am.

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

Commissioner Mohica, yes.

All right, that motion carries.

Thank you very much.

And we'll all we'll work with the neighbors on Miss Mistral to see what they'd prefer.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Thank you very much.

And so that was our last item on our agenda.

Do have a couple of I'm sorry, great.

Uh these items will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners meeting for final action on March 18th, 2026 at 9 a.m.

unless otherwise announced.

And yes, that is our final item from the much.

All right, so just a couple couple of quick announcements.

Um, I I know that staff knows that um Mrs.

Reales is uh is leaving us, and and we just want to thank you for all your hard work and your leadership.

And we're and you're gonna be sorely missed, and I want to make sure I put that on record from the board.

And then the second item is um Commissioner Gibson is uh is actually also leaving us, and even though he was here for a short period of time, we we'd sure certainly appreciate his experience and his willingness willingness to jump in and be a part of the board, and you will also be missed.

Um so having said those two things, um I see Commissioner Kalarski, your light on or no?

Okay, just all okay, great.

I'm going to now do the last bit of business is open it up for a public hearing.

I'm sorry, opening up the last item for public comments.

So now you can come down and make comments.

Um the board cannot act or make any decisions on those comments, but the mic is open.

Yes, sir.

Name and address for the record.

Frazier, uh I'm sorry, go ahead.

I'm sorry, I didn't I didn't mean to interrupt, but I I I didn't want to interrupt you while you were talking, and I wanted to thank uh Sammy for all her hard work and dedication.

I don't think uh we could have done this without her, and we're we're hopeful that um there's somebody in place that I'm sure she's trained uh to help us through this, and uh wish her nothing but the very best.

Uh you were amazing, Sammy, and you will continue to be wherever you go.

And same thing for Gibson.

Uh I can't tell you what a joy it was to have you next to me, and I hope to see you uh at our community events.

Thank you.

Uh thank you, Vice Chair.

Um, so so please go ahead, name and address for the record and give us your comments.

Bob Glau, 8260 Gagnir, Las Vegas 89113.

So the action you took on these uh last ones, is that done, or does it have to go to the commission, or do I have to appeal to go to the commission?

Go ahead, staff.

Uh that that was uh the planning commission is a recommending body in this case, so it'll go to the board of county commissioners for final action.

Okay, so it was not final action today.

That's correct.

I don't have to file appeal, just show up at the next meeting and try harder.

Okay.

Do I know my what?

Uh that would be nice if somebody would give me those.

Yep, staff staff's gonna give it to you right now.

Yeah, so that'll be uh the board of out county commissioners for items 18 through 22 will be March 18th at 9 a.m.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Have a good evening.

All right, so so that was so that we did the public comment piece, and so now I will adjourn the meeting.

Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.

Sorry, sorry, I'm public comment.

I just wanted to also thank Sammy Real for her leadership and tremendous um work as the planning director.

I know I speak for the whole firm.

We're gonna miss her tremendously.

She was always a total professional, even we we don't just you know didn't necessarily agree on things.

Um very kind, fun to work with.

So I Sammy, I wish you the best.

I know you'll be great in Arizona, and it's it's our last, so wish you the best.

Also to Commissioner Gibson, who um has been such a great planning commissioner.

Your presence will be missed.

We hope we'll see you in the development world as time goes on, and thank you for everything.

Appreciate it.

All right, very good.

All right, so now public comments are closed and adjourn the meeting.

Uh uh.