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.

Good morning.

Welcome to the March 4th uh zoning meeting of the Clark County Commission.

Uh the first item on the agenda is public comment.

Anyone wishing to speak on an item on today's agenda can come forward at this time and speak for up to three minutes.

Please state your first and last name for the record and the agenda item you're wishing to speak to.

Good morning, commissioners.

My name's Mark McIntyre.

Do you need my address now?

No, that's fine.

Thank you.

We want to speak on Bonnie, I'll tell you the item number.

You see the item number there.

It's got an APM number.

This one or the APN.

Which one do you need item number or do an AB?

The item number, the agenda item number.

Vonnie Montoya, uh, it's ZC 250855.

We think that's item 12.

Okay.

Go ahead.

Go ahead.

Please go ahead and speak now.

Yep.

Want to speak now on an item?

Yeah, that item is not scheduled for a public hearing, so this would be the time to speak.

Okay.

Anyway, my name is Mark McIntyre.

I live at 3408 Wilmot in Las Vegas.

I own the properties at 3408 and 3450.

I live three doors down from this project, this proposed project.

I asked the commissioners not to approve the zone change at this time.

It doesn't meet the definition of mixed use.

This project will not create a better and more livable neighborhood the way it's planned.

It will only make Frontier Pioneer and Wilmont Streets have even more blight than they have now.

Frontier will become even more of a skid row.

It will become a back alley with even more homeless openly doing drugs, which I deal with on a daily basis.

Have no sidewalks or street lamps.

There's only four fire hydrants in the entire neighborhood of the Spring Mountain Estates.

Maybe I'll just put up a six-foot wall like most of the houses on Frontier already have.

Thank you.

My name is Vonnie Montoya.

I own four properties on Wilmont Street, 3430 through 344.

And concerning this project, I have some serious safety concerns, particularly related to the increased traffic flow this will create in a residential neighborhood.

The projected volume of commercial traffic delivery trucks and customer activity appears incompatible with the existing infrastructure and traffic patterns designed for residential use.

There's a lot of people that walk from Desert Inn, primarily the middle school, they walk down these streets.

I see them on Wilmot.

So I believe it it creates a heightened risk for uh accidents involving residents, tenants, and children.

Beyond the safety, I'm worried about the implications of property values.

Properties rely on predictable traffic patterns, quiet streets, and a sense of security.

A commercial operation of this scale disrupts the balance and negatively affects the homeowners.

So I'm worried about the long-term stability of the area.

I was owner builder of four properties there that I still own to this day, so that is a concern.

So a comprehensive traffic impact study, I think is important.

Clear mitigation plans addressing traffic low parking and pedestrian protection.

Consideration of alternative access points on these residential streets because people walk a lot across Wilmot to get across Spring Mountain Road.

And it's always been a safety concern.

So I think open dialogue affecting the property owners before approvals move forward.

And I believe that thoughtful development should enhance a community, not compromise its safety and residential character.

That is basically I have to say.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much.

Uh the items we just heard about, items 11 through 14 are in Commissioner Jones district.

He's expressed a willingness to have it uh removed from the routine agenda so that it can have a full presentation.

Uh anyone else wishing to speak on public comment, please come forward at this time.

If there's anyone else in the audience, if you want to make your way to the center uh to speak on the first public comment period.

Good morning.

Good morning.

I'm Cynthia Chapel.

I live at 234 Molly Court.

Um I have the application numbers.

Is that what you want?

Or I don't know what the agenda items are.

So application number UC-250854 and PA 257053.

If you want to give us one moment to identify it's okay.

Uh that's also item 11.

Yeah.

Okay, so you you can uh like the others, you can speak now on those items.

It'll also be uh heard separately in just a moment if you'd rather speak after the presentation.

Okay, um I can go ahead and I'll speak now if that's okay.

And can you just I'm sorry, would you just mind repeating the number?

Oh sure.

UC-25-0854 and PA 25 70053.

Okay, thank you.

I'm sorry, bear with us one moment.

That is not item 11.

Um then there's one more too.

I commissioners items 41 through 43.

Uh first in your housing.

So those items are going to receive their own hearing in just a moment.

So if you want to have a seat, those items will be heard separately.

They're not on the routine agenda.

Okay.

Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak during the first time set aside for public comment?

Again, I'll invite anyone who wants to speak after these two.

We'll close the first public hearing.

And if you could, when you come forward, please identify the agenda item you're here to speak on.

Give me a second.

Is it just the APN that you're looking for?

Uh no, we're looking for the item on the agenda.

If you have the APN, we can identify it.

It would just take a moment.

I think Ms.

Ammerman will take a look.

Item is so agenda number 11, 12, 13, and 14.

Wonderful.

So those items, Commissioner Jones has offered to pull those from routine action, so they will be heard in just a moment.

If you want to have a seat, uh you can speak to them after the presentation.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Seeing no one else wishing to speak on this first time set aside for public comment.

We can move forward with the meeting.

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

Uh I'm gonna let uh you read in any changes.

Okay.

Good morning, commissioners.

Um, we have requested the following quests for hold hold to the March 18th 2026 zoning meeting.

Item 26, UC 26 0015.

Item 31, VS 26 0021.

Item 33, UC 26-0020.

Item 33, TM 2650002.

Item 50, ZC26-0025.

Item 51, WS 26-0026.

Hold to the April 8th, 2026 zoning meeting.

Item number four, DR 25-0849.

Item 35, WS 26-0004.

Item 37, PA 25 700 052.

Item 38, ZC 25 0836.

Item 39, VS 25 0837, and item 40, WS 25 0838.

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

With these deletions, which are items 4, 26, 31 through 33, 35, 37, 340, 50, and 51.

The agenda stands ready for your approval.

With the recommended holds written to the record, I'll move approval of the agenda.

Thank you.

There's a motion for approval.

Please cast your vote.

The motion carries.

The third item in the agenda is the approval of the amendments.

The minutes of the February 4th, 2026 zoning meeting are ready for approval.

I'm over meeting minutes.

There's a motion for approval.

Please cast your vote.

That motion passes.

Next item are the routine action items, which will consist of items five through 23.

Uh except for 11 through 14.

That will be heard separately.

Um these can be uh heard together in one motion, are subject to the conditions listed with each agenda item.

Additionally, staff has the following request for item number six, ET 26-4001, ZC 230745.

Add the following public works condition.

Applicant to coordinate a contribution with public works development review for the improvements on GIL Street.

And item nine, WC 25-400142 for UC 250053.

Let's leave the comprehensive planning bullets number two and number four.

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

With the additions written to the record, our move approval routine action items.

Next are items 11 through 14 that can be heard together.

Item number 11 is PA 2570054.

Plan amendment to redesignate the existing land use category from urban neighborhood, compact neighborhood, and mid-intensity suburban neighborhood to corridor mixed use on 2.44 acres, generally located south of Pioneer Avenue and east of Decatur Boulevard within Paradise.

Item 12, ZC 25-0855.

Zone change to reclassify 1.99 acres from RS20, residential single family 20 zone to a CG commercial general zone.

Generally located south of Pioneer Avenue and east of Decatur Boulevard within Paradise.

Item 13, VS 25 0856.

Vacate and abandon a portion of right-away being Decatur Boulevard located between Spring Mountain Road and Pioneer Avenue.

Portion of right-of-way being Pioneer Avenue located between Decatur Boulevard and Frontier Street.

And a portion of right-away being Frontier Street, located between Spring Mountain Road and Pioneer Avenue within Paradise.

And item 14, WS 250857.

Waivers of Development Standard for the following.

Good morning.

Good morning, Sheldon Collin, 2140 East Pebble Road, here representing the applicant.

Appreciate your time this morning.

As you see in front of you, as was described, it's a project on the corner of Decatur and Pioneer, and the back of this project fronts uh frontier.

Um, what we are proposing is a um new development that will bring nothing but good to the area when it comes to the presence along Decatur.

Uh, you will see also that we have set the project back from Decatur to allow for the um the not overwhelming feel along the street.

But besides this, in regards to the effect on the um residences behind, we have provided uh detached sidewalks and landscaping as is required by code and also encouraged by this council uh commission.

And um, in regards to what's the use, it's going to be a mixed use.

It'll be retail and restaurants.

There will be no nightclubs, which will then, of course, control the amount of time they're open.

And we're also proposing a parking, two-story parking garage along frontier and back.

And as you can see from some of the renderings, it does show what the residences would see from the back, and that parking garage will be shielded by a method of vertical elements and also um a large amount of trees.

That area back there is no taller than a two-story house, so we do not feel it'll over overwhelm any of the residences behind this.

In regards to traffic um uh in the area, of course, as you know, uh as all projects of this size were required to do a traffic study, and that'll be diligently followed as is usual by projects we do, and I am here to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

This is a public hearing.

Anyone wishing to speak on items 11 through 14 who have who has not already spoken, please come forward at this time.

Good morning.

Please just state your name again for the record.

My name is Sheila Mahoney.

Run Marino.

And if you want to speak one at a time, you'll each get your own period for comment and just bring the microphone a little closer to your mouth.

Okay.

Um, we're here um, I'm sorry, to oppose the height of this project, the traffic in this project.

We live in this neighborhood.

Um we've grown up in this neighborhood, we've been there for years, we all have rental properties there.

This is our livelihood there.

Um, if they build this, the they're gonna bring a wall to Frontier.

And on Frontier, it's all it's gonna cause is to bring the homeless, the unhoused, whatever you want to call them.

It gives them shelter and a place to hide.

Um we first were um contacted by the person that owns the properties.

That was our first contact.

When they said they only had to contact just the people right there on Frontier.

This is a neighborhood.

They didn't contact anybody else in the neighborhood.

Um page here.

Shows you what this neighborhood is.

I don't know if you guys have the flat map there.

Um if there's something you want to show us, you could just put it on the screen.

Well, there's right here.

I guess you just put it here.

No, ma'am.

Uh okay, sorry.

This is what we were first.

That wasn't the first time we were contacted.

What we were first contacted with was by the owner of the property, and we were contacted by the owner of the property to try and change to change the deed restrictions.

That's how we were contacted originally, but it was only the people that were right there on Frontier, right behind this building.

Not everybody in the neighborhood.

And when I asked them why, they said we only have to touch these people right here.

But there's more to the neighborhood than than Frontier.

And I understand we're close to Chinatown, but we're more than Chinatown.

We're a neighborhood.

And the traffic in this area is going to be horrendous.

They just paved our roads.

It's been 50 plus years that they've done anything in our neighborhood.

They just did the roads.

They just finished them.

They just put the lines on the road for going in and out.

There are no sidewalks.

There's no sidewalks.

So I think they need to contact more people in the neighborhood.

That's why there's not very many people here.

All they contacted was what was right there.

Well, they own those properties right there.

Thank you very much.

Good morning.

Good morning.

State your name again for the Ron Marino.

I have six properties there.

And uh my renters already stated to me that if this goes, they're probably moving out because, like she said, it has a neighborhood feel, and it's gonna lose that.

And we have no sidewalks.

This is just streets.

There's no sidewalks in that area.

Any does that complete your comment?

That completes this.

Okay, thank you.

If you want to have a see anyone else wishing to speak on items 11 through 14, please come forward at this time.

Good morning.

Morning.

My name's Jack Valero.

I live in the room.

You can just bring the microphone a little closer.

Is that better?

Yep.

I live in the property directly to the north on the corner of Frontier and Pioneer Avenue.

And I saw these drawings, they were presented to us earlier.

My problem is that I think it's a little bit out of scale for the neighborhood.

And the there is a business area in on along Decatur, a business corridor.

And now they want to put another mall there.

My question is there's a mall on both sides of Decatur at this point.

On Spring Mountain Road, there's malls on both sides of the road on Spring Mountain Road.

And on uh Desert Inn Road, which is the next block up, there's also uh there's a shopping center and a um whatever you call it, a mini mall of situation with shops and everything else.

So we're already completely surrounded by malls.

Do we need another mall there?

I'm not sure.

And um, so that's basically my feelings about it.

And like I say, I've owned that property since 1971.

And uh I'm um it is a neighborhood.

It's a you know, it was very rural at the time.

There was nothing on Decatur when I first uh my father built the house across the street, and uh we lived there for a while.

There was nothing on Decatur.

In fact, Decatur ended at Spring Mountain Road.

That's how long ago this was.

And Spring Mountain Road itself only went a lot, was paved another hundred feet, and then was a dirt road at the time.

But anyway, I'm I oppose this uh proposition.

Uh I think it's a good idea, but I think they need to uh either make it larger, I mean buy more property because I'm gonna be now surrounded.

I've we've already got a homeless problem on that property, and in fact, at the corner of Decatur and a pioneer, the owner of that property.

Um, I don't know if he's here or not, but he had a there was a Montessori school there for years, uh and just last year um they the Montessori school left and um he wound up having to demolish the property because the homeless just moved into the area, they broke into the school, and he boarded it up and everything.

They went up through the roof, they climbed on the roof, moved the air conditioning, dropped into the building, caused a fire in the building, and he finally had to come in and demolish the building over a weekend, and now he's got a cyclone fence up.

So anyway, there's been problems with homelessness there.

I you know, I don't know what the solution is to that.

I don't know, I don't know if homeless is the right word.

I think it's more mentally um affected people and um a drug problem uh adding to that.

So anyway, that's my uh information.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Anyone else speaking to here to speak on items 11 through 14?

Please come forward.

Seeing none, I will close the public hearing, Commissioner Jones.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um Mr.

Cowan, did you want to respond to any of the concerns that were raised?

I I do want to just note that our requirements are by statute that anyone within 1500 feet be noticed.

Um, and I know certainly one gentleman had one of the cards.

So do you want to speak to the notice issue and then also to any of the design issues?

Yes, um, we did have a neighborhood meeting on this, and of course, we also had uh town board and uh planning meeting.

Uh all of those are public noticed.

Um there will be security on site, which is more than is there is, of course, right now.

So uh any concerns, as there is on many different sites.

Uh we also do stuff at the Boulevard Mall, and you know they all have security on site to help with any kind of homelessness, which once again is more than we have now.

Our attempt at this site was not to be a typical uh shopping center.

As you can see, the the tenants would actually face interior to the courtyard on this and not have a bunch of signs like you see up and down Spring Mountain.

So that was the intention of this is to make it more of an enclosed environment instead of people wandering around the building aimlessly.

So hopefully that answers any questions, but I'm here to answer any more if you have one.

Very good.

Um I appreciate the neighbors coming out here today and for having raised the current concerns that you did.

Um I respectfully disagree.

I think this is a beautiful project that will only increase the value uh of that neighborhood and tamp down on existing um uh unhoused folks who may or may not be in the area uh and uh deal with um crime issues in that area.

So I think that it'll be a uh big improvement to the area.

So I will move for approval of agenda items thirteen through 14.

There's a motion for approval on items 11 through 14.

Please cast your vote.

The motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next item is item 24, ET 26 400 002 for NCC 0914-17.

Zone change, fourth extension of time to reclass 1.3 acres from an H2 general highway frontage zone to a CR commercial resort zone with a use permit for proposed residential condominium development, waiver development standards for the following.

One reduce setbacks to allow non-standard driveway geometrics for Clark County Improvement Standards.

Design reviews for the following one proposed residential condominium development and two finished grade, generally located west of Ensworth Street and south of Ford Avenue alignment within Enterprise.

Good morning.

Good morning, Liz Olson, 1980 Festival Plaza Drive here on behalf of the property owner and developer.

Um we are requesting an extension of time on the third and final phase of the uh condo development here along Ford and Ensworth, directly uh adjacent to the 15.

Um the developer had run into some pretty significant delays with financing and uh construction for phase two.

They were able to get through those and now moving on to their phase three.

Um in the last year we've made significant progress with phase three.

Um we've completed our drainage and traffic studies.

We have an approved off-site bond with public works, and we have been approved to Mylar.

Um the developer is confident that an additional year will be significant to uh move forward and uh begin uh construction on the development.

So appreciate town board's recommendation for that additional year, and uh happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This is a public hearing on item 24.

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

Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing.

Um I'm gonna move for approval of item 24 uh with the condition as you stated one year to commence.

Thank you.

Thank you.

There's a motion for approval.

Please cast your vote.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

Next item is item 25.

UC 25-0810.

Holdover amended use permits for the following.

One stable, two, increase live large livestock, which is no longer needed, and three increase accessory living quarters square footage, which is no longer needed.

We've read development standards for the following.

One reduce parking, two, eliminate buffering and screening, three, eliminate parking lot landscaping, four, modify residential adjacency standards, five way full off site improvements, six reduced driveway throat depth, and seven allow for non-commercial return curb return driveway.

Design review for proposed stable in conjunction with the proposed single family residence on 1.25 acres in an RS20 residential single family 20 zone within the neighborhood protection RMP and airport environs, AE60 overlays generally located south of Pebble Road and east of Arville Street within Enterprise.

Good morning.

Morning, Commissioners.

Thank you for seeing us again today.

Um my name is Brandon Clark.

This is Cody Clark.

We are the property owners.

Um had the privilege of speaking with Antonio uh at length yesterday about this project, and I believe he had some comments on it.

Um questions.

This is a public hearing on item 25.

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

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

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you for meeting with Mr.

Papazian.

It sounds like you guys have some language to get this resolved.

So Mr.

Pozzian.

Thank you, Commissioner.

These are for the stables.

East of the parcel owned by uh Brandon.

And uh we had some conversation at length yesterday, and we I appreciate the conversation.

Seems like he's willing to work with us for on site ingress, egress, um, especially because it's fronting pebble.

We don't want any horse trailers uh queuing up on pebble.

So if you're okay for them to work with us, I'd like to add a condition that says coordinate with public works development review for on-site turnaround.

Uh I do want to make sure I put on the record they are showing some landscape area, and if you're okay to work within that area, um, maybe eliminating some or maybe not eliminating, but installing them somewhere else on the property.

Um I think we could figure something out for ingress egress to make it safe for everybody.

Ms.

Aram, is it okay if they if they have to move landscaping to another area, but at least equivalent number of trees.

Yes, that'll be fine.

Okay, understand that.

Okay, then I'll go ahead and move for approval agenda item number 25 with the additional conditions as read in today.

There's a motion for approval.

Please cast your vote.

Motion passes.

Thank you.

Thank you, everyone.

Next are items 27 and 28, which can be heard together.

27 is VS-2607, vacate and abandoned easements of interest to Clark County, located between Kyle Canyon, Kyle Canyon Road and Horse Drive, and Cardenas Way and Moss Way within upper and lower Kyle Canyon.

And item 28.

Use permits for the following.

One housing for agricultural employees, and two a stable waivers of development standards for the following.

One increase lot coverage, two, reduce front setback, three, increased fence height, four, increased retaining wall height, five, increase fill, six reduced parking, and seven, wave full off site improvements.

Design reviews for the following one housing of agricultural employees and two stable and 5.09 acres in an RS20 residential single family 80 zone.

Excuse me, it's RS80.

Generally located north of Kyle Canyon Road and east of Cardenus Way with an upper and lower Kyle Canyon.

Good morning.

Good morning, Chairman.

Commissioners, Melissa Yeri, 1055 Whitney Ranch Drive, Suite 210, here on behalf of the owner.

So just briefly, we'll go over the vacation first.

As you can see, we're looking to vacate the 33 feet here along the east property line and along the south property line, as that's roadway that'll no longer go through.

So it's just patent easements that we are vacating.

And then three feet along Cardenas because only 30 feet is required to be dedicated.

So we will be dedicating the 30 feet, but the three feet that is there again from the existing patent easement, we are requesting to vacate.

As you can see here, the site is right here, just north of Kyle Canyon, right off of Cardenas.

This property is owned by Heart Salive Hooves, which is operated by for the Love of Horses, which is a part of Heart Salive Village, a 501c3 nonprofit.

I'm pretty sure most of the commissioners are very familiar with Hearts Alive.

Right here is their actually existing horse rescue that they have, so they're looking to expand onto this property to the south.

So within this, we do have the stable, and there is apartments for four agricultural workers.

So people that work there will also live on the property.

They will not have any entrances to the apartments from the exterior.

It'll all be from the interior of the building.

This will house up to 53 horses.

And the smallest stall is going from 12 by 10 to the largest being an 18 by 18.

They have facilities for wash, washing the horses, and also this in there arena paddock area, which allows for the horses when the weather's not great for them to be outside that they still have an indoor area that they can be out and moved in.

Um and then in this front area, they do rehab these horses.

So the horses that are brought there are through veterinarian recommendations.

They have either physical issues, they may have behavioral issues, there may be a reason why the owner can no longer care for the horses, and so they are referred there.

They bring the horses here, they rehabilitate those horses.

Any that they can rehabilitate, they do try to adopt out, but if not, that horse will then live the rest of its life with them.

So as you can see here, here's the property.

Here is the stable that we have.

For the stables that abut the exterior wall, they do have a turnout attached to them.

So there's just a barn door that will open and the horse can go into those turnouts.

But there is space for future paddocks here in the front and the back.

So we do have waivers to this the front setback.

Part of this is because of the fact that while the building faces Kyle Canyon, the main entry is off of Cardenius, and that's where it'll be addressed to.

So unfortunately, we're too close.

We were at 25 feet from the property line versus 40 feet, which is what code requires.

So it's really just a matter of the way that the site happens to be oriented that doesn't allow us to meet that.

We have a non-decorative fence of five feet that is in that front setback.

And this is typical for those with with life livestock that's on the property.

It's fitted for this.

It will be behind where the landscape is on the property, so it will be somewhat screened, but this is fitting for this particular area and this particular use.

Um we also have the expanded building size, and again, part of that is we're maximizing the site, but we are leaving over half the site in its natural state.

And so this is to really allow us to have that indoor space for the horses as well as the stables.

So let me so you can see here, this is what it looks like.

It's looks very much like a very large barn.

It has some nice green accents to it and the wood doors that'll be as part of the building.

Some of the important parts of the what we're asking to waive is the retaining walls as well as the fill.

So right here you can see on the site, this is Kyle Canyon here.

This property to the east is BLM property, it's not private property.

And to the north, of course, is the existing rescue.

We have a approximately 10 foot drop in the topography going from the the corner here of Cardenas going back towards horse.

And so what's happening is to level out the ground for the stable and for the driveway that goes around because you can't have the horses on that steep of a slope.

Um, we're being forced to raise up the wall right here along this east property line.

And so in order to do that to level things out, we are having to bring it up up to 11 feet on the retaining wall and just about 12 feet on the fill.

But to help with that impact, because we do understand that that is a fairly high amount.

The walls over the retaining wall will actually be rockery walls.

So we're bringing in the rockery, it can be painted to match the natural tone there.

So it'll look more like kind of a little bit of a rock pile out there rather than seeing the cut retaining walls.

So I know that staff has asked for the tiered walls, but you'll have these steep then CMU walls that tear off.

This way we kind of get a natural wall, rock wall that goes up to hold that in there.

And this will allow for the drainage to also flow appropriately away from the building.

It'll follow the driveway and follow the natural drainage that's currently on the site.

So that's why we are requesting those that particular height.

And last but not least, we did ask for a waiver of the uh off-site improvements.

The area has a rural character, so we want to keep that.

This is not for people to bring their horses in, this is not for riding lessons.

Visitation is only by appointment.

And so we really wanted this to fit in with the residential neighborhood that it's going into.

It's not really meant as a commercial use that's client-facing.

And so for that, we really wanted to keep it in character with the rest of the neighborhood, which also does not have those off-site improvements.

We will, however, be paving down the center of Cardanias and Horse where there's a BLM access.

So there will be pavement for paved roads.

With that, happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much.

If that completes your presentation, I'll open the public hearing on items 27 and 28.

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

Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing.

Commissioner Becker.

Um, yes, we've gone through this, and uh I I think that the design has been very thoughtful for the area.

And um, of course, I didn't know if you wanted to add anything to the right.

Just to uh confirm what the applicant had mentioned about having a rockery wall for any of the retaining walls will be rockery and painted to blend in.

Yes.

That and that would be a condition.

We agree.

Okay.

And with that, I would just move for approval.

There's a motion for approval on items 27 and 28.

Please cast your vote.

The motion passes.

Next are items 29 and 30, which can be heard together.

29 is VS 26-0019.

Vacant and abandoned a portion of right-away being Sunset Road, located between Surrey Street and Eastern Avenue, and a portion of right-away being Surrey Street located between Sunset Road and Helm Drive Alignment within Paradise.

Item 30 WS 26 0018.

Weavers of development standards for the following.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Lucy Stewart 1930 Village Center Circle representing the applicant.

And this is a site you've actually seen a few times.

This was approved three years ago with a very similar design.

We had office warehouse on the east property line.

There's an apartment complex east of that.

And then we had outside storage.

The main difference is we've added outside storage, which are between the buildings, but not really visible or adjacent to the residential.

And our um the reason we're asking for the waivers back when this was approved, um, it was under the old code.

Under the new code, it requires an eight-foot wall adjacent to residential.

However, we have a drainage channel adjacent to the wall.

So if we built a redundant wall, we'd have a five-foot sort of nuisance strip.

But the code also requires us to have a double row of row of trees.

So we actually have more intense landscaping than was previously approved.

So we think this is a better solution.

Having a redundant collects trash or are they unhoused, you know.

So we think it's a bigger issue, and the side of the buildings acts somewhat as a screen.

Also, the code requires us to have landscaping adjacent here, but we have a common shared driveway with the La Quinta Hotel or motel to the south.

So we need to keep it open.

So we have provided as much landscaping on the south side of the buildings and the open um storage area.

So with that, we respectfully request your approval.

Thank you.

Uh, this is a public hearing.

Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward at this time on items 29 and 30.

Seeing none, Commissioner Gibson.

Thank you.

You and your clients have done a good job of making this work, and uh for that reason I'm prepared and do move approval subject to the uh town board conditions.

There's a motion for approval on items 29 and 30.

Please cast your vote.

A motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next item is item 34, WS 26-0003.

We versed the development standards for the following.

One increase parking and two reduced departure distance.

Design review for a proposed vehicle maintenance facility on 0.97 acres in a CG commercial general zone within the airport environments AE60 overlay.

Generally located north of Silverado Ranch Boulevard and east of Ulam Drive within Enterprise.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Christian Barthes Automotive.

And uh also uh the number of parking uh requirements.

Um if there's any questions, please.

If that completes your presentation, I'll open the public hearing on item 34.

Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward.

Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing.

Commissioner Jones.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, sir, I uh with regards to the waivers, those are supported by um supported by staff, but they did not support the design review based on the doors facing uh out onto Silverado.

Can you speak to that since I don't think we had a chance to speak about this issue?

Yes.

Um, I need to point out one thing.

It's extremely important for our for our side.

There is uh this hundred foot easement that bisects our our property.

So when we want to if you wanted to orient the uh building, so flip it the opposite way, if we want to flip this building the opposite way, we will not have enough distance for a fire truck to come around and uh have the uh uh knuckle or the uh hammerhead.

So from a safety perspective, this is the best uh way of of addressing it.

And if we want to shift it, I will not be able to shift it because of the easement.

We've already been uh in contact with uh uh the uh electrical company, and they said nothing is allowed in that in that easement from a structure perspective that would allow landscaping and whatnot, but as long as it's uh less than uh 25 feet in height, and uh they cannot allow they will not allow any uh like walls or buildings or structures.

So for our business, it's a nine nine bay building.

Um I have elevations if you guys uh wish to see it really is not necessarily uh it's I would love my garage to look like that, but you know I can't.

Um so honestly, we cannot have that orientation flipped.

It's that simple, it's detrimental to the to the project.

Thank you.

Um Mr.

Possian, any comments?

Thank you, Commissioner.

Uh I would like to read into the record.

We typically don't allow parking spaces adjacent to a driveway.

It's a safety issue.

Uh while you're parked and leaving the establishment, someone can be ingressing, so we typically do not allow parking opposite the driveway.

I'd like to read in a condition applicant to remove all parking spaces opposite the commercial driveways so that conflict is not there.

Understand that uh condition.

Um I'm not sure I I understand that.

Are you talking about these parking spaces right here?

Uh no, keep going to the east.

The east those ones.

Oh, these.

That is correct.

Okay.

So if somebody is coming out, you said when someone is ingressing this the subdivision and someone is backing out of that parking spot, any one of those parking spots that there's a a conflict, a safety conflict.

Oh, okay.

Um this is the first time we hear about that.

It's not right, but you didn't come see me and didn't reach out to Mr.

Pozian.

So like I maybe it's better to hold this for two two weeks and you can have some further further conversations.

Okay.

So that'll be my.

You know, I just want to make sure that you you're aware that from a parking number perspective, for us to be successful, we have to have these number number of parking spaces.

So and and the concern of the traffic for cars coming out, whatnot.

Um, we can designate these parking as for employee parking.

That way there's no quote unquote in and out unless the business is starting or business is closing, if that helps.

Uh the reason I'm I'm trying to do is I don't want to put we we try not to design from the podium, so that's why you know come meet with me, talk to Mr.

Rapazian, um, and uh I'll make a motion to hold this item for two weeks.

And that will be to the March 18th BCC meeting.

There's a motion for this item to be held until March 18th.

Hold on one second.

Um CBA, actually, uh Toya here with with CBA can address that.

Hi, um Latoya Moon 17725, Katie Freeway, uh, Houston, Texas.

And I want to um address, can you give me a second?

I think we may be able to will there bring our parking count down to Commissioner Jones.

You have a motion.

Sorry, we're not gonna design from the podium, so you can it was a condition.

Um was it a condition that we remove those parking spaces?

That is what Ms.

Rapazian suggested, yes.

If we agree to that.

Uh again, there's a motion on the floor.

Um, so we're gonna move forward with the motion.

Okay, there's a motion on the floor that this item be held until March 18th.

Uh please cast your vote.

Motion passes.

Next item is item 36, WS26-0017.

Wevers of development standards for the following.

One, eliminate street landscaping, two, eliminate buffering and alternative screening.

Three, reduce minimum height for security wire in conjunction with a non-decorative security fence chain link.

Four increase fence height, five allow an existing non-decorative chain link fence, six reduce access gate setback, seven, reduce approach distance, eight reduced throat depth, and nine allow existing pan driveways.

Design review for accessory structures, which are storage containers in conjunction with an existing office warehouse building on 0.50 acres in an IP industrial park zone within the airport environment, AE 70 and APC2 overlay.

Generally located West of Marion Drive and South of Melvin Street within Sunrise Manor.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Lucy Stewart 1930 Village Center Circle.

Scarborough at 155 Water Street.

And this is uh the reason we have so many waivers that this building was built under the old code.

And unfortunately, there is a um modular housing um community to the south, and the part there was a wall built if it's only six feet.

The people we're representing are actually the tenants, and so they're really limited on what they're able to do with the property, but they are asking to have um two connex boxes that they're going to paint to match the building, and one is installed here, so it looks a little bit it'll it'll provide a little bit of screening to the existing um houses to the structure.

This is really just a very small office.

This is in the AE 70 and the APC2, so they're restricted on how many employees they have.

I think at the maximum it's three to five, and that's over like the entire week.

It's really they want to, it's a business that's uh located elsewhere in the neighborhood and wants to have their accounting basically and their payroll in that area.

Um so again, we don't meet we don't meet the um the requirement for the street landscaping.

Um, but there are existing trees on the site.

You can see in their pretty large uh pine trees, but we also understand that I think we have to pay because we can't plant new ones because we don't own the building.

So it we are understanding is that we have um to pay the fee in lieu of.

Um so basically most of the waivers are just because it's an existing building that can't meet the new code.

Um so with that we respectfully request your approval.

Thank you very much.

This is a public hearing on item 36.

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

Go ahead and use the other microphone.

Uh hello, my name is Al Rojas.

I'm a resident of Sunrise Manor.

Um, I wanna just uh mention to the applicants that the community and the commissioners are making a strong effort to clean up this area.

You know, we've had the homeless problem that the the federal government allowed people to stay on public land, and we came up with this fantastic ordinance that we're enforcing, and we are definitely making an effort to keep a track of the trash containers because in that area on Marion, we have a lot of homeless people that are going into these trash containers, and the ordinances this is from the uh uh code enforcement, which says trash enclosures are required on all zoning except single family residents.

Enclosures are to be constructed of uh masonary and concrete and have uh screened gates.

These trash containers are to be kept enclosed except for trash pickup days.

So all of these commercial people, this is the model that we're using in the community, where the community and elected officials are being a part of the uh safe county supporting law enforcement, and I'm addressing the businesses in this section, and the citizens and leaders are all part of it, and we were hoping that you get that information out, not only to the owners, but to the residents of the other businesses in the area because we cleaned up, especially on Marion and Judson.

I came and made a comment.

Our commissioner stepped up, they cleaned up the area.

Two days later, there's encampments over there because some of these businesses are leaving their enclosures open.

And we're asking all the developers in that area to be part of the solution because your containers being open, your dumpsters being open, is adding to the problem, and we cannot get on top of it.

Metro can't get on top of it, code enforcement can't get on top of it.

We need your cooperation.

So I'm just saying that I support this project, but I also support, I'm also asking you to help us get the message out and help be part of the solution.

Thank you very much.

Bye.

Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak?

Please come forward at this time.

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

Thank you.

And as you said, this is a old existing building.

They're just trying to maintain it.

Um I know you you're working with the staff to make the driveway ADA compliance, which is great.

And so the only condition I have is the trees, the buffer.

We want to make sure that you pay into the tree fund for the buffer as well as for the part that you never did originally.

Right, that is correct.

Okay.

You agree with that?

We understand that the fee and loose for the buffer along between the residential and then the street.

Okay.

All right, with that, I'd make a motion to approve.

It's a motion for approval on item 36.

Please cast your vote.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

Next are items 41 through 43, which can be heard together.

Item 41 is PA25-70053 plan amendment to redesignate the existing land use category from mid-intensity suburban neighborhood to urban neighborhood on 4.7 acres, generally located south of Silverado Ranch Boulevard and east of Glassby Street within Enterprise.

Item 42, ZC 25 0853.

Zone change to reclassify 4.70 acres from RS20 residential single family 20 zone and an RS2 residential single family two zone to an RM32 residential multifamily 32 zone.

Generally located south of Silverado Ranch Boulevard and East of Glasby Street within Enterprise.

An item 43, UC 25 0854, use permit for senior housing, waivers of development standards for the following.

One reduce setback to modified buffering and screening, three increased wall height, four increased retaining wall height, and five reduced throat depth and design review for proposed multifamily residential development on 4.70 acres and an RM32 residential multifamily 32 zone, generally located south of Silverado Ranch Boulevard and East of Glasby Street within Enterprise.

Good morning.

Good morning, Mr.

Good morning, Mr.

Chairman and Commissioners.

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

I'm here representing Georgia Caicos on this project.

This is a proposed multifamily senior affordable development, which is as you can see on the overhead here highlighted in yellow.

It is approximately five acres.

This is the I-15 off-ramp for Silverado Ranch Boulevard.

So the reason why I show you that there is because if you're familiar with this area in the southwest, this is one of the only areas that you have true access going east and west for connectivity in this area.

And then on this five-acre piece of property, uh, just giving you a little bit of a history here.

Uh, there's been some problems with this uh property here being vacant, just like any other vacant property in the area uh that you have.

You have trucks that usually park alongside here that idle on the property.

You have other vehicles that park here at the different times of the day just doing whatever they do.

Sometimes you have illegal uh dumping on the property, and then finally, sometimes you may also have food trucks, and which actually illegally that come on to the property here, which impacts the neighbors that are immediately adjacent to this.

And I'm gonna address that of some of the things that we're doing to address some of those issues that the neighbors have brought up.

But I think it's also important to give you a little bit of a history here back in 2017.

Our firm actually represented a development on this property, and we worked with the neighbors just adjacent to us, the Wellington estates.

And at that point in time, what we got approved was for a triplex development that was for 35 feet.

Um it was, as you can see here on the site plan here, it was a uh, I think a maximum density about 68 units.

It came out to 13 and a half units to the acre.

Um, we were using Walmart Court alignment in that time at that point in time, along with ingress egress coming off of Silverado.

We had about 26, 27 different buildings of triplexes located on the property here.

Uh the impact to the existing proposed buildings to the existing residential to the east side here was about 40 feet in distance.

Uh so that was approved about seven, actually about nine years ago now.

Uh nothing has been done with the development that um on this property, as I mentioned to you because it's vacant.

So what we've done is this has been a long process.

We've been through the process, it started about May of last year.

Uh, we've literally had six neighborhood meetings.

Uh, four of or actually three of those neighborhood meetings are actually five of the six neighborhood meetings were voluntary uh neighborhood meetings.

We had them in May, June, July, August, and then we met individually with the adjacent neighbors uh adjacent to our property here, which we call Walmart Castle.

Um, and then I'll get to that in a second.

Um, and during those meetings, what we learned is the neighbors who live up adjacent to this vacant property here.

We're dealing with the issues that I already mentioned to you about trucks idling, uh illegal dumping on property, people hanging out on the property, and so on.

So we listened to those concerns and in Walmart Castle.

We came in with a development proposal in May.

We started out with some elevations that came out of a four-story building where today we're at a three-story building.

But before I get into some of those issues, I want to just mention one of the issues that we're discussing was Walmart Castle.

What we ended up doing by the time we got to our sixth meeting is we had the neighbors that are adjacent to us in support of our application that's before you today, with the understanding that we're gonna vacate this area here, and then we're gonna instead of, as you know, on the vacation, half a street goes to one part of the property owner and the other half goes to the other.

In this instance, we would end up taking the full ride-of-way width in here of Walmart Castle, and we would then compensate those individuals located here based on the formula of what we're paying price per square foot for our property.

So we've worked long and hard, as I said, with those neighbors that are located here adjacent to us.

There are neighbors in opposition that's been following us all the way through this process that live in other areas a little bit further away from the property that I that I'm showing you here.

But I thought it's important to help set the stage here so you'd understand that we've already gone through that vacation, we've already got that tenant of map approved at the planning commission, and we're quickly as soon as possible trying to record those vacations and tenant a map, because as uh Mr.

Jacekis is here is looking to close on this property within the next 30 days, and that's important to make sure as we close on this property that we also get this vacated and purchase those square footages of those properties that are adjacent to us.

So, what why is that also important in this uh presentation?

Because the neighbors that are adjacent to us, they had some concerns with one of our last elevations because building height has been a discussion for the last 10 months, but some of the changes that we've made when I show you the last uh design is based off some of the comments that we see from the neighbors.

So when we first started out in May of last year, we had a four-story building.

Uh by the time we came back into our June meeting, what you see here, this is a four-story building with a three-story, a three-story and a four-story building that we're proposing.

That was about 40 feet in height and 50 feet in height for the four for the four stories.

Um we later came back with some revisions as we're working with the neighbors adjacent to us to three-story building that was at 37 and a half feet in height.

However, where we had the elevator shafts that you could see on our west elevation in this area, we had come up to about 44 feet in height, regardless because of the elevator shaft that sticks up for construction purposes.

What the neighbors asked us to do in reviewing these plans, they didn't want a modern design, the clean cut look and the straight lines that you see on the pro on on this proposed elevation.

What they asked us to do is to make it more in character with the residential development in the area, which as you can see, there's more neutral tones.

But one of the things that we did, and I pointed this out at the planning commission, I want to make sure that it's clear here.

We have the pitched roof in this area now.

So instead of having a 37 and a half foot tall three-story building, what we're in now with is this is going to be about 39 feet and a half foot building.

And the reason is is that two extra feet gives that pitch for the roof, the roof design, which the neighbors have asked us to do.

This is the west elevation that you see.

This is where the elevator shafts are going to be on the on the um on the elevations, as you can see.

Those are the only areas where it would go up to where we're asking for 44 feet.

Otherwise, throughout the majority of the building, as you can see along the east elevation and the west elevation here, you're gonna be at about 39 and a half feet for the pitched roof in that area.

So I do want to point that out because that's one of those last things that we made a change as we were getting ready to finalize our plans before we went to the town board of making the color change and also making the roof pitch change.

Another issue that is uh come up as we were going through the neighborhood process is density.

Um we have 167 units that we're proposing here for senior affordable housing.

As you're aware, senior affordable housing is a need in southern Nevada.

Matter of fact, I believe the annual housing progress report that came out just recently has mentioned that there's over 90,000 units for senior housing that's still needed in this area.

We feel that this piece of property where it's located, it's an infill piece of property is not that much more, if anything, less of an impact than what's been approved for the townhomes that are located here or townhomes that can actually be built on this property.

Because as you may know, even though we have 167 units on the property, uh mainly most of these units are all going to be with one person in there.

We're proposing 24 studio rooms.

We have 94 one bedrooms, and we have 49 two bedroom units.

And if you're familiar, and Mr.

Jicacas, as you may know, has several senior projects throughout the valley.

Typically, with the project like this, it's less than 60% of the residents of the seniors actually have cars.

Or excuse me, only yeah, but let's say roughly 60% of the people will have a car.

What that means here is a typical project with about 167 units, you're gonna have about 60 cars of the residents that live here.

And and I know that personally as my mom lived in one of these, and she we didn't have her have a car, and many of her friends in there didn't have a car.

So I understand that the impact of traffic coming from seniors is negligible.

Um, regardless, the neighbors do have concerns with that of traffic in this area, um, and I'll just go through that on the site plan.

But if you can understand the type of user that's going to be in this multifamily development as a senior, is far less intense than a typical user in a market rate type of an apartment.

Um next is I want to just show you on the site plans and the history here of where we've gone through and some of the site plans.

Again, this was our initial site plan where we're looking to use Walmart, uh Walmart Castle in this area, but because we are now vacating it and making redesign, this gives you an idea of the location in the design of the property.

One of the things I do want to point out by eliminating Walmart Castle that would otherwise come out in this area here, it would be if we still kept that street located here, it would still be in close proximity to the ingress and egress, which is just to the east of us for the existing subdivision here.

So we have ingress and egress on Silver Rado uh ranch boulevard located here.

It's a write in right out.

So no matter what type of development you build here, you could build a commercial development, you could build any type of residential development.

There is going to be a write in right out regardless what you build here.

So the concerns from the neighbors from a traffic standpoint coming out on the Silverado Ranch.

We've done some research from NDOT.

I think in 2017 or actually 2021 was the highest peak of travel that end dot is mentioned on Silverado Ranch was roughly about 47,000 cars a day coming up and down on east and west on Silverado Ranch.

And as of last year, it was about 38,500 cars is what they've picked up on Silverado Ranch.

So you still have tens of thousands of cars, you know, going east and west in this area.

The traffic is slow, you know, is a little bit less than it's typically been.

So we don't think any type of additional traffic onto Silverado Ranch is going to have a negative impact to the area.

Um the other thing I do want to point out is on some of the conditions here, is as we go through on the site plan here.

One of the things that has come up with is there's a drainage easement to the south of us in this area here.

We've been looking very closely with your public works department, and there is a condition, I believe, in one of the public works uh conditions that are proposed that it requires us to do a public drainage access to the in this cul-de-sac area.

I know in conversations and I want clarification, is that we talked about moving that access from the cul-de-sac bulb as long as we're given access, as you can see here.

This is this is a revision that we would have to make ensure that one uh the county will have access coming into the property as I'm showing you, and they will be able to have their trucks and whatever else needs to fit in this area to connect to this drainage area here.

So I believe that will suffice to to address that condition in there.

I don't know if we need to make any changes to that condition to that bullet point, but as long as we can agree that some other access instead of the access to this cul-de-sac bulb will fulfill that condition.

I believe that's good for clarification.

Um, the other conditions in the um planning department bullet point number three, we'd like to just eliminate that that condition in there.

And then I'd like to revise uh bullet point number one for the in the planning condition because there were some concerns about this being a senior project.

One is I've represented uh George uh uh Jicaikis for about 25 years.

What he says he's going to build, he builds, which is senior apartments.

And so we're totally fine with this condition.

I'm gonna read in because there are some concerns that George may not build a senior for uh senior housing project on this property.

Uh so what we're going to do is ask for that condition bullet point number one be changed to state shall at financial closing and recorded in the first position, place a declaration of restrictive covenants on the property restricting the affordability of the units to the ranges provided on the county's approved affordable housing certification for a period of 50 years.

So we believe that right there will help relieve some of the concerns as some of the neighbors have mentioned of some of the concerns whether or not this is going to be a senior housing development, uh affordable development.

So with that being said, we believe that the location of this piece of property, it's been sitting here vacant forever.

Um there has been some issues with this piece of property that's been impacting, especially the neighbors that are immediately adjacent to this property.

Uh we've worked very closely with these neighbors, as I mentioned, we've had six total uh neighborhood meetings in this period of time in the last 10 months and other numerous conversations.

Uh we believe that the project here as an infill is definitely a good fit.

Seniors deserve to be in communities like this, and we think this is a great asset in amenity across the street here where you have the community center and you have other commercial uses that will be used by the seniors that are located here.

So that being said, we feel that we're feeling a need, um, and this is an appropriate place with a very limited impact on the property, and we'd ask you to uh approve the applications that are before you with those condition changes that I've made, and I'm here to answer any other questions from the opposition that's here to speak on the uh matter.

Thank you.

This is a public hearing on items 41, 42, and 43.

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

Good morning.

Good morning.

I'm Cynthia Chapel.

I live directly behind bird's eye view of that entire property.

And uh first thing I'd like to say is this project was unanimous unanimously disapproved in our neighborhood meeting at the community center.

And for these reasons, it's it will reduce our home values.

My property looks out at that vacant land, and that building, instead of seeing um the skyline, I'm going to be looking at a building.

And um, they're also proposing to remove Walmart Castle and build a parking structure right behind those homes.

So I think there's like 10 feet where they're gonna put some plants in.

But right now, those people have a view, you know, view of the skyline, view of the city, and um the zone change allows too many residents in a small area.

So when you talk about seniors, I mean, I'm a senior, I drive.

Um, you know, this is an active senior apartment complex, not uh an assisted living.

They do drive, and that silver that portion of Silverado Ranch it has a lot of traffic, and they can't even go left.

So if they want to go left, they've got to go right, they've got to go down, they've got to make a U-turn.

Uh there's a school that school there, there's a big apartment complex be uh across the street.

It's um it's a very active, it's a very lot of traffic.

And um, and then lastly, just you know, the a low-income apartment building really doesn't fit the community.

These are uh million dollar homes that are backing up to this property, and I myself bought my home because I walked in and the windows and looking out over the skyline, it's beautiful.

And I don't want to be looking at a building, and I don't think my neighbors do, and I know they don't, but um anyway, thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak on items 41 through 43?

Please come forward.

Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing.

Uh a few comments.

One uh Mr.

Grenar, you pointed out six uh meetings that were held.

That's accurate.

My office attended, I think five of the six meetings.

This has also been to town board planning commission and here today.

I also participated in a meeting with about a dozen uh immediately impacted neighbors just last week.

Um, and I I guess a couple comments back, um, Ms.

Chaplin, I appreciate I know you spoke uh at the town advisory board and have been involved in this process, but the notion that it is unanimously disapproval, that that's untrue.

There are immediate neighbors who actually support this, and I think that's apparent by their absence today.

Um there's a number of uh abutting neighbors who had to actually sign off on the vacation of Wilmer, which I think signifies some support, and that actually includes the HOA of this community who owns a parcel of land there.

Umfortunately, this board can't uh we're not able to protect skylines or views uh that's been litigated.

Uh uh property owners don't have rights to view scape, um, and so we're not able to consider that.

A point of clarification, there's no parking structure.

Is that correct, Mr.

Growner?

What she's talking about, the parking structure is the carport.

We have um uh whatchamacallit, we have um solar, solar, solar car ports okay.

But there's no elevated no, there's no elevating structure.

No, okay, good.

Um and then as far as the density, which uh is truly the issue here.

Uh I I do think the points and the justification that uh well you're right, certainly seniors drive that you'd have when argue with that.

Um a hundred percent.

I can tell you I have a lot of experience with uh this exact use in my district.

In fact, it exists not very far away from you currently.

There's multiple uh uh age restricted affordable uh communities very close to you already, existing and thriving, doing well, uh, right up against residential, causing no harm to the neighbors, not diminishing property value in any way.

Um, I will say part of uh part of what I believe some of the attributes of this project is getting this site developed.

Right now, on this site, uh we have a legal uses uh that are going on.

We have idling trucks that are happening regularly.

We've tried to get after it with code, uh, but until this site is developed, uh that's very difficult to do.

Uh so I think for those reasons and for the reason that this is not so detached from what was approved previously, uh, and a use that certainly I'm supportive of.

I I am prepared to move for approval.

Uh I will strike the third bullet on uh the planning commission uh and add the restriction that was read into the record.

I'll ask Mr.

Papazian, uh mid-motion here to comment on the access uh for public works.

Thank you, Commissioner.

I apologize you were on a roll.

Um so I'd like to change one of our conditions.

We were working with uh the applicant and Bob to acquire the southerly portion of the bulb.

Unfortunately, that doesn't go back to the homeowners, it doesn't go back to the applicant, it actually goes back to the southerly parcel.

So they don't control it.

We had um access coming off of the bulb to access our channel if they were able to acquire that portion of the bulb.

Uh they're still in discussions, it doesn't sound like it's going well, so I would just like to change my um condition since they don't control it.

I don't know how I would condition them to give me that portion as a drainage easement.

So if you're okay, I would like to change, provide a public drainage easement to be granted on the south portion of the bulb and the triangular portion lying northeast of the drainage easement.

And I'd like to add if the adjacent landowner is willing to participate to grant that drainage easement.

What we were trying to do is not create a no man's land, and unfortunately, because the applicant doesn't control that.

I can't condition them to something that they can't control.

The applicant agrees to that.

Yes, we do.

Wonderful.

And then one last condition that I would like to add to try and get at what some of the neighbors have brought to my attention would be that within 30 days of approval, the applicant uh to prevent is to prevent public access to Walmer Castle Lane.

Uh so that would be physical barrier to the site.

Yeah, that is perfect.

Then that's something we intended to do.

Uh, we're looking into that, but we should be able to do that in 30 days for sure.

For sure.

We will.

Excellent.

Commissioner, I'm sorry, can I add clarify?

It sounded like uh commission um Mr.

Gronauer was gonna delete the first bullet for senior housing and replace it.

I think it was to replace it with the colour.

Yeah, and replace it because I think it only said the first bullet points in for senior housing, I believe it is.

That's right.

Okay, I think the condition is the senior housing condition and the affordable housing condition both.

Okay, that's fine.

I'm totally fine with both.

And so we won't ask to delete condition number one.

We'll keep our bullet point number one.

We'll keep that on there because it's for senior housing, and then for the affordability condition that I read into the record, that will be on there as a new bullet point in the planning.

And so the record is clear that my intent is that the deed restriction apply to senior affordable housing.

Yes.

Thank you.

There's a motion for approval on items 41, 42, and 43.

Please cast your vote.

That motion carries that.

Thank you.

And for one last clarification on the uh fencing on the front of Silverado uh ranch.

We're gonna make sure we have access gates there for public works or able to bring their vehicles on their property to get down to the south.

So we'll work on that, but I want a clarification.

We will have a fence opening there, uh, a gate opening for them.

Okay.

Understood.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Did the motion carry?

It did.

I apologize.

Sorry.

Item next items are items 44 and 45.

44 is zone change 25-0902.

Zone change to reclassify 2.81 acres from H2 General Highway Frontage Zone to a CG commercial general zone to an IP industrial park zone.

Generally located south of Las Vegas Boulevard North and East of Nellis Boulevard within Sunrise Manor.

And item 45, UC 25-0903 use permits for the following one outdoor storage and display and two truck parking or staging.

Waiver development standards to eliminate and reduce buffering and screening and design review for proposed outdoor storage and display and proposed truck parking on 2.81 acres in an IP industrial park zone within the airport environs AE 70 overlay, generally located south of Las Vegas Boulevard, north and east of Nellis Boulevard within Sunrise Manor.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Melissa Yary, 1055 Whitney Ranch Drive, Suite 210 here on behalf of the applicant.

So as you can see, the the parcels are right here off of the intersection of Nellis and Las Vegas Boulevard.

Two of the parcels are currently the H2, which is no longer a part of code, and one is the CG, which we are requesting to go to the IP.

As this is Nullis Air Force Base, directly behind the parcel.

So we felt that that was much more compatible given the location to the base as well as the noise contours over it.

Um this is for there is truck parking here, and so what we have requested is that the main access you can see here off of Las Vegas Boulevard, there'll be a crash gate off of Nellis.

We happen to have quite a few power lines in this area here where a buffer is required for landscaping, and because of that, it makes it very difficult to put the landscaping in.

So what we're doing is we're keeping the landscape buffer right here, and we've taken the trees that would have been here, which is again up against Nellis Air Force Base and moved them here to the east property line where no buffer was required, but there happens to be apartments that are existing there, so it'll actually buffer the existing apartments versus the vacant portion of the base.

And then the other trees that are required, we've moved to increase the landscaping up against Las Vegas Boulevard and here along Nellis, where they'll do the most good on the site.

And then this rather than being 15 feet, we've asked to reduce it to 12 again to allow for better circulation, and because we have some of these power lines here.

So we did invite Nellis to come to the bay to the site.

They did take a look at it to make sure that the wall was safe and that it was still secure.

There'll be metal poles behind those trucks to make sure that they can't back into the wall as well.

And they didn't have any issues with that.

We're very familiar with Commissioner Kirkpatrick's district, so we do have cameras in place on site, and we'll work with Metro on making sure that they're good with the placement of those cameras.

And with that, happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

This is a public hearing on items 44 and 45.

Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward.

Good morning.

Good morning.

My name is Al Rojas.

I live in Sunrise Manor.

I'm active in the community.

Generally speaking, I totally support this project.

Could you could could you just let go of the microphone because it's gonna stay there?

Yeah, generally speaking.

Uh I support this project.

I just want to point out again to the applicant that we are making a strong effort to clean up this area.

This is a hard area because there's so many vacant lots.

We had this law that federal law were homeless could see just about anywhere they want.

We're taking everything back.

And at this point, you know, we've got the citizens, the leaders, the commissioners, a great county.

Mr.

Mr.

Rojas, I appreciate your advertising.

But what specifically on the project you want to talk about?

Okay, well, anyway, I know that's the point that I'm trying to make as well as you.

Okay, the point that I'm trying to make here is that we need to.

You could get that signed down because there's 400 people that watch Channel 4.

I promise you're not getting any advertising with it.

Well, I'm not advertising.

Okay, well, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to okay.

All I'm trying to say is that let's get the um uh the trash enclosures, make sure that you have uh a good um uh communication there that to close those up, and hopefully you can work with uh law enforcement to find out what the new law, the new ordinance says, and how to get that enforced so you can help us get a lot of these encampments that are out of the area, and it's gonna help you.

That's what I was trying to say.

I'm sorry, but that's that's no, it's okay, but I I when you're finished, I'll answer your questions.

I'm pretty involved in this.

I'm trying to make all these truck parking illegal folks legal.

So this is okay.

That's fine.

I just want to make sure that you know we get everybody on the same page.

That's all I'm trying to get at.

Does that complete your public comment?

Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak?

Please come forward at this time.

Seeing none, Commissioner Kirkpatrick.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

And this is gonna be completely fenced in, and it has to be on a reservation basis, so they will have enclosures, so there's no way to get in it unless you have a reservation.

There is a guard shack so that somebody will be there to make sure that we don't have people coming in and out.

And the reason why all of that is more important than ever is because it is adjacent to the base.

So we have to protect the base at all costs, so which is why we brought them out to make sure nobody could hop the fence standing on their truck.

So as we're we're not gonna have random people trying to get into this because there'll be no access.

So we talked to them about the trash enclosure, we've talked to them about metro placing uh working with metro to place the cameras consistent where we can see who's coming and going.

Um so because this is the first special use permit on truck parking.

We we want to make sure we put some conditions so that we can um we can stay on top of it to make sure.

So one, you are gonna replace that fence and put a better fence, correct?

Correct.

Okay, two, no advertising on the fence because you don't need it, but I do want the contact information.

So in the event of an emergency, we know who we can call.

Correct?

Yes, and we currently have that right now, but understood.

Okay, and there's no overnight uh sleeping or lodging within side of this truck parking.

Correct, and we do have a roving security guard at night, so they can make sure that that's not occurring on the site.

And so we're gonna we're gonna hold you to that security guard all the time because we don't want it to be there today and gone tomorrow, right?

So making sure, and then uh we want to make sure that um we understand that people are gonna have unhitched trailers, but we don't want it to become what we don't want it to become is the pictures that were on the you know TV with the broken down trucks and all that.

We're we're not interested in being a storage yard like that, as much as having well run and people just parking there instead of in the neighborhood, so no unhitched trailers for more than a week, and I'm out there a lot, so I'll be doing spot checks so I can mark them to to know too.

We want to make sure there's no idling of the engines uh near the residents, um, which we talked about that.

We don't you don't usually have that because they back in, so it shouldn't be an issue.

And then uh Antonio's gonna so you are gonna replace the asphalt, put in the sidewalk along the two areas, correct.

And we we support the weavers because we don't necessarily need landscaping abutting um abutting uh the base, but Antonio wants to put a couple clarifications in just for you all, so we make sure in dot knows what we want and you know what we want.

So thank you, Commissioner.

Um regarding the fence, it appears whatever they have up today is within the right-of-way, so that we ask that whatever they end up installing is on their property and not in the right-of-way.

And we have been working with N DOT on um other portions in this town for uh offsites along adjacent to their street.

So we would like to add a condition that says construct off-site improvements on Las Vegas Boulevard North.

And so I've been going back and forth on whether or not doing a review is makes sense, but I can do my own review, and I can always bring you back for revocation if you if it's not what it's supposed to be.

So uh we did talk about the enclosures for the trash to make sure that they're regular picked up and that they don't become a dumping ground for anybody unloading their trucks.

So I I think that this is the first of probably many we're gonna see in that area.

But if I could get those trucks out of the neighborhoods, it's better for everybody.

So I would make a motion for approval with all those conditions.

Commissioner Kirkpatrick, can I ask a question, please?

Yes.

Um, for replacing the fence with the better fence.

Do you have any guidelines or just no changing?

I have that picture.

I don't love it, but it's better than what it is today.

I'm not interested in what we have there today.

Uh so I don't have the picture of the new fence that he was gonna put up, but basically, right now, this kind of gives you a better idea.

But he does have a white wood fence.

He's gonna replace it with a with a better fence where the the fencing goes.

So we would for so I would say this um uh a fence that meets our code.

So currently the one that is out there today does not meet our code, so a fence that meets our code, and that probably needs to be one of your first priorities.

Yeah, so we were gonna replace the fence with with a better white wood fence and maintain it, make sure it's painted at times.

I believe that was.

Yeah so we were gonna replace the fence with with a better white wood fence and maintain it make sure it's painted at a time they believe that was Jennifer doesn't know how to import it better right so I'm trying to say I know it better is and she probably knows what better is but code doesn't know how to enforce better.

So I'm just saying to replace it with a fence that meets the code and then we'll we'll be on yet to make sure it looks better than what we have and that'll be on me to review that got it and then did you want to add the security guard at all times?

Yes.

There's a motion for approval on items 44 and 45 please cast your vote the motion carries thank you.

Next are items 46 through 49 which can be heard together.

Item 46 is C C 26022 zone change to reclassify 1.13 acres from an RS20 residential single family zone to an RS5.2 residential single family 5.2 zone generally located north of Wigwan Avenue and west of Eastern Avenue within paradise item 47 VS 26023 vacate and abandoned easements of interest to Clark County located between Wigwam Avenue and Camaro Avenue and Eastern Avenue and Spencer Street within Paradise Item 48 WS 26024 waivers of development standards for the following one reduce setbacks and two increase retaining wall height design reviews for the following one proposed single family residential development and two allow alternative yards on 1.13 acres and NRS 5.2 residential single family 5.2 zone generally located north of Wigwan Avenue and east of east excuse me west of Eastern Avenue within Paradise and 49 TM26-50003 map consisting of five single family residential lots and common lots on 1.13 acres and an RS5.2 residential single family 5.2 zone generally located north of Wigwam Avenue and west of Eastern Avenue within Paradise.

Thank you good morning good morning Robert Cunningham 6030 South Jones Boulevard with tanning engineering representing the applicant a property is located in this highlighted yellow area just to the north side of Wigwam approximately eight to nine hundred feet to the west of eastern it's surrounded by developed properties um almost on all directions subdivisions and some rural properties in the area the land use we're not asking to change it but I just wanted to show the land use map where we're conforming to the land use and the density that was master planned here we are asking for conforming zone change to RS52 you can see that this is our site right here in purple to the south is RS33 RS10 is to our west and to the north east of us there are some RS20 lots there are some uh developments in here in the RS20 I believe there's a daycare and a few others that are commercial uh closer to eastern what we're requesting is a five lot residential development with one public cul de sac uh there are five lots two are located oriented to uh but the west property line two are oriented to but the east property line and there are three that back up to the north property line uh we are also requesting to vacate a remnant driveway easement that was uh on this property from when it was proposed to be developed as a church and a patent easement that is located along the east portion of the property turn this if it could be zoomed out just a little bit this is a proposed site plan with the can you zoom out just a little bit more thank you this proposed site plan shows the the proposed footprints that were planned for the site uh the reason I show this is because we're asking for uh two setback variances and I wanted to really clarify that these are are not significant variances um the first one is on lot four we're asking for this to be reduced to 4.9 feet instead of five feet in the staff report and the way that it was written up uh it the request is for four feet but it's very minor on the side of lot four the other one that we're asking for a setback waiver on is lot three on lot three we're asking for the rear yard to be reduced down to 15 feet where 20 feet is required one of the reasons we're doing this is to accommodate a large single story home on this lot we believe that the single story home uh being proposed on this lot is is more um provides more privacy to the property to the north instead of a two story home on this lot we also are planning on putting single story homes on the lots one and two uh which are directly adjacent to a horse property that exists uh that's been developed like this for quite some time probably 40 years um on lot five and four we currently have a smaller footprint that is two story in nature um we also are asking for a waiver of wall height so the property currently drains slightly from wigwam

We also are planning on putting single story homes on the lots one and two, uh, which are directly adjacent to a horse property that exists that's been developed like this for quite some time, probably 40 years.

Um lot five and four.

We currently have a smaller footprint that is two story in nature.

Um we also are asking for a waiver of wall height.

So the property currently drains slightly from Wigwam to the north.

Uh, in doing that and draining it in the current condition, there's not provisions on the north properties that will allow drainage to continue through that uh with the property being fully developed.

So in order to mitigate that, a portion of the property has to drain back to wigwam and a portion drain north.

In doing such, uh, we have to come in and build a wall that's taller than the code required retaining wall house, which is three feet.

The property directly to our west, which is this property here that has a two and three-story home on it, has already been developed, and they have a retaining wall that goes upwards of five feet in the areas, and we're trying to do less than this on our property.

We would continue to work with public works and drainage to try to mitigate and reduce the wall height and the amount of fill on this property as much as possible because it's it's very expensive to bring in and develop the site.

I have some pictures of the elevations of the homes that are proposed.

Here's a picture of the two-story home.

As you can see that it has a nice frontage elevation.

Here's a picture of the single story home.

This has a swing in three-car garage here and a two-car garage.

This two-story homes are about 2300 square feet, uh, just over that, and the single story home is over 3,000 square feet in size.

And here's the other single story home that they're proposing as well.

I have floor plans and elevations and be happy to answer any additional questions that you have that'll conclude my presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This is a public hearing on items 46, 47, 48, and 49.

Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward.

Good morning.

Robin Rocky, 225 East Camaro Avenue.

Good morning.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to express my opposition to this and related agenda items.

Please note these uh items were uh listened to by the Paradise Town Advisory Board on February 18th.

And the town advisory board uh recommended denial.

In fact, they told the applicant to quote go back to the drawing board.

I believe many postcards in opposition have also been uh so I am the neighbor directly behind to the north of the the property.

Com planning states the applicant must demonstrate the zoning district is compatible with the surrounding area.

The five homes proposed by the applicant on this parcel are not a cohesive and harmonious fit and are not compatible with adjacent rezoning efforts per the applicant's uh justification letter.

Further declarations in the applicant's justification letter are also unmet.

The proposed development does not address the immediate needs of the community, and it does not align with approved entitlements for neighboring parcels by any stretch of the imagination.

So the dictionary states that adjacent means next to or adjoining.

And mathematically speaking, adjacent is defined as sharing a common side or need.

So let's look at the reality of what's adjacent to this parcel here.

Uh my neighbor here uh who's also here today has uh a single house with a couple of horses.

The property here next to mine, uh, they were allowed to build three homes on it.

It's vacant right now, but they're just starting to build those three homes.

Uh here's my house, little little house on the prairie.

I called it me and three big dogs, just about the size of Tommy's horses.

And then here are um other adjacent properties.

Please note they are double the size of this parcel, five homes on each of them, so an average of two and a half homes perstand the in fill concept.

I do not oppose the developer on the three homes that will soon be built adjacent to my property.

For the property is in discussion today, two or three homes is reasonable and compatible with adjacent properties.

Five is not.

I know that there will be development on this vacant land.

I am simply making an effort to avoid a zone change that will jeopardize the rural feel of this little section of paradise.

My neighbors and I so enjoy five houses is just too many.

And the wall height is also a concern.

Lastly, I will mention that Zillow shows an act of sale listing for this property.

Evidently, the developer has not even made an investment yet in the property.

So maybe that will be all the more reason for you to feel compelled to recommend that they go back to the drawing board.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon.

My name is Thomas Papania.

I live in the property, the horse property directly uh to the east of this property.

And uh I there are 11 homes along Wigwam from my house to Spencer, and I was able to speak with nine of those people.

They're all against five homes.

We welcome two homes because for one thing, that's what the zoning calls for.

At some point, some some intelligent people when they changed the five-year land use plan, decided that two homes were appropriate for this for this uh neighborhood.

And I welcome two because it'll help keep out the homeless and the coyotes, but not five.

Five's not appropriate.

Uh one of the neighbors mentioned uh traffic, but not in the usual sense.

He mentioned that uh people nowadays might have two, three cars, five homes in there, that's 10 to 15 cars in there.

Uh not appropriate.

You know, this area used to be uh rural preservation area.

Now I'm going back a long ways.

I'll make it short.

We lost out to high density housing, but that was hundreds of homes, hundreds.

I don't think it's appropriate to change the zoning for just three houses.

Uh the area just to the west of the property, which which he mentioned.

Yeah, there's a nice house there, but there's five houses in a gated community directly uh bordering this property, five houses, but it's on two and a half acres.

There's no traffic problem, no problem.

Five houses on two and a half acres, he's asking for five on less than half of that.

So let's talk about an acre of property.

When you have an acre, that's roughly 38,000 square feet when you take out the easements.

So now he's got a road going in there, which is probably 10,000 square feet.

That leaves about 28,000 square feet for five homes.

By my math, that's less than six thousand square feet per lot.

The pictures of those homes that he showed you, they're not gonna look like that on six thousand square feet.

Every home on Wigwam that I mentioned to Spencer, uh, every home along there is a minimum lot size of 16,000 square feet.

So we don't think this is appropriate.

Uh I think the only other last thing I want to mention is that this property is also up for sale.

Here's the listing.

And on this listing, the applicant misrepresents the current zoning.

I don't think that's appropriate.

Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak?

Uh, please come forward at this time.

Seeing none, uh, Mr.

Cunningham, do you want to respond to any of the comments that were made and maybe particularly for the benefit of the full board, just describe the uh orientate everybody to the location of Wigwam and Eastern, if you could.

So this is the aerial map.

This this is almost an infill piece of property.

Wigwam is an 80-foot street in this area, and there are subdivisions that have been developed over the years and over time, directly to the south of us is a subdivision that has lots that range from 3,300 square feet to you know 7,000 square feet in it.

Um, the one directly to our adjacent property here to the west has lots that range of 10,000 square foot plus in it, um, as this little pocket that um was identified identified here.

There's one home here to the north of us and this one here.

But if you look beyond that, really at the overall area, directly across the street from this gentleman's house is a commercial development here on almost 30 acres.

Uh, there's a bar, a tavern located here.

There's there's quite a bit of businesses, and this area has changed drastically in the last 30 or 40 years from a rural neighborhood to one that is is completely infilled and developed.

This site was approved previously for a church that started to develop on this site, which we believe would have been a higher and more intense use on the site.

We believe coming in with the five units on it, the five homes, which is a staff's recommended approval.

It's a conforming zone change.

All the lots meet the lot size requirement.

In fact, they go up to 9500 square feet on a couple of the lots.

Um so we believe that this is taking the piece of property that's really tough to develop in this condition and making it appropriate.

We've also taken uh guidance on how the site plan should be laid out directly adjacent to us is two lots.

We have two homes adjacent to those two lots.

We have two larger lots over here that are.

I think this one's 9500 square feet that's adjacent to this gentleman, and the one down here is about 8,500 square feet.

So they're larger.

We're putting single story homes on these three lots here to try to aid in you know, manip or making it work better for the community and making it a project that works harmoniously with what's adjacent to it, given that there's a lot of factors here, and we're in filling and we're trying to make this um more compatible.

So hopefully that clarifies some of the the concerns.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

Um couple comments I would make.

One, uh, you referenced the previously entitled use.

Uh I couldn't agree more.

There was a uh church that has been previously approved on this site, which respectfully I think both of you here opposed that at the time.

Um the intensity of that and my having no control over that, either coming back or uh a similar intense use like that coming to this site without any ability at all to put restrictions on it like we are today, uh, I think whale uh overpowers uh five versus four lots on this site.

Uh and I and while I don't disagree that um there's a distinction between what uh is being presented today and and what the two property owners who have spoken are sitting on.

Um I I don't believe that this does not fit into the uh character of that area.

I know this area very, very well.

Um, and I don't think one additional house is going to cause any kind of detriment to this neighborhood.

Um I think that the condition that uh the applicant has put on the record related to one story versus two stories on those sites on those lots makes sense, and I think that provides some level of protection outside of what code would uh limit them to uh is good and will stick with my approval.

Um and I would also point out that while I understand that the opposition didn't support this at the time, it does conform to the current land use, uh whether we like it or not.

Uh so for those reasons uh I'm prepared to move for approval of items 46, 47, 48, and 49.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next item is item 52, AC26-90052.

Consider an appeal the director's notice of decision to deny a request for a reasonable zoning accommodation at 6163 Port Tack Drive within Sunrise Manor.

And commissioners, uh zoning accommodations are reviewed to determine if a reasonable accommodation and rules, policies, practices, or services are necessary to afford a person with a disability equal opportunity to use and enjoy their housing.

The denial of the zoning accommodation was based on the following.

According to you had guidance for unique ad unique animals such as chickens, the request of a reasonable zoning accommodation for a comfort animal or emotional support animal has a substantial burden of demonstrating a therapeutic need for the specific animal or the specific type of animal.

There's no evidence that this specific type of animal chickens is needed for a therapeutic benefit.

That's a therapy back, excuse me, therapeutic benefit can be achieved by using any other type of pet allowed under the Clark County Code without a reasonable zoning accommodation or zoning change.

The ADA and FHA does not require accommodations that would be direct threat to the health and safety of others.

Backyard chickens are a public health risk, and the size of the backyard does not allow for a suitable coop that can be sufficiently spaced from neighbors.

Finally, the request is not reasonable because it would require a fundamental alteration of the nature of residential zoning ordinance by introducing farm animals.

Lastly, the applicant may or may not be present, but um we did tell the applicant they are not required to be present at this meeting.

And if they did attend and wish to speak, they're not required to disclose any private or medical information.

Thank you very much.

Um Commissioner Sagerblum.

Yes, um apparently the applicant is not here.

Um I've not heard from him or her.

Um so I'm concerned about what they're asking for.

Uh so I'll go with staff's recommendation and and deny the appeal.

But I did want to put on the record uh if we can do it for um make it for not non-presidential, but I've learned today more about uh chick.

What do we call them?

Chickens, support chickens, support chickens.

And so I am if the applicant wants to reach out to me, I would love to know more about her.

I don't want to prior to her her psychological condition, but I I just don't have the ability to uh refute staffs at this point.

So with that, I'd make the motion to um deny without prejudice.

There's a motion to deny without prejudice.

Just want to make sure that uh we're clarify that the appeal is being upheld.

Right.

All right, there's a motion to uh I mean uh deny denied.

The appeal the motion is to deny the appeal, right?

Yep.

Okay.

I'm moving to deny the appeal.

Thank you.

Please cast your vote.

The motion carries.

Next are items 53 through 55, which are ordinances for introduction.

Item 53, ORD 25-9001047, introduce an ordinance to consider adoption of development agreement with TRIP family and investments LLC for commercial development on 1.21 acres.

54 ORD 2690049.

Introduce an ordinance to consider adoption of a development agreement with DR Horton for a single family residential development on 4.84 acres, and number 55, ORD 26 900 087.

Introduce an ordinance to amend the official zoning map to reclassify certain properties as approved by the Board of County Commissioners on December 17th, 2025.

And staff recommends that you introduce the items and set the public hearing for March 18, 2026.

We'll introduce the items and set the public hearing for March 18th, 2026.

This uh brings us to our final time set aside for public comment.

Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward at this time on items under the jurisdiction of this board.

Good afternoon.

Good morning.

Where's Tick gonna be?

Okay, good morning.

My name is Al Rojas, and I've got some pretty important stuff to say.

So uh, you know, we're trying to uh get on top of this homeless issue, and we had the uh we had a uh town hall meeting yesterday with a tick and law enforcement, and it was very, very productive.

And we had some uh elected officials, and I'm recommending before I go to my next step that we have our commissioner from my area, Kirkpatrick and TIC and law enforcement have a town hall meeting to address the issues in our community.

I also want to say I also want to make a recommendation to the board that we uh create a what I call a let me get the name that I wanted to create a new ordinance or a new yeah, have an ordinance that would create an enforcement, a new ordinance enforcement coordinating committee from the commissioners, which would help us enforce new ordinances like this one here because what's going on right now is that different parts of the COP program for my for um uh law enforcement for LBMPD are enforcing this but to a different degree, and whoever wrote this ordinance did a fantastic job, but we have to get it.

We have to have all of the police uh uh department units enforce it uniformly or better, because we do have to get on top of this homeless problem before it gets on top of us.

So I recommend that we build that um uh the commissioners create a enforcement uh new ordinance enforcement coordinator committee, and this is my this is a reason why to have the commissioners communicate the importance of new ordinances to all area commands and appropriate agencies like help of Southern Nevada, Code Enforcement, Public Words, etc.

Especially for the new no camping ordinance.

Thank you very much.

Bye.

Thank you.

Have a good day.

Anyone else wishing to speak?

Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing and adjourn this meeting.