So I want to welcome everyone to the Planning Commission meeting for Tuesday, March 17th.

If you wouldn't mind, please rise and join us in a pledge of colleagues.

So everyone, so the first item on our agenda is public comment.

Um this is a part of the meeting where anyone can come down and make public comments on the record.

Um this particular um section of the meeting, the planning commission cannot vote or speak on any of those public comments, but you're more than welcome to come down.

All right, seeing no one coming down for public comments.

We will close this section of public comments and thank you very much.

And then the next section will be roll call.

All right.

Present.

Commissioner Stone here.

Commissioner Kirk.

Here.

Commissioner Kalarski.

Present.

Commissioner Brady.

Here.

And Commissioner Reuteman.

Present.

Mr.

Chair, we have a quorum.

Thank you very much.

Um so go ahead, Staff, take it away.

Good evening, Mr.

Chairman, honorable members of the Clark County Planning Commission.

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

Staff requests the following.

Hold the file into the April 21st, 2026 Planning Commission meeting per the applicant's representative item number 30, PA 26, 7004, item number 31, ZC 26056, item 32, VS 260057, item 33, WS 26058, and item number 34 TM 265011.

For the public's information, the corresponding Board of County Commissioners meeting date will change from April 22nd, 2026 to May 20th, 2026 for the aforementioned items.

For the applicant's information, additional renotification fees may be required in accordance with Title Thirty from items held or deleted, or if there are modifications, the original application.

These are for items numbers 30 through 34.

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

Thank you, Staff.

I entertain a motion for approval of the agenda.

Mr.

Chair, I make a motion to approve the agenda as presented holding items thirty through thirty-four.

Thank you very much.

Mr.

Chair, motion to approve the minutes for February 17, 2026 and March 3rd, 2026.

Thank you very much.

There's a motion on the floor.

Cash your vote.

Motion carries.

Next item.

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

All appeals must be filed in writing to the comprehensive planning department by 5 o'clock PM on Wednesday, March 25th, 2026.

And any appeals from tonight's meeting will be heard by the Board of County Commissioners on Wednesday, April 22nd, 2026 at 9 o'clock a.m.

in these chambers.

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

An aggrieved person includes the applicant, someone who attended this meeting in person or through an authorized representative or someone who has submitted comments in writing, which may include a postcard or a letter.

Members in the audience must complete the meeting sign-in sheet found near the dais to confirm their attendance at this meeting.

Mailed notices of appealed applications will be sent to the property owners within the same notification radius as the original application and to those listed on the meeting sign-in sheet.

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

Next are the routine action items, which consist of items four through seven, except those items that were previously deleted.

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

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

Thank you very much.

Um so at this point, um we are getting ready to approve our routine action items.

Um these items will be voted on in one vote for all items on the routine action items.

So if anyone in the audience would like to hear one of those items separately or have it removed from from this uh portion of the meeting, now it's time to do so.

All right, seeing no one coming down.

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

Motion to approve routine action items four, five, six, and seven.

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

Motion passes.

This is final action unless appealed.

The next item on the agenda is item number eight, UC 2600 409, use permit to allow outdoor storage with waivers and development standards for the following one modified residential adjacency standards, two reduce buffering and screening.

Three, eliminate street landscaping and four fence with a design review for outdoor storage on 0.46 acres in a commercial resort zone, generally located east of Fremont Street and north of Okey Boulevard within Sunrise Manor.

Background is described within your agenda.

Staff has not received any cards in support or protest.

Thank you, staff.

Is there an applicant in the item audience for item number eight?

Oh, yeah, come on down.

Yes, sir.

Come on down right to the front.

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

Write that down.

Nope, just just all just when you when you speak, it'll be on the record.

So if someone's listening later on, they that get they can hear it clearly.

Okay.

And what address do you want?

Just the address of the place.

Um you can you can give the address address of your business or um, but we need your name.

My name is Diesel Madsen.

And I'll just my business address 5365 Cameron Street.

Uh thank you very much.

So tell us about your application.

Yeah, we just want to see.

I think there was some clinical plates about the landscaping of this, because what right now what we want to do is just put pavement on the lot and not have to put any landscaping, but I think the complaints have came from wanting to put landscaping.

So we wanted to see if we can maybe only do it on the Fremont side of the street and leave the back how it is, just so we don't have to bring in any um water unnecessarily.

All right, so so do you do you have plans with you?

Yeah.

Um, if you if you'll put them on on the dot here, and if it looks good to you, it looks good to us.

No, okay.

That's what I got.

Perfect.

Okay, yeah, you need to go all the way around.

Yeah, just like that.

There you go.

Thank you.

So basically this is the old drawings I had, but they want to see if we can just match the landscaping on this side of the road right here.

Just like the other lots, instead of having to put landscaping on the very back.

No.

Okay.

All right, so let's let's do this.

Um do you have any photos or anything else you want to share?

Or is that that that pretty much concludes your presentation?

That's pretty much it.

Okay, very good.

So at this time we're gonna open this application up for a public hearing.

Anyone in the audience like to speak on this item?

All right, seeing no one come now, we're gonna close the public hearing, and then we'll open up to commissioners for for um questions for you, and then we'll make a decision.

Go ahead, Commissioner Kalarski.

This is my area, so I'm gonna I you don't mind, I'd like to wait for everybody.

Okay, very good.

Thank you.

Uh Vice Chair Mike.

Yeah, my only comment and concern would be that I I don't approve of just all concrete.

So I it would have been great to be able to see some type of photo as to what the landscape would look like in that little area.

But yeah.

Yeah, I think it'd be the landscape would match the existing lots, the neighboring ones.

Of like a tree, so it would hide it a little bit.

Uh but I don't have any photos with me of that.

Sorry about that.

All right, thank you.

Oh, Commissioner Klarski.

Is anyone else any of the other commissioners have any comments on this item?

Commissioner Kalarski.

Okay, I would like to see a landscape plan, and you don't have that, am I correct?

No, I have because I know that right now you're parking cars.

Yeah, right.

I'm right behind the sidewalk.

And I know that there's a chain link fence.

And I know that towards the back, you are adjacent to uh residence.

Yeah.

You have uh a residential area back there.

And I don't know what the landscaping, because it needs to be buffered.

So you need to be buffered.

So I need to see a landscaping plan.

You don't have one.

Am I correct?

Not with you, but you do have one.

I'd have to talk with the owner.

With the owner.

Okay, so that being said, I'm going to ask you to hold this because I would like to see.

Have you come back in two weeks?

I would like to see a landscape plan.

A landscape plan?

Yes.

And I want to see uh wow.

You're I I guess I I I need to walk on that property, but I don't want to walk on the property.

Uh I want to um look at your setback, but I I do want to see some sort of landscape plan because I do want a little more intense landscaping uh adjacent to the residency.

So I'm gonna if you don't mind, I'm gonna hold this and you can I'll give you my phone number, you can call, we can meet, whatever the case might be.

I'll I'll give you a card.

Okay, awesome.

And and it will uh be to hold this for two weeks to the April 3rd meeting.

Okay, um thank you, Commissioner Kularski.

The hold for two weeks request will be to the Tuesday, April 7th planning commission meeting.

All right, before we vote, I want Commissioner.

I'm sorry, I'm Vice Chair Mohica has a comment.

So when she means the last game landscaping plan, actual plans, but also bring us choices of plants that you're gonna put in the area.

I mean, we really want to the more visual that you could give us over here, the better it would be for you.

So maybe photos of the neighbors to see what they have, and then photos of a plan that you have, not just on paper, but uh some visual rendering.

Yes, exactly, like renderings.

Exactly.

There we can do that.

Commissioners if I may.

Um so right now there is a landscape plan on file, and on that they're showing uh landscape buffer pair code.

So we recommend customer that if they want to revise the buffer, they need to provide a revised landscape plan to staff as soon as possible.

So we can uh see if they need any additional waiver.

Are you able to show us the landscape plan?

Uh we we have a landscape plan uh on file right now.

And so we can we're able to see the landscape plan that you have.

Um commissioners, I'm looking, so if we do it on the iPad, I can put it up on the screen.

We can't get it from our computers that we're looking at, so let me give me a second if you don't mind.

But if that's what I think that's right, there's a break.

So in the booth, can we can we can we get um thank you?

All right, so so you're you so I see your landscaping plan, and basically, like it says it shows it shows um should so trees and row of evergreens on one side, and then you you would like to not have landscaping on what is that?

That's the north, so that would be the south south side of the property.

Um and I see that you the the property is basically just parking cars.

Is that is that the outside storage?

Yeah, it's just for I think for the uh dealership right there.

Or the what is there a dealership right next door?

I think it's just cars from that.

So the cars that are parked in front of your thing, according to pictures.

I didn't get a chance to go by there, so but you're an empty lot, aren't you?

What's that?

Are you an empty lot?

You're not an empty lot.

It's an empty lot.

Okay.

There is a uh there's a car, it looks like a car dealer right next door.

Yeah, yeah, right next door is the dealer, but this lot itself is empty lot.

She's got a chain leak around it.

Yeah, and then access points.

Right.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I uh yeah, I'm just you know, I'm putting it for the board.

I don't I don't have any issue with the with the application.

If it but if you if you want to hold it, that's fine, Commissioner Clarski.

But just from seeing the photos and what they've presented, I don't have any issue with it.

I I think I'm still gonna hold it because I I want to take a look, and I want to make sure that uh there's no landscaping uh on the parcels next to you guys.

We're trying to make Boulder Highway at least.

So if I if I can have some some sort of landscaping in the front, that would be much better.

I don't want to totally do without, but I'm gonna take I want to take a better look.

So I'm still gonna hold it if uh it's okay with the rest of the board.

Yeah.

Our biggest thing was because right now it's just a dirt lot, and there's the cars parked on there, and that causes some dust.

So, like, okay, if we pave it, it'll get rid of the dust at least.

But also because there's no resources like water, it's like we don't want to bring in water because obviously we're gonna be able to do that.

Oh, there's got to be water.

You you've got to be able to be connected somewhere because you have other developments adjacent right next to the case.

But the lot itself, we're not using like water for trees or plants or anything, so it's that was our biggest concern.

Right, and we're not gonna let you do that, not have a place without trees and plants.

That type of thing.

Fair enough.

We're gonna hold it for for two weeks and then we can talk.

Okay.

Okay.

So thank you.

All right, is that a motion?

Yes.

All right, motion on the floor, cash or vote.

Sorry.

There we go.

Mujica, yes.

Brady.

Yes.

All right.

That mo that motion carries.

Um April 7th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting.

Next on your agenda is items nine and ten are companion items and can be heard together.

Item nine, VS 2600 six, six, vacate and abandon easements of interest to Clark County, located between Durango Drive and Arlington Ranch Boulevard, and Blue Diamond Road and Richmar Avenue in a portion of right of way being Durango Drive, located between Blue Diamond Road and Richmar Avenue within Enterprise background is described within your agenda.

The Enterprise Town Advisory Board and Staff recommend approval.

Item 10 UC 260065 use permit for vehicle wash facility with waiver development standards for modified residential adjacency standards and a design review for vehicle wash facility on 2.03 acres in a commercial general zone, generally located south of Blue Diamond Road and west of Durango Drive within Enterprise background is described within your agenda.

The Enterprise Town Advisory Board recommends denial and staff recommends denial.

Thank you, staff.

Is there an applicant in the audience for yeah?

Come on down.

Yeah, when it's being read, you can come on down.

Um so um thank you.

Name and address for the record and tell us about your application.

Hi, my name's Don Shivley.

I I represent Quickwack.

The address is 6020, uh West Oaks Boulevard, Rockland, California.

With me I have Ivy Reese, who represents the architect of record Barghausen now known as Core States, who will be able to speak technical questions regarding our design our development.

All right.

So tell us about your application.

Um what if you're what are you here for?

And then you know we'll turn it over to the board.

Okay.

We are here to uh apply for a special use permit for the Quickwack uh new development project at this location.

Ivy, would you like to talk on that?

Of course.

So we're here tonight to present our project.

It is fronting Blue Diamond Road and Durango Drive.

Uh we are presenting an eight uh 108-foot car wash tunnel with three vehicle queuing lanes, 18 vacuum stations, three employee parking stalls, trash enclosure, vacuum enclosures, and utility connections, as well as exterior lot lighting, stormwater improvements, and comprehensive landscaping.

Um I brought an exhibit with us today of a colored landscape plan for your viewing.

Our project is currently um proposing 15-foot landscape buffers to the west and to the south as those border residential uses, and I also have brought with me um an addendum to our noise study since the town board meeting showing that uh we are not um increasing any impacts of sound to the west and south residential uses due to some mitigation measures we've included since then.

All right, all right, thank you very much.

So, what I'll do is um I will open this application up for a public hearing and um allow anyone in the public to speak on this item.

Is anyone in the audience that would like to speak on this particular item?

All right, seeing no one, I will close the public hearing and I'll open it up to commissioners.

Um Commissioner Kirk.

Thank you.

Um this question for staff.

What's the right of way on Blue Diamond Road?

About is it 120 feet?

I think Blue Diamond's 200.

200.

Yeah.

So it's uh this is fronting a 200 foot right-of-way.

What's the uh what's the width of the Durango?

100.

100.

Yeah.

So we're talking about a very major corner.

Correct.

Right.

In my opinion, the die has already been cast along Blue Diamond.

The fact that there are a bunch of uh I mean, I I don't think we could uh say that we think a uh that this property is going to be developed as residential.

Um it's it's a commercial piece, it's at the corner of two major roads.

I get it that the neighbors uh it's not exactly what they had hoped for.

However, you gotta admit that the the the commercial corner, this this is the kind of development that deserves to be at a commercial corner.

And the uh developer, in my opinion, is doing uh a lot to buffer, and and I think that they're probably willing to do more if they need to do more to get the approval.

But uh, I have no problem with the use.

I think it's a good use, and I'm I intend to support the application.

Thank you, Commissioner Kirk.

Um, Commissioner Kalarski.

I just have a question.

Is there any type of application or anything to the uh for the parcels on the west of this?

Because I know that there are the land use is compact neighborhood, and the zoning is RM32.

I know it's undeveloped, but as you know, it's it can be undeveloped today, but there's an application somewhere.

Is that a question to us or to staff?

No, it's to staff.

Uh stand by one moment, please, Commissioner Kalarski.

We're gonna verify if there's any recent land use activity on the undeveloped parcel to the west.

Thank you.

That's uh that parcel looks like it's owned by the BLM.

USA is the owner.

Yeah.

There are not any active or proposed land use applications for multifamily development on the undeveloped parcel to the west.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Um just a question for you.

So on the what I would call what where's the compass on this?

As far as the home where separating the homes, uh, what is the space between what you'd want to be the proposed car wash to the wall line?

Sorry, can you repeat the question?

So this has a car wash element to it, correct?

Yes.

So from the car wash to the nearest residence, what's the distance on that?

We are the car wash uh showroom itself is 253 feet away from the residences to the south, and then to the west, it looks like it's about 95 feet away.

The tunnel itself is a little over 200 feet where the the boundary is uh 147 feet.

We carefully designed the site this way so that way the showroom uh entrance and exit is not facing those residences that currently exist to the south.

So is that the vacuum cleaners then that are the 54 feet?

The vacuum cleaners are on the south side of the colour.

So on the blue diamond side?

No.

No, no, no.

The residential.

On the residential side.

And why I draw the question is I this is gonna be a little bit roundabout thing.

There's pap there's um problems with like pickleball and all these different things, sound and everything.

When you get into car washes, they have a lot of band motors and everything, which I know my son, he gets scared every time I go through one of these car washes because of all the sound it makes.

And then the colors start flashing gets excited.

But um ultimately here is I'm afraid with the sound that it's gonna impact the neighbors, the immediate neighbors.

And so along, and I I get that blue diamond is a major road, Durango is a major road, but when it comes to the car wash being so close to the residents, it's just a little bit of concern as far as as far as that.

And that's the only thing I want to mention.

The vacuum stall the vacuum uh themselves, they are operated by a uh device that we've placed farthest away from the homes on it.

When the vacuums are not in use, they are turned off.

There's a a device that prevents the vacuums from continually operating on it.

So as they're pulled out from the uh receptors, uh they're operating, but we have the motors placed as far away from the uh homes as possible.

The largest uh sound producer, which was the tunnel, the blowers in the tunnel, we wanted to put close to uh blue diamond because uh it's muffled or it's hidden by the the noise of the traffic that's on that already.

So is that and is that gearing up sound when these motors are going, it's like that's what I know.

At least no, sorry I'm making noises here, but that's the sound that I always hear when I'm starting in with the with the car wall.

And they cycle on and off.

So as the blower, as the car passes through, the blowers uh uh are turned off at that point, uh waiting for the next vehicle to come through.

And if there's no business that day, there there's no water consumed, and there's no blowers that are sounding.

And just the decimal rating that that gets to, do you know?

It was 50 58.

58 is on the west side, uh, near the blue diamond uh to the north side of that vacant parcel to the west near the blue diamond frontage, but for the parcels, um for the residences to the south, I believe it is residences.

So we're not increasing any of the ambient noise level.

I do want to reiterate.

Um, and those are about 4348 for both receptors we tested over there.

So that's how much it like goes down by the time it gets to the residence or the the wear-off room.

That's at the property lines over there, so that isn't increasing their ambient noise currently.

And I do want to mention that the consultant we use for our sound studies, um, they do hundreds of studies in the area, and they're usually pretty conservative because of they believe in the integrity of their studies, and they will also go back once the project's complete to retest.

And if it isn't meeting what they've quoted, they will provide more mitigation.

Do you know what the minimum sound and the what the county rules are on sound ordinance as far as decipel rating?

Sorry, I'm dealing with a big thing on this somewhere else, and it really comes down to does it pass the county code with sound.

So while while staff is looking up that um Commissioner Roitman, go ahead.

What are the hours of operation?

Seven in the morning till nine at nine till nine.

And Commissioner Clarski, you had your light on for a second.

Did you have another question?

No, no, I couldn't back turn it off.

Thank you.

Commissioner Brady, so we would have to request from the applicant the level of the octave band center frequency rating that the vehicle wash would generate, and then we would be able to cross-reference that to the corresponding maximum daytime and nighttime decibel levels, for example.

If there were an octave band center frequency Hertz rating of 31.5, the maximum decibel levels within a non-residential district would correlate to 76 decibels during the daytime hours and 65 decibels during the nighttime hours.

But you said that the blowers blow at 58 decibel.

That's only located at the um west parcel near the north uh front, like close to Blue Diamond Drive.

So that'd be on the opposite side of where the correction.

Yeah, so I would just be kind of curious what the sound decibel rating would be for the residents along that other side.

And that's on the opposite on the south side.

So that's something I think to look into.

I I'd like to know that we're voting on this personally.

The receptors at the south side are 42 and 48.

I I I personally don't like the sound being so close to the all the residences.

That's just my personal preference.

I'd oh I'd like to see it if there's a way to reconstruct it to where it could be further away, but that's just my opinions on it.

All right, thank you, Commissioner Brady.

All right, so um just uh I got a couple more lights, so I will I will start down at the end and come back to you, Commissioner Commissioner Kirk.

Commissioner Stone, go ahead.

Yeah, real quick.

Uh public works, what's the what's the approximate speed limit on Blue Diamond Road there?

Is it 55?

I think it might be.

Yes.

55.

You know, a 55 mile an hour arterial roadway, and I'm just guessing here, spitballing.

I'm sure the DB on a roadway at 55 miles an hour probably exceeds 75 dB.

I know we're talking about sound and whatnot, but we're on a commercial corner, Durango, and uh blue diamond.

You're gonna have all kinds of noise, 24 hours a day, big trucks.

And I'm just gonna say that this is where something like this should go on a major corner like this, and I'm not worried at all about the blower motor DB at 58.

That's gonna be drowned out by, in my opinion, Blue Diamond Road, the 18 wheelers that are going up and down that street at 55 60 miles an hour.

I'll I'll support the uh application.

Uh uh, thank you, Commissioner Stone.

I I would just say I can support it as well on Commissioner Kirk.

Thank you.

Just a quick question, uh, Mr.

Chairman, thank you.

This is for staff.

Do we have a preference when these um car washes come?

What we like closer to the residents.

Do we like the tunnel closer to the residents, or do we like the vacuums closer to the residents?

Uh Commissioner Kirk.

Our preference uh would be to have neither, it would be to for the applicant to meet the corresponding separation requirements established within the development code in order to mitigate any impact on adjacent residential property owners.

Yeah, I I get it.

residents or do we like the vacuums closer to the residents uh commissioner kirk our preference uh would be to to have neither it would be to for the applicant to meet the corresponding separation requirements established within the development code in order to mitigate any impact on adjacent residential property owners yeah I I get it I mean we we don't want to buy anything of course but I mean I'm just looking at an infill piece that we did on warm springs uh where a car wash was put in where the tunnel is closer to the residents and the vacuum is on the roadway now this one is flipped so if we had some a standard that we could you know instead of just saying well I think I don't even know what 56 decibels sounds like I don't know you could I mean I don't know what that sounds like but um I I think it's you know it's it's almost a moving target and it's difficult and I agree with Commissioner Stone in that the the noise on blue diamond will in my opinion outweigh the noise it'll come from this car wash so I'm definitely going to support the application thank you Commissioner Kirk um so I think we have all had our comments I'll leave it to uh Commissioner I'm sorry Vice Chair Mohica okay so two things we don't like redesigning things at the podium number one but number two it's also is it the best use for the land and quite honestly I don't think it is I think there's plenty of car washes around Blue Diamond Boulevard it is it's saturated I live there I've been in Southern Highlands for over 20 years.

However being that it's a commercial corner let's try to figure something out here I do I I do agree uh with Commissioner Brady that's too close to the residents and I mean of course if it's not you you don't care what this what it sounds like but I really do like to take my residence there's a lot of homes in that area so I'm going to um ask staff is there something that we can put there like higher I mean what what's your plan with the landscaping on that it's showing that we're gonna have some landscaping on the south and southwest side of the 15 foot landscape buffer above is two rows of evergreens and then we have the 20 foot 25 foot landscape buffer to the north on a long blue diamond and the required along Durango drive with the so what can what can we put there on the south side that's closer to the residents that could help buffer the sound isn't there any would you like me to reply Commissioner Mohica are you waiting for the applicant I'm sorry would you like me to reply Commissioner Mohica or would you no I'm I'm def I'm no I'm asking you I want your expert opinion on what we can put there thank you uh madam vice chairman so some items that staff could potentially suggest as we've seen through for example drive through facilities if you look immediately south where the row of the vacuum cleaner spaces are located it's potential to construct uh a decorative block wall to provide some mitigation you could also uh within that landscape area that is immediately south of the row of the vacuum cleaners the applicant could plant additional trees as well in conjunction with say a six foot high and eight foot high decorative block wall whatever the recommendation of the commission is to uh provide additional mitigation so that's that's something that I've seen madam vice chairman where there's been um drive-through lane adjacent to a restaurant where the applicant would provide uh block wall adjacent to the drive-through lane with additional landscaping so that would be one uh potential uh suggestion to the applicant madam vice chairman okay so I'm I'm I'm ready to move on this um so I will uh do I need to do these together or separate together okay so I will vote to approve v uh VS 260066 and UC26065 with the condition that you will work with staff and add more trees and the decorative wall that's my motion I receive clarification more at uh is the recommendation from staff to add additional decorative eight foot walls uh along with the ones that we already have to the west and south staff madam vice chairman would you prefer a six foot high or an eight foot high decorative block wall and within that uh landscape area immediately south of the row of uh vacuum cleaners uh for uh clarification purposes we can bring that we sort of extra wall is that what it's will that be right back wall the we already have a wall around the perimeter you're asking for a second interior wall no staff that would be correct so for clarification purposes if we're looking at the the row of vacuum cleaner spaces here to provide a six to eight foot high wall along this edge and then behind or in front of that wall would be a row of

We already have a wall around the perimeter.

You're asking for a second on the interior wall.

No staff.

That would be correct.

So for clarification purposes, if we're looking at the row of vacuum cleaner spaces here to provide a six to eight foot high wall along this edge and then behind or in front of that wall would be a row of large trees to provide additional mitigation, so that that is the example that uh that staff would uh suggest, madam vice chairman.

I I would just offer um that the the second wall might be not the best option, but the trees would be better for for the property.

That's just my I'm just offering that as as how tall is the wall right now along the west and the south, they're eight foot west and south, they're eight feet.

Eight foot tall.

Is it a decorative wall?

Yes.

We work with staff on that.

Okay, so I would like you to what that would be my condition for you to work closer with staff on this, and I would follow their their suggestions.

Okay.

That's my motion.

All right, thank you.

Motion on the floor, cast your vote.

Sorry about that, Commissioner.

We may need more details uh to ensure that uh what you want is basically satisfied because this meeting after his finished, you know, we we're not gonna get a chance to discuss it with you.

So uh do you want to be more specific about landscaping?

We can add a condition, provide additional trees uh on the landscape area behind the uh vacuum stations.

Correct to the sound better on the what is it?

I lost my map on the south side, but the the closest to the residents, and then they can work with staff to make sure that meets the intent of this condition.

Correct.

And and I would my condition is that they do what staff suggests, not what they want to do.

Sure.

I can't get it more clear than that.

Thank you.

The motion on the floor, cast your vote.

Muhika, yes.

I don't have a screen.

Motion passes.

Good luck.

This is final action, unless appealed.

Next on your agenda is item 11, WS 260029 holdover waiver development standards to eliminate and reduce building separation for accessory structures in conjunction with an existing single family residence on 0.22 acres and an RS5.2 residential single family zone, generally located east of Topanga Street and south of Hermosa Street within Winchester.

Background is described within your agenda.

The Winchester Town Advisory Board recommends approval, staff recommends denial.

Thank you very much.

Um, sir, just give us your name and address for the record and tell us about your application.

Uh my name is John Gallagher, 2766 to Bangka Street, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89169.

And I am um trying to get a storage container to help my friend out, and um, I didn't know it was gonna be this much of a problem, but I have letters from the adjacent neighbor and the neighbor that's across the street.

And I think the one waiver thing we're having is an issue that I have in my backyard where my gazebo and an awning that I built in my backyard for shade from this rising sun.

If you wouldn't mind, you've put that on the yeah, and if it looks good to you, it looks good to us on right here.

Um here.

This is the gazebo, and uh on the top of the gazebo, the it has the overhang that sticks out.

All right, does that conclude your presentation?

Um yeah, yeah, yeah.

Okay, thank you very much.

So I'm gonna at this time we'll open this application up for a public hearing.

Anyone in the audience like to speak on this item?

Seeing no one will close the public heating public hearing, and I'll open it up for our commissioners.

Uh Commissioner Clarski.

It's mine.

It's yours.

Okay, well, I can support the application.

I'm just I'll just say that for the record.

Go ahead, Commissioner Klarski.

Okay.

Oh, this is a revised plan, and so because the overhang extends into the setback.

Am I correct on that?

Uh into separation.

The separation.

So he's got a revised plan.

He's turned this into staff.

And uh I want to go ahead and approve this.

20 uh WS 26-0029 with the revised plan that was submitted.

Also to note that on that container, you indicated to me you were going to paint it to match the house.

Yes.

I want that to be an added condition.

And with that, all other uh staff conditions.

Thank you very much.

There's a motion on the floor.

Cast your vote.

Oh, and uh make sure that the on the waiver it's to four feet.

And that's what the revised plan shows.

Correct.

Yeah, okay.

You're adding a condition.

Presented at the meeting.

Right, on B it should be four feet rather than the five six.

Uh yeah, the revised plan shows four feet from the overhead.

Right.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right, that didn't change the motion.

Cash your vote.

All right, the motion carries.

Thank you.

Next item.

This is final action unless appealed.

Next on your agenda is item 12, WS 260030, holdover waiver development standards to reduce the rear setback for an existing detached accessory living quarters in conjunction with an existing single family residence on 0.16 acres and an RS5.2 residential single family 5.2 zone, generally located north of Hacienda Avenue and West of San Anselmo Street within Paradise background is described within your agenda.

The Paradise Town Advisory Board recommends approval.

Staff recommends denial.

Thank you very much.

Name and address for the record.

Tell us about your application.

Larry Sanchez, 7844 Soinbrook Street on behalf of the homeowner.

First, I'd like to apologize.

I was here um seven, maybe ten minutes late, two weeks ago.

I I heard it was a very fast planning commission meeting.

I couldn't believe it because I'm always getting called towards the late end, and I was like knocking on the windows out there.

Anyway, so I like to apologize to staff for being late two weeks ago.

And just right now I was hopping and puffing because I was again just so busy, but um this has been uh I believe uh recommended approval from town board, and it's for a um accessory dwelling uh with a uh encroaching into the setback um three feet into a five foot rear setback and the homeowner uh is in the middle of applying for the building permit.

It was originally a garage.

They converted the garage and then they did an addition uh without permits.

Um currently the rear neighbor um is uh is approximately uh 30 feet um from that shared property line uh per fire code.

Um it's well within the 10 feet range, so uh we don't believe there's a fire safety hazard, and um we don't believe that there's any non-adverse impact to the rear neighbor or invoking any life safety hazards on that rear neighbor.

So we're asking planning commission to approve.

Uh thank you very much.

So I will um open this application up for a public hearing.

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

Now's the time.

All right, seeing no one coming down, I'll close the public hearing and I'll turn it over to the commissioners.

I'm not seeing no lights, uh, Commissioner Kalarski.

Just a question for staff because of something that was written in the backup where it says that and I can support this, but I just want to get this question answered if I could.

It says that the neighbor to the west could construct an accessory structure five feet from the rear property line and still be seven feet.

I didn't realize that.

Are we measuring now between structures on two different properties?

Uh no, ma'am.

We're uh not measuring between the structures on uh the adjacent property, the setbacks would obviously be uh measured from the property line of the subject uh site to the uh nearest.

Because the last part says and it's still and it will still meet the required six-foot separation distance.

So that last part of the sentence is withdrew me.

That is correct.

Uh Commissioner Kalarski, all building separations on the subject site meet the required separation of six feet per title 30.

Okay.

I was just confused.

I that happens a lot.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Commissioner.

Uh so I'll turn it over to Commissioner Kirk.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chairman, thank you.

I don't have a problem with the application, and I will move to approve WS 260030.

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

So, Commissioner Mohica is not here, so you can go ahead and move forward with the vote.

Thank you.

All right, so um that motion passes.

Um this is final action unless appealed.

Next is item 13, WS 26034, waiver development standards for the following.

One reduce front setback, and two, eliminate building separation for an existing car port in conjunction with an existing single-family residence on 0.17 acres in an RS5.2 zone, generally located east of Eastern Avenue and north of Pallora Avenue within Winchester.

Background is described within your agenda.

The Winchester Town Advisory Board recommends approval.

Staff recommends denial.

Thank you very much.

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

Paola Centeno.

My name is Paula Centeno.

And my application number 26034.

My uh dress location 2442 Pallora Avenue, Las Vegas Nevada 89121.

And I'm here requesting the waivers of development standard for reduced front uh sit back to three feet where 20 is the requirement right there.

Also um additional um information is um uh button elevation of the carpet is above the height of the door, so it's not obstructive for any emergency.

Okay, all right, thank you very much.

Um I will open this application up for a public hearing.

Anyone in the audience like to speak on this item?

See no one coming down.

We will close the public hearing and I'll open it up to our commissioners for comments.

Any questions or concerns on this item on this item?

I have a question.

Okay, yeah, I'm sorry, go ahead, Commissioner Kurt.

Um is this gonna be uh put up by a licensed contractor?

I'm sorry, sorry again.

What's that?

It's already up it's already up was it instruct was it it is already up?

I'm looking on Google Earth, I don't see it up.

So it's already there.

It's already there, yes.

Do you have a color photograph?

Yes.

Okay.

No further questions, thank you.

That's fine, thank you.

Any any other questions from Commissioners?

Okay, all right.

Seeing none, uh I don't have any issue with it.

Um as far as far as I'm concerned.

Go ahead, Commissioner Kalarski.

Okay, I I do want to say I'm very thankful that you did paint the uh the entire structure and it matches a trim of your house because I went by there.

Um I'm okay with it.

I'm just asking this question.

Uh is your garage converted?

Because I know that's why we have a lot of these car ports, is because the garages were converted.

No, it's not converted still in Us Light, but I think that's um GNORD.

That's fine.

It was just a question.

Okay, I'm gonna move to approve WS 26-0034 with staff if approved conditions.

All right, thank you.

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

That motion passes.

Good luck.

This is final action unless appealed.

Next on your agenda is item 14 WS 260040 waiver development standards for the following one, reduce setbacks, and two reduce building separation for existing sheds in conjunction with an existing single family residence on 0.18 acres in an RS5.2 zone, generally located south of West Park Court and west of Aspen Street within Spring Valley.

Background is described within your agenda.

That's a slide.

Thank you, staff.

Name and address for the record and tell us about your application.

So I do want to turn these in.

These are notes from neighbors.

Okay.

And staff will take those.

And then they turn these into us.

Some neighbors turn these into us.

So turn those into you guys.

Thank you.

Name is John Parcher, 7075 West Park Court.

I'm Tiffany Stanfield, same address.

And we are here to ask for a waiver for our three sheds that we have in our backyard.

Sorry, extremely nervous.

No, no, we're we're all we're all human beings, don't worry.

Don't be nervous.

I said we uh we constructed shed A back in four years ago, four and a half years ago.

Um with uh no problems from anybody.

Um we put in shed B so we can have some more storage because it has all of our our hiking and camping supplies in it.

Um we do go camping and hiking a lot.

Uh shed A has all of her craft supplies and stuff uh that we like doing as a hobby.

Um shed C we put up back in July somewhere in there that the um my father, her father-in-law moved in with us, and we needed more space to put his stuff in there, so we constructed uh this bigger shed uh so we can store all of our Halloween decorations.

Um we set up a big Halloween display in our front yard.

Got like over 13 animatronics, so I would rather have them on my property than in a storage unit.

Um we have Christmas supplies in there, uh we set up for Christmas um decorations, um, all of our decorations for year round.

Uh my father stuff is in there, and then we made it a little bit bigger so that way we looked in the future for storage space that we had.

Um, if we need more storage space.

Um just so you see that they shed C that our neighbor is the one that uh sent in the the notice for it.

Um it is professionally built, it's built by Tough Shed.

Uh it's on a metal frame on the ground.

Um it's supported, it's got bricks to help level it out.

Um front of it, so you can see it is a barn-shaped uh shed.

And we did when we were talking about building this shed, our neighbor was building a shed, and we told him we wanted to build this, and he said, No problem, do whatever you want.

And then there was a problem.

And then, like I said, two weeks after we we built it is when we got the the notice for the violation for the shed A, because you could see shed A from the street.

Yeah, shed A is you have a picture with all three of them from the front.

Um I do not it's hard to it's hard because they're all in a row.

Yeah, they're they're all in a row in the backyard.

I mean, there is so this is all three of them.

This middle one is a metal shed, and we have no problem removing that one if we need to.

It's uh just a home depot metal shed.

Shed A is the one that you can you can barely see from the street.

That's up here.

Um we did.

I did take a photo.

I print it out.

Um while you're pulling up the photo, can you show us all do you have pictures of each of the so there?

So there's the front yard or from the from the front that you can only see a little bit of a shed A from the front.

All the rest of them are behind the house and cannot be seen.

You can't see them over the over the house or anything.

Um just show us photos of each of the sheds.

So here so here's the side view of shed A.

So we do have a uh an electrical board running to the top of it.

So if I want to use my craft supplies, um it is running to the top because I did trip over when it was running the bottom and broke my toe and had to have screws put in my toe and my ankle.

So I'm very clumsy.

A front view of the of shed A also.

Yeah.

And then shed B is just a seven by ten metal shed that you can buy at Home Depot.

There is room to walk behind the two big sheds as well.

And uh when we went through the Spring Valley Board, they they did ask us we have a big backyard.

They did ask us why we didn't put it back in this area.

Um back here from where this area is, back where the tree stump is, up to about the concrete here.

There is a five to seven percent downgrade, which would mean you would have to raise up the front a good foot, about a foot, which will uh take away from the structure of being stable.

Uh you would have to put up all new braces and everything underneath it and raise the front end up at least but we did call tough shed to see if they could move the blue one, and that's not something that they do.

Um we did call several contractors also to see if there's something they could do and tighten construction was they said they would put it in an email that it's not safe to move them, and because of the grade, it's not safe to even you can't even tear it down and rebuild it.

Yeah, the things weigh between 2,000 and 3,000.

We want to, you know, if we need to repaint the blue one, if we need to pay for the homeowner behind us to put in cypress trees.

Um financially we can't afford to buy another shed and tear these two down.

So I I have a couple questions.

Okay, okay.

All right, so so is that does that conclude your presentation?

As far as I can tell, yes.

Okay, all right, very good.

I think you I think no, you're fine.

I think you've given us enough information to go on.

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

Anyone in the audience like to speak on this item?

All right, seeing no one will close the public hearing and not open up to Commissioner's Commissioner Brady.

Um so I'm here looking at it, and one of the letters did you get a letter from 7076 Westbrook, who's the neighbor directly behind?

No, I did not give from direct behind us.

No.

No, okay.

So that's that's the one that I would worry about the most here because that's what affects them the most.

It's literally on the wall line.

Um, and then I I kind of look at it, I understand where you're saying well, well, the town board mentioned moving them to that grass area, but it's why I wish you could see my screen right here.

Is uh right directly to the side of your house, there's a big triangle piece.

That's still that's still a grade.

So you're talking about this piece right here, right?

No, yeah, that's what we're talking about.

Uh yeah, so right there.

Oh, right there.

Yeah, right.

That's where we put our above ground pool every year.

Because it's the other the only other flat location in our backyard.

Yeah, every summer we put up an above ground pool.

Because when we have parties over, uh I like to swim.

So one of what I'm kind of calling it's a hassle trust.

She's not happy, but I like to swim.

No, but here's I'm what I'm trying to think is how do you not impact the neighbors behind?

How do you create the most buffer zone?

But also even the the value of your home.

Um, the value of your home is gonna be increased if you were to move those to the side yard and have a better viewable open space.

And we did look into moving them, but unfortunately, like the call the contractors we got said no, you can't move them.

Um for me, I I for me to approve this.

I need a letter from the person directly behind you approving it.

But even in in the waivers and development standards, it says two to five feet required.

And is that what this is here?

So you're requesting a five to two feet, but there's only six inches separating the metal shed.

Yeah, the metal shed.

Yeah, as I on the aerial, I can see that there's space on one of them and the other.

But metal shed, there's only like six inches.

We put it right up against it.

We can we can take that one down and or move it forward.

Um we just that's just where for me.

I I think they need to be moved to the side personally.

Um, just especially if we don't have a letter from the person that it affects directly behind, because that is literally on their wall line, and that's just what it we need to be courteous of the neighbors with that.

And we're like said, we were hoping he would he would have shown up so we could like we're willing to pay for cypress trees to be put up.

You won't be able to fit a cypress tree separated.

No, like several cypress trees.

Oh, on his own.

On his yeah, we would pay for the trees.

Or we paint it or paint a mural on the back of it, or whatever he wants.

His I also like to know his backyard is like three feet lower than ours is.

So it looks a lot higher on his backyard.

All right.

Well, that's where I'm kind of at on this one.

Is there there needs to be something that blocks that view from there?

And that that's where I'm standing on it.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Um Commissioner Um Golarski.

Yeah, I'm just kind of curious.

How much higher are these sheds from the wall?

I mean, how far did they so the so the wall is probably about six feet?

And it's probably about five feet taller than that because the shed A.

Shed A, shed A would be about I would say about four and a half.

Shed B.

Shed B is probably like a foot, and shed C is about five.

Because shed C is the tallest one, it's 11 feet tall.

Um that's one of the waivers we're asking for is because it's taller.

Um it's only like five feet taller than the fence.

Okay.

Thank you.

Oh, thank you, Commissioner Krosky.

Um, any other comments?

Okay, go ahead, Commissioner Mike.

Um the last thing we want is cost you any pain.

That's the we're not here for that.

But our main concern is safety, and that is your safety and the neighbor's safety.

So I agree with Commissioner Brady.

You said something that you shouldn't have said, but I appreciate your honesty.

Uh telling us that you had power that's no, and it's extension cord.

It's not power, but you run power, you do stuff in that shed that has power.

Well, that's a different permitted one.

Well, God forbid you catches fire, is what I'm saying.

And because now you're putting your neighbor in jeopardy in your home in jeopardy.

We can not do that.

So that's so there it is just really too close to the neighbors.

And I just I agree that if it can be moved, I uh I know you want your pool, but you have to think priorities and what are the priorities.

And if we can move it, I would give up the pool.

And to us, it's all about safety, your safety and your neighbor's safety.

So I wouldn't be able to approve this.

I mean, I don't want you to go through the expanse, and I I feel for you, but that's why there's that's why you pull permits before you do things.

That's the whole point of this.

I don't think we needed permits.

Do we need permits?

I don't think so.

Well, if you're running power, but go ahead.

Yeah, if you're putting power, then you have to order still power.

Okay, so we won't do that anymore.

Kind of like I didn't say that, I will remove it immediately and do stuff inside.

Okay, give me one second, staff.

You were gonna speak.

Thank you, madam vice chairman.

Uh one of the preliminary conditions is for the applicant property owner to one year to complete the building permit and inspection process or the application will expire unless extended with approval of an extension of time.

Um that that being said, um, if building department determines that there is no build uh permit required, then we we don't require permit, so you don't basically they don't need it.

And I'll just speak from a construction standpoint.

Um it's just the size of the building.

So so the the main thing is is this a setback issue.

Um to your point that if the shed itself is a certain square footage, no building permits would be required, but you still have to go and and go through that process with the building department.

So staff is correcting that in that sense.

Um I'll just stay stayed on a record because um I got the mic right now.

Um that I I can support the two sheds staying.

I think the metal shed, I agree with you, get it off of the wall.

Um if you take it off completely down, I don't care, but move it away from the wall.

So I can I'm kinda on the fence.

I can support the application, but I'll wait to see what other my other commissioners have have to say.

Not just yet.

We're gonna we're gonna let everybody speak.

Um Commissioner Kolarski, are you done?

Or okay, then Commissioner Wardman.

Thank you, everyone, for all your comments.

And you know, we spoke a little bit, and I I think I told you in that conversation that you may need to get rid of one of these sheds.

Um when I look at the aerial photo here, it looks like almost all of your neighbors.

Well, I wouldn't say all of them, but probably half of them have sheds pretty close to the wall.

It looks pretty commonplace.

In fact, it looks like your neighbor below you to the south has a shed up as well, but maybe that meeting the setback.

I see.

So the so on here is his shed.

He does uh no, no, no.

Uh oh, you keep it big.

Let it okay, sorry.

He does have electric running to his also.

Just to just for my fellow commissioners, we spoke a little bit about this.

And it appears that that is the neighbor to the south who we would want the permission from.

It looks like he has a I would say his shed looks worse than these folks' shed, quite frankly.

I do think that the point is well taken from the chair that this will require inspections, and we're not gonna prove anything that isn't safe.

Even if we give you the setback waiver, that doesn't mean that the building inspector or whatever is gonna let things fly.

Maybe one point of clarification.

Is there a problem with running an extension cord into I I don't know.

You mean like if I want to go cut a piece of wood?

Yeah, if or if I need to turn a light on light on the road.

Did I have a lamp in there that I plug in?

Just for staff, please.

Is there any problem with that that we should be aware of?

I wouldn't foresee an issue with the property owner running an extension cord, or we think that would be more advanced electrical work, would obviously have to be uh deferred to our colleagues at the building department, but to running a simple extension cord.

I I could not uh see an issue with a single extension cord.

Okay.

And and look, I I we see this stuff all the time.

I think we maybe just looked at some similar stuff here tonight.

It really makes a difference when the if the neighbors seem to be okay with it.

It looks like you had a lot of people who are in support of this, maybe one in particular, but when I look at that shed there, I don't know if exactly what the motivation is.

Um I agree with my fellow commissioners.

I think shed number B.

B, the middle shed number B.

That the B shed probably needs to go.

Um, and that the other ones can remain, of course, subject to inspection, which is always the case.

So uh with that, I will motion to well.

How do I do the staff?

Motion to approve the waivers for A and C and requirement that B be removed uh within six months.

That is an acceptable conduit uh planning staff, Commissioner Reutman.

Six months gives you some time, not during the summer to get rid of that thing.

I don't want you out there working too much in the heat.

Oh, it'll it'll be gone within a month and a half.

Okay, okay.

And then just for clarification purposes, Commissioner Reutman sheds A and C to remain with shed B to be removed within six months.

Shed B is the metal shed with the the lowest setback?

Yes, that is my that is my motion.

Uh thank you, staff.

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

All right, that motion passes.

Good luck.

Thank you, everyone.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

This is final action unless appealed.

Next on your agenda is item 15 WS 26006 for waiver development standards for the following.

Eliminate setbacks and to reduce building separation for accessory structures in conjunction with an existing single family residence on 0.52 acres in an RS-20 zone within the neighborhood protection RMP overlay, generally located west of Cheryl Street and north of Baduria Avenue with enterprise background is described within your agenda.

The Enterprise Town Advisory Board recommends approval, staff recommends denial.

Thank you.

Name and address for the record.

Tell us about your application.

Name is Paul Lindquist, L-I-N-D-Q-U-I-S-T.

Address 6965 Sherl's S-C-H-I-R-L-L-S street, Las Vegas.

Nevada 89118.

So this is a waiver for a chicken coop and a shed I have at the rear of my property.

The coop is only one foot into the setback, the five foot setback.

The um the shed is sandwiched between two cinder block walls that are about eight foot high.

I have pictures and everything for you guys to look at.

Um neither one or permanent structures.

The shed has a metal roof.

Um and I've drained, you know, with a downspout and a gutter on my property, so it doesn't drain on my uh proper the guy to the to the um north of me who who made the complaint.

Um you can only see the little strip of the roof on the shed.

I I've got pictures to show you.

Um and this was approved by the by the enterprise town advisory board.

Um there's no fire hazard, and the distance is probably 75 feet from the wall to his house.

So if you let me go through these okay, I was doing north, but okay.

Okay, sorry.

One more.

That okay.

So if you look right here is the shed, and it's sandwiched into these blick the these brick walls.

Now my neighbor, you gotta uh understand that his property is five foot below mine, so there's a cinder block wall that comes up five foot, and then my cinder block wall is about five point six feet, so it's like ten feet, and um here's the coop, and it's it's um four foot off my property line.

So this wall here is about uh eight foot, and this one here is about five point six foot off my property, ten foot off of his square footage for the shed is only 168, way way below the maximum, and the coop is 32 feet.

I don't know if you need to see where my property is located, but it's a corner.

Probably couldn't find it on here.

So I'm on a corner here.

This is Shrills, the cul-de-sac here.

This is the neighbor that complained, he's five foot below me.

I have letters from four of my neighbors.

This one, this one, this one, and the one over here, all saying they've been in my backyard.

They've been in my backyard, they've seen the seen the issue.

They don't think it's a problem for their property for the neighborhood.

So I have those letters that upside down, like this.

Did I do it right, guys?

Okay, so that's the view from my backyard.

This is the coop right here.

You can see you just see barely a little strip of the roof.

The neighbor back here again, his is five foot down, and this is about a almost a six foot high fence.

This is the view from the street.

Now the code enforcement guy told me that he couldn't even see it from the street.

He had to use a satellite to see the property.

So we did landscape around the front of the of the the coop and the chicken coop and the uh shed just to screen it more.

So that's a picture of that way.

This is a picture from looking at uh the side street trills.

I'm on the cold sack.

This is my house.

So the coop is back in here somewhere.

Here's another view from the street view from my front yard from my front driveway looking towards the coop and the shed.

Coops back here, chicken coops here, and then there's there's trees and bushes there.

Here's a view of the coop with trees in front of it.

What yeah, there's a chicken, and we don't have roosters.

We I think we have one rooster.

You know, when you get chicks, you can't tell whether roosters or chickens.

So we we have most all chickens.

We have about nine.

This is the shed block wall, the coop.

Another view.

So I told you I had four letters for my neighbors, right?

I can show you those if you want.

Um, I do have pictures of my neighbors who complained.

I don't know that it matters.

It doesn't, it doesn't.

But he's five foot below me.

He's got all kinds of trash, dead water tanks, dead trees, no grass, and you know, if I'm the bad guy, sorry about that.

Yeah, and I would bet 99% of every person in this county has a shed on their back wall.

You know, and I I sandwich mine in you don't think so.

99%.

I'm too high, 95%.

Well, I sandwiched mine in in between these cinder block walls.

Um you guys can meet somewhere in the middle on the percentage.

Yeah.

Well, I don't think it's unusual that the person puts it there.

I didn't think I was doing anything wrong, and uh it had been there for a while.

And the other thing I would just say if if I'm such a bad guy and doing everything wrong, where is the guy that complained tonight?

He's not here.

You know, all right, sir.

Thank you very much.

Does that conclude your presentation?

Just about, sorry.

Okay, that's okay.

Anyway, I I would I again ask you guys since the Enterprise uh town advisory board has approved my my uh waiver.

I would respectfully ask you guys to approve it as well.

Do you have any questions for me that I can answer that I didn't cover?

We we may all right.

So is does that conclude your presentation?

Yes, it does.

All right, very good.

Thank you very much.

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

Anyone in the audience like to speak on this item?

All right, seeing no one coming down, we will close the public hearing.

I'll just say um, I'll start off.

I I can support the application.

I think you presented um uh enough information as far as the photos to show me that you keep your property in really really good shape and um I'm very clean and uh I I don't have any issues with the with your request.

Um not seeing anyone else, I'll go straight to Commissioner Workman.

Uh first, uh you know, maybe uh at risk of repeating some things that get set up here.

We look at every application individually, and when neighbors come and they have problems, we really do want to listen to those things and take those concerns seriously.

But what I think I see happening, and I haven't been on this board for that long, but all too frequently we're up here adjudicating neighborhood disputes and feuds between neighbors.

And I think that may be what's going on here because when I looked at the aerial view, I saw your neighbor's backyard and I saw three boats, a bunch of broken vehicles, they're all dead, too.

And when I looked at your property, which you know, we're sitting up here on Google Earth kind of checking things out.

Your property looks quite nice actually, and you can't see the chicken coat from the front at all.

And um, you know, I guess you know, for the record, I personally will not be a tool of some neighborhood dispute for whatever people are complaining on their neighbors when I just think it's ridiculous.

So with that, I will support your application and motion for approval.

Thank you.

I've had no dealings with my neighbor at all.

I mean, uh there's a motion on the floor, cast your vote.

Motion passes.

Good luck.

Thanks for your time.

Take care, guys.

This is final action, unless appeal tax on your agenda are items 16 through 19 are companion items and can be heard together.

Item 16, PA 267001, plan amendment to re-designate the existing land use category for mid-intensity suburban neighborhood to corridor mixed use on 0.85 acres, generally located east of Decatur Boulevard and south of Ford Avenue within enterprise background is described within your agenda.

The Enterprise Town Advisory Board recommends denial, staff recommends adoption of the amendment and direct the chair to sign a resolution adopting the amendment item 17 ZC 260038 zone change reclassify 0.85 acres from an H2 General Highway frontage zone and an RS20 residential single family 20 zone to a CG commercial general zone, generally located east of the Decatur Boulevard and south of Ford Avenue within Enterprise background is described within your agenda.

Enterprise Town Advisory Board recommends denial, staff recommends approval.

Item 18 VS 26037, vacate and abandon easements of interest to Clare County located between Decatur Boulevard and Cameron Street Alignment and Ford Avenue and Pebble Road and a portion of right of way being Decatur Boulevard located between Ford Avenue and Pebble Road within Enterprise background is described within your agenda.

Enterprise Town Advisory Board recommends denial, staff recommends approval.

Item 19, UC 26039 use permit for outdoor dining, drinking, and cooking with waiver of development standards for the following one reduce setbacks, two reduce street landscaping, three, reduce buffering and screening for modified residential adjacency standards, and five alternative driveway geometrics with a design review for proposed commercial building on 0.85 acres in a commercial general zone, generally located east of Decatur Boulevard and south of Ford Avenue with an enterprise background is described within your agenda.

The Enterprise Town Advisory Board recommends denial.

Staff recommends denial.

Thank you, staff.

Name and address for the record.

Tell us about your application.

Renee Rowland, 8360 West Sahara with Momeni Engineers.

Our application is that's facing the right way for y'all.

Okay, just make sure.

Yes, ma'am.

That's fine.

Our application is to um change a few things on this corner, which was originally zoned for uh multi-density housing.

Um, in lieu of that, we'd like to use it as a commercial space and provide a retail plaza.

We've done so with um adding a 10-foot buffer of trees on two different sides, 10 feet apart to provide a buffer for when this side of the property actually gets built up with retail or with residential as it's currently retail building is going to house not only retail but restaurant.

Um it has more than ample parking.

We've provided an in and out for obvious reasons, and including fire.

We do have some things like the trash enclosure, which is a bit close to the corner of Ford and Decatur, but given the size of our site, we don't have much other space to put it where a truck can actually access it.

Questions are are you presenting all the items?

Yes.

Okay, so I started off with the use changing because well, the first one is the plan amendment.

Okay, the plan amendment.

Okay, yeah.

And then you got a whole bunch of waivers, and you didn't talk about any of the waivers.

So that's why I was asking if you were doing it all at one time.

Reduce setbacks, whatnot.

Yeah, so let's um let's let's um what we'll do is um we'll open this up for a public hearing.

Um what part?

Wait a minute.

All four app all four items?

We read in all four items, correct?

I know, but she hasn't described all four items.

Well, I was gonna if she was done with her presentation, I was just gonna go ahead and open up for public hearing so we can just start discussing it and move on.

Okay.

Okay.

All right, very good.

So we're gonna open this application up for a public hearing.

Anyone in audience want to speak on it?

All right, seeing no one, we'll close the public hearing and now we'll open up to commissioners.

So, did you have questions for Commissioner Kowarski?

Oh, I got a whole um I'm trying to figure out you just talked about retail.

What kind of retail?

Because you're asking for CG as far as commercial general, yeah.

Yes, and that's uh a high usage, basically intended for like gas stations, convenience stores.

What kind of retail are you talking about here?

And if that's not what you're talking about, then why can't we go down to uh what is it?

C not C G, but um CN Commissioner Klarski.

Yes.

Why why why did you not go down to that?

Um when I met with planning, they told me we had to go to commercial general.

Um, because normally they said this could be a gas station corner or something, car wash corner, again, given the corner.

Okay, and and that's that's my point is that because now your use permit is going for the outdoor dining, drinking, and cooking, and I understand that.

But if we continue on, if we give you the CG, then without any type of vetting down the road, it becomes a conforming zone change and and uh this body here will not see it.

So you can change it mid-stream.

Gotcha.

And it's and so I've just got concerns about that.

Okay, which is why I'm looking at that zone change.

Why I'm looking at the zone change for that.

I'm okay with the vacation and the abandonment, but you got a whole bunch of landscape buffers.

You want your parking areas where it's not allowed, your approach distance.

I need to know the whys for that.

And you do not provide any of that during your presentation right now.

That's that one.

And then you have oh, that was the last one.

Yes.

So all those waivers, though, just I need to have as far as the vacation, it's already gone through mapping and been approved.

Um again, the landscape buffer is provided.

So in the event that residential is built on these two sides in the future, as it's currently zoned for, the buffer is in place for those to be built and not have to we're not exposed to those residentials, if you will, or they're not exposed to us.

So that's why we have such an intense landscape buffer.

So does that mean you don't need any of the waivers?

Or you still need the waivers.

We still need the waiver because we're not normally normally you wouldn't put these many trees in.

And for planning, they told us we had to put this many trees in and to buffer the site intensely, so that in the future, if those residences were built, would already have it in place.

So that's why we put in those buffers.

So then you don't need a waiver.

I I I'm with you, but this is what we were asked to do.

Okay, no, no, we we'll get a clarification from staff.

Go ahead, Steph.

And then as far as the parking, we are over parked by the case.

Okay, hold on.

Thank you, uh Mr.

Chairman, for uh clarification purposes.

The landscape buffering and screening along the east and south property line, which Title 30 would require a 15-foot wide landscape buffer, an eight-foot high decorative block wall and a double row of evergreen trees is required.

They do need the waivers of development standards because they're not seeing ahead with this application.

I'm sorry.

Because they're not providing it.

They currently are proposing, Commissioner Kalarski, uh to reduce the width of the landscape buffer along the east property line to 10 feet, where a minimum of 15 feet is required, in addition to allowing a single row of evergreen trees along the east property line where a double row of evergreen trees are required, and requesting to allow a single row of evergreen trees along the south property line where a double row of evergreen trees are required.

Okay.

What about the uh public works?

Waivers, your departure distance.

Can you explain that?

Because that's uh you're talking 82% and 50%.

That's so with the size of the site, we obviously can't come further onto the corner, or our driver will be right at the corner because of the size of the site itself.

Um, and then as far as along uh decatur, if we move the driveway back, if you will, to the south, now that's allowing someone to come out of there and make a left-hand turn.

This appeared to be the safer issue, so that you only can have a right out and not have an area where you may have an accident.

Um so these are the requirements that we met with public works on, and they said if you can meet at least this, even though it's not ideal based on their mandates, you know, this is what we came up with.

I mean, we could always close off the Ford site, but then we have an issue with the fire truck getting in and out of the site, too.

Just a quick question for you there.

Does that make no it's it's okay?

Okay, let me go ahead and ask.

Oh, you're fine.

All right, so it's my second day you caught me, so uh I'm figuring some things out on this one.

So in pulling out there on the decatur, and if you're gonna how many lanes wide is that there?

Do you know?

It's two and two right now.

So it's two and two.

I think it's planned for three and three, I believe.

And I was just wondering, pulling out if you're going to the left turn lane or something like that.

You're pretty close to Ford.

But I but I do see the safety hazard.

Trying to make it so you have to get away.

Give and take, yes.

Yeah.

So I just wanted to point that out for everybody, just as far as make crossing lanes that close to intersection is agreed.

All right.

Um looks like no no no more lights are on.

Um I I I'll just say, you know, I I'm I'm not excited about the landscaping reduction.

I I get it's a tough piece to develop, and um, so I definitely respect that.

I I would support a motion for approval, but I would also understand if someone wanted to be more stringent on the landscaping.

And that person will be me.

So uh I am going, I'm gonna start with because one of my biggest issues is the throat depth reduction.

I don't like those at all ever.

And I live again, I'm gonna repeat, I do live in the area for more than 20 years.

It's just kind of difficult when somebody that doesn't live in the area tries to say, Oh, I'm okay with it, because you don't live there.

Um so and I do, and I know this intersection very well.

So um I'm I'm going to look at public forks and say what can we do here?

And we're not redesigning at the podium, but we do have to do something.

Um we have already tried to reach out to the applicant, and we're told that all they did not take any of our suggestions.

Um we do have condition that they remove some parking um opposite both of the driveways.

Um that way it would help the reduction of the throat depth because there wouldn't be those immediate conflicts with um those vehicles that will be entering and exiting those parking stalls, which would help their throat depth um waiver that they are asking for.

Perfect, and that's exactly what I want to do here.

So parking requirements or overparked so it would be about one.

So I I am going, I am getting ready to move on this and approve it, but um, and I will have to say it at a certain time, but um I do I I am not budging on the landscaping.

I I that area needs to remain beautiful, it needs to be beautified.

So I really I'm I am not uh approving the waivers for the reduction uh on the trees and stuff, and also um with the condition that you work directly with public works and apply their recommendations.

So do I need to be more specific or was that okay?

Okay, oh yeah, no, I want to say that the zone change.

Um I so just for applicants information in case the um changes to the site causes the redesign.

We may need additional um application, so we will we uh evaluated.

Are we talking about the zone change?

Uh no, the uh the the can't the changes by public works may cause some changes for our uh waivers basically, or some it may necessitate an application.

So, what do you need?

Uh we we will have to see the plans and see how much of change is gonna be.

So make me such just to clarify if I could.

Um so they would have to move at least all of the parking spaces adjacent to the fort was so that would be losing one, two, three, four, five spaces there, and an additional five, so they'd be down to parking spaces that might put them under their parking, allowable parking for our um condition because of the safety adjacent driveway, so that that this site might be redesigned.

We did reach out to the applicant beforehand so we can discuss these things prior to this application given to you, but we didn't get a response.

So they're gonna release the little tin.

They want to lose 10 parking spaces at least.

So, what do we need to do tonight?

I'm confused now.

Uh so if you approve the application and they have to uh comply with public works condition, they need to redesign the site basically.

So it may trigger a waiver or maybe it might just be an admin application for us.

So it depends.

We have to review the revised site plan if it gets approved tonight.

So we will address it when once we get the revised concept.

So you just want to approve it for your recommendations, and if they have to redesign, they'll come back.

If they don't, it'll be administrative staff.

Okay, gotcha.

They won't.

Okay.

So I I'm gonna do it all separately.

Do I still need okay?

I do want to uh make the zone change as well to CN, just like uh Commissioner Kalarski uh recommended.

So I guess we'll start with 16 then.

So I lost my I don't know what here we go.

Motion to approve plan amendment 26701.

And I don't add any conditions, that's just the plan amendment.

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

I don't yeah, muhika, yes.

Motion carries.

Okay, uh so next one would be motion to approve.

To approve.

Well, so how do I say a motion to approve the zone change?

But we need to change it to CNN.

Reduction to CN zoning, Madam Vice Chairman.

All right, thank you.

Motion on the floor, cash or vote.

So that would be Muhika, yes.

And then oh sorry.

Motion passes.

Next item.

And motion to approve.

VS 260037.

Motion on the floor, cast your vote.

Motion passes.

And then motion to approve.

UC 26039 with the conditions that the applicant will work with public works.

And will execute their recommendations.

And no waivers of landscape.

Our approved.

Is that how you want that?

And is it just for buffering and screening or street landscaping as well?

So one request they have is reduced street landscaping.

But what we we have been talking about was buffering and screening.

So okay, I I am not so no waivers of landscape are being approved.

So waiver two was to reduce width of the street landscaping along Ford when 10 feet is required.

Basically reduce it to 5.5.

You're gonna deny that waiver.

And also any waiver regarding reduced buffering and screening.

Yes.

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

That motion passes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

These items will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners meeting for final action on April 22nd, 2026 at 9 o'clock a.m.

Unless otherwise announced next on your agenda.

Our items 20 through 25 are companion items and can be heard together.

Item 20, PA 26702, plan amendment to redesignate the existing land use category from neighborhood commercial and C to come compact neighborhood, C N on 3.92 acres, generally located west of Maryland Parkway and south of Cactus Avenue with an enterprise background as described within your agenda.

The Enterprise Town Advisory Board recommends approval.

Staff recommends adoption of the amendment and direct the chair to sign a resolution adopting the amendment.

Item 21 ZC 26043 zone change reclassify 3.92 acres from an RS20 and an R to an RM18 zone, generally located west of Maryland Parkway and south of Cactus Avenue within Enterprise background is described within your agenda.

The Enterprise Town Advisory Board recommends approval.

Staff recommends approval.

Item 22 VS 26044.

Vacate and abandon easements of interest to Clark County, located between Radcliffe Street and Maryland Parkway and Cactus Avenue and Levi Avenue, a portion of right of way being Cactus Avenue, located between Radcliffe Street and Maryland Parkway, and a portion of right of way being Maryland Parkway located between Cactus Avenue and Levi Avenue.

Background is described within your agenda.

The Enterprise Town Advisory Board and staff both recommend approval item 23 WS 260045 waiver of development standards for the following.

One modified driveway geometrics and two increase the number of dwelling units on a private stub street in conjunction with the proposed single family attached residential development on 3.92 acres in an RM18 zone, generally located south of Cactus Avenue and west of Maryland Parkway with an enterprise background is described within your agenda.

The Enterprise Town Advisory Board and Staff both recommend denial.

Item 24 PUD 260046 plan unit development for 46 lots single family attached residential development with modified development standards on 3.92 acres in an RM18 zone generally located south of Cactus Avenue and west of Maryland Parkway within Enterprise background is described within your agenda.

The Enterprise Town Advisory Board and Staff both recommend denial item 25 TM265010 tentative map consisting of a 46 single family residential lots and common lots on 3.92 acres in an RM18 zone, generally located south of Cactus Avenue and west of Maryland Parkway within Enterprise background is described within your agenda.

The Enterprise Town Advisory Board and staff both recommend denial.

Thank you, staff.

Name and address for the record.

Tell us about your application.

Good evening, Mr.

Chair Commissioners.

My name is Tony Celeste address 1980 Festival Plaza Drive here on behalf of the applicant Beezer Homes.

As you can see from the aerial, the high the site is highlighted in yellow.

It is just shy of four acres, and it is located on the southwest corner of Maryland of uh excuse me, Cactus Avenue and Maryland Parkway.

This application or this item really comprises of two main parts, uh part one being the master plan amendment and zone change, and then part two being the design review, PUD and related waivers.

So with respect to that, uh part one is our master plan and zone change.

You can see the uh current master plan uh for the site is neighborhood commercial.

Um we are asking to go to a residential planned area.

You can see to the south and to the west and to the north.

Um it is planned compact neighborhood.

We are asking to go to that master plan designation, so changing this uh light purple color to this yellow uh or compact neighborhood.

Um as you can see, it does uh comply with the area and the trends.

Um with respect to the master plan, we have then the corresponding zone change.

It right now is just the blanket zone RS20.

The corresponding zone change we're asking for is RM18, which is immediately to the south, again to the west and to the north.

Um, because of the development patterns in this area, both planning and staff are recommending approval of the master plan amendment and zone change.

Um the next part of this application or part two, as I referenced, is our design review.

You can see right here again our site.

This is Cactus to the north, Maryland over to the east.

We are proposing a 46-unit single-family attached townhome project.

Access will be uh via Maryland Parkway through this main spine road and two uh smaller roads that are gonna go to the north here.

We are proposing, as I mentioned, 46 units.

They will be comprised of four, five, and six plexes.

Uh, the unit sizes will be anywhere from about 1,500 square feet to a little over 1,800 square feet, three bedrooms.

Uh price points around 435,000 to 470,000 dollars.

Uh, you can see on the northeast portion of the site right here, providing large usable open space.

In particular, we have a proposed dog park, and then right here a large turf area that would be good for various recreational activities such as throwing a ball, playing smash ball, etc.

Uh come some of the other nice amenities that are being proposed with this are uh that we are provide each unit will provide a two-car garage.

That garage will be 23 by 22 feet, so an over an oversized garage large enough for a pickup truck.

And then I think the most unique thing about this is that usually with town homes or attached products, you do not see dedicated driveways in front of each unit.

In this case, we are providing 20-foot by 20-foot driveway large enough to accommodate two additional cars on that driveway.

Um, ironically, with this nice amenity that we're proposing, some of the one of the unintended consequences of that is that for a single family attached project Title 30 development code does not really address the idea of having a driveway.

So we have to default to the detached criteria.

And what that does is in particular waiver number one A.

You can see right here, and more particularly in this detail, I think helps show it clearer.

Again, here's the unit, and then right here is the 20-foot driveway.

But from the edge of the driveway to the property line, should be six feet.

If this were uh in a detached home, that would certainly be the case.

Here we're providing a detached because the property line is basically uh lot line to lot line, about 24 feet.

We only have two feet from the edge of the driveway to the property line or four feet between driveways.

We don't need those extra four feet uh to accommodate this design.

And again, we think this is a great amenity to the community providing this 20-foot driveway.

Um so that is with respect to waiver 1A.

So we think it again, one of those unintended consequences in providing this amenity.

Uh, with respect to uh one B.

You can see right here.

I don't know if it's showing up clearly on your aerial here, but we have uh an analysis, a uh uh turning movement analysis um that was submitted and approved by fire.

Um you can see right here waiver uh one B is with respect to our turning radius for street B, which is right in this area.

It should be 20 feet um per code.

We are at 12.

But what this turning radius does show is that their largest fire vehicle can adequately make those chain make those turning movements on the site.

Um so we respectfully request that one B also be approved.

Um with regards to one C, again, it's uh something kind of having to do with the location of the driveway right here.

Um the we have a three-foot setback on this portion right here, and then 11 feet over here.

Um so that really applies to these lots um that are on the corners right here again.

Uh the turning movements do work on the site, so we think it is uh a safe design.

Uh finally, uh, with respect to waiver two, you can see that we are providing eight and ten lots respectively on these two streets.

Again, the the turning movements do work as illustrated by this plan.

Um we are provide it, will be a two-story product.

You can see um highly articulated uh landscaping in front.

Um, really kind of what we would call a rear, rear loaded um with the driveways here and then the front entrances over here, uh complying with all the open space requirements, um, actually exceeding, and again, I think this is a nice little crown jewel for the proposed development with that large usable open space.

We do have companion items with respect to the vacation and abandonment, those are for patent easements, and then our ability to provide detached sidewalks along Cactus Road here.

Um, and then we have the tentative map that shows the 46 lots and the related common elements.

Uh we agree with all the if approved conditions, and I'm more than happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you very much.

Um, we want to open this these applications up for a public hearing.

Anyone in the audience like to speak on this item, now's the time to come on down and and and do so.

Thank you very much.

So all we need is all we need your name in any any mic, or there's a handheld mic down there as well, and just need your your name and address for the record, and then tell us your comments.

My name is Spell J A and I, it's pronounced honey.

My address is 9861 Walcoyori Road, 89141 area code.

Um, not too far from when where this project is happening.

Um, so super quick as I know I don't have a lot of time.

I have a question for everyone, including Tony uh behind me.

Is anybody familiar with the Clark County facility master plan?

And since everybody said yes, I'll break it down for you.

It's okay if you don't know.

Um, the board met last week on the 12th.

Uh, is part of the 2.7 billion dollar um amount that was given to Clark County for Mike Shaking, even though I run all down by the government, right?

So the this huge project that they're you know starting right now, we still have about 40 more meetings in front of us.

Last week was just the first one.

They're talking about closing schools, consolidating, moving.

So they're doing a lot of shifting within Clark County.

Now we have a brand new, you know, this is not even a development that's already been approved.

We're talking about a brand new development of what is it, 46 homes in an area that you know it's already high density.

Now we're adding more homes right in the middle of the project of Clark County's master plan.

So it's almost like you're trying to move a piece on the checkerboard, but there's older pieces moving.

They're saying that one of the reasons why you know they want to consolidate schools and close.

Oh, I didn't realize that was so low.

Has to do with enrollment.

If we approve new residential areas, no matter where you put it, is gonna affect enrollment.

So then they're gonna come back, even though we all know that is not only just enrollment while people are leaving CCSD.

Um, you know, it you know, they're gonna come back and they're gonna utilize this as reasons on why we're closing more schools or why we're doing all this stuff.

You know, there's 46 like visa homes, it doesn't need another 46 properties.

Okay, that they don't need that.

But that area does need is more community resources.

Well, that area does need is more clubs for the kids, is an actual park for the kids, not an area for them to play.

No, no, no.

I'll park for them, not an extra 46 homes when we don't even know the next 50 years where our kids are gonna be, where our schools are going to be like there's such a huge shift right now that to approve any type of new development, whereas the 46 that he's requesting or the 20, the item 33 to you know, 33 is requesting is is reckless because we don't know what's gonna happen within Clark County.

The end.

Thank you very much, and you're fine.

Thank you very much.

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

Yes, sir.

Name and address for the record and give us your comments.

My name is Albert White.

Uh I own and operate with my wife Judy ANJ uh property uh management company, and I own a piece of property to the west of the border of this development.

Okay.

And uh my concerns are that gone through the numbers.

I've been doing property management for over 50 years.

And uh 3.92 acres at uh 43,000 uh 600 square feet per acre gives Sir, sir, sir.

Excuse me.

We're we're just gonna ask you to grab the handheld mic so that so that we can hear what you're saying.

That's all.

Thank you very much for that, counsel.

Uh so I uh I I look at some of the demographics, and they uh raise a number of questions in my mind.

Uh if I divide the 46 lots into 3.92 acres, that allows 3,712 square feet per lot before uh streets are in, sidewalks are in, driveways are in, as and so forth.

So uh and uh I did catch some of the demographics.

There's gonna be uh uh two-story units uh with two car garages.

Uh the driveway, it sounds like will not be long enough to allow a person to park outside the driveway, should they want to do that.

Uh the uh I think I heard the demographics are gonna be uh 1,500 to 2500 square feet.

I did not catch the uh intended sales prices, and uh but my my concern is that uh the uh the the quantity of homes and the size of homes uh leaves uh very little recreational area on the property.

Uh whether these are gonna be transient homes where the the people are working, both working or not, it's hard to say, but uh I'm I'm concerned that there's gonna be a deterioration to the value of our properties adjacent to it.

Uh properties uh uh typically uh don't go go up with uh um these look like they're gonna be on the low side of income.

I did not catch what the prices were, but uh uh I'd like to know what percentage of the um 3.92 acreage is gonna be uh set aside for uh streets and sidewalks that that's gonna further reduce the land size that the uh owners are gonna uh have so that uh raises a concern on furthered demographics as to whether uh the adjacent property of cactus court condominiums is gonna be deteriorated substantially by this quantity of houses and the minimal line space that is allocated to them.

And it looks like uh the the uh northern section of the development is still gonna be reserved for uh retail uh possibilities.

concern on furthered demographics as to whether uh the adjacent property of cactus court condominiums is going to be deteriorated substantially by this quantity of houses and the minimal line space that is allocated to them and it looks like uh the the uh northern section of the development is still going to be reserved for uh retail uh possibilities so these are some concerns that I have particularly on the uh devaluation of the cactus court condominium complex thank you for your time and that dresses the items 20 to 25 that I'm concerned about on your list here thank you sir anyone else in the audience want to speak on this item please come up seeing no one else coming up I'm gonna um I'll close the public hearing ask the applicant to come back up there's a few things that um were said maybe you can address those and then I'll open it up to the commissioners for comments and questions yes thank you Mr.

Chair um yes just a few things here one uh the lot sizes will be anywhere from about 1700 square feet to 2600 square feet again that would be in compliance with uh the proposed zoning district um the home sizes will be about 1500 square feet to 1800 with again price points at about 4350 to 47000 dollars um the entire four acres will be proposed for residential we are not holding out any portion for commercial maybe it is this area that the gentleman is talking about that is the open space area another question that he had we are providing over 8200 square feet of usable turf area park area open space we're only 5500 square feet is um required so we are exceeding that um with respect to our driveways again our driveways are 20 feet long they would be the same length as any other single family detached residential development criteria whether it's an RS 3.3 5.2 all the way up to a RS20 home um so those driveways that are being proposed would satisfy any requirement um from the most dense type of density to the least dense product um with that I hopefully I've addressed some of those questions asked again with respect to schools um this is you know something we would pay into a fee for schools um the entire area around us is planned what we're planning and zone what we're asking for um we match exactly what is surrounding us um so the proposed density is uh within the realm of what is already developed um surrounding us happy to answer any questions all right thank you very much uh I'll I'll open up commissioners I'll start with commissioner Golarski thank you Mr.

Chair and Tony thanks for the briefing I I appreciate that uh looking back I I'm starting to not feel as quite as comfortable as I did okay I'm gonna be real honest with you and I apologize no I it just that's part of my my work through and I think you know that I'm not blindsiding you um I like the the zone change is okay particularly since your density has is closer to the uh mid the eight you know that that's allowed and and the mid intensity than it is to the actual 18 that you're allowed so that was okay the one thing and you and I talked about this and this has been an issue for me for a very very long time you're well aware of that is the PUDs I'm not thrilled with PUDs because what I see here does not give the amenities that the code says should be here in looking at your open space of 8,000 square feet the lot I live on is seven so your open space for 47 units is the size of my lot a little bit bigger that is not an amenity that I think is deserving for these students so I cannot support the PUD and I and I think you were well aware of that before this happened or before you came up and with that then because I can't support that then I can't support the tentative map but I just want that all up front on that for you.

And with that, then because I can't support that, then I can't support the candidate map, but I just want that all up front on that for you.

It matches what's down south of it, so I don't see anything else going in there.

I like the townhome idea.

But I think that uh we can do better with our designs.

I think we can we can uh do better with our with the open space.

And I love that garage because then people can park in their own unit.

So I think that's really really good, and I applaud Beezer for that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Clarski.

We'll go to Commissioner Brady next, and I'll come down to the other side.

Thank you.

Um I agree with everything you you said in there as well.

Um one thing that I'm looking at here, one thing is I threw it into AI really quick while I was sitting here and go, how can we better lay this out to make it so it doesn't impact the neighbors as much?

And it already gave me tons of solutions to make it better.

Um where I'm looking at where the the dog park is and where the the grass area is.

Well, that's on the noisiest part of the lot, which is better for the home values of the people around that part, so it pulls them back, but it doesn't help relieve those that it's going to affect by having this density next to them.

So like even AI is saying move it to the opposite corner, so then it's further away from homes.

Um so they aren't being impacted the same amount.

And we're talking about along the bottom edge here, we're talking 22 residences across versus the right below it is seven residences across.

Now, if you were count the road as a residence, that's eight residences across.

So we're going from eight, we'll call it eight to twenty two.

That is a lot.

Um what I'm nervous about is it's yeah, so one if you count across there, I'm counting the road as a residence because of the width of that.

So that's a lot of residences there.

Um then it's just it's uh it's a lot.

Um if I may, I think the one the edge here, you can see these are actually look like they're attached units.

Are they attached?

Yeah, so it's really this is two, four, six, eight, ten, twelve, fourteen plus the road.

So I don't think that are I don't think there's that great of an imbalance.

Um sorry to cut you off there, but a great that great of an imbalance with what we're proposing.

They have a bunch of duplexes.

We have four, five, and six plexes back there.

So I I believe these are attached units because again, what is immediately to the south of us is zone what we're asking for.

Again, you have the attached developments there.

So um I I do think that we're we're fairly compatible with lot to lot, uh, which is always something we take into consideration.

Um again, with the you know, location of our open space.

Uh to your point, I think we've we tried to, you know, this is obviously going to be the most intense section, uh, intense portion of the development.

Um so this provides the best buffer as you work interior to the site.

Um, you know, and and while there's definitely different areas we could have, but there's also you know, considerations that we have to take into account with respect to drainage, uh the uh sewer connections, etc.

So there these are important things that are part of the uh planning criteria, and that's why we've tried to lay this out as we've proposed.

So instead it's 16 to 7 in width wise.

Correct.

Thank you for that correction.

Yes, thank you.

Thank you.

I I appreciate you pointing that out.

So that's 16 to 22 ratio difference, and then it's and actually, yeah, no, 16 to 22.

Okay.

It's better.

It's better.

Um, but it is still tight.

Um to me, it looks like it's gonna just be one big block wall, having like big three sections of block wall.

Um so that's just something I kind of look at.

I I just think we're stuffing just a little bit too much there.

Um then the on wait, let me flip back to the view that where you had it, where you have the landscaping view, if you don't mind going.

Yeah, and I just wanted to show you again our elevations, you know, they're gonna be our highly articulated there.

Uh here's our landscape plan there.

So I actually don't think that I there's there's two things.

So here at the bottom, you're gonna see the three strips of um the the yellow, we'll call it yellow tan.

There's technically four strips there where there's no shrubbery.

Um in here.

Yes.

There's a sidewalk on one of those, maybe connect pedestrian.

So when you pull up the image that you had before and you compare it to this, I don't think it's accurate.

Because when you're looking at it down back further, it's actually right in the very you can go back further, one more.

So if you look at that, that's a paved road, but I don't see driveways.

Oh, that um so this is the front, this is the front elevation, um, the rear elevation.

So again, this would be looking uh this the front elevation would be here, looking into the courtyard or the uh pedestrian connectivity.

This back here is the rear.

So this is where the uh driveways and uh garage are located.

So this is just a sample of the front elevation, not not the rear.

Yeah, no.

It's not accurate, the road's here.

The road doesn't exist.

Oh, well, you that that's that's true.

It is a depiction, right?

Correct.

Yes, I thank you.

Yes.

Okay, and I just and I just see that, and what why I'm mentioning that is because when people pull in, this is gonna be a lot of cars in all the driveways.

It's gonna be straight cars in every single driveway, and even requesting a separation to be minimized in between the cars, it's gonna look kind of look like a single-lane car lot.

Um, and I it's just a lot, and that's where I kind of go down is is there a way that we could remove one or and maybe even two of the the units and take it down to like 20, maybe in the width, and then it would which would create a bigger buffer in between these properties, and and make it so it you wouldn't have to be asking for this request of two and two on each side, which is against kind of the code right it is what we're asking for a a change on that.

I would prefer to see I it's gonna hurt profits a little bit, but reduce a couple just to make it so there's the proper spacing.

Um that's where I'm I'm I'm leaning towards.

Um generally though when you pull up, you want to see the front of the house.

And it's what will attract beauty to the neighborhood.

Um I think right now it just it's gonna look like a parking lot.

Is that fine because there I'm guessing really in homes anymore, the the biggest thing that's left out of home is storage, is there's no storage in homes, which tells me then they're gonna use these garages as storage, and what you've been hearing before is we've been hearing shed after shed.

Well, these backyards are either gonna be sheds, and we're gonna be hearing the same case um two years from now, or else we're gonna and from the previous things that we've been hearing, or we're gonna have a parking lot out front.

And that's that's where I'm kind of leaning towards is I'd love to see a way to create more space in the front to not have to ask for this waiver um on the the separation between the the lots.

I do um thank you though for all your briefing on it.

It actually I I truly appreciate that, but I I think we're gonna run into an issue here, especially also guest parking.

What I already can see people driving in their driveway, the people that are on these buffer places where the vegetation is, they're gonna pull their car over a little bit, the tires gonna be hanging over into the gravel because the width of the driveway is gonna be so tight it can't open up their doors.

I just I see it, I see it being a problem.

So again, uh just to be clear, we we do not have any waivers with respect to building separations, all the building setbacks to property lines to each other buildings we comply with.

The only the really the waivers are triggered by what I I view as a great amenity is the driveways right here.

That again we saw that on the turning plan, and that is really with respect to the turning radius is required under development of the under the development code Title 30.

However, fire does operate under their own separate analysis and code, and that fire plan has been sent to fire and approved.

That is really where these waivers are triggered.

And with respect to the driveway, again, this driveway is in conformance with half acre estate lots.

Um, if not, you know, obviously this added amenity.

So this is something that is our driveways are are exactly what you would see in you name the neighborhood from you know in Summerlin at Reverence to uh our town home here to something in the RMP.

So I just think you know it's it I I understand I I guess the density is is is a different situation, but as far as what we're asking for, we're not asking for you know waivers with respect to building setbacks, property lines, etc.

I'm sorry, I'm not I'm not as polished with my words yet as the rest of the people on this on this uh committee here.

So the only thing is so where you are benefiting, you are gonna get an increase in value on each of the properties because there's the garage.

Um but if you didn't have and which is gonna cut back on the amount of parking spaces you need for guest parking, um that's what what would be going on here.

But ultimately, if that wasn't the case, and this allowed you to get a couple more units in.

Um I just that's where I kind of stand is I think it's a lot.

I do worry about the nicking of the cars, I worry about how it's gonna look.

It's I that's there's a lot of neighborhoods that don't allow parking on the street, and here we are.

We're gonna really connect compact cars.

So I would try to find a way to make it so that there's more space, a little bit of breathing room.

But I I I'll have everybody else kind of give their opinions before on everything else here.

Uh thank you, Commissioner Brady.

Uh we'll we'll go down to Vice Chair Mohica.

I'll go this way.

Yeah, I agree with what's been said, but um, I have a question for public works.

Uh I I just find it horrifying that turning up the fire truck.

I mean, is this okay?

Is this okay?

If he has something from fire saying that they're okay with it, which he did provide, I can't say on behalf of what fire is gonna require.

They are asking for a waiver on our end for the reduced um back of curb radius, um, because it does not meet our code.

Um, we are not supporting it.

Um they also have a couple other waivers with us due to, like you said, the driveway to the property line.

But again, those are our waivers, not waivers or anything for the fire code.

Yeah, and again, I and I know Tony understands that for us it's all about safety, and I'm just seeing a couple of fire trucks running down the road and trying to turn and coming back, and I don't know.

That's just a comment I wanted to go on record.

Yeah, so this right here is the confirming correspondence from the assistant fire chief, where this analysis right here was provided to them with respect to the turning and in particular life safety health issues, and this is the confirming response.

Uh it might be a little hard to read if you can zoom in, but essentially uh confirming that they will sign off on this plan meets their criteria as far as their turning movements, safety, the depth of their rot depth of the our roads are less than 150 feet.

So again, complies with their standards for the hose carry to get to every unit again, the turning radius is backing out, et cetera.

So we do have that that confirming correspondence from from fire.

So we work from the we trust you, we appreciate your preparedness.

I just wanted to uh uh not left it you know unanswered that we we did in fact have that.

So thank you.

Thank you very much.

Um so let's go to Commissioner Kirk.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Tony, we all acknowledge this is a tough uh piece, it's an infill piece.

Uh and oftentimes the problem uh with infill pieces here we are constrained by what has already been built.

We we say to you, we complain we don't have enough open space.

It's always been my problem on this board.

But very, very seldom do we ever say go give us more open space and we're not gonna prove your project.

We've never done that, to my knowledge, since I've been on this board.

Thankfully, the city of Henderson has built parks.

I mean, you have Dundee Jones Park about a mile away, you have Avellino Park about a mile away.

Those are public parks that a lot of people in the county use.

I look at uh Google Maps surrounding uh this parcel.

I see some tiny little pocket parks in in the developments that uh either we have uh demanded that you put in, or that by your good graces you have decided to put in uh or the developer in order to get an approval.

So I get it that that that uh it's not what we like.

I mean, I don't particularly like it that there's not enough there's not more open space.

I don't think any of us do.

But we are constrained by development that's taken place, and we've been constrained by the things that we as a planning commission and the BCC have decided our priorities, and parks doesn't seem to be one of those things.

And um Commissioner Brady's right.

Um garages are storage units, it's what people use them for, um which is why we see a proliferation of uh storage units around the round the valley.

So I get it that it's a very difficult piece.

I'm not uh in love necessarily with the design.

I mean, I have uh been um in a lot of developments, and I've sent a lot of texts and photos to some of my commissioner friends to say this is the kind of garbage you're approving on the commission when we when we approve a five-foot driveway, for example.

Yeah, I've talked we've talked about that.

And this is not one of those, which I'm grateful for.

Um and so you know what?

I'm uh 5149, but I'm gonna I'm okay with it, what you're doing.

And uh I think the tipping point for me really was the driveways.

If you would have had five foot driveways, I'd be a no.

But with 20 foot driveways, infill piece, very difficult to develop.

I don't care about your client's profit margin.

That had I don't care about that, but I understand it's a difficult piece, and uh I'm 5149, but I'm gonna vote for approval.

Uh thank you, Commissioner Kirk.

Uh I'll before I turn over to Commissioner Reichmann.

I I you know oddly, I'm I'm TAP TAB's approval of the plan amendment.

I'm okay with that.

Their approval of the zone change, I'm okay with that as well.

Um and the vacation as we get down to our um what's the crux of your applications would be the waivers and the PUD and tentative map.

Um I'm kind of in the same boat with Commissioner Kirk.

I I lean to we try to find the win-win in most of our applications.

We look at everything with its own merit, and I and I would I would say that man, if you lost a few a few units, that wouldn't hurt my feelings, and I would be happy with that.

It'd be a little less dense, but I mean I can live with this for the same reasons Commissioner Kirk stated.

Um it is a difficult piece to to develop, um sitting there all by itself.

And um to the young lady that came out and spoke about about the development that's maybe future in that area, and um I agree with Commissioner Kirk.

There's parks around.

Um, and this piece is sitting there sitting there on the island for it just to stay dirt.

Um I'm pro-development, so uh I I'll be leaning towards support of the application.

I'm sorry, Commissioner Berkman.

No, that's fine.

Um maybe uh couple of clarifying questions for staff.

On like the throat depth and the or the turning radius, and if they weren't doing driveways, this these problems would be able to be designed away, I would guess, right?

Certainly the lot line question the that one is created because of this intricacy, but the rest of the stuff.

It seems to me if they didn't have lot lines that or if they didn't have these driveways, that there could be more open space, and we wouldn't need necessarily these kind of tight turns, even though fire has approved them.

Is that fair, broadly speaking?

If they didn't have driveways, then correct, there would not be a property line to driveway waiver.

Right.

But also maybe on some of the other turning radiuses, they would have a little bit more room to plan.

And my understanding is that driveways are not required for the townhomes.

Driveways are required, Commissioner Reutman, with the plan unit development.

The applicant is able to request modified development standards from Title 30, with the exception of Section 30408 C, or excuse me, 300408, the public work standards and waivers to the Clark County uniform standard drawings, which are heard via separate application, the waiver development standards in conjunction with this PUD.

Again, my uh if I'm but my my point is typically you would not see a 20-foot driveway on a standard town home, it would be three or five feet, I think is the right driveway.

I'm sorry.

I was gonna say I think my point here is that these long driveways, although they are requiring some waivers in some other directions, they are dealing with these other problems that we've talked about up here, which is we don't want people parking on the street, and no one's ever gonna use their garage because it's gonna be filled with their stuff.

And I mean when I was a kid, I grew up in a town.

Like I shared a wall with my neighbor.

We had a driveway.

Or we didn't have a driveway.

We just had a, you know, a little we had a garage.

That was it.

And so, you know, I know some people don't want low-income housing.

I don't know if that's for 400,000.

It doesn't seem low income to me.

That seems like working family homes.

And I know other people want schools and parks, and God bless it.

We all want schools and parks.

I know everyone wants that.

But I guess my point here is I think these long driveways are creating some problem.

Not problems.

They're creating some need for some waivers.

And but they're solving a lot of problems, which is the parking on the street and the stuff in the garage.

And so again, yeah, you got a park, you got a little dog park.

Like I've there was one that I think I'm sure I'm sure Commissioner Kirk is thinking about that we voted on maybe last year where I was like, it was like there's one access point, it was coming all through around, and there's all these walking paths.

Like, I think this is done better than that.

And so for that reason, uh, I can support it.

And uh unless we're yeah, yeah, but yeah, before you make a motion, I got Commissioner Brady like to get back on the floor.

I I think you made a good point right here in what you just said.

Um the one thing I'm looking at, so I'm looking at the place down below to the south.

Um, I'm noticing they have driveways.

Um, not drive driveways, but they have garages, driveways, and you are making a good point in both of you guys, is that ultimately driveways are putting us into this a little bit of a dilemma.

If it wasn't the driveway, it'd be a whole bunch of carports, it would be something.

The ones to the south, they have they have the driveway, and they have the garages, but then they have a lot more guest parking.

What I can see here in this case is that these are three bedroom.

Uh let me look at my notes from here.

Was it three bedroom?

Uh uh yeah, max of three, yeah, two and three bedrooms.

Two and three.

So some people are gonna have the roommate, which is gonna turn into a three, and then so it's gonna be okay.

We're are we gonna tandem park it?

So there's gonna be two cars in the driveway, one in the garage, because with when you have three roommates, and there's for sure at least half a garage is gonna be used as storage.

So you're gonna fight over out front for that limited amount of parking space for the people in the roommate um situation when and we're talking about more low-income um setup there is where I I think that there is gonna be a lot of roommate situations.

Is that going to be enough parking for that?

Well, but you mentioned you have the extra, you have the driveways for it.

So this is where I think uh you know uh uh Commissioner Kirk said something very well is I'm a 5149, and it's very very difficult.

So and I I I have to be honest with you right now, I don't know how to I am.

May I offer and yes, um I I mean I do think in the past, and I don't know if that's appropriate here, but we have made it clear that there won't be parking on the street.

I don't know where there is real park.

There's no parking on the street here, right?

There I don't know where they would looking at this.

We have the guest parking, but no, no, no parking on the street, correct.

I mean, I look, I think when people again, like there are different five types of folks looking for all different types of houses, and if you can't figure out your parking situation or there's no room in the garage, then this isn't the place for you.

But um respectfully to to the audience member who joined, like I think we need more houses with different types of products and different types of housing for all different types of folks.

Like I said, I lived in the townhouse, I don't see anything wrong with this project.

Uh with that, I'll motion to approve the project unless anyone wants to stop me here.

Uh okay, I'll start with part one, which I don't think is controversial here.

PA267.

Oh, sorry, that's the next one.

Sorry, item number 20, PA26702.

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

Cash or vote for the plan amendment.

Muhika, yes.

And then if anyone would like me to do you guys mind if I do the next ones, you want me to break them up?

No, okay, okay.

Oh, so so I I've got a question by the vice chair real quick.

Uh I have a question.

Um, Commissioner Reutman.

Um you get to it, could you I don't know if it's already stated, but if it's not stated, can you condition it that there is no parking on the street?

Yeah.

Thank you.

And sorry, Chair.

No, no, go ahead.

Go ahead.

You're fine.

Do you want me to break up some of these votes?

Does anyone on the commissioner want me to order?

I I would I would like for you to at least break up the PUD because I know for sure I'm gonna do a no on that one.

And as far as the no parking on the street, which where would that fall under under which application?

I'll do that under the waiver of development standards.

Um, how about this?

Why don't I do the zone change and the vacation?

And we'll start with that.

Zone change item 21, ZC 26043, and item number 22, VS 26044.

Motion approved.

All right, so there's a motion on the floor for approval of the zone change and the vacation.

Items 21 and 22.

Cast your vote.

Yes.

Mojica, yes.

It's okay, guys.

She broke it earlier.

All right, and I'm gonna do the last three.

I'm just I couldn't, I couldn't resist.

All right, so that motion passes.

Go ahead.

And I'll do the last three if that's okay.

Yes.

Okay.

Do you want me to okay?

Uh all right, fine.

So let's do waiver of development standards 2600 four five.

So motion on the floor to cast your vote for number 23.

Uh and this is the condition that there is no parking.

Thank you, council.

Motion on the floor, cash to vote.

Muhika, yes.

She didn't break it by the way.

Okay.

Now, Commissioner Clark's okay.

If I do these last two together, I think you're going both of us, yeah.

I haven't even voted on this one yet.

Uh because I don't like that additional condition you added.

I really don't.

I I think that we should be able to park on the street.

I'm sorry, but I do because if you have company, then you have company.

Anyway, but I voted.

Okay, all right.

That motion passes.

Next item.

Okay.

Now I'm gonna do 24 and 25 together.

That's PUD26046 and TM26500010.

All right, so the motion on the floor for approval 24 and 25.

Cash your vote.

Mohica, yes.

All right, that motion carries.

Good luck.

I'll go ahead, Staff.

Uh Mr.

Chairman.

Did uh Commissioner Reutman uh make a motion on item 22 VS 26 to 0044.

Yes, I think so.

Yeah, I did have the zone change.

Yes, he did.

Yeah, thank you then.

All right, that brings us to item number 26.

Thank you.

I appreciate your time.

Consideration these items will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners meeting for final action on April 22nd, 2026 at 9 o'clock a.m.

Unless otherwise announced next on your agenda are items 26 through 29 are companion items that can be heard together.

Item 26, PA 26703 plan amendment to redesignate the land use category from business employment to neighborhood commercial on 9.55 acres, generally located east of Buffalo Drive and south of Sunset Road within Spring Valley.

Background is described within your agenda.

The Spring Valley Town Advisory Board recommends approval.

Staff recommends adoption of the amendment and direct the chair to sign a resolution adopting the amendment.

Item 27 ZC 260052 zone change reclassified 9.55 acres from a commercial core zone to a CG commercial general zone, generally located east of Buffalo Drive and south of Sunset Road within Spring Valley.

Background is described within your agenda.

The Spring Valley Town Advisory Board and staff both recommend approval.

Item 28, VS 26053, vacate and abandon easements of interest to Clark County, located between Buffalo Drive and Arroyo Springs Street and Sunset Road and Rafael Rivera Way, and a portion of right of way being Tioga Way located between Sunset Road and Rafael Rivera Way within Spring Valley.

Background is described within your agenda.

The Spring Valley Town Advisory Board and Staff both recommend approval.

Item 29 WS 26054 waiver development standards for the following.

One eliminate street landscaping, two increase retaining wall height, and three allow attached sidewalk and four alternative driveway geometrics with a design review for a vehicle sales facility and 9.67 acres in a commercial general zone within the airport environments AE60 overlay, generally located east of Buffalo Drive and south of Sunset Road within Spring Valley.

Background is described within your agenda.

The Spring Bailey Town Advisory Board recommends approval.

Staff recommends approval of waiver development standards number one, number two, and number four, and the design review and denial of waiver development standards number three.

All right, before you start, how did you get staff and town board to give you all these approvals?

All right, all right.

So seriously, go ahead.

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

Good evening, Marissa Furman, 1980 Festival Plaza Drive here tonight on behalf of the applicant.

To orient you to the site, we are on almost 10 acres to the south is the 215 Beltway.

We have Buffalo to the west and sunset to the north.

The site is currently planned, BE and Zone C seq for commercial core.

The site is surrounded by a mix of industrial here.

We have some commercial to the north and vacant land here.

We have some vacant land to the west and some multifamily and some commercial additionally.

We are here for a proposed Tesla dealership.

To start, we have a couple applications.

For one, a master plan amendment from business employment to neighborhood commercial, a corresponding zone change from commercial core to commercial general.

Staff is recommending approval on both of those applications.

This area has already proven, as noted in the staff report, to balance a mix of uh residential, commercial, and some light industrial.

It makes sense here for this proposed dealership.

As you all know, I'm sure there are several uh dealerships to the west along the 215, right up against the freeway.

Uh, it's a perfect location for the proposed use.

Turning to the site.

So you can see here uh access is provided from Tioga Way, ending in a cul-de-sac.

Uh sunset is to the north of that here.

Uh, we're proposing one building, it's about 60,000 square feet.

Um, so you can see in the western portion of the site.

The remainder of the site, um, as you can see, are parking spaces.

There's a total of 666 parking spaces.

Of course, for a typical dealership, uh, most of these spaces are going to be used for um outdoor display for the inventory for the dealership.

In addition to the vehicle sales, um, there is limited vehicle maintenance and repair that will occur within the building.

Um here.

We have uh ample landscaping within the parking lot as you can see.

We have landscaping around the perimeter of the site, um, internal to the site, um, in inside of the proposed retaining walls, which I'll get to in uh in a second.

We have uh proposed detached sidewalks along Tioga Way, so you can see here.

Uh we have a proposed uh modern uh tilt-up concrete building with Tesla's signature, uh red, black, and gray.

I'm sure you've seen the other dealerships around town.

Uh they'll have their big uh T logo on there to look very nice, very modern as they do.

We're well under the height requirement in the CG zoning district at 24 feet.

And like I said, we'll have uh the limit limited vehicle maintenance and repair, um, delivery and inventory in here, and then your typical uh vehicle sales, um, you know, customer lounges, break rooms, showroom floor, uh, things that are found in everyday uh dealerships.

Turning back to the site, we do have a few waivers.

For one, we have um a waiver to eliminate landscaping along the Buffalo and Rafael Rivera boundary lines here.

Um, just to for illustrative purposes, this is a unique site.

Um we are sunken well below grade, um, as this exhibit can show you.

Uh we're about 30 feet from street level.

This is Buffalo, and this is Raphael Rivera here, and this is looking south.

Um, you can see we're in a bowl.

So we're dealing with some unique circumstances.

Um, the purpose for that waiver is just very straightforward.

Plantings on slopes would be very difficult.

Um staff is recommending approval of that waiver.

Um, in addition, we have provided additional trees within the site inside of those retaining walls.

Um, for example, we have about 145 trees where 112 are required.

So we are uh adding some more plantings within the site.

Second, we have uh a waiver for increased retaining wall height.

We have um 24 feet and 13 feet here along Buffalo, where 10 feet is the maximum.

Again, we're dealing with the constraints of the site and the slopes.

Um I'll show you for illustrative purposes.

This is Buffalo.

Like I said, we're proposing 13 feet here, well below street grade.

So while it might sound like a lot, uh it's not going to be visible from the street.

Same goes for Rafael Rivera, which is even taller at 24 feet.

Um, again, so from the street level, you're barely going to be able to see it if at all.

Staff is also recommending approval of that waiver.

Third, we have a waiver for reduced throat depth.

We have two driveways here.

Um we have seven and seventeen feet or 150 feet is required.

Um the reality is we're gonna see very low traffic on Tiogaway.

Um the site is you know, kind of back in there, uh landlocked.

Um staff is also recommending approval of that waiver.

Lastly, waiver number three um is to allow the existing attached sidewalk along Buffalo Avenue.

Um, however, we are coordinating with public works right now for an alternative design to install a detached sidewalk.

Um initially um installing your typical detached sidewalk would eat into the slope and require the applicant to bring in a ton of fill.

That retaining wall would have gone even higher.

So we were trying to avoid that.

Um but we again are we're working with public works on a creative solution to install a detached sidewalk, um, hopefully away from the slope and um a bit into the right of way.

So those plans are not before you, but um, they are in the works and will be finalized hopefully before uh the Board of County Commissioners meeting next month.

Um with that, I will conclude my presentation and turn it over for questions.

Thank you.

All right, thank you very much.

Um so at this time I'm gonna open the app open these applications up for a public hearing.

Anyone in the audience want to speak on this item, certainly can do so.

Seeing no one coming down to speak, I will close the public hearing and I'll open it up to the commissioners for questions and comments.

Uh Commissioner Kowaski.

Just one quick question.

Um I agree with that number three, because I see no point in ripping up an existing sidewalk.

I think the cost and the time um is not good.

But I'm just wondering when we do a motion, if this if we move to approve the whole thing, and then just say work with public works, or do we deny it and say work with public works?

That's my question.

Well, there's also um I'll just add there's a condition um of approval um for public works that we coordinate with them for the Buffalo uh sidewalk.

So I don't know if that is sufficient or if we need an additional condition.

That's fine, so I just because I would I would approve keeping the attached sidewalk.

That's just me though.

That's a statement, and that's all.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Um Commissioner Brady.

All right, I'm gonna be quicker on this one.

Um the the retaining wall, are you doing anything?

So this is an area where there are more homeless, um, like or people on the corners asking for money.

Um, so I I see a lot more of this in this area, especially on the next intersection.

But on this one here, is there with having that high of a retaining wall?

Is there any anything blocking someone from falling?

It's going past that the car rail, and just is there gonna be something for safety-wise to help with that?

So um along Rafael Rivera, I know there's a planned capital improvement project.

Um I don't know if there's gonna be a pedestrian protective barrier to keep somebody from falling down the slope, um, but certainly something I can find out for you.

I know today there's an existing pedestrian barrier along Buffalo Drive.

However, if if and when we do um finalize the plans for the um detached sidewalk, I don't believe there will be a pedestrian barrier, but um it'll just be the retaining wall.

All right, so for one thing, that's for me, there has to be something to protect the public, and there's there's gonna be people there that something to for safety-wise with that.

Um I agree with you.

Sidewalks already there.

I um I do agree though, when you go down the rest of Buffalo, they find a way they found a way to soften the look.

But this has already been a this the sidewalk's already there, but I'm gonna leave that to you guys down there to decide.

Um then with how many with um the bay garage on it, just I'm just more of a curiosity thing.

Is this normal amount of bays in there for like mechanic bays inside the garage?

Is it would be like another Tesla dealership with the amount of uh parking or parking spots?

I believe this is a little bit bigger than the East Sahara lot, but this is the standard size for the Tesla.

They call them SSD sales service and delivery.

Um floor plans across the country.

So, yes, it will be a little bit bigger than what we already have here in Vegas, but um it's standard for Tesla.

Okay, that's that was more of a curiosity thing as I'm thinking about future stuff.

But um, all right.

Um then the only other thing is with that the length of that uh circular driveway thing is this is three separate parcels.

So if you were to ever divide um, let's call it the third parcel, which the east side of this lot, so the right side of this image would be.

It's gonna make it so it's not as ease of access, but it works.

So I'm I'm gonna kind of leave this to more experienced people down there.

Um but that's just kind of thoughts that come across my mind.

Uh thank you, Commissioner Brady.

I I would just offer from uh from our construction standpoint that um in any any development that the that happens, especially if there's pedestrian walkways, um, there are laws and codes in place to protect pedestrians from fall hazards.

So there would be railings and different types of things as as we relate to maybe a detached sidewalk that might go on that side with what they pending um drop.

That's that's close by.

And then the only other thing I would offer that um if there's no access to the public or shouldn't be the access to the public, then it's up to the to the particular landowner whether they do anything to protect people from a fall.

That that's all I would offer on that.

Um I'll move over on to uh Commissioner Stone.

Thank you, uh Mr.

Chair.

I just uh some quick sort of overview comments uh for the applicant or staff.

Uh what's in front of us is not a commercial subdivision, correct?

Correct.

What is not in front of us is commercial subdivision, and I I would then amplify and say a commercial subdivision would be uh an application that would afford parcel breakdown beyond the single parcel that's in front of us, it would be used for different development in the future, splitting parcels and whatnot.

Um I don't see a standard tentative map in front of us, so I don't see any kind of a lot split happening.

Um I'd also just sort of indicate that as we all know the civil improvement plans will be developed over the next six to twelve months, and uh as part of that separate approval process, if I could have our crack public work staff remind some of the newer commissioners on the board what a traffic study is for mitigating safety issues that aren't in front of us here, but that if there was guardrails required, if there was joking here, dogs and cats having to live together, that would be determined later for the public safety, and also maybe while we're at it, describe what a drainage study is for uh the the details that we're concerned about with life safety that we don't see here at the board right now, but that you are crack staff cover in the back end.

If you could comment on that, I think that would be well received.

Okay, so a drainage study will um make sure that the drainage and the retaining walls are what is needed for the property to make sure that it doesn't cause any flooding or disturbing to the existing natural flows for life safety, right?

For the pedestrian the public, okay.

Um the traffic study will um look at the traffic patterns and what is already existing out there within traffic improvements, and we'll let them know what they'll have to do to improve it for public safety regarding if it's putting in traffic signals or anything like that.

Would it be fair to say that there's uh an analysis of pedestrian patterns and traffic patterns such that those conflicts are safely mitigated?

Uh is that what you guys do?

Yes.

Okay, and uh uh would one say that the off ramp the area there on the south side would maybe be a little more concerning than the the Buffalo side and uh higher degree of life safety mitigation measures might be done on the off ramp versus Buffalo, and that you guys will look at that with your expert staff.

Yes, we will look at that, and it will be um looked at during like um they said that we do have a project for Raphael Rivier where we will are coming in and putting in improvement, so that will also be addressed in our project.

And it's it's fair to say though that much of this these safety improvements we won't see at the land use entitlement level that those get implemented later over the next six to twelve months before you approve the plans.

Correct.

And who is it that determines if it's safe or not within the county?

Is it is it your is a public work staff?

You guys review it.

So our public works staff will review our drainage study team will review the drainage study before it can be closed and approved.

They have to have an approved drainage study before they can move on to look at their offsite improvements, which again we our staff will look at the off-site improvement plans to make sure that everything is addressed before we will give them a permit to construct the off-sites.

So at the end of the day, I can be assured as a planning commissioner that it'll be safe to the public and safe for traffic and safe to the people in the dealership.

Is that fair to say?

Yes.

Thank you.

Appreciate that, sir.

Commissioner Roygman.

I wrote on my paper next to the allow attached sidewalk, and then later it says sidewalk must be constructed.

I put no on attached and yes on detached.

Um, especially as everyone knows in district A, that's just something that's very important.

Uh that being said, I took the comments from my fellow commissioners, and you know, I I was maybe I guess my question is if I want to leave it up to you guys to negotiate this and make it happen.

But I am I want there to be a detached sidewalk unless it truly doesn't make sense.

How do I what should I not condition it?

Should I approve it, should I not approve it?

I know this probably goes to BCC anyways, but how do I do this in a way that will allow this creative collaborative function to take place without my interference?

Well, we already actually have a condition.

Um so if you were to go ahead and um approve it to move forward to BCC, our condition will follow it.

Um and our condition is to coordinate with us on alternatives for the sidewalk.

So if it we if we can work out a way to get detached sidewalks, we'll obviously they'll show them on their plan.

And when it goes to BCC, they will be providing the detached sidewalks.

If we cannot come up with a plan to make the detached sidewalks work, then there'll be a reason from us why we can't make the detached sidewalks work.

But our condition will cover that for you.

Everyone good with the condition then.

Okay.

With that, I motion to approve PA.

Let's see if I get number 30, right?

PA 26704.

Oh, oh, no, I got it wrong.

Let me I'm so sorry.

Strike that from the record, please.

26.

Strike it 26.

PA26703.

Thank you very much.

Commissioner Royman, there's a motion on the floor, cast your vote.

Mujika, yes.

Motion carries.

All right, let's see if I can get this one right.

27 2829 being seven ZC26052 VS 26053 WS260054.

With the staff's condition, of course.

Thank you very much.

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

Yes.

Motion passes.

Good luck.

These items will be forwarded to the board of county commissioners meeting for final action on April 22nd, 2026 at nine o'clock a.m.

Unless otherwise announced next on your agenda or public hearing items.

Public comment, excuse me.

Thank you very much.

So we're at a point in our meeting where we open the floor up on the agenda for public comments.

Anyone in the audience can come down and speak.

Commission cannot take any comments or make any votes on those comments.

And seeing no one rushing down, we're going to close public comments and adjourn the meeting.

Good night.