Meeting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good morning.

Welcome to the March 18th zoning meeting of the Clark County Commission.

Anyone wishing to speak on any items that are on today's agenda can come forward at this time.

You can speak for up to three minutes.

And when you do so, please state your full name for the record.

Good morning.

Morning.

Um my name is Lauren Depreet, D I P R E T E.

I don't want to interrupt you, but those items are off the routine agenda, so you can speak to them now, but they will also have a separate public hearing.

If you speak now, you can't also speak then.

So it's your choice.

Absolutely.

Thank you for that.

I'm I have to take time off work right now, so I'd rather knock it out now and then let you all do what you're gonna do.

Thank you.

Um I'm here to respectfully yet strongly oppose the waiver requests to eliminate street landscaping, reduce setbacks, and increase fill heights for these projects.

Clark County's rural preservation zoning district was created with a very clear purpose to maintain rural character, low density development, open space, and an equestrian lifestyle.

The development standards, including setbacks and landscaping, are not arbitrary.

These are the very tools the county uses to implement the master plan and protect the integrity of these neighborhoods.

In our community, horses are not symbolic.

They're part of daily life.

Residents ride directly from their properties just along the street to the Western Trails Equestrian Park, which is less than a mile away from these projects.

That space functions as a safety buffer for riders, horses, pedestrians, and drivers.

Reducing setbacks narrow that buffer and introduces avoidable risk.

Horses can spook, vehicles can pass too closely.

The existing standards were designed to prevent exactly those conflicts.

Granting a waiver undermines the intent of the rural preservation district.

In one, if one property is allowed to deviate from the standards, it sets precedents that weakens the protections every homeowner relied on when choosing to live here.

The landscaping requirement is also important.

Clark County Code emphasizes compatibility with surrounding development and preservation of neighborhood character.

Landscaping contributes to that compatibility while also addressing broader county and regional goals.

In extreme heat conditions like ours, tree planting and vegetative buffers are part of the strategy to reduce heat island effects and support climate resilience.

Removing landscape requirements moves us away from those adopted goals.

And requiring that landscaping be on the street side, not behind a wall, retains the character and beauty of the neighborhood.

Findings for approval of a waiver require that it not be detrimental to the public welfare and that it be consistent with the intent of the code and the master plan.

In this case, reducing setbacks and landscaping in a rural preservation district conflicts with both the spirit and purpose of those regs.

We are not asking for new rules.

We are simply asking that the existing rules be upheld.

Additionally, I'd like to respectfully request that limiting these building projects to be single story along with uh the rest of the neighborhood, because many of us bought our properties for the sunrise, sunset, and mountain views.

While building is going to be inevitable, we know that.

It seems reasonable to request that the new construction match the spirit of the existing homes, especially with the increases in fill heights being requested.

A single story home will already tower over our existing homes.

Please protect the safety, character, and equestrian culture of our neighborhood by denying these waiver requests.

Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you.

And I know you have to run, but on your way out, if you'll introduce yourself to Miss Hesser, you two know each other.

All right, very good.

Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak?

This is your final opportunity for the first public comment period.

Seeing no one, we'll close the public comment period.

Uh good morning, Miss Amberman.

Good morning, Commissioners.

Next item is um the approval of the agenda after considering any additions or deletions of items.

Staff has the following requests which may require renotification fees in accordance with Title 30.

Hold to the April 8th, 2026 zoning meeting.

Item 15, ET 26-40005 for WS 19-0607.

Item 17, UC 26-0063.

Item 38, ZC25-0776.

Item 39, UC 26-0777.

Hold to the April 22nd, 2026 zoning meeting.

Item 8, WS 26-0042.

Item 44, ZC 26-0025.

And item 45, WS 26-0026.

Hold to the May 20th, 2026 zoning meeting.

Item 40, ZC25-0833.

Item 41, VS-25-0835.

Item 42, WS-25-0834.

And item 43, TM dash 25-500.

Request of withdrawal item number 10, ZC25-0904.

And Commissioner, we had a request to move item 23 before item 25.

If the uh the above public hearing items are going to be open as a public hearing and immediately recessed until the dates previously stated with these deletions, which are items 8, 10, 15, 17, and 38 through 45.

The agenda stands ready for your approval.

Thank you very much.

Subject to the additions, the held items and the deleted items is noted.

I move the approval of the agenda.

Thank you.

There's a motion for approval.

Please cast your vote.

Next item on the agenda is the approval of the amendments.

The minutes of the February 18th, 2026 zoning meeting are ready for your approval.

Mr.

Chair, if there are no additions or corrections, I move approval of the zoning meeting minutes of two 1826.

Thank you.

Please cast your vote.

Motion passes.

Next are the routine action items, which consist of items 4 through 14, except those items previously deleted.

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

Additionally, staff has a following request.

Item number seven WS-250872.

Add the following public works condition.

No fencing is allowed within the site visibility zone.

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

Mr.

Chair, if there are no other uh questions related to the routine action items, I move uh the approval of all of them that remain on the agenda.

Thank you.

There's a motion for approval of the routine action agenda.

Please cast your vote.

That motion passes.

Next is item 16, UC 26-0015.

Holdover use permits for the following one vehicle paint and body shop, two vehicle maintenance and repair, and three outdoor storage with waivers of development standards for the following.

One modify residential adjacency standards, two eliminate parking and landscaping, three eliminate street landscaping, four, increase fence height, five allow a non-decorative fence, six modify buffering and screening, seven, modify security fencing standards, eight allow existing attached sidewalks to remain, and nine modified driveway geometrics.

The design review for proposed outdoor storage in conjunction with a vehicle paint and body shop on 3.97 acres in a CG commercial general zone and an IL industrial light zone.

Generally located east of Fremont Street and north of St.

Louis Avenue within Sunrise Manor.

Good morning.

Good morning.

My name's Brett Flory.

I'm a cross architects.

I'm the architect for caliber collision.

Um we appreciate you're hearing our case today.

If you could just speak a little bit louder.

Okay, can you hear me now?

Um we um are requesting um this is an existing body shop um caliber collision that's been there for a few years.

Of course, they want to stay there.

Um so um we're requesting some waivers that we have to work through with the neighborhood commission and with um the commissioner to um get your approval on.

Um basically um agreed to well, we have um some plans we can show you.

This is the civil engineer, Sean.

Um this would be the opportunity if you want to put those plans on the screen.

Yeah, we'll show you what's in you want to go through just go through it real quick, or Tubman for the record.

Um the use of this is an existing building that's been there, and we're basically trying to keep as much as possible, but uh we are updating things as feasible uh to bring compliance in as many areas as possible.

Uh we are reworking two of the driveways for public works.

We're adding landscaping to the site, we're relocating the trash enclosure, um, providing landscaping where possible uh for the existing buffer on St.

Louis, uh, but for the existing fencing and screening of the site and the existing attached sidewalk to Mojave Boulevard and uh the Mojave Road and St.

Louis uh we're requesting waivers to leave things basically in their existing condition as the site is currently functioning.

Um also show the this this site plan shows the the driveway being reconstructed on South Mojave.

Um two of them one is a utility access for uh hour at the back of the site cell tower.

Um three months obviously jurisdiction uh so it's not over here, but also are proposing the improved landscaping shown here uh along Mojave Boulevard along the residential to the back where there is space available and existing fencing and screening already exists and are adding trees inside the the landscape items there as requested by the neighborhood.

Does that complete your presentation?

Yep.

Okay, thank you.

This time uh we'll open the public hearing on item 16.

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

This is an interesting approach to campaign.

Hello, my name is El Rojas.

I'm very active in the Sunrise Manor area.

I haven't gone down to this site, but um uh I pretty I support this product project.

Uh we have that park over on St.

Louis and Eastern, which is not part of the county, but there's a lot of homeless over there, and so I saw something about a high fence and and we were just hoping just for the we're trying to get the residents to cooperate in the area to try to keep the homeless problem down.

And we know that there's a lot of in the evenings, they go into these areas and they start taking equipment and uh staking stuff and building encampments.

So we were just hoping that the uh applicant could really help us out with the fencing and keep an eye and try to help us keep his stuff inside with the best he can uh to try to keep us to try to get all these encampments down because it costs the city and the county a lot of money to um uh uh try to keep this homeless problem down and it increases crime in the area.

But uh that long tall fence that that usually helps.

Maybe it was a barbed wire if they want to until we get this thing more under control.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak on item 16?

Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing.

Commissioner Segabun.

Thank you.

Um staff, did we get the updated drawings?

Yes, Commissioner, we did receive the drawings and I've worked with the applicant, and and so you've done everything I've asked you to do, so I would make a motion to approve subject to the new plans.

Also, we did have a question about the unelectrified electric fence.

Is that uh an oxymoron?

How do you have an unelectrified electric fence?

If you um it would be better if it was electrified.

Um it's you know they have an electric fence out there right now, but they've turned it off.

I think but they'll they'll comply with whatever they need to do.

So just wanted to make sure that there wasn't something funny going on, but so there's a there is an existing fence, but you're not electrifying it at this time.

That's correct.

Oh is that okay with public works?

All right, thank you.

I mean, they just got broken into a few days ago.

So all right, anyway.

Uh thank you for working with us.

Thank you.

There's a motion for approval.

Please cast your vote.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

We appreciate it.

Next are items 18 through 20, which are related and can be heard together.

Item 18, VS 26-0021.

Hold over, vacate and abandon a portion of right away being Windy Road, located between Tweek Tico Avenue and Sunset Road, and a portion of right-away being Sunset Road, located between Windy Road and Ensworth Street within Paradise.

Item 19, UC 26-0020.

Holdover use permits for the following.

One outdoor storage and display, and two truck parking and staging.

We versed development standards for the following.

One non-decorative fence, two increased fence height, and three reduced approach distance distance, excuse me.

Design review for an industrial development consisting of proposed outdoor storage and display and proposed truck parking or staging on 3.57 acre portion of a 6.91 acre site in an IL industrial light zone within the airport environments, AE65 and 70 overlay.

Generally located north of Sunset Road and west of Windy Road within Paradise.

An item number 20, TM26-5002.

Holdover tenant map consisting of one commercial lot on 6.91 acres and an IL industrial light zone within the airport environments AE65 and AE 70 overlay.

Generally located north of Sunset Road and west of Windy Road within Paradise.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Lucy Stewart, 1930 Village Center Circle representing the item.

And we appreciate you holding this two weeks ago so we could come back and work with your office and also with public works.

And um, so we've made some revisions.

Um we are withdrawing waiver number one B, which is to um waive the decorative wall on sunset.

We're going to build the um decorative wall.

We still need the one on Wendy, but we are wrapping the decorative wall around the corner and up to the driveway.

It's just we're asking to keep um the screen chain link to the north because that matches what's to the north of us.

Um we've also relocated the driveway.

We met with public works and I appreciate um their assistance with us.

And so the waiver is no longer at um to allow 29 feet where 150 feet is required.

It's 120 uh sorry, it was 49 feet to allow uh 129 feet where 50 is required, and I believe public works is fine with that.

And then we're also asking to withdraw the use permit number one, which is for outdoor storage, and we're just asking to have the truck um parking and staging in this area.

And we're just asking to have the truck parking and staging in this area.

And we just wanted to thank again public works and especially your office and Miss Tephany Hesser, who worked, I think, quite diligently on this.

So with that, we request your approval.

Thank you very much.

If that completes your presentation, we'll open the public common period on items 18 through 20.

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

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

Thank you, Commissioner.

Uh they did.

We appreciate it.

I do want to um for the record clarify.

I believe uh Ms.

Stewart said 129, it's at 120 feet for the for the approach.

All right, which is a lot better what than what they were showing us, it's aligned with the driveway to the east.

Also, we had a condition um just to the parcel, it's the same parcel, but just north of this.

They had the driveway closed with bollards and chains.

As you know, we don't allow ballards and chains to uh close up a driveway.

It's a it's uh safety issue for us.

They did want to remove the ballards and chains.

I do have a condition that says construct full off sites along that driveway if they're not gonna use it.

They do want to use it, so I'd like to remove the most northerly existing driveway on Windy Road to be constructed with full offsite improvements as long as they are moving those chains and bollards.

Thank you.

Uh you and your applicant understand that.

We do.

We and we agree we we do want to keep the driveway and we are removing the ballards and change, and I believe they have a gate back here, so it's really for security, and people were I think parking in the driveway, so they'll just be more diligent.

Great.

Uh then I'll go ahead and move for approval of items 18 through 20 with the withdrawal of use permit number one and uh waiver development standard number one be withdrawn as well.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Next item is item 21.

Ws 25-090895 waiver development standards for the following.

Run reduced parking lot landscaping, two modified buffering and screening, three modified residential adjacency standards, and four reduced driveway throat depth.

Design review for proposed light manufacturing facility on 0.53 acres in an IP industrial park zone within the airport environments, AE60 overlay, generally located south of Patrick Lane and east of Antiochley Drive within Paradise.

Good morning.

Good morning.

My name is Ken Small for the applicant.

I'm with SSA Architecture 7040 Laredo Street here in Las Vegas.

Um this is uh a new development for an existing site.

The site was uh originally subdivided a little bit narrow to comply with the truck turnaround requirements, and um it's immediately adjacent to what was originally constructed as a single family residence.

The single-family residence owner and my client spoke, and my client found out that they're intending to um reuse that building as a commercial project, and so they've signed a support document supporting our application for these revisions or waivers.

Um so we're waiving the uh residential buffer landscaping on this side where the parking is.

There's still a wall there separating.

There was quite a bit of discussion about throat depth with staff, and we ultimately agreed that this area on the right here would be striped for um actually it's mostly used for handicap access, but it also gives the uh truck that's taking away the dumpster the ability to turn around, and then on this side we have a lot of landscaping.

Um during the town board meeting there was discussion about uh staff comments uh regarding a peninsula here, and that um they felt that uh more peninsulas were needed, so we converted the south end of this landscape um area to also a peninsula, so that's why you have a peninsula immediately adjacent to a landscape area like that.

Um it is going to be a metal building.

The uh property owner is developing it for his business use and or I'm sorry, their business use and um they're a sign maker.

Very good.

If that completes your presentation, we'll open up the public hearing on item 21.

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

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

Commissioner Gibson.

Thank you.

Thank you.

When we met, we discussed the um parking lot landscaping, and you were a tree short.

Would you show us where that tree now is going to go?

There, sir.

So you no longer need that waiver, is that right?

Or do you need it because of the um the what I'll call the west side?

Uh this side here is supposed to be uh per residential compatibility standards, uh, a row of trees.

And that's being waived.

All right.

So in the context of every other piece of the landscaping, you don't need it, but you still may need it because of the single family residential zoning on the east side or west side.

Correct.

That's two different issues, the parking lot landscaping as well as the buffer.

Okay.

Thank you.

I'm prepared to um move and I do move to approve this item.

There's a motion for approval.

Please cast your vote.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is item 22, WS 26-0003.

Holdover waivers of development standards for the following.

One, increase parking and two, reduce departure distance.

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

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

Good morning.

Good morning.

How are you?

Uh name is Yak Nakouch.

I'm with Z Co.

Um, I'm the civil engineer on this project.

Um we can go through the what CBA does, Christian Brothers Automotive, or if we can move directly to the requirements or waivers or it's your call.

Yeah, I I think given the presentation from last meeting, we can skip through most of that and just talk about the most recent discussions.

Perfect.

Thank you.

So uh two items that uh came up that we needed to to address.

Uh the first item was the departure distance from Silverado to our driveway.

And considering the total length of the property, we could not meet that requirement.

We are short about 30 feet or 20 feet.

And uh simply because we could just cannot push the driveway up north of us anymore.

This is the the furthest uh distance away.

Uh the second uh item that we needed to uh get a waiver on is the number of parking uh spaces for this uh particular business.

Uh there's nine bays, which nine um uh employees, and of course the manager slash owner.

So for that only for the building um to operate, you'll need 10 parking spaces, and then you'll need the remaining for uh customers to come in and um uh to service their cars.

So these are the two items that that we were uh asking for a waiver on.

Uh when we were here last time, um uh the commissioner brought up or staff brought up uh the aspect of having the parking here uh where there's um uh conflict if cars are backing up and cars are coming in.

So we made these parking spaces specific for employees that way when they come in, these cars are not gonna move until people uh the employees leave.

So the conflicts is eliminated.

So we discussed that with uh commissioner Jones, and I think we're we're set on that.

I hope so.

Um please, any questions?

I'm here.

If that completes your presentation, I'll open up the public hearing on item 22.

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

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

Commissioner Jones.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, Mr.

Pozian.

I know we talked about uh that uh the additional condition of of making those parking spots on the east side uh employee only.

Does that help address the concern?

It does, Commissioner.

We appreciate it.

If we can also add uh applicant to install employee parking only signs uh opposite the driveway, we would appreciate it also uh to install no parking signs on Ulum.

Uh we would appreciate that as well.

Do you understand those additional conditions?

Yes, sir.

All right, with that, I'll go ahead and move for approval of agenda item number 22 with the additional conditions stated today.

There's a motion for approval.

Please cast your vote.

Thank you.

Um, next item commissioners will take item 25 out of order to go before item 23.

Item 25 is WS 26-0055.

We have development standards for the following.

One eliminate street landscaping and two waive full offsite improvements in conjunction with the proposed single family residential development.

Residential single family 20 zone within the neighborhood protection RMP overlay.

Generally located south of Lamadre Way and West of Durango Drive within Lawn Mountain.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Good morning, James Lopez, 6725 Southeastern Avenue.

On behalf of the applicant, we have a two-lot parcel map in the RP that we're requesting a waiver of full off sites and landscaping.

That's consistent with the development in the area.

And um and nothing else has had to have the full offsites or the landscape.

So that's why we're asking for that.

If we weren't asking for that, we'd probably have neighbors making us ask for that.

But be that as it may, uh, we read the conditions of approval and agree and respectfully request your approval.

Thank you.

If that completes your presentation, I'll open the public hearing on item 25.

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

Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing.

Commissioner Becker.

Yes, we've uh looked at this uh plan, and I think that it fits in the area, it's consistent with what's already existing.

Um so I would move for approval.

Thank you.

There's a motion for approval.

Please cast your vote.

That motion passes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next are items 23 and 24, which are related and can be heard together.

Item 23, WS 26-0033 waivers of development standards for the following one reduce setbacks to eliminate street landscaping and three-way full offset improvements.

Design review for a proposed single family residential development on 3.89 acres in an RS20 residential single family 20 zone within neighborhood protection RMP overlay.

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

An item 24, TM26-5005.

And an RS20 residential single family 20 zone within neighborhood protection RMP overlay.

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

Good morning.

Good morning, Mr.

Chair Commissioners.

My name is Tony Sless, address 1980 Festival Plaza Drive here on behalf of Pulti Homes.

As you can see from the aerial, I actually have three sites highlighted.

These are all kind of back to back to back items.

So 23 and 24 are with respect to the 003 parcel highlighted here on the uh southwest corner of Warm Springs and Rville.

Um first of all, this is uh not a zone change.

We are uh in the RMP, and we're not looking to take it out of the RMP, and uh we look forward to developing within within the RNP and the related standards.

Um this right here is a proposed seven-lot development.

Uh lots um three, four, five, six, and seven will all front our and then lots one and two will fet will front uh Mardon.

Um we have had uh some extensive conversations with Commissioner Knaft's office planning and public works with respect to uh the street improvements along our and uh related development of that.

Um we initially had submitted a waiver for full off-site improvements along our ville.

Um but after working with the commissioner's office planning and public works, we are going to uh provide full the full off site improvements along uh our including street lights.

Um understand we can work with the commissioner's office and public works on the design of those street lights, maybe something that would be more uh you know RP residential friendly on the design, but nonetheless, we will um install those full off-site improvements.

In order to do that, though, we are asking for some consideration on the lot sizes and a condition that our lot sizes uh be a minimum of 16,000 square feet.

Um, what happens here is we have to provide an additional dedication of the right of way for the detached sidewalk.

We understand we will have to come in and file a separate land use application for for that uh vacation and abandonment to provide for that detached sidewalk along our we are though still asking for the waiver of off-site improvements along Mardon.

That is a 60-foot ride of way, and I think that would be consistent with the rest of the uh rural neighborhood landscape through there.

Um there is a uh CIP or county improvement project that is going on right now along Warm Springs, so Warm Springs will have those uh detached sidewalks, landscaping, and of course, Poulty will have to uh contribute to that.

So walking through some of the revised conditions here, um ultimately um well actually and really the the crux of the matter originally was uh our building setbacks.

Um so we have a model, uh a one-story home that uh when it does not have an RV that home portions of that home is within the 10 feet setback.

If we have the RV uh portion of the home, then we do meet the setback because you're allowed to have less than 50% of your building within 10 feet of that setback.

So, really, this only this is a mixture of one and two story homes.

This uh request for the waiver, the setback only applies to our single story home that does not include the RV setback.

Um, this is an application that uh was previously seen a couple of weeks ago by this board.

Um, there was a condition imposed that no more than 50% of the lots can have that 10 foot setback.

So we'd much appreciate if that same condition can be applied to this application here.

So just kind of to run uh run through a few different things on what we're withdrawing, amending, et cetera, and the change of the conditions.

Um I will go through that right now.

So, with respect to waiver number one, that is the 10 foot building setback I was talking about.

If we can just amend that to apply to no more than 50 percent of our lots.

Uh waiver number two, we can withdraw that.

That is the eliminate landscaping and off-site improvements along ourville, um, however, subject to hopefully a condition allowing 16,000 minimum 16,000 square foot lots.

And then um the same with waiver three, we will provide our full off-site improvements there, again, subject to hopefully 16,000 square foot lots.

However, we do need that would be amended because we do uh are still requesting the full offsite or the waiver of the full offsites or rural standards along Mardon there.

Um with those changes, um, that results, I think, in some of the conditions of approval that have to be amended or changed, and we have provided uh a working draft of this to planning and public works and and to your office here.

And I know it's been moving around a little bit this morning, so I'm gonna do my best to uh read that in, of course.

Um I know uh planning and public works will be able to correct me if I um have misstated any of these.

But um essentially we we were asking for a condition that net lots minimum size of 16,000 square feet.

Um now that because we are providing all the landscaping that fee in lieu of is no longer required.

So we're asking that the the back half of that condition be amended and just simply read a certificate of occupancy and or business license shall not be issued without a certificate of compliance.

Um the next one is uh we uh can agree to provide single story homes adjacent to existing single story homes.

Um we are also um asking for a condition that along Mardon, since we are asking for those full off-site improvements, that we still provide a five-foot wide asphalt uh walking path.

Um also that uh we are required to work with public works and provide full off-site improvements along Rville and then file the related vacation and abandonment of that.

Um, in I understand working with public works this morning, there was a condition about uh there's a condition to provide circular driveways on all of lots one through seven.

However, because Mardon is only a 60-foot ride-of-way, I understand that they are willing to um strike lots one and two, but that would apply uh three through seven uh because of we we front um Rville and that we just work with public works on the design of that, especially considering number seven as we're pretty close to that intersection there.

Um I believe that covered most of them.

Um so with that, we we appreciate um the neighbors' uh you know issues about landscaping single story.

So I think we've uh been able to address a lot of that with these revisions greatly appreciate working with your office, plenty of public works on this.

Thank you very much.

That concludes your presentation.

I'll open up the public comment period on items 23, 24, 25, and 26.

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

I think I read too many.

Yeah, just items 23 and 24.

23 and 24.

Uh anyone wishing to speak on items 23 and 24, please come forward at this time.

Seeing no one, I'll close the public comment period.

Uh Mr.

Slash, I think you did cover everything mostly that was on my list.

I'm gonna ask Mr.

Papazian if there's anything that was missed for the record.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Because they are uh still requiring uh waiver for full offsites on Mardin, they will have to execute a restrictive covenant.

And because they are doing off sites in a detached sidewalk on Arville, uh, just for the record, the installation of detached sidewalks will require a vacation of excess right of way and granting necessary easements of utilities, pedestrian access, street lights, and traffic control as a condition.

Well said, you understood all that?

We understand that and agree with it.

And then just the last thing I would add, both related to this item and not uh Commissioner Kirkpatrick and I have talked about utilizing the RAC committee on a rural design standard.

Uh that is why in this approval there's language to work with public works specifically to uh lighting.

Well, I am requiring off sites, they may look a little bit differently, and my hope is that we'll be able to uh engage the input of the RAC committee quickly here on some design standards for not just these applications but future applications.

We greatly appreciate that.

Uh if there's nothing further, I'm gonna move for approval of items 23 and 24.

Sorry, Commissioner, I hate to do this to you.

I do have to delete a condition because I do have uh cost participation for uh the improvements on Martin Street.

So I'd like to delete applicant shall enter into a cost participation agreement for future Arville Street and Mardon Avenue improvements, and that'll be reflected in my motion.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Next item is item 26, WS26-0060 waivers of development standards for the following one reduced setback to eliminate street landscaping and three way full off site improvements.

Design review for proposed single family residential development on 2.02 acres in an RS20 residential single family 20 zone within the neighborhood protection RMP overlay.

Generally located north of El Dorado Lane and west of Rville Street within Enterprise.

Hello, good morning again.

Uh Tony Sless 1980 Festlaw Plaza Drive.

Here is the second portion of or the second um Pulti proposed development.

It is labeled the 009 parcel, is located on the northeast corner or the excuse me, the yes, the northwest corner of Rville and El Dorado here.

Um we are proposing a four-lot cul-de-sac again.

That will come off of Rville.

Um similar to the previous application.

Again, this one has the similar building setback issue.

Um, so we would request that for half of the lots, uh, no more or 50% of the lots to be allowed for the 10-foot uh setback.

Um we are also um as previously discussed um going to provide the full off-site improvements along Rville.

Um, we would request though that El Dorado still have the non-urban or rural standards applied to those.

Um so with respect to um again the proposed conditions or um we go through some of the waivers.

Um first uh waiver number one again.

We are asking to amend that to allow for 50% of our lots that have the 10-foot setback.

Um waivers 2A and 2B, we can withdraw those um subject to allowing a minimum net lot size of 16,000 square feet.

Again, um that will because of the required dedication along Rville, it will eat into um some of the ultimate net lot size.

So if we can have that condition, that'd be greatly appreciated.

And then we can withdraw, like I said, waivers 2A and 2B.

Um we will need to keep waiver number 3A, that is with respect to the El Dorado uh offsite improvements.

We do want to waive those and provide the rural standards, and then for or excuse me, 3B again is um we will provide the full off-site improvements and related utilities required along Rville.

Um so with respect to that, the conditions um do have to be amended that would include um a net lot size minimum of 16,000 square feet.

Um we are agreeable to doing the single story homes um adjacent to existing single story homes.

Um as I mentioned, the 10-foot front setback allowed on 50% of the lots.

Um, the applicant to construct a five-foot wide sidewalk along oh I may have the wrong along um excuse me.

Look at the wrong notes here along um El Dorado there, and then because we are now gonna be able to comply with the landscaping.

Similarly, we do not need that fee in lieu of.

So if this it just would uh say that we have to provide um uh provide the certificate of occupancy prior to that, and then if we could strike the condition around um, or I guess there is no condition, but there was discussion about the cost contribution along Rville.

We don't need that because we're gonna be providing those full off sites.

Um so with that, um, those are some of the conditions we're hoping to have amended.

Thank you.

I'll open the public uh comment period for item 26.

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

Seeing none, I'll close the public comment period.

Uh yes, I we are we understand that there won't be a cost contribution because you're gonna be doing the offsites uh yourselves.

Uh and also reference Ms.

DePrett who spoke at the initial public comment period.

This is the item that she was referencing.

Uh I'm conditioning it that way on the residential to residential and what matching one to one story.

Uh and I think you addressed uh the issue she raised related to landscaping.

Um Mr.

Papazian, is there anything that we've left off?

Yes, sir.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Again, because they are constructing full off sites on Arville.

I would like to delete a portion of my condition um that says applicant to construct a five-foot asphalt path along Rville.

And also same as the last few um applications to add the installation of detached sidewalk will require a vacation of excess right away and granting necessary easements of utilities, pedestrian access, street lights, and traffic control.

Very good.

You're you and your client understand all the time.

We understand and agree.

Okay.

Thank you.

If there's nothing further, I move for approval of item 26 uh with the withdrawals read into the record uh and the additional conditions.

Motion passes.

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

27 WS 26-0061.

Waivers of development standards for the following, one reduce setback to eliminate street landscaping, three increased retaining wall height, four increased fill height, and five waveful offside improvements.

Design review for a proposed single family residential development on 4.04 acres in an RS20 residential single family 20 zone within the neighborhood protection RMP overlay, generally located South of Marden Avenue and east of Rville Street within Enterprise and 28 TM26-50012 tender map consisting of eight single family residential lots and 4.04 acres in an RS20 residential single family 20 zone within the neighborhood protection RMP overlay.

Generally located South of Martin Avenue and east of Rville Street within Enterprise.

Hi.

Hello again.

Uh Mr.

Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Tony Sless, address 1980 Festal Plaza Drive.

Again, here on behalf of Poulty Homes, and this is the third and final uh application in this neighborhood.

You can see across the street from the 009 parcel labeled 008.

It is located on the northeast corner of Rville and El Dorado.

Here we are proposing um an eight-lot cul-de-sac that will come off of Mardin through here.

Uh similar to the previous applications, we're requesting a 10-foot setback for our single-story home that does not have the RV garage.

Uh, we would request again similar condition that no more than 50% of our lots have that uh condition, or excuse that no more than 50% of our lots um be it be allowed to have the 10-foot setback.

Um we are going to do the full off-site improvements along Rville.

However, we'd like to keep the rural standards along Mardon and El Dorado here.

One of the uh new issues with this one though, is with respect to our east property line right here.

Around lots uh six or um excuse me, I can't read these bottom five and six right here.

We do have uh a waiver to increase the grade and fill in this area.

All the utilities come this way and then down Mardon.

So right along the eastern property line, the first couple of lots coming in will be pretty level with our existing neighbors here.

However, it does step up, and right here is where it's most impacted, and that's so we have an ability to bring the utilities and sewer back down this way.

We'll also have reverse drainage because there is a drainage easement on our side right here that'll help with that flow and the gravity to bring it down back to Mardon.

So that is the reasons why we do need to have those waivers here.

Um so with respect to um the actual waivers, there like I said, we're gonna be uh asking to amend a few of them with respect to waiver number one.

This is uh to allow one half of our lots or 50 percent of our lots that have the 10-foot front setback.

This is uh to allow one half of our lots or 50% of our lots that have the 10-foot front setback um lots uh or excuse me, waivers to A, B, and C.

We can withdraw those uh subject to um a condition that we provide a minimum of 16,000 square foot lots.

Uh waiver three and waiver four, those are with respect to the uh fill and the retaining wall height.

We do need to keep those for the reasons I uh just explained.

And then on waiver number five, um we can delete um the condition delete our ville, but we do want the waiver for the off sites along um El Dorado and Mardon.

So, with respect to how some of those amended conditions would work, um, is again we would be required to uh vacate and abandon and provide a separate application for our ville hill here to provide for the detached sidewalks and related utilities.

Um again, the net lots square footage of 16,000 square feet uh because we are now going to provide all the perimeter landscaping.

Uh, we no longer need the condition of the pay and loo fee, so just that condition to be amended to certificate of occupancy and or business license shall not be issued without a certificate of compliance.

Um the 10 foot front setback for 50 percent of the lots.

Um, we are then to provide because we are asking for the waiver for full off sites along Mardon at El Dorado, however, to provide the five-foot wide uh asphalt walking path.

Um I believe that uh I believe that pretty much addresses a lot of those conditions.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

This is a public hearing on item 28.

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

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

Uh Mr.

Proposing, I think he got it all that time.

He did, Commissioner.

Thank you.

I'd like to delete because they are providing full offsites on Arville.

I'd like to delete a portion of our condition uh that they construct a five-foot path along Arville.

And also, because they are doing detached sidewalks to add the condition, the installation of detached sidewalks will require a vacation of excess right-of-way and granting necessary easements of utilities, pedestrian access, street lights, and traffic control.

Thank you very much.

And just to clarify the record, I I think I called in item 28 only for the public hearing.

This is related to both items 27 and 28.

Mr.

Warhol, does that satisfy any need for public comment?

Yes.

Great.

Thank you very much.

If there's nothing further, then my motion is inclusive of the amendments to the condition amendments and additional conditions, uh, the withdrawal of waiver 2A, B, and C with the additional condition of the 16,000 feet.

Uh, and anything else that's been read into the record?

No, I appreciate it.

I'm glad I almost got it fully correct after my third try here.

Thank you very much.

Uh, there's a motion for approval.

Please cast your vote.

The motion passes.

Thanks.

I greatly appreciate everyone working with us.

We were working well into the night on this, so I gracious greatly appreciate it.

Thanks.

Next are items 29 through 32, which are related and can be heard together.

Item 29, PA 25-70057.

Plan amendment to redesignate the land use category from ranch estate neighborhood to neighborhood commercial on point six nine acres, generally located south of Cactus Avenue and west of Bermuda Road within Enterprise.

Item 30, ZC25-0883.

Zone changes for the following one to reclassify 1.69 acres from RS20, residential single family 20 zone to CG commercial general zone.

And two, remove the neighborhood protection RMP overlay, generally located south of Cactus Avenue and West of Bermuda Road within Enterprise.

31 VS 25-0884, vacant abandoned easements of interest to Clark County, located between Glassby Street and Bermuda Road and Cactus Avenue and Irvin Avenue.

Portion of right away being Cactus Avenue located between Gillespie Street and Bermuda Road, and a portion of right away being Bermuda Road located between Cactus Avenue and Irwin Urban, excuse me, Avenue within Enterprise.

Item 32, WS 25-0885.

Waivers of Development Standards for the following reduce buffering and screening to modify residential adjacency standards and three alternative driveway geometrics.

Design review for proposed commercial development, a retail center on 1.69 acres in a CG commercial general zone, generally located south of Cactus Avenue and west of Bermuda Road within Enterprise.

Good morning.

Good morning, Commissioners.

Nancy Amundsen, 520 South Horse Street in Las Vegas.

I'm here to present these items for the applicant.

Item 29 is a plan amendment.

In late 29 or 2019, sorry, the county started the update to the enterprise land use plan.

Close to 300 requests were submitted, and this was one of them.

Staff recommended approval, and we got to the county got to the town board, and the town board recommended approval of this item as well.

Same request.

This request, which is in the area here, would be to neighborhood commercial, and it's consistent with the other corners of this intersection.

We did have the required neighborhood meeting, and the neighbors were more worried about the uses that would be going into the commercial buildings as opposed to the change in the plan.

The second item, item 30 would be the zone change.

We're requesting the zoning to be changed to a general commercial.

As you can see, all three of the other um corners are zone general commercial.

When we went to the town board, the town board recommended commercial neighborhood.

The planning commission recommended uh commercial general.

So to give you the background on that.

The proposal is for a retail um development.

We have one building, the building to the west, which would be right here.

That's going to be an auto zone.

It's not going to be car repair, anything, it's going to be a total retail store, and then the other two buildings would be retail as well.

We're proposing uh detached sidewalks all along the site, and as you can see in your agenda, one of the requests is for a vacation, which is recommended for approval.

The um there are no other sidewalks to the west or to the south, so the the sidewalks would help anybody circulating on this pro on this property.

We are showing the um correct amount of landscaping.

The there is a request for a reduction in the landscaping along the west and on the south, not the number of trees, not the amount of landscaping, just the width, because the original proposal was for a redundant wall.

We had been working with the neighbors to we had talked to the way neighbors to the west and to the south, and they would like the eight-foot wall to be just one wall.

So, although we're not going to request to re um take that waiver away because we're not sure exactly how if they were to reconstruct the wall or put additional um courses on top.

We're not sure if it might tweak that reduction in landscape in landscape width, not landscaping.

But I know that the commissioner has a condition on that that we work with the neighbors to create one wall, not a redundant wall on that site.

The other request is for a there's a roll-up door to the on the auto zone site.

It's just next to the loading area.

It's a small door, it's not for cars to go in or out of, it's just to make it easier to unload.

And as you can see, it would be here.

This is where the house is.

At the town board meeting, we had a nice discussion with the neighbor to the south who had no issue with that roll-up door because they felt that enough landscaping would be going there, and if there's an eight-foot wall, they would obviously not see it.

Just to give you an idea of the site, and I didn't um take any pictures, but to give you an idea of the site, the property to the west and the property to the south are lower than this.

So if we had an eight-foot wall on our property or we made their wall taller, they would have a lot more protection because right now you can walk up and look over their wall because it is six foot on their side, but on the outside it is not.

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

Thank you.

This is a public hearing on items 29, 30, 31, and 32.

Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward.

Welcome back.

My name is El Ross, and I'm active in the community.

I heard something about auto zone.

We're having a lot of problems with auto zone in our area.

And I had a few questions.

Number one, where's your dumpster?

And number two, how are you guys uh picking up the retrieving the oil that people uh can turn in?

What we're saying is number one, the district.

Just to clarify, this is a retail store.

There this is a retail store.

Uh he said auto, didn't they say auto zone?

It's a retail store.

There's no uh mechanic work happening.

No, I understand that, but you can return oil to the auto they have with dumpster where you can return all use oil.

You know, where people return used oil from the and what they were we're seeing is that it's being left out on the public, and people are it's just all over the ground.

I have I mean, I don't have pictures, but I brought up to the attention of my commissioner.

She's helped us, and it's just a problem that we're having with auto zone, and their district managers not available.

So I'm asking that maybe you ought to get some uh a number for the district manager.

Find out how this um uh this oil that's returned from the public that's used motor oil, uh how it's being uh disposed of or not disposable, but collected, and uh where their dumpsters are at because their dumpsters also are just there's just trash all over the place over on Nellis and uh Judson is an is an issue, and over on um Lake Mead and Hollywood for those commissioners that are in that area.

And I do want to thank my commissioner Kirkpatrick for helping us out because it is acting up again, but but she understands what's going on.

Thanks.

Anyone else wishing to speak on items 29 through 32?

Please come forward.

Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing.

Uh thank you for the presentation.

I want to make sure some of these conditions I'm pretty particular about, so I'm gonna reread them in.

I think you read them well, but uh one you talked a little bit about the zoning related to item 30.

Uh none of the uses being requested here are being presented.

Um need CG for.

So I'm gonna uh my approval would be to reduce the requested zone change to CN.

Um I assume since there's no need for CG, your applicant doesn't mind that.

The applicant had requested CG, but the uses that are being proposed will fit in the CN.

Very good.

And then on item 32, we're gonna add some conditions that the business be limited to daytime hours of operation, which is 6 a.m.

to 10 p.m.

That the applicant uh will have a structural engineer determine the feasibility of increasing the wall heights to the west and the south.

If the existing wall height cannot be increased to eight feet in height, it will be replaced with a new eight-foot decorative wall uh in colors consistent with the existing wall.

I understand.

And then uh the last condition that I will impose would be that signage be limited to monument sign uh and building sign as permitted by code.

Understood.

Very good.

Um if there's nothing further, I'll move for approval of item 29, 30, 31, and 32.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next items 33 through 37 that are related and can be heard together.

33 is PA 25-70058.

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

Item 34, ZC 25-0887.

Zone changes for the following.

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

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

35 VS 25-0886.

Vacant and abandoned a portion of right-away being Windmill Lane, located between Cimarron Road and Gagnir Boulevard within Enterprise.

36 WS 25085 waiver development standards to increase driveway width.

Design review for a proposed single family residential development on 9.39 acres and an RS 3.3 residential single family 3.3 zone.

A 9.39 acres and an RS 3.3 residential residential single family 3.3 zone.

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

Good morning.

Good morning, Mr.

Chairman, Commissioner Stephanie Groenauer.

Sorry.

This property is a little over nine acres on the south side of Windmill Lane, just to the west of Cimron is located right here.

This is an aviation auction parcel where Lenar was the successful bidder of the property.

And in looking at the area, um they they took seriously and and considered that there is an RP and that this property is currently planned for ranch estates.

You can see here on the master plan, the yellow is the RP in the area.

However, they also looked closely at what was happening up and down Windmill, which is a 100-foot ride of way.

You can see to the north, all of these parcels are planned for commercial or for public facility.

Also to the east, you see some commercial plans as well as these are mid-intensity in this beige color here.

And then there's a uh development here that was built out by William Lyon Homes without homes facing, but that are RP developed homes.

But with the exception, you can see all the way up and down windmill is master planned for things higher than half acre lots, and that's for a reason it's it's a hundred-foot ride of way on windmill.

Also, the zoning has been quite different than than half acre lots up and down windmill.

You can see everything in orange is RS 3.3.

Um there's commercial immediately to the east of us that was just approved in December.

That commercial plan has a tavern, a mini storage, and two quick serve centers.

In fact, I brought the site plan so you can see what's immediately to the east of us.

This is the plan that was approved.

The tavern is located immediately adjacent to the property we're talking about, two QSR, so fast food drive-throughs here, a retail center here, and then a huge mini storage development with docks that or roll up doors that are gonna face this property.

So this is a unique parcel in that regard, just because yes, it is planned for and zoned RP, but immediately east we've got a very intense commercial development, and then you can see it has actually been zoned out and developed at RS 3.3 across the street to the west and to the east.

So in looking at an appropriate plan, Lenar proposed this, and you can see we've got 10,000 square foot lots to the west where there are existing RMP homes and to the south where there's RMP homes.

Also, these are one-story homes.

So this is Lenar's nice big product, 3100 to 3500 square feet.

The only waiver we have associated with this is to allow wider driveways on these one-story homes because it's their big one-story product with the driveways that are wider than what Code allows.

The heights of these homes are between 19 feet and 21 feet, so very low profile.

Um, and we are we do sit a little bit lower than the homes to the west of us that are RP.

So we really tried to be cautious of the adjacent RMP to the west and to the east.

Also, you can see here on Mistral, this is a dead-end cul-de-sac.

We have no access to it.

So our only access point will be on windmill.

So essentially no impact to that RMP from a traffic standpoint since all of our traffic will be coming off of windmill.

But then we do transition to the smaller lot homes in the center of the project and along the eastern edge where we're adjacent to the commercial and along windmill, obviously, where we're adjacent to the 100-foot ride-of-way.

There are some neighbors here.

We started with a lot more than are here today that would prefer to see this to stay half-acre lots.

Um, I think from what I've heard, other than density, um, there probably biggest concern is mistral.

Right now, we show full off sites, and we're happy to do something other than that.

Um, most importantly, no lights, so that it does stay dark back in that RMP.

Also, in talking with public works, um, this cul-de-sac is built out with an attached sidewalk.

Um, so perhaps we could do some rural standards or combination where we finish out the cul-de-sac with the curb gutter sidewalk attached sidewalk and then keep it rural and just pavement and landscaping as you head west on Mistral.

Of course, that's up to the commissioner, but we're happy to do rural standards there.

In fact, we think it fits better within the community because Mistral is rural standards all up and down it.

Along Windmill, we've got the detached sidewalk and the full offsites there.

So, with that said, the planning commission did not condition us to this, but we're happy to agree to a condition that we would provide notices to homeowners in this community that there are horses and and rural properties in the area, and with that comes the noise and the smells associated with rural properties.

So happy to do that notice disclosure, as well as condition these lots along the west and the south to one stories, and then of course, no lights and whatever the rural standards that you as a commission think is appropriate.

So, with that said, I'm happy to answer any questions, but we would very much appreciate you follow planning commission's recommendation of approval.

Thank you very much.

If that completes your presentation, I'll open the public hearing on items 33 through 37.

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

Good morning, Bob Glau, GLAU 8260 Gagnir Boulevard.

Um this is in the RP, and we do have master plans, and we had a lot of energy put into that last master plan.

And if we're going to just change stuff from the master plan, why do we have all the effort and energy going into having a master plan to begin with so people can plan around what they're gonna do and build?

Um we had one mayorhood meeting on this.

Um I wouldn't really call it much of a meeting.

It was about 30 to 50 people there.

Um they pretty much just said this is what we're gonna build.

That there wasn't any discussion about maybe a half and half or maybe this or that.

I mean, I would love to see it stay half acre all over.

Um, but if not, uh maybe they're trying to say it's a buffer to the RP when they're just pulling it out of the RP.

So if you're gonna try to make a buffer for the RP, then let's do 15,000 square foot lots along the two sides uh south and west.

Let's do if you want to do your high density do it along uh windmill, do it along the uh commercial part, and then in the interior, let's do eight to ten thousand square foot lots.

That would be kind of a buffer between windmill and the RMP.

But to just go immediately to high density, um three or four times the density that it's zoned for is is inappropriate.

Uh the town board absolutely denied this completely.

Inexplicably, the planning commission didn't.

One person said no, and the rest said yes.

Um, but uh I just don't think it's proper for the neighborhood.

I don't think it's where it should be.

And um I would encourage you to deny it the way it is, and uh maybe we can meet and have something else drawn up that would satisfy everybody.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak?

Good morning.

Um my name's Dina Young.

I live at 8345 West Mistral Avenue, and um I am also directly impacted as Mistral actually makes this T.

So the top part is where they're talking about their southern um border of the property, and then I'm at the very end of the cul de sac that runs north-south.

Um I would first uh reiterate that town board resoundingly um did not approve this.

Um, and I really was very impressed with um how detail-oriented you all are in recognizing that there was even one tree missing from the requirement.

So I would also request that you take that consideration as you consider that they are continuing to erode and chip away at the RMP, which was specifically why many of us purchased in this area because we enjoy and appreciate the rural neighborhood the lifestyle that that offers and the community that we've built with that understanding of that lifestyle.

So I ask you to um thoughtfully consider and reconsider um what this proposal would mean.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Michael Lee Carr 8315 West Mistral Avenue.

I'm the property directly south of this proposed property.

Uh, there's been no talk of height of walls, drainage there is horrible when it we get these flash flood rains coming through that whole street there.

I mean, it's rocks galore.

So I you know, I approve uh just about everything else.

I would like to see bigger properties, obviously, but we understand the growth of neighborhoods and things like that.

But one third acre lots would be great, like Bob was saying, and we appreciate all your input on that.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Morning, Brian Barron, 3585 West Pebble Road.

Um, in general, I do not support the zoning change.

Uh I see the RMP disappearing.

I live in an RMP area, and repeatedly the RMP is just shrinking.

And honestly, I think that you should deny the rezoning of this uh this project and reconsider having them go back to a new plan.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak on items 33 through 37?

Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing.

Commissioner Jones.

Thank you, Ms.

Chair.

Ms.

Grunner, can you talk about the wall height and the drainage uh concerns that are raised?

Yes.

Um, so uh currently we have a six-foot wall that's proposed along this western and southern and eastern boundary.

There will be some retaining, but it will be on our side because we're lower.

So I think there's up to about two and a half feet of retaining along this western edge that would be below their property.

So um, but there will be a redundant wall, four inches from the existing wall that would be um next to their wall and then filled in so that critters can't get in the middle of it.

This particular property owner to the west, I don't believe has attended any of the meetings, so we don't know what they want if they would prefer something different.

I know they've got some view fencing there, um, but the good news is we are below them, so it should be close to the same height and not higher than their wall.

Um, along this uh southern edge, which is mistral, as I mentioned, I did bring a picture just so you can see what exists there today.

So today there is just a attached sidewalk along this wall where that cul-de-sac is, um, and you can see on our side, there's just a a bit of a sidewalk, but then as you see as you go west, it gets rural, and that's the same across the street as well.

Um, from a drainage perspective, obviously, curb gutter sidewalk helps the drainage.

Um, so certainly along that cul-de-sac.

I know we talked to public works about making sure we do curb gutter sidewalk along the cul-de-sac and maybe complete that out, and then perhaps do pavement heading west so it's consistent.

Um, but if you prefer curb and gutter, we could certainly do that as well.

Landscaping will be adjacent to our wall, so anyone that's looking at that wall will have obviously the landscaping here that we've proposed without lights, because I do think uh we've heard that at the meetings that they don't want lights on mistral.

Where where are the where is the flows from uh mistral side?

Are they being taken out to windmill or how does how does it work on that?

Most of it will go out to windwell.

We do have some drainage easements here, so I think there'll be some surface flow, but most of it will go out to windmill.

All right, Mr.

Posin, you want to comment on what we want to do on Mistral.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Uh, we're very open on Mistral.

Obviously, Mistral doesn't um serve the public except for the few homes that front mistral.

We're okay with with um maybe reducing the width.

It's a 60-foot wide ride away.

They were willing to give us 60 feet.

I don't think we should get 60 feet.

Um I'd like to change it to 17, so it would be an overall 37-foot wide uh ride away that would help with um with the during um sorry with the gray difference between the westerly properties and their property uh when it comes to drainage.

It would be nice to see the cul-de-sac finished out just because we already have curb gutter sidewalk in that area.

We're okay with no street lights.

Um the rest is up to you if you'd like curb and gutter, we're okay with that.

If you like nothing else, we're okay with that as well.

All right, I think what makes most sense is to finish out the the cul-de-sac at the end of mistral and then do curb and gutter on the reining portion and then uh to reduce the the width per what uh Mr.

Boszian has suggested that works.

That's great.

All right, I appreciate the concerns.

Um my take is that they have done a good job of uh buffering the rural neighborhood preservation, all of the difference from other proposed projects, zero percent of the traffic will be directed into the RMP here.

It'll be directed onto a hundred foot right-away and windmill, which is already a heavily trafficked uh road between Durango and Buffalo and single story lots uh in addition to 10,000 square foot uh uh size.

I think does a very good job of uh buffering the existing RMP from any um any of the other concerns, and it's also adjacent to a substantial uh pre-existing uh commercial uh development over there and a uh future um or existing uh county park uh that I know Commissioner Naft would love to have hundreds of millions of dollars uh to um develop over there.

So with that, I'll go ahead and move for approval agenda items 33 through 37 with the additional stated conditions today.

There's a motion for approval.

Please cast your vote.

The motion passes.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

The next several items have been held, so that'll take us to items 46 and 47, which can be heard together.

Zone change to reclassify 0.25 acres from an RS 3.3 residential single family 3.3 zone to a CG commercial general zone, generally located, North of Naples Drive and West of Paradise Road within Paradise.

And item 47, WS 26-0036.

Waivers of Development Standards for the following.

One, reduce street landscaping, two reduced parking lot landscaping.

Three, reduce and eliminate buffering and screening, four increase fence height, five increase parking, six eliminate parking turnarounds, seven modify residential adjacency standards, and eight allow an attached sidewalk.

Design review for proposed parking lot expansion and modifications to an existing restaurant and related services establishment on a portion of 1.7 acres in a CG commercial general zone within the airport environments, AE65 overlay, generally located north of Naples Drive and west of Paradise Road within Paradise.

Good morning.

Good morning, Chair, members of the board.

Marin Perry, 1980 Festival Plaza Drive today representing Mr.

Jerry Massini and his various entities that own and operate the property on the north and southwest corners of Paradise and Naples.

These are some of the hot spots within the new fruit loop as designated by the state legislature.

And as I think many of you know, Mr.

Massini started as somewhat of an inadvertent club operator, but in the last 10 years has been working to upgrade the neighborhood and expand the opportunities for these clubs.

Part of what he's done is acquire additional properties in order to provide more parking.

And when he originally acquired the site, it was here over and here over.

He's since been able to acquire this piece here and expand the parking lot.

And then essentially to mirror the existing parking lot on this new on this new site.

So here's where it ends right now, and we'll be moving it over to add additional spaces.

Currently there are 50 spaces in this parking lot.

There will be 74.

That means that it will exceed parking by 38, and we believe this is an appropriate time to grant a maximum an exceptional uh parking waiver to increase parking.

And I'll note that some of the other waivers that are involved are requested in order to continue to maximize parking in this area.

And also there is a waiver to allow increased wall height in the front.

And I'm air quoting the front because the road doesn't go this way, it goes this way.

So what this will do is allow an additional screen fencing to enclose the queuing area where patrons are having their ID checked where they can feel a little bit more safe before they enter.

And with that, we'll respectfully request that you follow town board's recommendation of approval, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you very much.

This is a public hearing on items 46 and 47.

Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward.

Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing.

Commissioner Gibson.

Thank you.

Your client has done an awful lot over the course of time, and it's been interesting to watch how he's done it.

Um please uh help him understand how much we appreciate that, and we're excited to work with him on this.

Um we have added um crosswalks on paradise, tried to help make movement in the fruit loop a safer experience.

It's been challenging because people are on their way to the airport, and uh it's a raceway.

But this is a good um item, and the work that he's done is something that I I support.

I move approval subject to the town board uh recommendation.

Thank you.

There's a motion for approval on items 46 and 47.

Please cast your vote.

Motion passes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is item 48 AC26-90085.

Consider an appeal of the director's notice of decision to deny a request for a reasonable zoning accommodation at 5614 stingery circle within Sunrise Manor, and direct staff accordingly.

Um, commissioners, as you know, zoning accommodations are reviewed to determine if a reasonable accommodation and rules, policies, practices, or services are necessary to afford a person with a disability.

Equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing.

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

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

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

Thus, the therapeutic benefit can be achieved by using any other type of pet allowed in the Clark County Code without a reasonable accommodation or zoning change.

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

Background uh backyard chickens, excuse me, are a public health risk, and the size of the backyard may not allow for suitable coupe that can be um sufficiently spaced from neighbors, and the request is not reasonable because it would require a fundamental alteration of the nature of the residential zoning ordinance by introducing farm animals into the zoning district.

Lastly, as you know, the applicant uh may or may not be present and is not required to be here.

Um we let them know if they are do attend and wish to exp to speak.

Um they do not have to mention or disclose any private or medical information.

Thank you very much.

This item is here to us on appeal.

Is the applicant here?

Okay, if you want to pick up that handheld microphone and state your name for the record.

Hi, my name is uh Steven Joyner.

And um the chickens that we have, um, we have you know 16 of them, all hands, no uh no roosters, so no problem with the noise.

Um they they have a reasonable um space in the backyard, um and I'm just we uh we enjoy them, you know.

I uh every one of them have different personalities, and um we don't uh you know we're not eating them or or doing anything like that.

We're just uh um they're in their comfort, um there's 13 of them.

Oh um this is uh this is my wife.

My name is Nadine.

Um so originally we're from Northern Nevada, and of course, this wouldn't be an issue in MLA.

Um we do have a property in Imlay, but because of his health, we have to actually stay close to treatment.

Originally, we did have a service animal, she was stolen.

Um, and um we have tried, even as much as getting the same animal that looks exactly like her, and the the effects and the emotional support has not been there.

The connection has not been different, and we have had issues with different things medically, um, behaviorally, and we had to find different ways and try different things to make the situation work, being in Clark County.

That being said, we did speak.

This is our landlord, and we did speak to him about hey, maybe we can do this.

So we did ask permission, and of course, Googling, Google says, hey, it's okay, you can have chickens.

Um we did originally have roosters, but then we did get rid of them.

We did donate those roosters, um, and we were only left with the hens.

Um, we do have um, I believe it's a 6,000 square foot backyard.

It is a large backyard.

Um, when I was working with planning, they said don't make any changes until we could actually get a permit to fix because there was existing sheds and existing like uh chain link fence, and a lot of things were existing, so we just kind of built on top of it.

Um we do have a family, we do have their children there, and everyone is involved in the process, so it's not just this is not for commercial use.

This is an accommodation, it is something that it is necessary.

Um, mental health doesn't follow an exact path for everyone, and I'm sorry, I'm trying not to cry.

Mental health doesn't follow an exact path for everyone, and so a dog or a cat is not applicable, and we did have one.

We had one for nine years, but as I said, she was taken, and we tried not one but two, but three, and it just did not work.

And so far, the different effects of the different animals, and they're not commercial.

There are no eggs sold.

There is no sort.

It's just the support that they provide when you go out to the backyard or even when they decide to hop on is a leg.

It's a lot different.

And their health care is just not the same for everyone.

And he does have physical and emotional needs, and they are currently being met in stable with what we have.

So we're just asking for that accommodation.

Thank you very much.

Anything further you'd like to add.

If there isn't anything for that, I'm gonna open the public comment period and you can speak then.

Um we'll do that now.

I'll go ahead and open the public comment period on item 48.

Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward.

Good morning, my name is Jorge Alarcon.

I was name is A L A R C O N.

I'm the property owner of um this 564 14 singer.

Uh I live in the neighborhood.

If you see the property, it's just west of on Christie Lane, probably two, three hundred feet.

Anything on between Christie Lane in Ellis, between Washington all the way to Kerry, it's all real estate property, real estate property where you're allowed to have animals, goats, chickens, and all that.

So I don't see a deprimental to the neighborhood.

I mean, the chickens doesn't create any noise.

Roosters does.

I mean, if you walk into our neighborhood, every weekend there's a big party where the music gets loud all the way to two, three o'clock in the morning and we don't complain.

So that's their business.

So I'm I'm okay supporting that as far as the um the improvement on the property.

There's an existing storage there that was there.

It's less than a hundred square foot, it's probably eight by eight, which doesn't require any setbacks or any permits.

And also we have been getting citations from the county for on the chickens in storage in on decomposed things, which have been submitting photos every time I get a letter and and and appealing those complaints to them because the only thing that we're not in compliance right now is the use of the chickens, and I told them that I was gonna wait until this hearings.

If this hearings are uh pass, then we are allowed to keep those chickens there.

If not, then we'll comply with the code.

But as far as the other violations they have submitted, I have appealed them and requested them to waive those waivers because like I said, if there's a little storage less than eight by eight, and it's not required.

Anything less than 10 by 10, you don't require a permit.

And I believe you don't even require permit for um agriculture or livestock.

So those are my comments.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much.

Anyone else wishing to speak during the public comment period on item 48?

Please come forward.

Seeing none, I'll close the public comment period.

Commissioner Sager Bloom.

Thank you.

Um this is the first time I've heard from you, and uh, so I'm not sure it'll be willing, but I'd like to talk to you privately so I can know more about the disability and the accommodation you're seeking.

Uh and then we'd set this for a we would come back in two weeks or four weeks, whatever is good for you.

But if you would be willing to do that, meet with me afterwards or talk to me so I can know more about it.

Um, I appreciate their concerns, and I would like to really work with you.

Yes.

With that in mind, since I have a pending case with on Clark County Public Works or County Public on Billing Department for the Cetaceous, I would like to see if you can grant us an extension.

So whatever the outcome of this comes, like I said, if if the approval of the chicken stays uh then all my violations should go away, but if not, then we'll fix it in in being compliance.

All right, let's talk to the lawyer.

I'll I'll ask the attorney handling that mark in my office to grant an extension.

Yeah, so we will grant an extension while we're discussing this.

So if you would reach out to my office um and we'll figure out a way to meet or talk, um, and uh I appreciate your coming down today.

Is that a motion to hold till April 8th?

Is April 8th okay?

Yeah.

All right.

There's a notion if it's okay with you.

I'll gonna write a letter to my contact with the county and said that uh there's a pending resolution for this.

I and I request I don't think it'll be a problem.

You're they'll be made aware.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you.

There's a motion to hold this item until April 8th.

Please cast your hands.

And I'm gonna ask Commissioner Becker to join me.

The motion passes.

All right, thank you.

Next is item 49, AG 26-900 139.

Discuss whether initiate to initiate a master plan amendment for assessors parcel number 162360104 and direct staff accordingly.

Um Martin, I believe just put a map on the overhead if we can switch over.

Thank you.

Um this parcel is located as you can see, south of Aquendo and uh west of Pecos and has a little bit of a history for zoning.

Um the house was built in the 70s, and they did a zone change from residential to commercial in 1999.

Then in 2020, they did a non-conforming zone change from commercial to residential.

And if you remember with the non-conforming zone changes, um, they typically were approved with a resolution of intent.

And if the project was built, the zoning would be permanent, and if it wasn't it expired, and the zoning um would no longer be um active.

So in this case, the board approved the non-conforming zone change subject to no ROI, which made the zoning permanent on the site back to residential.

Um, right now, though, the master plan still planned for commercial, which does not allow um any residential to occur.

Um, the plan was never updated when that permanent zoning was put into place.

So the request right now from Commissioner Gibson is to initiate this plan amendment to have the um land use plan be compatible with the zoning district that um that use was residential and permanently approved back then.

Thank you, Commissioner Gibson.

That that is better than I could have said by a mile.

And what I would request is that we provide that direction to um planning so that we can take care of that.

Direction received.

Yes, thank you.

Thank you.

Next are items 50 through 55, uh, which are ordinances for introduction.

Item 50, ORD 25-900718.

Introduce an ordinance to consider adoption of a development agreement with Maverick Inc.

for a uh gas station and convenience store on 1.64 acres.

Item 51, ORD 90095.

Introduce an ordinance consider adoption of a development agreement with Riverview LVB development LLC for a shopping center on 7.5 acre portion of 15.4 acre site.

Item 52, ORD 25-901050.

Introduce an ordinance to consider adoption of a development agreement with Sunset Canyon Corporate Center LLC for an office building on 2.08 acres.

Item 53, ORD 25-90101.

Introduce an ordinance to consider adoption of a development agreement with Madison Pebble LLC for an office warehouse development on 2.5 acres.

Um item 54 ORD 26-9003, introduce an ordinance to consider adoption of a development agreement with Landberg Land Investors LLC and PN II thing for single family detached residential development on 13.75 acres and item 55 ORD 26-900125.

Introduce an ordinance to amend the official zoning map reclassifying certain properties as approved by the Board of County Commissioners on October 6, 2021 and January 7th, 2026.

And staff recommends you introduce the ordinance and set the public hearing for April 8th, 2026.

I'll introduce the ordinance and set the public hearing for April 8th, 2026.

Mr.

Chair.

Can I just for uh for the next meeting?

Can we put a discussion item on for some additional guidance on uh updates to Title 30?

Yes.

Great.

Thanks.

Can I also add something?

Can we uh also maybe talk about the whole idea of the RAC committee was to kind of figure out what is the best way for these to kind of preserve and protect those little pockets that are left.

So can we also um at least have the board decide if maybe we want to talk about making the developers put in rule um rule signs like we have in Lone Mountain?

Uh Commissioner Becker and I both have them, and it's way better than a disclosure because I'm telling you the code complaints of the new people that move into the district.

I have one now where a new neighbor moved in, and you know, I have my thoughts, but he's gone around to all the rural properties in my area, and he is now filed code violations of a lifestyle that they've had that he impeded on.

So maybe if the signs are there when the realtor is driving them through that they could do that, and then the other thing I want to ask is now that we're doing all these truck parking lots between Commissioner Knapp, Commissioner Jones, myself.

I think there's ample parking.

I'd like to investigate whether or not we could truly find these trucks that are parking in the neighborhoods triple.

I mean, then what we're doing, whatever the max is because it's just there one, the line of sight if you're trying to pull out is a problematic, and they're running their trucks all night long.

So I just would see if we could discuss those items.

Okay, thank you.

And then the next item is the second time for public comment.

This is the second time set aside for public comment.

Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward at this time, state your full name for the record.

You may speak for up to three minutes.

Yes, good afternoon.

My name is Margaret Coleman.

And I like to say this.

Everything must change.

No one should remain the same.

Everything must change.

Nothing, no one should remain the same.

My name is Margaret Ann Coleman.

My mother wants me to be Harry Truman.

I don't want to be Rosie Pye.

I because I'm not trying to give up my seat.

Um violation is uh Chansky that has uh created the Air B N B N concerning the a courtyard uh that place them in violation of the uh being the ambassador of 1316 wizard.

I'm not trying to a ban or uh vacate my property for sale.

I have gotten calls.

As I stated before, um I'm the recovery trustee of Margaret Coleman estate.

I I want to change my career, and I want I'm needing your help.

I want to be a banker, an opener concerning my money, concerning the final finance uh settlement, concerning the amount of money that uh information I gave to you uh the other day, uh last um meeting we had um using it to uh create a future for black people.

This gonna be for the rising of black people taking charge and being more educated than just smokers and drug dealers.

I'm trying to present something here and changing my career and being someone myself going forward.

So I'm needing your support and helping me.

I'm needing to get this state trustee, Zach Conan, to issue me a Bank of America card with the whole complete amount, so then I can start getting with if you can assist me with 12 attorneys, or I have to get 12 attorneys to do this.

This is my plan.

And if you take it in closed session, I would please, I wish you would make the change for me as well.

Thank you.

My name is Margaret Ann Coleman.

Is there any questions?

We're not allowed to engage in discussion right now, but thank you for your comment.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Hi, uh, my name is Al Rojas, and I'll try to be brief.

There's two issues that I want to bring to the attention of the board.

Uh there's gonna be a no kings uh rally uh that's proposed for I believe the second Saturday from now.

Um I think it's the uh 28th.

And there was some talk on the radio, and you know, um they had one last year, the first one, some of our buildings got uh destroy, or you know, they got vandalized, and so we definitely want to keep an eye on that and protect our law enforcement officers, take the appropriate actions.

Uh the other thing that I wanted to let you know is that um uh you know the new no camping ordinance was it appeared to be very powerful.

We did have somebody arrested, but the guys are out on the street again building encampments.

So this is a very powerful ordinance, you know.

Uh, when Metro pulls talks to these uh people that are going around building encampments, you know, we've gotten most of them out.

There's just like one guy that he just a nuisance in the community.

Um I guess the DA or the judges let him out.

And so, you know, I want this is not to annoy you, it's for the community.

You know, you guys are doing your part, the safest counter support law enforcement or elected officials, the county.

You guys created this fantastic ordinance.

The community is doing their part, metro is doing their part.

It appears that the uh DA or the judges are not doing their part.

Maybe you can commit a committee to help um uh uh uh um implement new ordinances that are uh enforced or or that are created so you guys don't have to go through all this ethic again.

But uh somehow uh somebody's got to get to the judges and the DA.

And hopefully these people the idea was to get these people to get um uh some new people in their inner circle so these outreach services like maybe uh help of southern Nevada or whoever can go out there and try to break this cycle because this guy is just he's just a disaster.

He's all you know, we he's on a shopping cart and pushing a bed, and he's uh we've already trespassed about like 10 places in our area, so it's just something to think about and uh fantastic ordinance, but let's hopefully get uh the DA and the judges um uh on the on the page with everybody else in the community in the county.

Thank you very much.

Bye.

Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak?

Please come forward at this time.

Seeing no one, we will adjourn the meeting.

Thank you very much.