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 eighth April eighth meeting of the Clark County Commission.

Uh we will begin today's meeting with the first time set aside for public comment.

Anyone wishing to speak on an item on today's agenda can come forward at this time.

Uh items four through twenty-six are scheduled for routine action uh and will not receive individual public hearings.

So if you're here on an item between four and twenty-six, come forward at this time, state your name for the record.

And you may speak for up to three minutes.

Yeah, I just want to note that I'm gonna ask that eight through twelve be pulled off consent so that they can speak at the time.

Thank you.

So Commissioner Jones has indicated items eight through twelve will receive their own public hearing.

Uh from consent.

Uh uh those are in Commissioner Gibson's district.

He will be here in just a moment, but uh he'll be comfortable with those items being heard separately.

Okay, thank you.

Oh, I would also like to request item number seven, please be pulled out.

There's something I want to bring to the attention of the board.

Commissioner Sagerblum.

Do you want him to comment now?

Yeah, go ahead and comment now.

Well you want me to comment now?

Yes.

Item seven will be kept on the routine action agenda.

If you'd like to speak to it, you can speak now.

Okay.

Um item number seven.

Uh I was prepared to pull it off the agenda.

Let me get uh my notes here.

Um while you're doing that, if you just want to state your name for the record.

My name is Al Rojas, R O J S.

I live at two zero nine five home stake mine court.

Um, hold on a second.

Uh okay, can you guys put this?

Can you put a camera on this?

Go ahead while they're working on that.

Okay, well.

And we're talking about this uh there's an empty lot there, and then this business in this area, you see these two buildings.

I think they want to have an ex they're getting an extension for getting a building there.

Um I drove around and there's a lot of stuff that is on the street out there.

I mean on their on their uh on their driveway.

And here stuff like all this trash over here.

These are all code violations.

And we've spent a lot of money and time trying to clean up this area, and a lot of that stuff we're finding it on the street.

So I'm thinking that uh code enforcement should give them give them in the okay that all this stuff is off of there and that they give them a one month to clean um uh before they get their uh extension to go on to proceed to do their development.

I hate to say, but this is a typical example of a nuisance property in our community that's just putting stuff on the street, and let me show you where it's at.

There's more of that stuff you can see.

Open dumpsters, and there it is on the street over there where that's the stuff that's coming out of that area.

And I've talked to people there, they're part of our neighborhood watch group, and they say, you know, we really a lot of the times we find our stuff out there.

Like, well, you know, honestly, you guys should be putting it inside.

There's an open dumpster there, and the law says that these dumpsters should be in their dumpster container.

So just delay it a month and then have them clear all this stuff up.

And I wanted to bring this attention to our commissioners.

That area needs to be cleaned up.

Well, we'll well, we've done a lot of cleanups, and we don't want to keep going over there with volunteers and uh bothering Metro and our commissioners to clean that up.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next speaker, please state your full name for the record.

Hi, I'm Jake Fletcher.

Um, I have a quick question.

Uh you mentioned that eight through twelve is going to be held for later.

I'm not quite a bit.

It'll be it'll be heard separately.

So if you're here to speak on that item, you can just wait a few moments and there'll be a public hearing.

Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak?

Come forward.

You gotta come forward to the microphone.

Point of clarification.

Is this only for items through 26?

The items you can speak on anything on the agenda if you'd like to, but if it's after item 26, they'll be it's uh they'll have a separate hearing on those items.

In just a few minutes.

Anyone else wishing to speak on anything that's left on routine action agenda?

Seeing none, we can move forward to item two, the approval of the agenda after considering any requests.

Good morning, Miss Amberman.

Good morning, good morning, commissioners.

We have the following request.

Hold to the April 22nd, 2026 zoning meeting.

Item number 13, WS 26-0113.

Item 30, UC 26-0063.

Item 37, WS 26-0004.

Hold to the May 6, 2026 zoning meeting.

Item 28, UC 26-0011.

Item 43, PA-25-70052.

Item 44, ZC 25-0836.

Item 45, uh VS 25-0837.

Item 46, WS 25-0838, and hold to the May 20th, 2026 zoning meeting, item 29, UC 25-0033, and hold to the June 17th, 2026 zoning meeting.

Item number 38, WS 26-0048.

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 13, 29, 28, 30, 37, 38, and 43 through 46.

The agenda stands ready for your approval.

Thank you.

Item 38, I believe you read a request to be held.

I've spoken with the applicant and uh we'd like the item to be heard today.

And so I'd like to pull that off the hold list.

Right, so we will hear it.

Thank you.

With the recommended changes right into the record, I'm approval with the agenda.

There's a motion for approval, please cast your vote.

I was supposed to wait till uh Commissioner Gibson arrived to uh we took care of that for you.

Oh, okay.

Thank you.

Next item uh item number three is the approval of the aminutes.

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

I'm approval of our March 4th, 2026 meeting minutes.

There's a motion for approval, please cast your vote.

Motion passes.

Next are the routine action items, which consist of items four through twenty-six.

These items may be considered together in one motion, except for items eight through twelve and items fourteen through sixteen, which will be heard separately, and they're subject to the conditions listed with each agenda item.

Additionally, staff has the following request for item number four DR 25-0849.

Add the following comprehensive planning conditions.

Building M to be a maximum of 6,372 square feet and a minimum of 21 parking spaces to be provided for the pad site.

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

Move approval or routine action items.

Thank you.

There's a motion for approval.

Please cast your vote.

That motion passes.

Next are items eight through twelve, which can be heard together.

Number eight, WC 26-40012 for ZC23-0571.

Waivers the conditions of a zone change requiring the following: one, full off site improvements, and two developer will place a sign at the northeastern driveway onto Serene Avenue prohibiting truck traffic from making left-hand turns for previously approved office warehouse and distribution center on 55.10 acres in an IP industrial park zone within the airport environments, AE60 overlay.

Generally located south of Serene Avenue and east of Decatur Boulevard within Enterprise.

Item number nine, ZC 26-0103.

Zone change to reclassify 2.5 acres from an RS20 residential single family 20 zone to an IP industrial park zone, generally located north and south of Richmar Avenue and east of Decatur Boulevard within Enterprise.

Item 10, VS 26-0104.

Vacate and abandon easements of interest to Clark County, located between Serene Avenue and Gary Avenue and Decatur Boulevard and Arville Street.

A portion of right-of-way being Moronto Avenue, located between Decatur Boulevard and Arville Street.

Portion of a right-away being Richmar Avenue, located between DeGator Boulevard and Arville Street.

Portion of right of way being Ulam Drive, located between Serene Avenue and Gary Avenue.

Portion of right-away being Serene Avenue, located located between Decatur Boulevard and Arville Street.

Portion of right away being Decatur Boulevard, located between Serene Avenue and Richmar Avenue, and a portion of right-of-way being Gary Avenue located between Decatur Boulevard and Arville Street.

Item number 11.

UC 25-0105 use permit for public utility structures, utility poles, public utility buildings and structures, including electric substation, above ground utility lines located outside of the existing above-ground utility corridor.

Waivers the development standards for the following.

One increase structure height, two, eliminate and reduce street landscaping, three, eliminate parking area landscaping, four reduced buffering and screening, five increase retaining wall height, six reduced gate setback, seven, increase the parking aisle length, eight allow modified driveway standards, and nine weave full off scene improvements with a design review for public utility structures, including a data center with electric substation and other ancillary structures, rerouted above ground utility lines and new utility poles on 55.10 acres and an IP industrial park zone within the airport environments, AE60 overlay.

Generally located south of Serene Avenue and east of Decatur Boulevard within Enterprise.

And item number 12, TM 26-50027.10 acres in an IP industrial park zone within the airport environments AE60 overlay, generally located south of Serene Avenue and east of Decatur Boulevard within Enterprise.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Good morning, Mr.

Chair, Commissioners.

Ed Garcia, 9555 Hillwood here on behalf of Switch, who is the ultimate end user of this uh project.

This is a data warehouse project located at the southeast corner of Serene and Decatur.

This is kind of the standard switch development that we're all familiar with.

The project consists of three buildings and two substations along with ancillary structures.

Typically don't generate a lot of uh parking traffic.

So this just very briefly, I'll tell you a little bit about the project.

The prior approval on the project, this site is already approved for industrial development.

In fact, it's uh zoned industrial and and it's except for a small portion of it, but it's zoned industrial and it's approved for 10 buildings, seven nearly 750,000 square feet uh of space on the currently approved plans for this project.

So as stated, this is a the alternative which we're proposing today is three buildings and less than about a third of what the previously approved 750,000 square feet.

It's important to note that this project uh is using the latest technology as far as no evaporative cooling.

This is um we've done this before in the county, but this is um kind of the new standard for switch, and it's important to note that so the projections are that we'll actually have less water impact than what's currently approved on the project.

So there's also uh as I mentioned, substations provided on site um to service the project, which should um which will address and not only help the energy reliance system in the area, but we think will be a um benefit to everybody in the community.

So the waivers very specifically the ones uh of note, there may be more obviously uh at your discretion you might want to discuss, but the ones I think that are of note are the waiver of off-sites along Serene.

Um we we are not as you can see from this proposing anything on the the parcels adjoining Serene, therefore the waiver for the uh offside improvements along Serene.

There is also a waiver for um throat depth reduction along Richmar, which um it's only going to go into a switch yard.

So we the reason as you know is usually because they want a longer queue for potential turnouts and line, they don't want lines developing, but because it's a switch yard.

Um we don't believe that that that and staff concurs that that would necessarily be an impact on the community.

Um I should also mention that this project, unlike the last project currently approved, has 30 feet of buffer between our uh the property development and the neighbors to the north.

Um so that's something that's been done been done in a combination with the neighbors to the north.

Uh so uh and I should mention while I'm talking about the neighbors to the north.

We've had some uh ongoing discussions with the neighbors to the north, and they'd uh actually actually ask that I read something uh on the record here today.

So they wanted to just uh us to reaffirm that we're currently engaged in negotiations with the abutting neighbors to the north uh and the potential impacts on the development.

Both parties are committed to pursuing the process, and they've laid out with the goal to reach a resolution of any concerns.

So, with that being said, um we we think this is overall uh a good change, good revision to what's currently approved on the project.

We think it'll be less impacts.

Obviously, there's gonna be a lot less traffic because these uh data warehouses don't generate a lot of traffic as opposed to seven or ten buildings and seven hundred and fifty thousand square feet of uh industrial space.

So, with that, uh we're in com agreement with all of except all the staff's recommendations and would respectfully request your approval.

Thank you very much.

Uh this is a public hearing on items eight through twelve.

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

Good morning.

Morning, Commissioner Tommy Lepresti, 9341, uh Dean Martin Drive.

Um just became kind of familiar with the project recently.

Um I live in the area, not uh as close as the the north neighbors that they've been talking about.

There's obviously been a lot more communication with them than there has been with the rest of the the the area, which is a little bit um unsettling.

Uh we have a very tight-knit community group that's right down the street.

Uh we have a group of uh 300 neighbors that are very proactive and watching development in our area, and we were never reached out to.

I've never spoken to anybody about this.

Certainly a company like Switch doesn't need to uh waste time on on uh small neighbors to the north and south of an area, but it would have been nice to be a little bit more involved in this process as it came through.

Um it seems like we're almost already to the stages of approval for a lot of it.

So just a few you know issues that I would have had.

I mean, nine nine waivers of development standards on a completely barren piece of land really doesn't make sense to me.

Um I mean, last town board we had a neighbor that was trying to get a permit for a carport that was denied.

So here we have a residential neighbor just wanted a cover for his car in 120 degree heat, and he wasn't able to do it because of the height of the carport, which was gonna be lattice, not even a solid wall.

So um it's amazing some of the luxuries that some of these um contractors and developers get when it comes to their own particular projects.

So you know, we would just ask at least that they try to keep some of the interior landscaping.

That's a normal standard.

Uh I mean, this is a humongous cement project with steel roofs, I'm assuming that's gonna add quite a bit of heat to the area, and they're asking to remove uh, you know, for some reason for security purposes, no trees.

Um, so someone can't climb a tree and jump a 14-foot wall with spikes on top onto their property.

Um, you know, no landscaping on the interior doesn't really make sense to me.

There should they should be required to at least put some greenery.

Um I'm not sure what can be worked out, but right down the street from there, there's a cell tower that's dressed up like a palm tree.

So there's there's ways to make things that are a little bit sterile and industrial uh to kind of fit the the residential area and the feel of the of the neighborhood.

So we would kind of request that there be some more work put on uh outside and interior landscaping on a project like this.

Uh I can certainly approve I can appreciate the the thought process of less traffic and less cars.

That would be very much welcomed in this area since we've gotten bombarded with apartments and homes over the last few years.

Um, not the worst project in the world, but I certainly think I could use a little bit of tweaking before it gets a full approval.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Anyone else wishing to speak on items eight through twelve, please come forward at this time.

Good morning.

Good morning.

My name is Pam Kaiser.

I reside at 3485 Vicky Avenue.

Um I'm gonna just go ahead and read this, it'll be faster.

This is a residential neighborhood.

The data center is a size not compare compatible or comparable to existing families homes in the area that do new development across the street is a multifamily which has generated waivers of standard decreased density.

The data center is not compatible in mass height or acad architecture if existing homes.

The landscape requirement for data center is not aesthetically enhancing to the area.

It sounds like this is probably gonna go through, but if you are gonna put it through, they have 14-foot walls with spikes on top.

I don't know too many people that could probably get through that.

So the landscaping around it should be at least compatible with the neighborhoods so that they have something to look at besides walls.

Because if you're in a residential neighborhood and on a corner, we have to have low walls with wrought iron, so people can not have big walls around.

So why are they allowed to do this?

If we're going to go forward with it, please increase the landscaping trees.

Just the data center alone with the heat that's going to be generated off of it.

We need to not have as many rocks.

There's landscape ground cover that doesn't take a lot of water.

There's trees.

Please consider doing something a little different and not give them everything they need to give the neighborhood something to place.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak?

Please come forward.

Hi, uh, I'm Jade Fletcher.

I'm here with my husband Aaron Fletcher.

We live at 4813 West Richmar Avenue, which is literally right across the street from where they're thinking about doing this.

Um to give you a little bit of context.

Uh we purchased a home in August of last year of 2025.

I uprooted my one one-year-old and my three-year-old move from excuse me.

Move from California over to this area, and we really relied on uh the county records that showed that this was going to be an office warehouse space.

Uh so obviously a data center is very different than what we uh signed up for.

Um first of all, as you guys probably know, it runs 24-7.

Uh there's industrial cooling, backup generators, there's constant noise.

Like I said, I have two littles.

I'm trying to, you know, uh start a family and and settle down in Las Vegas here.

Um the other thing is we are on a private well, there's well contamination risk based on all of the uh different uh uh uh electronics and everything going in.

And as uh other neighbors mentioned as well, heat, uh light pollution, et cetera.

Um that being said, I think I think as everyone has mentioned, ideally it gets uh disapproved, but that being said, it sounds like things are already going to move forward.

So uh yes, landscaping, um, the the things about uh the increase of building height, the reduced setbacks, all of that is what protects residential neighborhoods from said industrial neighborhoods, which is why they're in place.

So then waiving it is pretty alarming in in my book.

Um at the end of the day, like I said, we we really just want to be able to settle this is what we were trying to uh we didn't sign up for this.

Um so ideally, if it is going to go through, make it a little bit as everyone has said, um, make it more pleasant, make it a nice neighborhood to raise kids.

That's really what our idea of being here was or is thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak on items eight through twelve?

Please come forward.

Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing.

Commissioner Jones.

Thank you.

I'm gonna ask Mr.

Garcia to come back up to the podium.

But in the meantime, uh uh for the last speaker, I uh absolutely understand your concerns.

However, this this development uh was approved in 2023 for a high-density industrial development, which would have had substantially more uh truck parking, truck traffic, noise, all of the above on Serene, and also it's adjacent to the existing National Guard Armory.

Um, and I know for a fact, having been to the armory with staff here, uh, that they do drive their tanks and other vehicles around there.

So those were things that existed before you purchased the home.

I'm really sorry for what you what you feel, but unfortunately, these were things that happened before you purchased your home in 2025.

Ms.

Garcia, can you address the uh landscaping questions?

My understanding is not that all landscaping is being uh requested to be waived, but only trees.

Can you provide more information about that?

Yes, Commissioner once again, Ed Garcia for the record.

Uh my understanding is that that is correct.

We're not waving everything internally, and part of the question here becomes what it's internal to the project, and frankly, um, because some of the exterior being the way it is, a lot of these um are really for internal use for the folks who are actually at the data center.

Uh, I would like to just make a couple quick points.

Height is not we're not exceeding the height that's currently approved.

We're not exceeding what was previously approved on on the location.

Uh I meant mentioned the issue about the um landscaping, and we're happy to do that at your uh pleasure uh to reiterate that it is simply just the trees, and that obviously again for concerns internal to how the operational concerns the heat issue, it's actually going to be very responsive to the heat question.

Actually, everybody knows that heat isn't conducive to what having a data warehouse.

So a lot of the things, structures that are put in, I think we're uh our uh this rate's very high on the sustainability scale because of that because you want to reduce heat because it means less um that we have to cool the internal buildings.

So um just want to clarify those couple points.

Okay.

All right, and just to be clear, this is switch does not uh water is always an issue with data centers.

Um can you clarify uh switches approach to water conservation?

Uh I'm certainly not not an expert about the operations uh of the uh non-evaporative cooling, but it is a closed loop system, so it is doesn't utilize evaporative cooling, so uh as much as I've been told like a radiator, so being closed loop, that's what that tells me.

And so it doesn't simply you know, single use uh evaporative cooling for which we see in past in the past.

Okay.

With regards to the properties to the north, you've put your uh comments on the record.

I've had conversations with more uh several of the neighbors on that side.

Obviously, that's between you and them.

Um, in the event that switch purchases those lots or some of those lots, then you understand that you'll have to come in for an additional application.

Yes, I look forward to seeing me with you again, Commissioner.

And that application may mean that the waivers along Serene uh for off-site improvements, I would say probably won't be granted because we expect uh the improvements to be made on Serene.

The only reason they are not being required right now is because there are rural neighborhood uh neighbors on that side of the proposed project.

Completely understand.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Okay.

All right.

Uh with those considerations, I'll go ahead and move for approval agenda items eight through twelve.

Thank you.

There's a motion for approval of items eight through twelve.

Please cast your vote.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

Next are items 14 through 16.

Item 14 ZC 25-0171.

Holdover zone change to be classified 0.92 acres from RS20, residential single family 20 zone to an IP industrial park zone, generally located in north on Maul Avenue and east of Spencer Street within Paradise.

Item 15 VS 25-0173.

Holdover, vacate and abandon a portion of right-of-way being Mall Avenue, located between Spencer Street and Eastern Avenue within Paradise.

And item 16 DR 25-0172.

Holdover design review to expand a transportation service facility on 3.19 acres in an IP industrial park zone within the airport of Irons, AE60 overlay.

Generally located north of Mall Avenue and east of excuse me, west of Eastern Avenue within Paradise.

Good morning.

Mr.

Chair, good morning.

On behalf of the applicant with me this morning is also Mr.

Jair Mayhall.

He's the legal counsel and risk manager and part owner of Winstar Lines, which is the applicant.

And then we also have Nemesio, which is the operations manager here locally.

I'll try to keep my comments very brief.

I think we've gotten to a point where we've reached some form of agreement with some conditions, which I'll get to in a second.

So I know I know there's some neighbors here they might want to speak as well.

First item, let me run through the first two, is a zone change.

On the north side of Mall between Spencer and Eastern areas master planned industrial, we're coming in with a conforming zone change, uh, entirely consistent with what's been developing out there.

We're also within the AE60, which is subject to date average of daytime, nighttime noise impacts from the airport.

Uh we appreciate staff's recommendation of approval, and we are in agreement with all conditions of approval.

On the vacation abandonment, which was the second item, all we're doing is vacating a portion of Mall Avenue so that we could do the code requirement of a detached sidewalk.

Again, we're in agreement with all conditions of approval on that.

The final item, which is the one that's taken the longest, is the design review.

It's taken a number of years for us to get here.

We're finally happy to be here in front of you.

Uh we've worked with the neighbors quite a bit, at least that I'm aware of, at least over a year now, on various iterations of this plan that I'm going to showcase here.

The plan here is overlaid on the aerial, and I can get into the the details of the plan that you that is on file right now.

But basically, what we have is we're expanding a transportation service facility.

Currently, it exists.

Currently, it exists, the transportation service facility exists on this parcel, which is 1.2 acres.

It was originally approved in 2007, constructed, it's been operation since 2009.

What we are doing, or what our request is to expand that facility to incorporate this parcel and these two parcels as well for a total acreage, a total site acreage under the proposed plan of 3.2 acres.

So we believe that just from the expansion of that footprint alone will mitigate a lot of the issues that I'll talk about here in just a second.

So as you can see, it is industrial.

Now there is residential to the south, and that's where we've spent most of our time working with the residents.

Here's a more detailed plan with some call-outs and some highlights that we'll talk about here with the conditions of approval.

We've had probably four or five neighborhood meetings with the neighbors, again, going over over a year now, where we've elicited feedback from them.

We've incorporated their comments where we could, and still having a viable operation of a business here.

This plan that you see before you, I would say addresses the majority of their concerns, and not, and when I say addresses, not only mitigates but in some cases eliminates some of the concerns that they have, which is primarily noise, noise related.

Again, after those neighborhood meetings, I think this is probably maybe the eighth or ninth iteration of this plan that you have before you, and this is the one that we feel most comfortable with.

On this on the design review, what we've done is I've worked with their attorney to try to come up with a list of conditions that would be acceptable to us and to the majority of the neighbors.

May not be all the neighbors, but I think for the most part, it addresses all the concerns that have come up with this plan here, so that we basically what we present to you is what we're gonna stick to.

This is what we're gonna do.

And those conditions I believe Jennifer has a copy of 10 or I'm sorry, 11 conditions that we are amenable to incorporating as part of the notice of final action.

I know their attorney is also uh happy with those conditions, and I'll let her speak and I'll let the neighbor speak as well.

But I guess Jennifer, would you like me to read these into the record or just submitting them with the minor revision would be would suffice?

I think it would be best to read into the record.

Okay.

I'll do this quickly.

So the conditions that we are agreeing to and that we'd like to put on record for this design review for item uh item 16.

First condition is one year to review as a public hearing.

Second condition is no on-street parking on Mall Avenue for any employees andor coaches or buses that are part of our business.

Eastern driveway, which is describable here, is for entrance only, and the western driveway here is for exit or egress only.

All coaches that exit this driveway will no longer travel on mall to eastern.

They will go west to Spencer and up to sunset.

We are providing a 10-foot high.

Let me show you the exhibit here, just so that you can see what it looks like.

We are providing a long mall back of landscaping, which we're providing an additional five.

So we're we're providing a total of 20 feet of street landscaping on mall.

Behind that landscaping, we are doing a 10-foot high, and that would be condition number five, a minimum 10-foot high decorative block wall with solid gates as depicted on the plan.

The gates to remain closed when business is closed, but in no case shall gates be open beyond the daytime hours.

And what that means is we have uh daytime hours, which are 6 a.m.

to 10 p.m.

Sometimes the business closes early, sometimes it doesn't.

But in no case shall those gates remain open after 10 p.m., which is daytime hours.

That again, that is condition number six.

Uh number seven, which we agreed to is to train all the new drivers to ensure compliance with these conditions of approval and to include, but not limited to, of course, no parking on the street, no beeping of the horns, and adhering to the established noise and idling parameters per the air quality regulations.

There are there are regulations that indicate the maximum amount of time that you can idle in this case a bus or a coach.

We are in full compliance with that.

Landscaping, block wall, and gates along mall, as you see on this plan, to be completed during the first phase of construction.

The idea is, of course, to do all the grading, get our uh technical studies like our drainage study, off site improvement, civil plans done at one time.

It could all be done in one phase, but if there's a possibility that it's done in more than one phase, we are agreeing to doing the streetscape again, off sites, curb gutter sidewalk, full with paving, landscaping, and the block wall during the first phase of construction.

Condition number nine, full compliance with the air quality provisions regarding the amount of time the motor coaches are idling, and to not keep the vehicles in reverse for any extended length of time due to the beeping, of course, that occurs by them doing that.

Condition number 10 coaches or buses, and we use that term interchangeably, uh, that enter after hours of operation of the business to park in designated after hours operation parking spaces per plans.

And what we are saying, in essence, the intent by that, very wordy way of saying that any buses that come in after hours, they have to pull in to these parking spaces designated in the northwest portion of the site so that precludes them from backing up and of course making that noise pollution.

And then finally, uh condition number 11, maximum number of buses to be 52, which is what we're showing on this plan.

Eight designated parking spaces dedicated after hours and limit the driveway and access points as to what we're showing here.

Two driveways, one is ingress, the other is uh excuse me, the other is egress.

Uh, and any of those conditions can only be waived or modified through a public hearing, which we intend to do with condition number one.

If if it turns out that we're operating and the eight is insufficient when we do the review, then we can address the issue of possibly expanding the designated after hours parking spaces.

So those are the conditions that we have that uh Liz and I worked on, their attorney.

Uh I'll let her speak at this point in time.

But we from from our from Winstar Lines and my applicant, we respectfully request your approval per these conditions and per the plans that we have before you.

Thank you.

If that concludes your presentation, I'll go ahead and open up the public comment at this time.

Anyone wishing to speak on items 14 through 16 can come forward.

Good morning.

Hi, good morning, Commissioners.

Liz Sarokak, 8965 Southeastern Avenue, here on behalf of several of the neighbors who live across mall to the south of this proposed uh expansion.

And uh three of them are here today to speak with respect to the conditions that Denisio read into the record.

Uh the neighbors are supportive of those and in favor of them.

They do have a couple of items that unfortunately we were not able to come to conditions on, uh, and they're going to take their time this morning to speak on those.

Uh, but with respect to those conditions, they are in agreement with those conditions, and I appreciate all of the efforts that Denisio made uh with these additional conditions and staff as well, um, as well as the owner and operator of the facility.

So thank you for that.

And I'm gonna give the neighbors opportunity to speak.

Um, but I did want to confirm that we're we're good with the conditions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone wishing to speak on items 14 through 16, please come forward.

Good morning, everyone.

Uh dear Clare County Commissioners, uh, my name is Kenny Apardo Moscoso, and my home is located located directly behind the bus company property at 2100 East Maul Avenue.

I'm speaking today because the proposed zoning change will significantly increase noise levels immediately adjacent to a residence, particularly affecting our second floor primary bedrooms that face the street and have no buffer or sound protection from Maul Avenue.

We already experienced constant noise from the site 24-7.

If this rezoning is approved, we respectfully request that you restore our basic right to the quiet enjoyment of our property by requiring the following reasonable low cost conditions.

Replace the constant reverse warning beeps with white noise or broadband broadband sound alerts.

This is proven in available technology that effectively warns workers without disturbing neighbor neighboring homes, and mandate continuous real-time noise monitoring using certified equipment with data logged and made publicly available, request the operator to submit detailed monthly reports to Clark County and directly to affected residents.

These are in big requests.

They are basic courtesy that should have been in place from day one.

No not something we residents have to fight for, and I believe it is why we citizens elect you to protect our quality of life or right to sleep, relax and feel safe at home.

We shouldn't be the ones policing a company that knows we are right there.

If you approve this sun change, please make it conditional.

Require the operator to be subject to noise monitoring at all times.

Thank you for listening.

Thank you very much.

Anyone else wishing to speak?

Please come forward.

Good morning.

Uh my name is Gino Yates.

I live at 2072 culmination lane.

2072 culmination lane.

Uh it's directly across the street from 2100 Mall Avenue.

And uh the reason why I'm here is uh I do agree with most of the provisions, but like Kenya mentioned, we would like the white noise on the buses to be implemented, hopefully within the next three months, because just to show you give you an example right here of the noise that the buses make uh so you can hear it for yourself.

Um see if I can turn this on right here.

This happens uh 24 hours a day.

I mean, it could happen at two o'clock in the morning, one o'clock in the morning, uh any time.

And the current plan, the way it's set up right now, these buses would be backing into this area right here and still making that kind of noise during the daytime.

We don't know if it's gonna effectively block the noise at night.

So I this is this happens.

Look at it, it's backing up into the street right there, and you can see that that is not something that anybody would want to have to live with.

So but and so I actually proposed a different plan right here, which would I think I if we uh uh if if they actually consider it right here, this is the ingress right here for Ma in Mall Avenue and the same egress right here, but the parking structure is different right here, where they would have 54 spaces, there's plenty of room north and south of the lot right here, and um there's also employee parking on both sides where we're not exactly impacted by the uh buses right here backing in.

This would be cars, employee parking for the cars.

And instead of having the um oh, what is it called?

The maintenance shop right here, the maintenance shop could be right here in the back.

Just to make sure our record is clear.

Could you thanks?

We got it, we hear it.

The beeping loud and clear.

I just want to make sure we can hear you.

Oh, okay.

Thank you.

Okay, I apologize.

And uh so the maintenance shop right here.

I I'm just asking you to pause your video.

Oh, I'm sorry, yes.

Thank you.

Okay.

So you can see how annoying that is right there, right?

So that's what we're dealing with day and night.

I mean, we've talked to Commissioner Gibson, and I I graciously uh uh appreciate his time that he gave us.

And so uh, but anyways, these are some of the things we want.

The white noise alarm, I think, would alleviate all that.

It is OSHA approved, it is approved by Nevada.

I have the uh codes right here, and uh so we would ask that the company uh would implement these right here so that way um it's uh it says yes, OSHA above uh allows white noise uh backup alarms on coach buses backing into Nevada official uh position, clear and direct, uh federal OSHA explicitly permits broadband white noise reverse alarms, and I think there's uh these are some of the uh codes right here that approve that.

So uh anyways, we're hoping that that would be something that you'd consider and then that would be required for the buses right now in the meantime.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you very much.

Anyone else wishing to speak?

Please come forward.

Morning.

David Ivey, 2056 culmination, right behind the the property.

Um they said everything that that sound is what we live with 24-7.

Um and you know, I received this.

It says, Do you oppose or approve you know the plan?

I like their plan, I appreciate their plan.

And I approve it.

But it's under duress.

I'm only doing I'm only approving it.

I'm only for that to stop this because this is what we have now.

I feel like I'm muscled and feel like I'm extorted, legally extorted.

But if this doesn't go through, we go back to that.

And there's no plan that if this doesn't go through.

So I'm kind of in a uh in a tight spot to I have to approve this because we can't live with what this is right now.

So I'm gonna it's it's it's a Sopranos episode.

We've all seen it.

Tony buys a house on the water.

He doesn't want to want it anymore, has to give his deposit back.

What is what does he do?

Parts of boat outside the house playing music all night until the guy finally relents and gives them his money back.

That's that's where I feel like I'm at.

I'm muscled into agreeing with this.

You know, but it seems like that's what we have to do.

So this is what we would live with now.

If this helps it, great.

I don't have a choice.

We have to agree with it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak?

Good morning.

Johnny Flanagan, 1745 Rockwell Lane.

Uh, on the east side of town.

I'm just coming in.

Uh what I'm concerned about is uh carbon monoxide poisoning.

Uh I see a big fence coming up, and we have windy days.

I see two people here from the back side.

Is that carbon and oxide poisoning because a bus is going to affect these their families by uh uh polluting their uh their house, their air conditioning or anything else?

That's just a question I would put out there.

Carbon monoxide poisoning is pretty serious.

Uh we do we gab it within our school district uh because the buses are all together.

That's the most time that uh it can be effectively hurting human beings.

Uh I'm just uh curious about that.

I'll let you all have that to play with.

Thank you.

Last call for anyone wishing to speak on items 14 through 16.

Please come forward.

Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing.

Commissioner Gibson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh Mr.

Gordillo, please uh come back up.

Uh first of all, the white noise.

Have you and your client taken a look at uh the white noise solution?

So yes, the simple answer is yes.

The problem is we I guess my first question is why didn't this come up a year ago?

This all the white noise issue only came up with in the last 48 hours.

Well, in fairness, and so we are we are looking at in fairness, Dionisio, the issue of the noise came up at the very beginning.

So absolutely the solution that they came up with as an alternative didn't come up until somebody found it, I think.

But in the end, we've been very concerned about the bus backup beeping.

Yeah.

And that has been our number one issue.

So I I'm kind of disappointed to hear Mr.

Ivey, we're not in any way trying to put the screws on him.

There's just, you know, the reality right now of what we have out there is we have the current site plan.

I don't know if you can sorry.

The current site plan, which is on a little bit over one acre, there's absolutely no way for these coaches to enter or exit this property without backing up.

That's the reality.

And you know, those so that's those are the cards that they were dealt with, those are the cards that we were dealt with when we purchased the property.

The idea, of course, is to expand it, that footprint, so that we in some cases eliminate some of that noise.

Uh and I believe that we can.

I I think we're there with the not only show issue of separation, distance from their perimeter block wall, but also with some of the sound barriers that we're doing along the mall with that uh with that 10-foot high block wall, we we think we can minimize and in some cases eliminate some of that noise.

Now, in the end, will it still happen?

Yes, but not to the extent that they're experiencing right now under that small parcel that's there now.

So on the white noise issue, um, right up to Winstar Lines, we are looking into it.

We're uh we're committed to it.

Uh we're just unsure, not just OSHA if it's OSHA compliant, but also whether it meets insurance requirements.

So that's where we're at with the white noise.

So I I can't stand up here and and commit to a condition other than some form of advisory where we will look into it and and if it if I I think it's I think it's great.

I've listened to it uh you know, ever since it came up.

I've been on the internet Googling all that, and yeah, I think it minimizes the noise, but at this point in time we just don't know whether it would meet all the requirements to be able to retrofit our coaches with that white noise.

So in your mind, what would be a fair condition related to looking into the white noise?

I think we could certainly add that to the one-year review.

If in fact we well, obviously, if we we find that it does meet OSHA and it does comply with insurance requirements, then yeah, we will we will retrofit our coaches.

So could we could impose a condition that indicates that if it meets with the requirements of your insurance carrier?

So could we could impose a condition that indicates that if it meets with the requirements of your insurance carrier, and uh and as suggested here meet uh meets OSHA requirements that you'd be willing to be obligated to do it.

Yes, Commissioner, I I guess the only issue is if we would get something from OSHA saying yes, you meet that, or is there provisions in place that say that's that this white noise specifically meets that requirement?

Okay.

Do you have anything further?

No, I just again I I just wanted to address Mr.

Ivy's comment.

We're not in any way trying to pressure, I mean, we've you know we've tried to work with all the neighbors, try to come up with a solution, and we do believe that our plan honestly addresses a lot of those concerns.

And I mean, in the end, I think we can show that once this thing is once this is expanded that we'll it will eventually virtually eliminate some of that some of that noise impacts that they're that they're subject to right now.

That's it.

Thank you.

So we first got into this um by a call from the neighbors, and we have uh my staff and I have both been over to this area at different hours of the day, and what we have observed are pretty much what the the uh neighbors are complaining about.

The thing that I think militates in favor of the development is that the only way to improve operating conditions over there and the living conditions of the folks that are your neighbors is if the expansion occurs.

I think was it Mr.

Ivey who is willing grudgingly to support it simply because he doesn't he can't tolerate where he is today.

Now I get that the first um approval was given in 2007.

I mean it's been a long time.

Um there obviously since these people moved into these homes, they've been enduring uh the noise.

We need to take care of that just as quickly as we can.

And if it turns out that, and I'm gonna impose that additional condition of the white noise, but I'm going to suggest to you that if it turns out that the insurance carrier responds that OSHA that is is OSHA compliant and that your people can be trained in a way that enables this to happen quickly.

I think it ought to be one of the first things you do uh as a gesture of good faith uh to the neighborhood.

Their principal concern has been the noise.

I mean, it it doesn't take care of the sound of a diesel uh bus pulling in uh in the middle of the night or at some hour after people have gone to bed.

Um that we can't do anything about.

But what we can do is address this backup beeping.

So I I'm maybe you need to turn and get a nod from your client, but I'm gonna expect that you're going to determine at the earliest possible time whether or not it is compliant fully with your insurance carrier's requirements and with OSHA standards, and if so, that you will begin to do the conversion at that time.

Is that agreeable?

I can go on record saying that we've had that discussion, he's fully committed to that.

Uh again, it was just we didn't hear that until the last 48 hours.

So yes, we are we are moving forward on trying to determine one if we can meet those requirements, and if so, yeah, start to retrofit those those coaches.

So for the neighbors um edification, we've met with Dionisio a number of times.

We've agreed that the item isn't ripe yet for processing until we uh have uh further what I'm gonna say a cord, reach some agreements with the neighbors.

Uh thank you, Dionisio, for your diligence in staying with this thing and reaching out.

And Liz, we appreciate very much your involvement because I think it's helped an awful lot.

Uh so at this time I'm prepared to move approval uh subject to the conditions that have been read and the one additional uh requirement that uh the related to the white noise.

Do you need me to say it again or is it clear?

I think it's clear, thank you.

Can I just ask one thing?

Um not sure, Denisio, if we have the plans with the elevation of the wall.

I know we have the revised site plan, but if we don't have that, can you please give it to you?

No, you should.

It should it was submitted.

Okay.

The the the hold on, let me make sure this is this one, correct.

Yep, that's it.

Yeah, okay, thank you.

We're square.

Yes.

One other thing that is worth noting.

This is not a condition, but I I think it's important for you to know this.

There are administrative things that come to us occasionally when a project is in process.

And uh instead of treating it entirely as an administrative thing on this item, anything that comes forward will be shared with the neighbors with their council, so that there aren't surprises.

What's going to be really important here is that we're forthright, that everyone understands what's going in and when the more communication the better.

And so know that uh and make sure that your contractor and others understand that if anything comes in is it that would otherwise be permissible to take action upon administratively.

It won't just be my office.

We're going to make sure that we reach out and people get to see it.

Is that understood?

Okay.

Absolutely.

So thank you for your work.

Thank you, Liz.

Thank you, uh folks from the neighborhood.

We appreciate very much the way you've constructively taken a look at this.

Not an easy thing for you.

I get that.

But the hope is that this development will actually improve things, even though it expands the yard.

The only way to improve the things that you've been complaining about, I think, is to allow the expansion and then put the requirements on that we're putting on it.

So thank you very much for that.

My motion is to approve, subject to the conditions and the one additional condition that I just read or commented upon.

There's a motion for approval on item 14, 15, and 16.

Please cast your vote.

That motion passes.

And thank you, Commissioners.

Thank you, Commissioner Kitchen.

Thank you.

And just a point of clarification, we've received some cards on item 28.

If anyone is still in the audience on item 28, those items have been held, so they will not be heard today.

Thank you.

Next, excuse me.

Next item is item 27.

ET 26-4005 for WS19-0607.

Holdover waivers of development standards, third extension of time for the following.

One reduced parking, two reduced parking lot landscaping, three reduced distance to call box, and four trash enclosure separation.

Design review for a multifamily residential development on 1.87 acres in an RM32 residential multifamily 32 zone, generally located east of Stephanie Street and South of Hasias Hasienda Avenue alignment within Whitney.

Good morning.

Good morning, Jennifer Lazovich, 1980 Festival Plaza Drive here this morning on behalf of the applicant.

We are here requesting an extension of time for a proposed multifamily project that would be located just here on the east side of Stephanie.

Over the last uh handful of years since this has been approved.

Uh, when we originally approved, uh got the project approved, we had shown on-street parking on Stephanie.

That has now been pulled off of Stephanie and on to the on-site parking for the entire project.

Um, in terms of where we are with permitting and plans and studies, uh, we did get a traffic study and a drainage study approved.

The civil improvement plans have been approved and bonded.

There is a nuance to that.

We do have a revision in that is reflecting um on our civil improvement plans that on street parking being shown entirely on the site.

That has not yet been approved.

Uh we also have paid um NV Energy, approximately 128,000 uh for power Southwest Gas is about 28,000.

We do have permitting um in with the building department, but obviously we need a revision approved to the civil improvement plans for those permits to issue.

Financing is also in place for this project, so I would say we are finally ready to go at that point.

Um, one other note that I did want to bring up about the number of parking spaces.

The staff report reflects a number that was um what we originally got approved, and it was also when uh the prior Title 30 was in effect, which required more parking when you apply the current Title 30 standards to this project.

We um I believe the numbers are 78 parking spaces would be required where 88 spaces are being provided.

So the new code actually reduced the required number of parking for multifamily.

Um I just wanted to note that for the record, and I will be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much.

Uh this is a public hearing.

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

Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing on item 27.

Uh Commissioner Gibson.

Are there additional things that are of concern to you that we've not heard this morning?

In other words, what about these studies?

Most of those studies I would defer to public works.

And Mr.

Proposia.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Excuse me.

Just as of so when the staff report was written, the off-site permit was due to expire.

And as of last week, we have renewed it administratively.

So as of right now, I believe it's a one-year extension, and that will most likely be the last extension of time that they get on those off-site permits.

If they need additional time, they'll have to come back in front of the board to ask for additional time on the civil permit.

And that comports with your understanding.

Yes, thank you.

This is a really difficult parcel.

And um getting the parking off the street, I think is the right thing to do.

The traffic there is increasing all the time.

The other thing that I think gets some serious attention is the homeless and their access to the wash.

Because at the southern portion, right on the southern edge of that thing.

If you go over there any day, there are homeless in that area.

And I drive by there every time I have an item or an event at Whitney.

Um just to make sure that I'm not misunderstanding what's happening on that property.

So it's important to get it going.

We're happy uh that uh you've figured out what you think will work, and our hope is that it goes forward, and with that I move approval of the extension.

Thank you.

There's a motion for approval on item 27.

Please cast your vote.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is item 31, UC 26-0075.

Use permits for the following one, a proposed large-scale electric generation solar, proposed public utility structures, electric substation, battery energy storage system facility, utility poles, and overhead transmission lines, and all ancillary structures.

Three, a proposed communication tower and all associated equipment.

Two, eliminate buffering and screening, and three, modify residential adjacency standards.

Design reviews for the following one, a proposed large-scale electric generation solar facility, proposed public utility structures, including electric substation, battery energy storage system, utility poles and overhead transmission lines, and all ancillary structures, and three, a proposed communication tower and all associated equipment on a 5,131.7 acre portion of a 9,661.4 acre site in an RS80 residential single family 80 zone and an H2 General Highway Frontage Zone, generally located south of U.S.

Highway 95 and west of Sky Road Alignment within Northwest County.

Good morning.

Good morning.

My name is Levi Cox.

I'm here representing EDF Power Solutions.

Um we agree with the uh staff findings and the conditions, and I'm here to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

If that completes your presentation, I'll open the public hearing on item 31.

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

Good morning.

Hi, good morning, Commission.

Uh my name is Alison Farr.

I'm with Solar United Neighbors.

I live in North Las Vegas at 2332 Nature Park Drive.

And I'm here generally in support of large-scale solar projects.

Um I work for Solar United Neighbors.

We are a nonprofit advocacy and technical assistance, a group that provides unbiased practical information regarding solar energy.

And we are here in today regarding the Bonanza project.

Because we're nonpartisan and developer neutral and project neutral, we're not able to support this particular project, but we do generally support well-sided large-scale solar and battery projects with sun being so abundant here in Nevada.

Nevada is uniquely positioned to lead in solar energy.

And this local generation minimizes transmission costs as well.

Projects like Bonanza can help strengthen energy and independence at local, state, and national levels.

Developing energy here at home reduces reliance on global forces and builds more resilient systems.

Project like this, projects like this create uh major economic opportunity for the county through federal solar revenue sharing.

This is a program that started early this year, and it allows for 50% of the revenues that are generated on BLM land to stay locally, 25% for the host county and 25% for the host state.

These are unrestricted long-term annual guaranteed payments that last for the lifetime of the project, so that's usually decades.

Most projects we're seeing stretching out into 30 years of generation.

They can help fund community needs such as public safety, schools, infrastructure, anything that the county needs.

This kind of this kind of stability is especially important given the volatile oil and gas markets that we're currently seeing.

Global events are completely outside of our control, but solar is local and we can rely on it day in and day out.

And uh we have no natural gas sources in the state of Nevada, so relying on local homegrown energy generation just makes sense for all of us.

Solar can provide more predictable, stable sources of energy revenue.

Of course, projects like this also need to go through strong environmental and siting standards, as well as consider community voices and input.

When responsibly cited, solar can offer real benefits to Clark County's economic energy energy future.

And I just want to let you know I have more detail that I emailed into the commission regarding all of these topics.

Thank you so much, and we're here as a resource to the commission.

Thank you, Ms.

Farr.

Uh next speaker, good morning.

Hello, good morning.

My name is Manuel Santa Maria, and I live at 9244, Austin Valley Court, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89143, and I am here with Veterans Power America, and we are also a nonprofit that uh concerns itself with citing green energy and renewable projects, mostly towards uh workforce development for veterans and to get them trained over once they leave the service to you know what's supposed to be the future of Nevada.

Um, the biggest thing that we do is we are in support of this project, and we're in support of it because um, as the previous speaker mentioned, um, we are in support of more energy that's more efficient, therefore more affordable, especially for veterans who are on fixed incomes.

So we are in support of this project, and we are also here as a resource to the community in order to help connect veterans to these types of jobs.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

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

Good morning.

Hello, Commission.

My name is Christian Bato.

Address is 4016 Evening Breeze Court.

As a resident of district C, I would like to voice my support for the battery energy storage storage system project that is being proposed in item 31 and urge your vote of approval for this entire item.

In my previous role, I served as a senior advisor for the Department of Energy for Western Affairs, and I was able to see the multitude of potential that Western states would have in the clean energy transition.

In Nevada, it became very clear to me that the lithium economy is a place where we would be able to diversify our economy and also lead the way domestically and internationally.

Projects like these have the opportunity to not only highlight the net Nevada lithium life cycle that is taking place in northern Nevada, but also shows that the technological innovation that can take place in projects such as these will spur growth and generation and generate tons of energy and potential for Nevada to lead the way internationally.

It is for this reason that I believe you should vote for this project and support and look to support other means for battery energy storage systems in Clark County moving forward.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak on item 31, please come forward.

Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing.

Commissioner Becker.

Uh yes, the the applications on this project began, I believe, in 2008, and we are now at a point where I'm excited to see this go forward.

And we've got about 10,000 acres out in the middle of northern on the way to Indian Springs, not quite there.

So I'm happy to see that you guys are progressing.

And I think with the conditions that this uh project needs to begin in the next two years from this approval.

So with that, I would uh motion to approve.

Thank you.

There's a motion for approval of item 31.

Please cast your vote.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

Next items 32 through 34 that can be heard together.

Vacant Nebaton apportion of right-away being Kapavia Avenue located between Procyon Street and Valley View Boulevard.

And a portion of right away being Procyon Street, located between Cappa Via Avenue and Warm Springs Road within Enterprise.

Good morning.

Sorry.

Oh no, I'm sorry.

Sorry about that.

Item number three V uh WS 26-0101.

Waiver's development standards for the following.

One reduce setback two wave neighborhood protection, RMP overlay standards, and three-way full off site improvements.

Design review for single family residential development on 7.85 acres in an RS20 residential single family 20 zone within the neighborhood protection RMP and airport environments AE6C overlays.

Generally located north of Warm Springs Road and east of Valley View Boulevard within Enterprise.

And item number 34, TM26-50026.85 acres and an RS20 residential single family 20 zone within the neighborhood protection RMP and Airport Environments E60 overlays.

Generally located north of Warm Springs Road and east of Valley View Boulevard within Enterprise.

Okay, good morning.

Good morning, Mr.

Chairman, Commissioners.

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

As you can see on the aerial, our sites highlighted in yellow, located on the northeast corner of Valley View and Warm Springs.

It is a former uh aviation property that Poulti was the winning bidder in.

What we're coming forward with is a uh uh development that will have 15 lots.

You can see consisting of two two cul-de-sacs, one with eight lots, one with seven that will comply with the RMP standards.

Um a couple of the waivers we have um are really more technical.

You can see along Warm Springs and Valley View, those waivers are with respect to it says requesting no off-site improvements.

However, the reason that waivers before you is that actually the county will be responsible for those improvements to provide the detached sidewalk through their uh improvement plan there.

Um just this illustration shows that we are capturing those improvements there that the county is responsible for along Valley View and Decay, uh excuse me, your long Valley View and Warm Springs, which will be detached sidewalks.

So you have your five feet of landscaping, five feet of sidewalk, five feet of landscaping.

And what this also shows is that Poulte will add additional uh anywhere from eight to ten feet of landscaping behind the county's landscaping.

So you'll have a nice landscaped area down Warm Springs and Valley View.

Um, also part of those waivers uh are with respect to Kappa Via and Procyon here, or um yeah, Kappa Via and Procyon.

We are proposing to do full off-site improvements there.

So we will provide the uh curb gutter side or detached sidewalks.

Um however, the waiver is more specific to no uh street landscaping on those two sides.

We are in the or excuse me, no uh street lights, I'm sorry, not landscape.

We're providing all the landscaping, but rather no uh lighting there because we're in the RMP and like to preserve some of that darkness in there.

Uh finally, um, this is an issue that you have seen uh multiple times now.

One of our elevations, the one story that does not include the RV exceeds the 50 percent width here with our 10 foot setback.

Um if we had the RV, we would comply.

Um it only applies to this model.

Our two-story homes meet all the required setbacks.

This board has been very gracious in allowing no more than 50% of our lots to have that 10-foot setback.

Um so to impede in that 10-foot setback, we'd ask respectfully to uh carry on that same condition with this application.

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

Thank you very much.

This is a public hearing on item 32 through 34.

Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward.

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

Mr.

Papazian, you had something to add on this item.

I do, Commissioner, thank you.

Um because they are at asking for a waiver.

I've also conditioned them to the exact waiver they're asking for.

So I'd like to delete one of our uh conditions.

Uh bullet number four, offsite improvements to include curb gutter sidewalks, sidewalks, and street lights on Warm Springs Road and Valley View Boulevard.

Uh revised bullet number nine to read applicants shall coordinate a contribution with public works development review for the improvements on Warm Springs Road and Valley View Boulevard.

We do have a project on Warm Springs, it goes into Valley View.

It's already started and underway.

Uh I believe we started at Valley or um Dean Martin.

We're heading west.

So they will the reason for the waiver is for them to contribute so that we can install those improvements for them.

Mr.

Celeste, any questions on that?

Understood, thank you.

Very good.

There's nothing further.

I'll move for approval of items 32, 33, 34 with the deletion right into the record and the conditions uh put on the record by the applicant.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

Next are items 35 and 36, which can be heard together.

35 is VS 26-0108.

Vacate and abandoned easements of interest to Clark County located between Tropicana Avenue and Bell Drive Alignment and Kinkeistor Street and Grand Canyon Drive.

And a portion of right-of-way being Tropicana Avenue located between Kinke Kinquistor Street and Grand Canyon Drive within Spring Valley.

And item 36, WS 26-0107.

Weavers of development standards for the following one modify residential adjacency standards, two, eliminate and reduce buffering and screening.

Three increase retaining wall height, four increased maximum parking, and five reduced throat depth.

Design review for uh proposing uh excuse me, proposed shopping center on 7.88 acre portion of a 9.24 acre site in a CG commercial general zone, generally located south of Chapacana Avenue and west of Grand Canyon Drive within Spring Valley.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Good morning, Mark Moulhall, 1980 Festival Plaza Drive.

Here on behalf of the applicant.

The site is approximately 7.88 acres of the overall 9.24 acre site.

It's there located south of Tropicana Avenue and west of Grand Canyon Drive.

The site is zone commercial, and we're proposing a commercial plaza.

The development will consist of two quick service restaurants positioned at the main entrance off of Tropicana Ave.

There'll be three shops that'll consist of retail restaurants, various types of tenants can go into there.

There'll be a vehicle maintenance service center there at the eastern boundary.

And then pursuant to previous approval, there's cross access with the existing commercial development there on the corner.

The commercial plaza will be anchored by an EOS Fitness, which is positioned at the back of the commercial plaza.

And so that brings us to the first waiver.

It sounds like a lot of waivers, but it can kind of be explained through the story of the development.

There's the EOS Fitness, it is traditionally positioned at the back.

These large-scale fitness centers are positioned at the back of these commercial plazas.

And then that goes into one of the other waivers, which is requesting the maximum parking waiver.

We've seen EOS Fitness, LVAC, a lot of these get overparked.

People are circling around looking for parking.

So there's a large parking area for that.

If you were to actually take and parcel these uses out, it would end up being, we would be actually underparked compared to those uses.

So the parking is appropriate for this.

Additionally, too, as we move into the other waivers, there's two relating to retaining walls.

They both occur down in the southeastern portion.

And that's just due to the way the site breaks.

It breaks west to east.

It's needed for drainage.

We'll be cutting, so the site will be lower than those adjacent properties, which can reduce some visual impact.

Additionally, too, there's waivers related to residential adjacency standards, but there is an existing six-foot high wall, so we don't have a redundant wall to add that eight-foot wall.

And as mentioned, we're already going to be lower, so the six-foot wall will actually kind of have that impact.

We have a retaining wall in that area.

We'll still be able to landscape it.

Ultimately, it doesn't break out to 15 feet.

It's just under 15 feet, so there's a 10-foot portion and some change and then four foot and some change.

But we are committed to having the landscaping down in that portion to meet the intent of the residential buffering.

We're not required to have residential buffering to the senior housing to the west because it's zone commercial, but we're still doing so.

Additionally, we have uh landscaping islands every seven parking spaces rather than every six, but instead of just having one tree, we have three trees.

So we have 102 more trees than are required to show our commitment to the landscaping on this that we're not trying to avoid what's required of us.

Um, and then the reason there's not landscaping here is just because of that drainage uh just because of drainage.

Um so again, it's going to be a very attractive development.

Um I'll give an example of what kind of the elevations will look like, and then we're committed to having landscaping at the front along Tropicana.

It won't be a barren lot, there'll be trees and will be kind of modern, attractive looking buildings.

And then additionally, I want to uh thank Antonio and the public works team for working through an issue with us.

We originally had a driveway here to the west that was too close to the existing exit only driveway for the senior housing development.

We worked with them.

Um they're very great to work with.

We moved that driveway to the west, and then we also we originally had this open so you could access the QSR 1.

Um we realized that could create conflicts as people try to make right-hand turns and then try to get to the QSR 1 too quickly.

So now this will funnel folks into the site so that there's not queuing or conflicts there.

Um so we worked through that issue with them, just wanted to thank them.

Um, but I'm happy to answer any questions related to the project.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Uh, this is a public hearing on items 35 and 36.

Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward.

Seeing no one, Commissioner Jones.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Mr.

Pazian.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Um, I'd like to delete a uh condition where before they move the driveway further east.

I think Mr.

Mulhall said to the west, but when they moved it further east, it was uh in conflict with the driveway at the senior apartments, plus additional conflicts entering and egressing that driveway.

So I'd like to delete no access from the west driveway on Tropicana since they worked with us and slid that driveway to the east and made it safer.

Uh we appreciate them working with us on doing so.

Thank you.

Very good.

With that, I'll go ahead and uh I think that this meets the intent of the code when it comes to landscaping, having been in EOS fitness parking lots across town.

I know how challenging it can be just because of the um number of people who park and go to the gym.

So I understand the uh request for additional parking um there.

So I'll go ahead and move for approval again uh of agenda items 35 and 36.

There's a motion for approval on items 35 and 36.

Please cast your vote.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is item 38 WS 26-0048.

We resource development standards for the following.

One eliminate street landscaping, two eliminate parking area landscaping, three-way full off full offset improvements, and four alternative driveway geometrics.

Design review for proposed parking lot on 0.43 acres in a CG commercial general zone.

Generally located south of Hobson Street and east of US 95 within searchlight.

Good morning.

And for those of you who don't know where Nipton's at, we're about 20 miles west of searchlight on highway 164.

We purchased these pieces property in uh in searchlight.

And um we have no plans to park or store or use the small piece of asphalt.

It was in place when we bought this the last corner of the town block.

We are now the owners of the entire city block there.

It's probably not a city.

Our plan is to lease or sell this property.

We believe the town has a need for a general dollar or something similar.

A grocery store, a convenience store, or something to benefit the town and create jobs.

We would like to ask to please let the small piece of asphalt, the pavement remain in place.

When a development starts, we would then make sure it is brought up to compliance with the pavement in place.

It keeps the dust from blowing, which searchlight is very windy at times.

So and also when the rain comes and the asphalt is in place, the dirt won't be washed out into the streets and into the storm drains that are also already in place.

So it's just something that we'd like for you all to consider.

Thank you.

If that completes your presentation, I'll open the public comment on item 38.

Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward.

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

Mr.

Mrs.

Benson, I appreciate you coming back in again for this item to be heard.

I I agree that there wouldn't be any good that would come from ripping up this pavement without any plans of moving forward at this time.

I we've had a lot of conversations over several years now, and I think I understand the intention.

Mr.

Papazian, I want to be sure though that uh the county gets what the county needs when development does happen.

So what does that condition look like?

Commissioner, um we're okay with as long as they come in with you know with an application uh with future development.

I I see no problem with allowing uh everything to stay as is.

We'll get them with future development, we'll condition them as such when uh we see that application.

Okay.

So with that understanding, I'll go ahead and move for approval of third item 38.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

Next are items 39 and 40, which can be heard together.

Item 39 is WS 26 0080.

Waivers of Development Standards for the following one increase retaining wall height, two, modify residential adjacency standards, three, eliminate and reduce street landscaping, and four allow an attached sidewalk.

Design review for proposed single family residential development on 3.44 acres and an RS 3.3 residential single family 3.3 zone.

Generally located North Eldora Avenue and west of West Road within Spring Valley, and item 40 TM 26 500 021 map consisting of 25 single family lots and common lots on 3.44 acres and an RS 3.3 single family 3.3 zone, generally located north of Eldora Avenue and west of Westman Road within Spring Valley.

Good morning.

Good morning, Mark Mulhall, 1980 Festival Plaza Drive here on behalf of the applicant.

Um so this was approved back in November 2025.

The bulk of the application, it's a site that's 3.44 acres.

It's located north of Eldora Avenue and west of Westwind Road.

Sahara Avenue is there up to the north, so there's commercial, and then we have RP neighbors to the south and a couple RP neighbors to the east and to the west.

Um there'd been some changes that required us to come back to a public hearing.

So we've actually reduced the site plan by two lots, so we are approved for 27 lots.

We're coming back with 25 lots.

That allows us to have all single story on the southern portion of the site as requested by the neighbors.

It creates more of a true transition between the two stories up here with the DR Horton and with ours from the commercial down to the RP, so we'll be able to have the single stories.

Um, but additionally, with that, we are asking for a waiver to allow an attached sidewalk where detached sidewalk is required.

We'll still have the detached sidewalk along West Wyn, where it's the side and backyards and where there'll be a wall, but this is just for the portion of the five lots where it's their front yards where they face the RP, where there's not currently sidewalks, there's not currently sidewalks to our western neighbors or to our eastern neighbors that are also RP.

Um, so we'd respectfully request for the changes for the 25 lots to allow the single story and then as well as the attached sidewalk in lieu of the detached sidewalk where we have those RNP neighbors.

Um happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

This is a public hearing.

Anyone wishing to speak on items 39 and 40?

Please come forward at this time.

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

Commissioner Jones.

Move approval agenda items 39 and 40.

There's a motion for approval.

Please cast your vote.

The item passes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is item 41 WS 26-0094.

Weavers of development standards for the following.

One increase fence and wall height, and two increase the number of driveways in conjunction with the single family residence on 1.14 acres and an RS20 residential single family 20 zone within the neighborhood protection RMP overlay.

Generally located south of Chartan Avenue and west of Placid Street within Enterprise.

Good morning.

Good morning.

My name is Carlos Hernandez.

Uh for 111 85 South Places Street, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89183.

Uh we're seeking approval for the uh eight click fence and the two driveways.

Uh the eight-foot fence is basically for the front of the property.

Uh we have conceded to only the six-foot walls for the uh side and back of the property, and we're just looking to see if we can go ahead and be allowed to put in an eight-foot fonts, uh eight-foot fence with um basically a combination of uh CMU wall, decorative, and also decorative iron, what red iron.

And uh, this is a design right here.

What we're looking at, we're just looking at this is the front elevation.

Um we did take some pictures of basically uh a conceptual idea of what we're looking at doing, and this is one of them if you can see that.

So we're just kind of looking at this kind of a design, and the only reason for the height is because it is uh concerned that there are uh adult coyotes all in the area all the time, and uh we're just concerned about safety of our children.

That's it.

Thank you.

If that completes your presentation, I'll open up the public hearing on item 41.

Uh I believe there is some public here if you want to have a seat.

Uh please come forward at this time.

Welcome back.

Good morning, good morning, Commissioners.

My name is Biagio Guerra.

I live on 11165 Place Street.

Uh I'm right next to this property over here on this side over there on the on the north side.

And the reason why I'm here today because last time at um uh at the town board meeting was proposed an eight-foot wall.

So they were trying to increase the wall from six feet to eight feet.

So we were opposing to that.

Now I guess it's been changed, and now it shows uh six feet high.

But I want to make sure that we we be they build a six feet wall there on this portion over here.

There's an existing block wall, which is also six feet from here to there.

Mr.

Biyagi, we we just can't see exactly where you're pointing.

If you want to lower the image, or maybe if the booth can zoom out.

Okay, that's where the new wall is proposed.

We want to make sure it's gonna match this wall over here, which is six feet.

Last time it was proposed uh eight-foot wall.

So we you know we were opposing to that, so we want to make sure that the the continuation, this wall here would be just six feet all the way to the transformer there to keep you know the same height there.

We'll we also want to leave on uh records over here uh a leather.

Well, we should give this other neighbors they want to they oppose to an eight-foot wall, so we'll make sure it's gonna be six feet and uh and that's it.

So and uh on the drawing here shows uh new six feet high wall, but this should be like existing because we're not changing the the neighbors over here.

Martin Gavin doesn't want to have any changes over here neither.

So we keep everything as is like it's been there for 30 years.

So okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Anyone else wishing to speak?

Please come forward.

Yeah, my name is Nancy Ruco, 11165 Placid Street.

I leave it there too.

So we are here just because they presented it eight foot feet before, so but now if it is six, we do approve that.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

This might be easier than I thought.

Good morning.

Good morning, I'm John Paul Caprudo, 10940 Placid Street.

Uh I live about a block or so away, and I've been through and seen this uh quite a bit.

And last time at the town board, they were proposing on the uh north side, on the north side and the west side.

Uh north side over here, the west side to be eight to be uh eight-foot walls, and uh now they're showing new six six-foot uh existing that they're keeping, putting new six-foot, and just along the uh along the street an eight-foot, and uh want to make sure that um it they don't do a bait and switch or they do something where it's um it starts off as six foot and then oh, we go there at it, make it eight foot or change things drastically.

Where I've seen developers in the past where they do a bait and switch where don't want to see that happen uh to my friends uh Biago and his wife.

So okay, well, and they're okay with the uh six-foot wall uh staying existing in the new addition, maintaining the same height as well as the uh the property uh to the west.

So thank you.

Thank you very much.

Uh anyone else wishing to speak?

Hi.

Hi, my name is David Metz.

I live at 11185 placid street, the property in oops, question.

I apologize.

There is an existing eight-foot wall on the south side of our property.

Agreed.

There is an eight-foot wall on the south side.

Right, right.

You'll have to direct your comments to the board.

Okay.

And in I I just wanted to clarify because I wasn't, I wanted to make sure that we were all on the same page because they're saying it's six foot, six foot, but there is some walls that are higher on our property than six feet.

So I've got one wall that's the existing wall.

Right.

And then I've got the six feet.

You're if I could just ask a question.

You're the applicant, are you not?

Yes, I'm the owner of the property.

Okay, so here's what we're gonna do.

We're gonna sit down for one second.

Yes, sir.

Anyone else wishing to speak on public comment?

Please come forward at this time.

Seeing none, I'm gonna close the public comment period and return the time back over to the applicant.

And if you want to come back up now, you're welcome to.

So maybe maybe we need to clarify.

It sounds like we've got a deal at six feet for the new walls, understanding that there's some existing walls.

Yeah, so so what it is is to the south of a property, which is this part this area right here, that's the south.

Um that wall was there, was not there before when the neighbors had their six-foot wall, but then they were allowed a wall that had a retainer of four feet and a six-foot uh regular uh partition wall, and they were able to put that in, so that made it ten feet.

So this property now has a 10-foot wall that uh it's been that we look at on the south end.

So what we wanted to do is uh originally was create an eight-foot uh elevation height around the perimeter so that we would have some consistency and privacy.

But because of the opposition, and we talked it over, we agreed we'll just keep it the six foot, and it's existing right now, both to the west of us and to the north of us, and partial right now because it's only a partial fence.

So what we want to do is we want to extend the six-foot to the front, and then on the front, we would like to have an eight-foot, and that is for like I said before, just protection against the coyotes and so forth, and also aesthetics, we want to be able to have uh a nice elevation.

So we do have a neighbor uh down the street on Cartan um on Carton Street, which is actually uh an eight-foot fence already, it's already a very nice, very elegant.

Uh we would like to imitate that idea, and then also as you drive down placid going to the corner of Placid and Chartan, uh there's already walls that are already you know eight to ten foot tall already down that whole street.

So you know, we don't think we were doing anything that would be a post, but uh we're hoping that you guys would consider allowing us to go ahead and keep the eight-foot in the front, six feet on the north and on the and on the west.

And of course the two drivers.

Could you also just clarify the portion of the wall?

Um it's not all block wall, it's correct.

Two feet of block wall.

Yeah, they're they're asking us to do um two and a half feet, 30 inches of solid wall, which would be CMU, and then the remainder of uh wrought iron.

We were hoping that we could do four feet, just like the one on Charton, which is basically at uh 40 42 inches or right around four feet tall of solid wall, and then the other balance so it's a little bit more proportionate, more aesthetically pleasing, if you will, so that when you're looking at it, you're not seeing a lot of uh wrought iron and only very little of the uh of the solid wall.

So we want it to be more proportionate half and half.

Do the plans that are before us right now, these have been resubmitted.

Uh maybe I better ask the question to get the revised plans.

Okay, and that's reflective of what you're indicating here today.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

So maybe just uh to make it as simple as possible, go around the perimeter with your finger.

If we could either zoom out or move it down, yeah, thank you.

So this this is the south, okay, this is the east, north up here, and west over here.

Okay, and just so it's clear as day, show us which linear piece is gonna be at what height.

Um this right here, this picture is uh between our two properties, and right here it shows the um the ones which this wall here is really kind of like this, because this is the portion that exists right now, which is the solid wall, and then the portion that is not solid, is I so you can see is just a uh you know uh a really inexpensive chain link fence.

So basically from there to here, all the way is just this opening.

So we wanted to put a six-foot wall all the way across.

Keep the the privacy between us to somewhat, you know, some view.

And and then um this area in the front here, we want to go with the A-foot.

Okay.

I I think that gives me enough comfort.

Some of my confusion around this application just had to do with the fact that when we uh had public hearings and conversations on the residential development across the street from here, the neighbors, I think including those who are here today, asked for higher walls for that developer.

Uh so that that's a little bit why I'm having some clarity issues.

But I I think I understand what you're proposing uh and am prepared to move forward with approval, uh, recognizing that the majority of the perimeter wall is is six feet, and a majority of the height of the wall is iron decorative fencing per code.

Uh Ms.

Amberman is that.

Right, that's correct.

So in the front yard, um, they would have along the front property line would be two and a half foot of solid and then five and a half of wrought iron on top.

And we waive that to four and four, like we'd like to go higher with the with the solid with the solid, just like it is just like chart and just basically we want to imitate that in the area.

It it looks aesthetically a lot better than a lot of iron and very little wall.

It just doesn't look very good.

We'll split the difference at three feet, okay?

That'll work.

All right, thank you.

Thank you very much.

I've got a motion for approval on item 41, reflective of the conversation that was just had.

Commissioner, excuse me.

Yes, I'm sorry.

Um, I believe the applicant can withdraw um one B for the West property line because now it's going to be six feet per code.

The applicant will withdraw item one B.

Yes.

You're withdrawing one B.

You don't need it anymore any longer.

For the West property line, that'll just be six feet.

No.

The following.

Um waiver one B was to allow eight foot on the west property line.

Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

So you'll withdraw that to go with six.

Okay.

Thank you.

It's been withdrawn.

My motion is for approval.

Please cast your vote.

And thank you to those who came out today.

Thank you, everyone.

Thank you so much.

The motion passes.

Next is item 42 WS 26-0095.

Waivers of development standards for the following one, eliminate and reduce separation, two, reduce setbacks, three, increase wall height, four, eliminate driveway separation, five, increase residential driveway width, and six wave offsite improvements in conjunction with an existing single family residence.

And a proposed minor subdivision on 0.31 acres and an RS5.2 residential single family um RS5.2 zone, generally located west of Mormon Peak Street and north of Briner Avenue within Wappa Valley.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Uh Dave McCaffrey out of Overton Nevada.

Excellent.

Welcome.

Do you have a presentation?

Uh he just has no, he doesn't.

I'm gonna go ahead and open the public hearing on item 42.

Anyone wishing to speak on item 42, please come forward at this time.

Seeing none, Commissioner Kirkpatrick.

Okay, uh Mr.

Chairman, uh maybe Antonio.

Can I hand you this picture and you can put it up so people understand?

So truly what's happened is um they bought in the area in the entire neighborhood is probably not within code, but at the same time, he's bought the land next to it so that he can better organize his yard with all of the different things that he has, and he has made that commitment to us because what we don't want to see is a continuation of no setbacks and and all of those other things, but in order for you to see the whole neighborhood is like this, so we are okay with waiving all of these um with the commitment from you.

We talked on the phone that um you would when you relocate when you can spread out a little bit that you will meet all the setback requirements.

Yes.

Okay, that would be my motion.

There is a motion for approval.

Please cast your vote.

Motion passes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next are items 47 and 48, which can be heard together.

Item 47, ZC25-0776 holdover zone change to reclass 0.77 acres from an H2 General Highway frontage zone to a CG commercial general zone, generally located east of Boulder Highway and north of English Avenue within Whitney.

Generally located east of Boulder Highway and north of English Avenue within Whitney.

And item 48 is UC 26-0777.

Holdover use permits for the following.

And two, outdoor storage and display.

Good morning.

Good morning, uh Chair, board members.

Edgar Montalbo, 3606, Calico Brook Court, Las Vegas, Nevada, a 9147.

So pretty much what we're trying to do is to get the approval for this car sales facility.

Is uh is another one on Boulder.

The difference on with this one is going to be built out of uh regular framing, and it's not going to be one more trailer.

So we've been actively working with the staff and with the commissioner, trying to get into the uh the point that we can get it more appealing for the for the zone.

So pretty much what we're requesting here is a special use permit for the uh separation of the uh we have some small um area for cars so they can actually do an inspection before they sell it.

So we have it on the back a little building so they can park on it, and the proximity to the uh to the residential where we were struggling with.

We eliminate all the waivers on the property.

We could go into the point that we are having like a clean uh project with the exception that we require these conditional approval for the uh for the use than they're they're trying to do for the proximity to the houses.

So we did this morning a pretty quick rendering of what will that look is pretty much we're trying to make it more uh residential.

It's gonna be the colors are not gonna be exactly like that.

We just put it like this, uh but it's gonna be more appealing um than the rest of the um the uh carl season we have around.

So pretty much we're trying to do it like a more like a residential and very um neighborhood uh friendly.

So that's what we're trying to do right now.

So pretty much we accept all the conditions on the having set the staff, and uh we're here to we're here to listen any comments that you may have.

Okay, okay.

Thank you very much.

If that completes your presentation, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing on items 47 and 48.

Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward.

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

Commissioner Gibson.

So, Mr.

Montalvo, the work that would be done uh on the back side of the property would be um work that would be to ready the cars for sale.

That's correct.

But there can't be parts and junk, nope, of any kind storage.

Of any kind.

And actually, the the the owners of the lot down right here, and they're pretty aware and they'd be working, they know that if you want to come forward.

They uh they know about it, and they know then they should then and they know then these are pretty straightforward uh condition that you're gonna put in on it so they can get the approval.

All right.

Then at this point in time, I'm prepared to approve this item.

Uh these items, because it's both uh 47 and 48.

Um, and the conditions require that the use of the maintenance facility, the facility behind the sales office, uh, be maintained as we have discussed here.

Um, so that the adjacency standards are not a big issue.

Everything needs to be contained.

The cars need to be kept together, no dismantling cars, no parts strewn about.

It needs to be kept right.

And I think we've had this discussion, and I think you understand what we're talking about.

Do you not?

All right, then I move approval.

Subject to those conditions.

Okay, there's a motion for approval of items 47 and 48.

Please cast your vote.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

How wonderful they can next are items 49 through 53, which can be heard together.

Item 49, ZC 26-0084, zone change to reclassify 1.59 acres from a RS20 residential single family 20 zone to an RM18 residential multifamily 18 zone, generally located east of Betty Lane and north of Owens Avenue within Sunrise Manor.

Item 50, VS 26-0090.

Vacate and abandon a portion of right-away being Owens Avenue, located between Betty Lane and Sherwin Lane, a portion of right-away being Betty Lane, located between Owens Avenue and Kell Lane, and a portion of right-away being Sherwin Lane, located between Owens Avenue and Kell Lane within Sunrise Manor.

Item 51, WS 26-0085.

Waivers of Development Standard for the following: one modified driveway geometrics, two reduced street intersection offset, and three allow attached sidewalks in conjunction with the proposed single family attached residential development on 1.59 acres in an RM18 residential multifamily 18 zone generally.

Generally located north of Owens Avenue and east of Petty Lane within Sunrise Manor.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Good morning, Commissioners.

And all of them have been successful, and all of them are of high quality.

But regardless, staff has recommended approval of that.

And the project would consist of four bedroom units, townhouse units, with walk-in closets and two and a half baths and two car garages.

So this is a project of the quality that we think is appropriate to the area, and uh staff has made the same finding.

And on the waivers, the applicant uh has uh reviewed the uh if approved conditions, which staff has suggested or offered, uh, and uh the applicant would agree to all of the if approved conditions uh of staff.

Very good.

Thank you.

Uh this is a public hearing on items 49 through 53.

Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward.

Good morning.

Good morning.

My name is El Rojas.

I'm a resident of Sunrise Manor.

I'm familiar with this location.

First of all.

Can you see where my finger is at here?

This is not compatible with what's going on there.

This presentation they left out a lot of the stuff that they talked about at our advisory board, and I do want to compliment our um uh commissioners for allowing us the community to have a pre presentation.

This is they want to develop 18 units for acre.

That's the standard development.

You can see that there.

This is what they're trying to squeeze in, and all we all were concerned that there's not enough parking.

They should give you a more full representation.

They've got the diagram right there that there is no place for people to park their cars along this.

There's not enough parking, and it's gonna overflow.

I actually live in a resident that has that aligns with this type of 18 per units, and this is kind of what um uh let me get to a better picture.

This is probably what they should be doing.

There's one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine units, nine buildings, three apartments, three units per uh building.

This is probably what sure aligned more with what they're trying to squeeze in there.

Actually, this would be nine times three twenty-seven.

They'd have an extra four units.

They could get one of these out and allow parking space, allow for parking.

Um, I don't want to get I have a lot of other pictures here.

Uh this is uh they could use one of those spots and put parking on this side and this side, like we were doing on our HOA complex, and maybe you know get rid of the landscaping and there'll be room for children.

This is just I don't even think a sardine can would fit.

I mean, sardines would be happy in that.

This is ridiculous what they're trying to do here.

It's a it's I recommend that they go into more detail of where the parking is going to be, where these people are gonna park, and they should be doing something that aligns with this type of a development here with the large uh units here, not something this, and this is more of a six-unit uh per acre or whatever that is.

This is not aligned with what um uh was recommended practices in I'm an engineer, electronics, but there's a lot of stuff in civil.

I have a lot of civil engineer brothers.

This is not aligned with that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak?

Please come forward for items 49 through 53.

Douglas Germano, G E R M A N O 1675 Sherwin Lane, a hundred feet away from this.

First of all, water.

We don't think about that anymore.

Not in this county.

We just keep building.

Hopefully, one of these days, after I'm gone, you're all gonna be gone, and this is all gonna be gone back to desert.

No water.

Second, the parking, there are four two-car garage with no parking in front, no parking on the street.

Where are they gonna park starting off with 58 cars just for their parking?

Then it's a four-bedroom units.

Where's the other two people gonna park if they have two more cars?

Possibly.

I go for three.

That goes up to 78 cars.

Then they have a party.

Okay, we're up to a hundred cars.

Where are they parking?

Down my street in front of my house, blocking my driveway.

We already got that problem with a uh party house down the street that somebody bought for a half a million dollars, which is stupid because it's not worth that much.

It was just a little junk house, and I've been fighting it with code enforcement already with it.

Even got a uh catering truck parked there, parked inside the property when they have the parties on the weekends.

Also, four-bedroom house with two and a half baths, it's 1,500 square feet, coffin rooms with walk-in closets.

Amazing.

Which is the closet, which is the bedroom, is the first question.

Also, staff denied this from the uh from the uh township.

We denied it up there.

Uh they don't even meet the minimum standards.

They're under the they're over the minimum standards, or under the minimum standards, sorry, of square footage use.

You go through all your uh records here, and there's been denials on this too.

So this project, we fought this 10 years ago, putting apartments there and got denied.

Now you're putting more units in there.

They wanted 24, or they want 24.

They only wanted 18.

What happened to that?

You guys weren't here, probably 10 years ago.

Okay.

Right down the street.

I don't want it.

I've been a general contractor for 55 years.

This is not right.

Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak on items 49 through 53?

Please come forward.

That's what's across the street.

Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing and turn it over to Commissioner Sagerbloom.

Thank you.

Um there's two issues I want to bring to everybody's attention because for Commissioner Naft, we do have detached sidewalks, so making him happy.

To Commissioner Gibson, uh one half of the side of the street, the the north side of the street will not have the full length of parking in front of the garage.

The south part will have the full length, so the cars will be able to park there.

Um we couldn't figure out a way to get these units into that area and have full parking in front of both garages, both the north and the south.

So that was the compromise we reached.

Um, this is a uh vacant piece of property, as the gentleman just spoke, it's been there forever.

Um, you know, it it's affordable housing, it's gonna be in the 300,000 dollar range.

Um this is the kind of thing we're trying to do to make affordable housing in neighborhoods.

Um it's not a perfect compromise, but it's it's the best we can do on this property, and and for that reason I I would support it.

Now with respect to Antonio, I know there's a there was an issue about the the driveway or that's the street connecting uh to the west there.

And you're okay, we we we figured that out, right?

Yes, sir, Commissioner.

There uh it's gonna require a waiver either way, and it's what's the best waiver, what is the safest waiver?

And it would be lining up their street just as they've done with the street uh birdstone to the west would be the safest uh way to go is to make sure that those two streets line up so that there's no intersection offset waiver, which then you'd have conflicting movements as you enter actually more egressing either subdivision, the one to the west and to and the newly subdivision to the east of Betty Lane.

And there also is parking in the middle of that green area.

That's how many spaces is that, Greg.

Uh yes, I'm sorry.

Yes, there is uh uh a series of parking uh provisions uh on uh both sides of the street.

Uh right now we are looking at I'm gonna be subject to correction on this point, um eight on uh eight on either side of the street.

So there would be guest parking available.

Uh and uh it remains true that uh the um parking arrangements uh are accommodating the code requirements and and excess of that.

So the code requirements uh are exceeded here in this amenitized area uh which uh was is set up for a dog park and uh other amenities uh and that's with the location of the additional parking.

And this is gonna HOA, so part of the HOA require the restrictions will be you can't park in front of those garages where there's only 10 feet space.

So they're gonna have to they're gonna have to keep the the garages vacant for parking.

That's correct.

May I ask a question, Commissioner?

Um I know this is a tough spot because we get the calls for the homeless and all the other stuff that ends up being there, so trying to find the balance, but maybe Commissioner Naft is usually pretty good about having a condition to say the garage is for parking.

Maybe you need to add that because it is a dense area over there, and maybe that'll just ensure that people are parking in the garage as well as to keep some of it off the streets, and it'll be HOA to absorb it, but what we don't want it to be is storage in the garage, and then everybody's parking on the street because that's what happens.

And again, that would be part of the HOA C C and Rs as far as you you'd have to HOA would have the ordinary set of rules to enforce their parking arrangements, and we'll make that a condition of this approval.

So Commissioner Gibson, do you have a comment about the 10 foot?

Yeah, uh not today.

Okay, not today.

Anyway, I uh this is the kind of thing we're trying to do is fill these infill places.

Not everything works perfectly, but truthfully, we're this is gonna be affordable housing in the area that that we need people.

So I and we're gonna we're gonna cover up a vacant piece of property where there's been lots of homeless issues.

So I would move for approval based upon I'm sorry.

Sorry, Commissioner.

Just want to make sure I think I heard it, but I'd like to officially go on the record to make sure that they know they don't need waiver standards number 3A and 3B since they are doing detached sidewalks.

Okay, yes, we have withdrawn the waiver which was originally submitted, uh, which would have allowed a partly detached sidewalk or partly only a partly detached sidewalk, and it now will be detached in its entirety.

Uh and um I think that was the answer to the question.

That was the answer.

All right, so I would approve all items, subject to all items.

Excuse me, Commissioner.

Did you clarify that the garages are for parking only?

We'll put that on here.

Yeah, but that's there's a motion for approval of items 49 through 53 with additional conditions placed on the record.

Please cast your vote.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next items 54 through 56, which can be heard together.

Item 54, ZC, uh ZC26-0091.

Zone change to reclassify 5.0 acres from RS20, residential single family 20 zone to an IP industrial park zone.

Generally located west of Cimarron Road and south of Patrick Lane within Spring Valley.

Item 55, VS 26-0092, vacate and abandoned easements of interest to Clark County, located between Patrick Lane and the post-road alignment and Jim Rogers Way and Cimarron Road within Spring Valley.

And item 56, WS 26-0093.

Waivers of Development Standards for the following one reduced front setback, two reduced parking area landscaping, and three increase retaining wall height with a design review for an office warehouse development on 5.00 acres and an IP industrial park zone.

Jen relocated west of Cimarron Road and south of Patrick Lane within Spring Valley.

Good morning.

Good morning, Jennifer Lazovich, 1980 Festival Plaza Drive here today on behalf of the applicant.

The site is located right here in the middle of this blue area.

It sits just to the west side of Cimarron and just slightly north of Post Road.

This larger blue almost box is the majority of it, not this piece, but the majority of it is home to the UNLV research and technology park.

That's what you start to see when you look over here.

There is an existing uh office warehouse building located immediately south of us.

Um in working with public works, we had wanted to mirror that single building to the south, but it would have caused a conflict with uh where post road comes in relative to a driveway at that location.

So what we submitted instead is two different office warehouse buildings.

Uh we do have our access points coming off of Cimarron and then an exit point coming off of here.

We do have some waivers that go with this application.

Uh predominantly it deals with the need for taller walls uh around the exterior of our site.

And as you can see, there's a pretty significant drainage channel that's in this area, and so those walls are um really uh necessary in order to accommodate that.

One thing to note is the height of those walls that are noted in the waiver, the taller side will be visible if you're standing over here on the west side.

But we believe that once this property gets developed, they have the same sort of drainage issues that we have to deal with.

They too will um need to fill that and raise it up, and at that point the wall on the west side won't seem as tall because of the um elevation or grade changes that they'll have to make to deal with the wash on that side.

Um we uh just to show you what this looks like.

Um it's just office warehouse building.

We do have an additional waiver for some landscaping as you and a setback.

The setback really has to do with the fact that um it's off of Cimarron and the building setback is to hear for the waiver.

Um we have put all of our parking in the rear of the buildings rather than in the front, so that drove the need for the setback waiver along Cimarron, and then we have a couple of landscape waivers.

We tried to do as many fingers um along the west side or rear of this as we could, but we needed a few waivers for that as well.

Um town board actually considered this and did recommend approval, so I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much.

This is a public hearing on items 54, 55, and 56.

Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward now.

Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing and move for approval of items 54, 55, and 56.

That motion passes.

Thank you.

Have a good day.

You too.

Next is item 57 AC 26-90085.

This is a holdover for consider an appeal.

The director's notice of decision to deny a request for reasonable accommodation zoning accommodation at 5614 Stingery Circle within Sunrise Manor.

Um Commissioners, this was held from last meeting.

Um last meeting I mentioned the um findings for the for the denial.

Um and if you remember the applicant's not required to be here or speak, um, and if they do, they're not required to disclose any information about their disability.

Thank you very much.

This uh is is there an applicant here that would like to speak?

Um no, Mr.

Chairman.

I I we I met with them and came up with this proposed solution and told they didn't have to be here.

Okay.

So is it public hearing?

Uh it's it's your show.

All right, it's my turn.

But anyway, long story short, uh, Commissioner Becker and I went out and actually visited the site.

Turns out she loves chickens, so uh she was kind of prejudiced that sense.

But the fact is that um, you know, I do think there is a disability that is accommodated by this.

There are 13 chickens there now, which is too much, although the neighbors not complained.

So my my recommendation recommended decision would be to reduce the 13 to 10 right away, and then reduce it from 10 to 5 over time as they uh die or or sold or whatever would would be the process.

And uh you know, this is subject to if there's neighbors start complaining or something, obviously they could come back, but but for now that would be the decision.

May I ask a question before we open the public hearing?

10?

That's a lot on a 7,000 square foot lot, and chickens live a long time.

So at that well, I mean, I'm more reasonable with five, and then not replace them over time, but I mean 10 is a lot.

You're not really changing the I mean it's not even fair to the chickens, quite frankly, because they gotta have room to move around as well.

We we went and looked at the facilities that they have, and it was exceptionally clean, and I'm I was surprised to be honest.

It I know well, I mean, I probably can't support it because I mean that that's why you have half acre lots, that's why you have all those other things.

So I appreciate that.

But yeah, you do it for one, you're gonna have to do it.

We this is not the first time it's more common than ever that chickens are before us in these neighborhoods.

So okay.

I know I appreciate that you guys went.

I appreciate that it was clean, but um well, the good news is these chickens might not live forever, so they're not allowed to replace them.

Down down to five.

All right, so that's that's my motion.

Yeah, but they're relatively young chickens, correct?

Today I I didn't check their IDs, but they seem pretty big.

There's a motion.

Uh please cast your vote.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

Next is item 58, and this is uh um agenda item AG 26-90011 to discuss potential amendments to Title 30 and direct staff accordingly.

Um, commissioners last meeting.

Commissioner Jones asked if we could have an open discussion about um potential changes to Title 30.

Commissioner Kirkpatrick mentioned um something as well.

Um I would also like to ask if we could get direction to come back periodically with updates or corrections to the zoning code that we've noticed in the past two years.

Um, a couple right off the bat would be to make amendments to a revised plan process.

Um, also to modify um non-conforming standards for subdivisions, and then I ask um to hear from all you what would you like?

Thank you, Commissioner Jones.

Um, following up on yesterday's discussion on distance separation from residential for uh for live entertainment.

I think obviously that's one that we've already discussed.

Um so I'll turn it over to the board for any other ideas.

I know Commissioner Patrick had some ideas.

I do, thank you.

And I uh want to look at I want to work with Martin on some agricultural overlays.

I think in the some of the outline areas that makes sense so that animals can be allowed, and as they are starting to see some of the growth that um it doesn't get forgotten, lost on on what it was, and then I think uh uh Commissioner Knappt and I are gonna meet with the Rule Alliance, and we'd like to be able to bring you back some stuff from them in a short time frame because the thing is for we had hoped with the rural alliance that within a year they would come out.

I'd like to see signage, you know, when you go into these rural areas so that people know because what happens is it changes their lifestyle when people complain about the the animals, we've heard the animals, the flies, all that other stuff, and a lot of those folks were there first.

And um, so I'd like to see some of that.

And then are we also gonna look at did you bring up Justin the one if uh if it meets the code they could process right through?

I I think that's obviously a bigger discussion, but I think uh Miss Annerman and her team are working through that and we'll come back with a proposal of some sort in the in the future, right?

Yes, we're working on that.

Yep.

Just one other one that I know we've sort of talked about a little bit is um our standards for off-site improvements and and sidewalks, sort of default to concrete sidewalks.

We've talked about in connection with the Vegas Valley rim trail, potential for concrete sidewalks on one side and potentially asphalt sidewalks on the other, a modification similar to what I had forward along that St.

George has adopted as part of their trails program so that it can be particularly on the outsides of towns.

You can have more of a trail feel on one side of the street and standard concrete on the other.

Okay, thank you.

Anyone else have any direction on this item?

Uh I I think you probably included what you said, but the thing that in the Las Vegas country club where we were dealing with that issue.

Right.

That'll be for non-conforming residential subdivisions.

All right, great, thank you.

Any other discussion?

Okay, you've got some direction.

Yes, thank you.

Thank you.

Next is Oh, uh, because you asked, we should give you direction to feel free to please yes, come back as needed periodically, whatever that might be.

But I I don't think you need to wait for board direction to come back when there are updates that are necessary.

Perfect, thank you.

Thank you.

Um, next is item 59, which is AG 26900 12.

Um, this is to discuss neighborhood protection overlay, RMP standards and development regulations.

We kind of touched on it before, but last meeting you had brought up some potential changes for that.

Yeah, from my perspective, we've been talking about uh rural offsites.

Uh we've got actually Commissioner Kirkpatrick mentioned the meeting with the RAC committee tomorrow, I believe.

Um I don't really have anything ready for this moment, but I would like to continue working on that.

Okay, thank you.

May I may I ask a question?

So uh when we I do think that we could um at least maybe give you some direction to at least move forward on some recommendations that may come up may come out because what I don't want what's happening at the RAC committee is they pontificate.

You guys have done three presentations in there, but yet there's no answers.

I think Commissioner Knaft and I want to prod them to move a little faster.

And so maybe the direction is for you to bring some of those because I believe they according to the resolution, Rob, they have to bring them back to the board for the board to look.

So I want to make sure that they have the direction that that we could do that sooner rather than later.

And to that point, I'm working with uh director Cederberg, Antonio, uh Jennifer and Lisa Kramer to do exactly what you're asking for.

And then can I just ask the other on the rule um overlay?

So barn dominiums.

I want to look at those type to make sure that we can do them within our code because they fit in more with the rural character of uh some of our outline areas.

So I just want to make sure because a lot of times their garage is bigger than the footprint of the house, and I think that that's an issue.

So within our code, so I just want to make sure we could do them for sure.

And I would say ditto on that one.

I've got a couple of proposals, and it's you know, rigmaral to try and get there because it just doesn't quite fit our code.

Okay, thank you.

Anything else for discussion related to this item?

Okay, thank you.

Thanks.

Uh last are items 60 through 64, which are ordinances for introduction.

Uh 60 is ORD 25900565.

LLC for gasoline station and convenience store on 1.78 acres.

Item 61, ORD 26-9007.

Introduce an ordinance to consider adoption development agreement with KB Home Las Vegas Inc.

for residential development on 12.68 acres, generally located west of Valley View Boulevard and North of Cactus Avenue and within Enterprise.

Item 62 or ORD 2690054 introduce an ordinance to consider adoption of a development agreement with Kendall Mitchell and Irma for single family residential development on 0.93 acres.

Item 63 ORD ORD 26900112 introduce an ordinance to adopt consider adoption of a development agreement with the West Henderson Hospital Medical Center LLC for an emergency emergency care facility on 2.03 acres and item 64 ORD 26900185 introduced an ordinance to amend the official zoning map reclassifying certain properties as approved by the Board of County Commissioners on January first January 21st 2000 excuse me 2026 um staff recommends you introduce the ordinance and set the public hearing for April 22nd we'll introduce the ordinance and set the public hearing for April 22nd.

And then the next item is your second item for public.

Anyone wishing to speak on the final time set aside for public comment, please come forward at this time, state your name.

You may speak for up to three minutes.

Good morning.

Good morning.

My name is John Og.

Last name is spelled OGG, 6755 Coast to Place, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89146.

But if you could please put this up on the screen, I'd like to show you first my home and then the home that I've been dealing with next door for over four years.

Immediately next door to me, to my west is 6759 coast to place.

This photograph was taken, or these two photographs were taken May 11th, 2022, at which time I reached out to code enforcement repeatedly, and I have those requests in my fix it app, which for the record doesn't seem to be very effective.

These photographs with all the dead vegetation, the collapsed wall, which the collapsed wall still exist, were taken December 31st, 2023, at which time I reached out to Mike Shannon and Justin Jones, and they were able to get some resolution of the issue.

Fast forward to March 14th, 2026.

You can see the front yard is still a complete eyesore, at which time I reached out to Justin Jones and Mike Shannon again, and have had code enforcement come out and visit the property since.

Well, I apologize, yesterday.

I need the commission's help.

This has been going on for over four years.

Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak?

Please come forward.

Oh also when is 28.

We can answer that in just a moment.

Okay.

Uh hello, my name is Al Rojas.

Um I live in Sunrise Manor.

Active in the community trying to uh deal help help our community and our elected officials with the homeless problems and other things that are going on.

So you know, as uh we're trying to work with these homeless issues, and we know that when we contact them 10 to 15 times, the records show that we can get them off the street.

Uh so I'm working with the judges.

Hopefully they can maybe you guys can talk to them also at all here in uh uh unrestricted, unincorporated Clark County, so that hopefully they can hold these uh people if we arrest them on the new encampment ordinance, and they can get some kind of uh therapy or some kind of treatment.

I think that's the direction we should be going because the people that are on the street now are people that are just resistant or they're not the services aren't getting out to them.

We may have to arrest them and then um uh have somebody talk to them.

Um the other thing is some of these you know businesses that are bad actors.

You just saw this uh gentleman here talk about a resident that's got a you know a ISOR of a residence.

There's a lot of these ISOR businesses that we've got to start getting on top of that are throwing a lot of garbage on the streets.

Regarding these high density developments that are 18 units like the one you know that's going on.

I highly recommend that you start looking at um um Lakemead Court, which is the development that I live in, it's high density but it's well managed, and Hollywood Ranch, very popular developments in the 2011, 2009 area, and I think that very reasonably priced.

I think that is a very good development that you guys should be looking at to address this housing crisis and possibly with the extent that the owner has to live in the properties to keep these out of state residents.

And last and foremost, I want to talk about the 2036 Olympics.

I'm gonna probably make a a statement on that during um uh Tuesday uh uh public comment.

But Los Vegas is very well positioned to host the 2036 Olympics, and I really seriously consider that you guys start looking into an exploratory committee.

I was in Los Angeles when we had the 1984, and we have all the infrastructure to support that, and I really do believe that we were gonna be strong candidates.

It's I mean, we definitely I have to admit Las Vegas knows how to throw a party when you look at what we've done with F1.

So I think that that's something that should be put on the agenda for you guys to look in the future.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

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

Uh just a point of clarification item 28 will be has been held until the May 6th meeting.

If there is nothing further, we will go ahead and adjourn adjourn today's meeting.

Thank you.