Hearing.

Sometimes an agenda item may be held at the request of a commissioner or county staff.

When an item is held, it will not be discussed or voted on during today's meeting and will be brought back at a future meeting.

There are two opportunities for public comment during this meeting.

And it's important to understand the difference.

The first public comment period takes place at the beginning of the meeting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Welcome to the May 6th continuation of the Clark County Commission.

Uh the first item on our agenda is public comment.

This is the time set aside for anyone wishing to speak on items that are on today's agenda.

Please come forward at this time, state your name for the record.

Just as a note, items nine, uh I'm sorry, items four through eight are scheduled for routine.

Please.

If you if you could just pick up that microphone.

So if if it are you here on something on today's agenda?

No.

If not, I'll ask you to have a seat, and at the end of the meeting, our rules allow for you to speak uh more broadly.

Thank you.

Anyone wishing to speak on items on today's agenda, please come forward.

Good morning.

Good morning.

My name is John Og.

Last name is spelled OGG, six seven five five Costa Place, Las Vegas, Nevada, eight nine one four-six.

I would like to speak on item number eleven, holdover use permit to allow a daycare facility in our neighborhood.

Um, I'd like to verify with someone that has the specific information.

I assume this is six seven three seven Costa Brava.

Is that correct?

This one is off-routine off consent.

It's off routine.

So because this is after item eight, it is off routine.

So if you'd like there'll be a public hearing on the side, okay.

I'm sorry, I misunderstood.

I know I could have clarified that.

Thank you.

And I and I guess while we're at it, um, if the booth is aware, is Commissioner Jones on the phone?

Yes.

I am thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak on items on today's agenda?

Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing and we can move to the approval of the agenda.

Good morning, commissioners.

Um, for the approval of the agenda, we will have um we'll consider any additions or deletions, and staff has the following requests which may require renotification fees in accordance with Title 30.

Hold to the May 20th, 2026 zoning meeting.

Item 12, UC 26 0165, item 32, ZC 26 0157.

Item 33, UC 26 0158, then hold to the June 3rd, 2026 zoning meeting item nine, WS 26-0113.

The above public hearing items are going to be opened as a public hearing and immediately recessed until the dates as previously stated with these deletions, which are items 9, 12, 32, and 33.

The agenda stands ready for your approval.

Mr.

Chair, move approval of the agenda with the recommended changes right into the record.

Thank you.

There's a motion for approval.

Please cast your vote.

Jones, aye.

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

The minutes of the April 8th, 2026, zoning meeting are ready for your approval.

I'm over approval meeting minutes.

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

Jones, aye.

Next item are the routine action items, which consist of items four through eight.

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

Additionally, staff has the following request.

Item number five, ET 26 40023 for WS 21 0701.

Add the following comprehensive planning conditions until May 6, 2030 to commence per plans on file and any revisions to be approved by the Board of County Commissioners, and a maximum of six lots.

And item number six, TM26-5004.

Add the following comprehensive planning condition per plans on file and any revisions shall be approved by the Board of County Commissioners, and a maximum of six lots.

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

I move approval of our routine action items.

There's a motion for approval.

Please cast your vote.

Jones aye.

The motion passes.

Next item is item 10, ET 25-400124 for AR23-400123 and UC 210332.

Holdover application for review for use permits, second extension of time for the following.

One, a swap meet, two fairground and three recreational facility with accessory food, beverage, and retail sales.

Waiver development standards to eliminate landscaping.

Design reviews for the following one a swap meet to fairground and three recreational facility on 4.6 acres in a CG commercial general zone, generally located west of Boulder Highway and south of Indiosa Avenue within Paradise.

Good morning.

Good morning.

My name is David Anderson on behalf of ERBR ERBRLC at 4700 Board Highway.

We were requesting a second extension of time, but we no longer need it.

We needed to plant uh trees on a um rear rear rear of the uh property.

They have been planted, so we don't need uh any more extension.

Okay.

Uh this is a public hearing.

Anyone wishing to speak on item 10, please come forward.

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

Commissioner Sagerbloom.

Thank you.

Do you have any of the pictures of the pic of the trees?

Yes.

After we don't trust you, but if you could just put them there in the middle, does it work right here?

All right, that's good enough for me.

Um so I would go ahead and do I make a motion to approve without extensions, or what do I right?

You can make a motion to approve with no further reviews.

Okay, make a motion to approve.

Okay, thank you so much.

There's a motion, please cast your vote.

Jones aye.

The motion passes.

Next item is item 11, UC 26-0011.

Holdover use permit to allow a daycare facility.

Waivers of development standards for the following.

One, modify residential adjacency standards, two eliminate and reduce buffering and screening.

Three reduced building separation.

Four, eliminate bicycle parking, five, reduce parking, and six reduced throat depth in conjunction with the proposed daycare on 0.33 acres in an RS10 residential single family 10 zone, generally located south of Costa Brava Road and West of Redwood Street within Spring Valley.

Okay, if there's no applicant on item 11, we'll move forward to the public hearing.

This is a public hearing on item 11.

Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward.

Also, what will stop them from increasing the amount of children in their child care and making it open 24 hours by changing this property by increasing the size of the house and making the front yard a parking lot, it will make it an ISOR and decrease the value of our homes because one of the top selling points is how far away each house is from the house next door.

Who wants to buy a house next to a business that's so close to the property line when the other houses are so far away?

Not to mention who wants to live next to a house where their front yard is a parking lot full of cars and has allowed children with at least 18 daycare facilities and less than three miles of this business.

There's no need for one in this neighborhood.

All these points emphasize how this business is only concerned about its business and not preserving, protecting, and keeping our neighborhood safe.

Please keep our neighborhood classified as residential, keep it looking like a residential residential neighborhood and safe for our children, neighbors, and pets by denying this request.

This business is located around the blind curve of railroad, so you can see how dangerous it already is.

The document labeled as parking analysis shows vehicles the approximate size of a Mini Cooper.

If you spend any time around an elementary school, a more realistic size would be an SUV or minivan.

By following the same amount of vehicles as shown in this document, the vehicles will be blocking access to a street and driveways.

With the increase of traffic and cars on the side of the road waiting to pick up or drop off the children.

Now remember that these children are on the second story, so there will be a wait time.

The road will be narrowed, drivers will drive closer to oncoming traffic, and there will be a greater chance of accidents, and it'll endanger the pedestrians and their pets.

This property is located near one of the busiest entrances of our neighborhood.

We only have three, and it's going to bring congestion that this neighborhood cannot handle.

On trash day, this business already almost fills the street in front of their house with all their overflowing trash.

Where are they going to put all the trash cans when they add 24 children?

What are all the vehicles gonna where are all the vehicles going to drive with the trash cans out on the road?

What about the increase in pollution litter and the smell of dirty diapers from all those children after sitting for a week, especially in the heat?

Let's look at the numbers.

What is the fire code limit for people for house that size?

Our small neighborhood cannot handle that many people.

Please deny this application.

Keep our neighborhood looking like an application, or like a neighborhood.

Thank you very much.

Anyone else wishing to speak on item 11?

Please come forward.

Good morning.

Again, John Og, OGG 6755 Costa Place.

I'm one of the homes immediately adjacent to oops, upside down, sorry.

My apologies.

So the home or the commercial facility, I would argue, that is up for consideration is already 80% larger than the surrounding homes.

We had a very tenuous discussion in 2013 when this was made an assisted living facility and went all the way up to Harry Reed's office to try to stop it.

Due to ADA with 10 or fewer residents, we could have an assisted living facility and still be considered single family.

This is a daycare not covered by that.

My home is right here.

There will be children, up to 24 children playing in an area that's not designed for it.

There's less than 400 square feet of non-concrete area in that backyard.

Also, my next door neighbor to me, Dixie.

Her home immediately adjoins.

This neighbor I do not know, but you can see how close they are.

It's as the prior person said, not appropriate for a daycare.

That's a commercial business, does not belong in a residential neighborhood.

I understand that there can be exceptions.

Exceptions aren't needed.

We do not have children in our neighborhood.

Oddly, I'm 61.

I'm probably on the low side of most of the people in my neighborhood.

A lot of the people like Dixie next door have lived there since 1979 when her home was built.

Our neighbor across the street has lived there since 1979 when his home was built.

We went through a very difficult time in 2013.

Couldn't get around it.

This is a different situation.

Went out on Thursday, March 26th for a public meeting on Tuesday, March 31st.

That doesn't allow the neighborhood time to respond.

I was out of town, didn't even know about the meeting until I came back.

Also, I submitted this morning via the website and directly to Justin Jones information regarding why this is not an appropriate facility, the increased risk of traffic, as the prior person mentioned, and to highlight just the green space in the backyard.

This is the total of the green space that's in that backyard.

Everything else is concrete.

It's not appropriate, it's not appropriate for the neighborhood, and I would request that the commission deny.

Thank you very much.

Anyone else here wishing to speak on item 11?

Please come forward.

Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing.

Uh Commissioner Jones.

This is your item 11.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh I appreciate the need for additional child care facilities in our community, and I just wanted to let my colleagues know and the public know that the Southern Nevada Council of Governments has taken this on as its first priority how we deal with these types of uh facilities in neighborhoods.

However, this is wildly inappropriate for a residential neighborhood, adding 24 kids and all the transportation that would go along with that is simply uh not appropriate in in this area.

So go ahead and move for denial of agenda item number 11.

Thank you very much.

There's a motion to deny the application.

Uh please cast your vote.

I don't remember how to do that.

That motion passes.

Thank you very much.

Next are items 13 and 14, which our companion can be heard together.

Item 13 VS-26-0134.

Holdover V Cat and Abandoned Easements of Interest of Clark County located between Ford Avenue and Cougar Avenue alignment and Dean Martin and I-15 within Enterprise.

Item 14, UC 26-0133.

Holdover use permit for outdoor storage, waivers of development standards for the following.

One reduce street landscaping, two security fencing, three allow a non-decorative fence, four increased maximum parking, five allow an attached sidewalk, and six modified driveway geometrics.

Design review for an outdoor storage on 1.14 acres in a CG commercial general zone, generally located north of Ford Avenue and east of Dean Martin Drive within Enterprise.

Good morning.

Commissioner Chairman Naft and Commissioners, I'm Jim D.

Fiore of D.

Fiori Consulting and Business Services representing the applicant.

On item 13, we would request that you approve the vacation of the patent easements, which are on 30 feet on the inside perimeter of the property.

Do you wish me to speak on item 14 at the same time?

I would, yep.

Okay.

All right.

Well, we've uh met with the neighbors and we've also met with uh commissioner Jones with regard to our proposed uh project here.

Um at the town board meeting on April 15th, the town board did recommend approval of the use permit in the design review.

And we have uh made some changes uh with the original plans, uh creating a one-way driveway instead of a two-way.

And uh we have um uh decided that uh we are going to uh landscape the entire frontal area as you uh ingress and egress the property on the waivers that were proposed.

I have some change changes to that as well.

Um waiver number one is going to be withdrawn simply because we're gonna re-landscape that entire front area.

Waiver number two on the uh security fencing, two A and two B are also withdrawn.

Uh item number three um on the security fence.

It is also withdrawn.

Uh the property has an existing wall on the west and on the north sides, and uh chain link side on the east.

The chain link side, the chain link is proposed to be replaced by a block wall, and uh wrought iron gates at the point of ingress and egress.

Uh we are requesting approval as approved for recommendation by the enterprise town board items four, five, and six A.

And we are requesting a withdrawal of item six B due to the fact that the driveway will be a one-way driveway and not a two-way.

Um, I'm open for any questions if you have any.

Thank you.

If that completes your presentation, this is a public hearing on items 13 and 14.

Anyone who would like to speak, please come forward.

Good morning.

Good morning, Mr.

Chairman, Commissioners.

Jay Heller, 8540, Dean Martin Drive, here on behalf of Dean Martin Business Center, which is the uh development immediately to the uh west and the north of this property.

Um, first I'd like to thank the applicant for holding this at the town board initially to give us the opportunity to discuss uh our concerns with potential issues.

They did meet uh myself at my office with uh Tommy Lepresti, who is the representative for the RMP in the neighborhood.

Um, and they did address a number of the concerns that we had, but just going on record.

The uh parking was one item.

Um there is and we'll go unnamed a landscape company just to the north, one street north on Wigwam, and uh coincidentally at the end of the street, and they park two, three cars deep uh each day at the end of the street.

Um the applicant assured us that's not their method, and hence the waiver for uh the increased parking umsightly outside storage high piled um assured us that's not the case uh in this item.

Um lastly was the landscaping um and especially along the perimeter uh inside uh they uh agreed to plant the trees staggered with ours, which is the ideal way for for screening.

So um and also we we'd much prefer a permanent structure, but uh understanding the cost feasibility of that, um they had agreed to uh spruce that up and um so with with those assurances we are supportive of this item and uh welcome them to the neighborhood.

Thank you very much.

Anyone else wishing to speak on items 13 and 14?

Seeing no one will close the public hearing and turn it to Commissioner Jones.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I appreciate the applicant marking with Mr.

Haller, Mr.

LaPreste, and coming to meet with me uh twice to discuss the concerns that were raised and appreciate the work that they did in order to reduce the number of waivers.

So I'll go ahead and move for approval of agenda items 13 and 14 with the withdrawal of waivers uh one, two A, two B, three, and six B.

Very good.

There's a motion for approval.

Please cast your vote.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next items 15 and 16, which can be heard together.

VS 26-0163.

Vacate and abandoned easements of interest to Clark County, located between Pebble Road and Blue Diamond Road and Rainbow Boulevard and Inspiration Drive, and a portion of right away being Rainbow Boulevard located between Pebble Road and Blue Diamond Road.

Then a portion of right-away being Pebble Road located between Rainbow Boulevard and Inspiration Drive within Enterprise.

Item 16, UC 26-0164.

Use permit for a vehicle wash.

We reset development standards for the following.

One, reduce buffering and screening, two modify residential Jacancy standards, and three allow modified G driveway geometrics.

Design review for a shopping center on 4.92 acres in a CG commercial general zone, generally located south of Pebble Road and east of Rainbow Boulevard within Enterprise.

Good morning.

Good morning, Commissioners.

James Grindstaff, 2608, Mountain Rail Drive, representing the developer.

First, I want to thank Commissioner Jones and staff for working with us on working through the items of concern of both staff and planning commit I'm sorry, public works and of Commissioner Jones.

So I want to go ahead and address those.

As you can see, this is a retail commercial center at Pebble and Rainbow.

Zoning was already in place.

We're here for design reviews and use permits.

The three items of concern I have emphasized with dimensions in red were first.

Let's address the vacuums for the proposed car wash.

So as you can see here, we have moved the vacuums 143 feet and eight inches away from the adjacent residential.

And as you can also see, I've reemphasized in red also that we have an intense double row of trees as a landscape buffer along with our CMU wall there to help mitigate both sound and visual to the commercial center.

Was the proximity of the speaker boxes to the residential.

Now we all know that code changed a few years ago.

Rather than addressing the speaker box location, it now addresses the drive-through location.

What we did to uh mitigate the concerns of the commissioner was that we specifically have detailed the locations that the speaker boxes will be no closer than.

In addition to moving them for further away, we also pivoted them around the building.

So any sound from these speaker boxes as you can see would project north or south and not east towards the residents.

So that's a so we we mitigate it by distance and by direction.

And we also know that in today the technology keeps getting better, better on speaker boxes and they're quieter and quieter.

Um but with that said, we've we felt, and Commissioner Jones has agreed, that uh these mitigations were sufficient.

Um if you'd like, I can show you the elevations of the buildings as well.

Uh we have two buildings that are part of this application, retail A and retail B, which will be the first buildings that are be constructed as part of this application.

Uh as you can see, they're fairly standard in the grays and black tones.

Uh we have the architectural uh setbacks and things that are required per the code.

That is retail B.

And this is the slightly larger building in retail A.

As you can see, we've done the same thing.

We've uh mitigated the long string of elevations by breaking them up in hikes.

They vary from 223 to 29 uh feet tall, and we've also put relief on the side of the buildings as well.

Um as we can see, just so just so you can see it on the landscape plan.

You can see here is the double rows of trees that we have uh that are recommended for this, along with our CMU wall for mitigation of any visual noise impacts of the site.

With that said, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This is a public hearing on items 15 and 16.

Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward.

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

Commissioner Jones.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I appreciate the applicant uh making the uh notations on the proposed plan for the vacuum and speaker bock locations.

Uh and with that additional uh consideration, I'll go ahead and move for agenda item approval of agenda items 15 and 16.

Commissioner Jones, before you do that, I believe Mr.

Papazian is waving you down.

Okay.

Thank you, Commissioner.

I just want to make sure for the record.

Uh I don't see that these plans are the ones I have on record.

We have a revised plan dated 331.

These these ones appear to be older as we worked with the applicant uh on the driveway closest to Pebble on Rainbow.

Uh we my apologies.

We did send it to the planning planning divisions.

Sorry about that.

We did send planning does have the most current copy.

And we are good with the most recent copy.

We just want to make sure the plan that is shown is not what is being approved.

Submester grindstack, can you clarify uh that there's not a discrepancy between what you're showing today in terms of the the driveways and um there's previously worked on with the Squasian?

Yes, sir.

The the driveways, um yes, we are the direct the the driveways that are are submitted for public works on there have the additional dimensions required by public works.

The changes we revised for plannings planning was specifically to address the uh the dimensions that we had discussed, and we uh inadvertently left those dimensions off since they weren't relevant to that part of the conversation, but we will update and make sure that all the plans are are matching and that we have the dimensions on that same public works plan, and I will get that done and submitted back to public works this week.

All right, with that clarification, uh my motion stands on approval agenda items 15 and 16.

Thank you.

There's a motion for approval.

Please cast your vote.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Next item is item 17 WS 25 0882.

Holdover waiver development standards for the following one increase height for proposed accessory living quarters, two reduced rent setback for proposed single family residents, three increase retaining wall height and four wave full offset improvements for proposed single family residents.

Excuse me, residential development on 0.46 acres in an RS20 residential single family 20 zone, generally located south of Bonanza Road and east of Sari Drive within Sunrise Manor.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Good morning, Joey DeBlanco.

Um 2251 North Rampart Boulevard here on behalf of the applicant.

Um I'll walk you through the site plan here really quick just so you can understand what it all means.

Um the green dashed line here.

That's the setback line for uh the entire property.

Um here is the 40-foot setback that's required.

Here is the 30-foot setback uh being requested.

Um the yellow are the retaining walls.

This one right here is the 10 foot uh retaining wall that he's asking for permission for.

And then this is the footprint of the main dwelling.

This is the footprint of the ADU.

Right here, you could see the front elevation of the main dwelling, also an isometric of it.

And then here's the um front view of the ADU also with uh isometric of it, and then here's the dimensions from the ground to the roof uh showing uh 35 feet.

Um if you want, I'll just jump into staff's denials.

Um with respect to number one, the applicant agrees to um file the the covenant that's required, and with respect to the uh building these simultaneously, he's agreed.

So if you have any other questions, I'd be happy to ask answer them.

Thank you.

This is a public hearing on item 17.

Anyone who would like to speak, please come forward.

Seeing no one, Commissioner Siggerbloom.

Thank you.

So uh I'm gonna go ahead and grant all the waivers, but I want to add the condition that we the simultaneously we'll start with ADU and the building.

So we don't want the this tall ADU there without a building in front of it.

So as long as you agree to that, that's great.

Yes, yes, agreed.

Thank you.

Is that okay, Jennifer?

Yes, can we say uh the primary residential commence construction prior to the ADU?

Yes, commands, but just not does it have to be completed but commenced.

Right, just start.

Yeah, great.

All right, with that correction, I'll uh move for approval.

There's a motion for approval.

Please cast your vote.

Jones aye.

The item passes.

Next item is item 18, WS 26 0114.

Holdover waivers of development standards for the following.

One reduce setback to increase wall height.

And three allow modified tree driveway geometrics in conjunction with an existing single family residence on 0.19 acres in an RS 5.2 residential single family 5.2 zone.

Generally located east of Boxwood Lane and north of Baywood Avenue within Spring Valley.

Good morning.

Morning.

Charles Smith, 6619 Boxwood Lane.

Just wanted to start with saying that the uh I was reviewing the staff report, the revised staff report, and there's still a couple errors there as far as a site address.

It's 6619.

It does state 6618 in the agenda sheet here.

If you if you notice that also the um there was an error in the uh uh uniform standard drawing 222.

Um property line to driveway should be six feet as far as as far as I know, and it says 12 meter.

And I think they're aware that the planning department was going to revise that, but that's minimal.

And also I'd like to waive or uh withdrawal waiver 3A.

As I was working with the Department of Public Works, and we decided that it was not a good idea to uh add a second driveway to this proposed garage.

And I was able to um re I guess assess the situation, and there's a better approach from the existing garage.

So that would be, I guess I'm wanting to withdraw uh waiver 3A.

Sound right, you're in.

I don't know.

Okay.

And then as far as 3B, um I met with uh Commissioner Jones and I was kind of kind of brainstorming some ideas, so I've got a uh little bit of a solution here for the I'm not sure.

I'm sorry if you're trying to demonstrate something, we can't see it.

If there's there we go, thank you.

There it goes.

Um this is something that I came up with with uh Commissioner Jones was a little bit of a planner.

So there's a decommissioned telephone box here next to the uh property line there.

It's it's a small 15 by 30 inch or so, not in use, but it does mention it in 3 uh B about the um distance when utility box.

So I did go ahead and um address that by putting putting something in the way so I would never drive.

There's no parking at all in that area.

That's just still I guess I need to explain this um 3B is a waiver because there's a piece of concrete it goes up to the property line.

Now there was gravel here before, and every time it would rain, it's a pretty good pitch.

It's like a 10 or 12 degree pitch or something up this driveway, and the gravel would wash down into the street, so it's a really good solution.

It's a walkway for the garbage cans, and otherwise that's this that's what I came up with for uh not parking there.

Is the little planter in the mailbox?

And this is the 3A.

Site plan was revised to show that the driveway would be um be approaching from the existing driveway instead of a second driveway into the street there.

I believe that's all I need to talk about.

Thank you.

Uh if that completes your presentation, this is a public comment period.

Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward.

Seeing no one, uh Commissioner Jones.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Appreciate the applicant working with me and with uh public works on this.

Uh move for approval, agenda items 18 with the withdrawal of waiver number three A.

Thank you.

There's a motion for approval.

Please cast your vote.

Motion passes.

Thank you.

Next are items 19 and 20, which can be heard together.

Number 19 is WS 26-0148.

Waivers of Development Standards to eliminate street landscaping.

Design review for proposed single family residential development on 8.69 acres in an RS20, residential single family 20 zone within the neighborhood protection RMP and airport environs AE60 overlays.

Generally located west of Hinson Street and North of Mall Avenue within Enterprise.

An item 20 TM26-500 through eight.

Good morning.

Uh good morning, County Commissioners.

My name is Susan Florian from Taney Engineering, 6030 South Jones Boulevard here on behalf of the applicant.

Uh, we're asking for a tentative map.

Uh these two streets uh used to connect um, but the developer has uh chosen to complete the bottom and sell the top half.

Um so now the street will not be going through it, we'll just end in the cul-de-sac and then the other one will end up in a three-point turnaround.

Um we are asking also for a waiver of landscape on Hinson for these two lots that are in the right-of-way.

Uh with that, I conclude my presentation.

I'm here to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you.

This is a public hearing on items 19 and 20.

Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward.

Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing and move for approval of items 19 and 20.

That motion passes.

Thank you so much.

Next are items 21 through 24, which can be heard together.

21 is PA 25-70052.

Holdover plan amendments to redesignate the existing land use category from ranch of state neighborhoods and mid-intensity survey suburban neighborhood on 1.12 acres, generally located north of Smoke Ranch Road and west of Apricot Lane within Lone Mountain Planning Area.

22 ZC 25-0836.

Holdover zone change to reclassify 1.12 acres from an RS20 residential single family 20 zone to an RS 3.3 residential single family 3.3 zone, generally located north of Smoke Ranch Road and west of Apricot Lane within Lone Mountain Planning Area.

Items 23 VS 25-0837.

Holdover, vacate and abandon a portion of right-of-way being Apricot Lane, located between Roberta Lane and Smoke Ranch Road within the Lone Mountain Planning Area.

And item number 24, WS 25-0838.

Holdover waivers the development standards for the following.

One allow attached sidewalks and two reduce street intersection intersection offset.

Design review for proposed single family residential development on 1.12 acres in an RS 3.3 residential single family 3.3 zone, generally located north of Smoke Ranch Road and west of Apricot Lane within the Lone Mountain Planning Area.

Good morning.

And this application, we would like to uh put up uh eight properties.

We reduced it from uh 12 uh to eight uh properties and um thank you so much by the way.

Uh we've been doing this since year and a half.

So uh for the staff and everyone who who's been we've been working together and and make this uh project uh being that this is being the last stage.

Uh do you have any questions regarding this property?

Maybe, but this is a public hearing, so I'm gonna open that public comment period.

Anyone wishing to speak on items 21 through 24, please come forward at this time.

Seeing no one, Commissioner McCurdy.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh this has been uh quite the project.

Uh we've you know have had uh uh meetings with the neighbors, we've literally went to stood out on a on the corner there and talked with some of the surrounding area.

And it's also a prime example of what's happening uh between you know the city of Las Vegas and Clark County with the ongoing annexing on this street on Apricot.

Uh you have the residential estates, uh, you have a couple properties then uh you know, next to that you'll have a city property where they where they've allowed you know higher density in uh historic, you know, rural neighborhood, and unfortunately the residents are caught in the middle.

Uh and this is down the street, which has been approved by the city.

So uh we've worked with the applicant to reduce the number of homes from 12 uh down to eight.

Um, and this is the best case scenario for for the neighbors uh because if we don't do it, then there it'll just be annexed into the city to be the even higher density.

So I've um had the applicant agree to include uh eight-foot block walls on the north side of the property as well on the west side.

Uh along smoke ranch, they're all attached sidewalks.

We're gonna do detached sidewalks going into the ape uh into the neighborhood on apricot lane, which is great.

The applicant agreed to make sure that it's ADA accessible on the north end so that neighbors who uh need to have accommodations met are able to do that.

Uh so I'm ready to move for approval uh of this project, and I thank the applicant for working with them.

Thank you.

There's a motion for approval.

I got them.

I I just Commissioner Kirkpatrick.

Uh thank you.

And Commissioner McCurdy, I I just want to put some things on the record because I um this is a hard pill for me to swallow because I opposed it when the city annexed to to begin with, because and they approved 24 units in the center of Apricot Lane, which honestly is not even up to public standards as a whole on that road if you went to travel that road.

Um, because it was never intended for that, right?

Um, but I do want to ask staff, you know, um, at what point I thought that there was a deal to be had when we bought the RJC and they were trying to annex 11,000 places that this area was protected.

I with Commissioner Weekly, we worked on this, right?

And I flagged it when it went before the city, and I don't understand how we they just can keep doing this.

How can they keep annexing in the center of it's not even a 60-foot right-of-way, quite frankly?

It's not even uh, it's not even up to public standards.

So I um uh uh Commissioner McCarthy, I said I would vote for it, but this is a prime example why we at least need a DM hearing in the legislature, because now the residents at no fault of their own are caught in the middle of there's a group home in this area.

There is I represented this area for 10 years.

There's a group POM that we have there that's predominantly um has um disabled and uh folks that are in there, and now you're adding all of this density in the center of it and the city continues to pick apart.

I I understand that this is the best case scenario to keep people from annexing it, but a deal is a deal.

I said in on this board when there is a deal made that we would bar the RJC to stop 11,000 units to be zoned.

So I I wanna know why they don't have to keep their end of the deal, because on the interlocal, they're quick to send us letters if they think that we're doing something different.

So this is awful for these neighbors who have been there for a long time.

So what yes, there was a written agreement.

Betsy Fretwell was a city manager at the time.

So I just pains me to have to vote for this, but again, if we don't give them their way, they're gonna go annex and it'll be worse.

And at the end of the day, that is not set up for that street is not set up for that.

That's why it's a dead end.

So thank you for letting me get my piece out, but tired of people not keeping their end of the bargain.

There's a motion for approval on item 21 through 24.

Please cast your vote.

Jones, aye.

Motion passes.

Thank you.

Next or items 25 through 28 that can be heard together.

Item 25 is PA 26-7001.

Holdover plan amendments redesignate the existing land use category from mid-intensity suburban neighborhood to corridor mixed use on 0.85 acres, generally located east of Decatur Boulevard and south of Ford Avenue within Enterprise.

Item 26, ZC 26 F 0038.

Holdover zone change to reclassify 0.85 acres from an H2 General Highway frontage zone to an RS20 residential single family zone.

Excuse me, it's H2 and RS20 to a CG commercial general zone, generally located East of Decatur Boulevard and south of Ford Avenue within Enterprise.

Item 27, VS 26 F0037, holdover vacant abandoned easements of interest to Clark County located between Decatur Boulevard and Cameron Street Alignment and Ford Avenue and Pebble Road, and a portion of right away being Decatur Boulevard, located between Ford Avenue and Pebble Road within Enterprise.

And item 28, UC 26-0039.

Holdover use permit for outdoor dining, drinking, and cooking, waivers of development standards for the following.

One reduce setbacks to reduce street landscaping, three reduced buffering and screening, four modify residential adjacency standards, and five alternative driveway geometrics.

Design review for proposed commercial building on 0.85 acres in a CG commercial general zone.

Generally located East of Decatur Boulevard and South of Ford Avenue within Enterprise.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Good morning, all Renee Rowland, R O L I N with Momeni Engineering, 8360 West Sahara.

Representing the owner for a retail plaza at the corner of Ford and Decatur.

Items 25, 26, and 27 have either been adopted or approved.

So I'll move straight to 28.

Two of those waivers were denied, which was number two, reducing the street landscaping.

Along Decatur, we have the site visibility zone here and here when you pull in and out of the space.

So the detached sidewalk in front of it at the street side has lower shrubs just because we can't have trees there.

But the interior portion of that landscaping on the inside of the sidewalk closer to the building has the trees.

Along Ford, we have an easement right here where we can know we can't plant anything.

And then our trust receptacles also there, um, which is causing issues with trying to plant.

So we do have some shrubs there, but not the amount that's required by title code.

Um item number three was the uh reducing the buffering and screening.

So one that applies to the street areas, also at the back.

We have proposed a 10-foot setback to the residential uh neighborhood that's there, currently not built as residential but zone for such, and we've put trees 10 feet apart to cause make a giant buffer from the building, which is just the back side of it to the residential area.

Otherwise, working with uh public works, we've eliminated parking spaces here and here due to our decreased throat depth so that people can traverse in and out with their cars, still back out once someone's pulling in and such to not cause any accidents.

You have any questions?

That concludes what I think you need to know.

Thank you.

This is a public hearing.

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

Seeing no one, Commissioner Jones.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I appreciate uh the applicant has worked with public works on removing those uh parking spots.

Um still have concerns with relocation of the trash enclosure.

Um would hope that there is a different place that it could be uh placed.

Um but with that, I'll go ahead and vote for uh approval of agenda items 25 through 28 following uh planning commission's recommendations of denial of waivers two and three on agenda item number 28.

Thank you, Commissioner Jones.

There's uh motion for approval of item 25 through 28.

Before that, Mr.

Papasyan.

Thank you, Commissioner.

I apologize.

I just want to make sure where they remove the parking, it just looks blank that we are going to install some sort of landscape or median so those spaces don't come back.

If landscaping is required, you shall have it.

Thank you.

Okay, hearing the affirmative, there is a motion for approval of items 35 through 38.

Please cast your vote.

I'm sorry, 35 through 25 through 25.

25.

That motion passes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next items 29 through 31, which can be heard together.

29 is ZC26-0166.

Zone change to reclassify 1.79 acres from an RS20 residential single family 20 zone to a CG commercial general zone.

Generally located north of WMLane and west of Bermuda Road within Enterprise.

Item 30 VS 26-0168, vacate and abandon easements of interest to Clare County, located between Bermuda Bermuda Road and Fairfield Avenue, and Winmaulane and Mess Mesa Ferdi Lane.

A portion of right-away being Bermuda Road located between Winmill Lane and Mesa Verde Lane, and a portion of right away being Windmill Lane located between Bermuda Road and Fairfield Avenue within Enterprise.

And item 31, UC 26-0167.

We versa development standards for the following one modify residential adjacency standards, two reduce throat depth, and three allow modified street standards with a design review for commercial development consisting of a gas station, retail, and restaurant.

I'm on.79 acres in a CG commercial general zone, generally located north of Windmill Lane and West of Bermuda Road within Enterprise.

Good morning.

Mr.

Chair, members of the board, Denisio Gordillo, 204, Bell Isle Court, Henderson, Nevada 89012 here on behalf of the applicant.

As you can see here on an aerial, and I'll get to the site planning here in just a minute.

We are at the northwest corner of Bermuda and Windmill Lane.

Those are two arterial streets, very um major arterial streets.

It's roughly about two acres with the project as described in your agenda.

I do want to submit since we have finally a clean copy of this directly to the north, which is this parcel.

I do have a letter of support from that property owner.

We had a prior version, but it was not legible.

So there is a clean copy of the letter of support from this property, uh, which is currently residential.

This is planned master, uh, this is uh existing office professional.

As you know, Commissioner along windmill, uh, that corridor has been very troublesome over the years.

It's been planned anywhere from office professional on both sides to now commercial general uh based on the trend that we are seeing based on the intersection of two arterial streets uh on the first item, item number 26 commercial general is entirely appropriate for that site.

We appreciate staff's recommendation and we agree with all conditions of approval.

Item 30 is more or less just a cleanup because we are doing detached sidewalks on both streets.

So again, we recommend uh but we agree with staff's recommendation of approval on that.

We appreciate that we will comply with all conditions of approval as well.

Item 31, which is the main or primary application, is what's described in your agenda.

So what we have is basically a convenience store, which is now just a retail use, a gasoline station, and then we have a freestanding restaurant pad site with a drive-thru.

What we've done is we've mitigated where possible all the issues that have been brought up by staff, which in this case include a substantial amount more than what's required by code.

Right at the northwest corner.

So now the at this corner is where we touch what what is called what used to be rural RNP is now NPO.

So that is the only point that we touch the NPO uh district, and we've enhanced not just we don't we we have three rows of large trees as opposed to two, and then of course we've brought the eight foot eight foot high wall 15 feet south on the property on the West property line.

So we believe that we've addressed all those, all the the issues that have been brought up that were brought up at town board as well, uh, and therefore we uh request that you uh recommend approval of this of this project, and I'll be happy to answer any questions, especially if there are any any neighbors here as well.

Thank you.

This is a public comment period for items 29 through 31.

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

Good morning.

You can use any of the three microphones.

Uh I'm Lori Rod, R O D D 8215 Fairfield Avenue.

Uh I'm sorry, I would I thought that this was gonna be much later.

Um if you could just use the microphone.

Okay.

Um my first concern on this is uh his one of his egresses um that is just past the intersection of windmill and Bermuda.

Um it actually is going to force people wanting to get back to go eastbound on windmill to make a U-turn right where I'm fighting traffic already to get in the left turn to turn onto Fairfield.

Um then the people that will actually follow traffic rules, they're gonna make a right onto Fairfield.

It's going to uh cause traffic in the neighborhoods that we are trying to avoid.

Um the traffic down windmill is just already so dangerous.

Um if this was a park, I wouldn't be here.

I am vehemently opposed to a gas station.

The architectural or the engineering firm that is right, you know, west of his uh project here, uh, is so quiet.

I I would never, if that's what he was here for, I would be I would be happy actually.

Even the business across the street, very quiet.

Uh I've been there my whole life.

I used to ride horses in this area.

So this means a lot to me.

I'm still right in the house that I grew up in next door.

And I I just think a gas station, his other projects.

I'm I'm okay with uh we have many gas stations in the area.

I don't really understand why we're here for another one, but that's that's all I have to say.

Uh sorry, I'm rushing in here, not prepared, but um, I didn't think it was gonna be this quick.

Anyway, uh I oppose this.

Uh don't want to live next to another gas station.

And his other the restaurant, which is a fast food joint, it's gonna cause a lot of traffic.

His egress on windmill, it's not good.

It's very scary.

It's very scary where uh he's gonna be having different people fighting for the same lane.

I appreciate your time and thank you.

Thank you very much.

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

Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing.

Um I'll ask uh perhaps public works if you have a viewpoint on the comments made on egress to begin.

I'm sorry, Commissioner, I was not clear on the question.

She had, but if if it were a park, it would be the same traffic movements.

Uh I don't think people are traveling on Fairfield.

There's no real shortcut there.

Windmill is our section line.

Bermuda is a section line, and these type of streets are typically where commercial goes.

I t I tend to agree.

I uh appreciate the comments.

I I this is a privately held site.

Uh uh, we can't put a park there.

I have we do have quite a few parks actually.

You're pretty close to Duck Creek Park, you're close to uh Hidden Trails Park, you're close to the Silverado Ranch Park and Community Center.

Um this site i is on the corner of two arterials, and therefore this typically would be an appropriate use.

They have made best efforts to um to mitigate some of the issues related to the immediate neighbors, uh, and that's why I was satisfied to move forward with it because the buffering of the C store with the gas station to the residential, I think is appropriate.

Um I don't know if you have anything further you want to add.

If I can't yeah, if I can add one one point to that, and and maybe I misheard the the comment or the concern, but if you look at the aerial, we do have a median on Bermuda, directly adjacent to our site, and a median on windmill as well, so it does not allow full-turn movements, which would which goes a long way to mitigate those some of those traffic issues as well.

And of course, we will comply with any technical studies that we are required to do.

Thank you.

And I would also just point out that uh the applicant is putting in uh full detached sidewalks on both edges of this arterial Bermuda and Windmill, uh, which is a significant safety improvement for that area.

Um given that I am prepared to move for approval of items 29, 30, and 31.

Please cast your vote.

Jones.

Commissioner.

Jones I.

Did you want were you gonna add any questions?

Ah, excuse me.

The that motion that you are voting on right now is inclusive of two conditions that I want to add it for the record.

One is uh a condition that I apply on all uh fueling stations in my district, which is to have enhanced stone cladding or stonework up the entirety of the pillars.

Uh the applicant agrees to that.

We do, and in fact, what you have on file, I kind of highlighted this.

We are we have shown that on our plans as well.

So for the neighbors who live in the area, this is gonna be a really nice looking uh fueling station.

Uh does that condition meet what you need from a planning perspective?

Yes, I got it.

Okay.

And the second condition that I add is that the site be limited to monument signage only.

And we are agreeable to that as well.

Okay, thank you.

Uh my motion stands with those two additional conditions.

Can I just clarify one thing?

Um monument signage, but they can't have building signage.

Yes.

Thank you.

Motion passes.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, Commissioners.

Next is item 34, which is ORD 2690097.

Introduce an ordinance to amend the official zoning map reclassifying certain properties as approved by the Board of County Commissioners meeting on March 4th, 2026.

And staff recommends the ordinance be introduced and set for public hearing May 20th, 2026.

I'll introduce the ordinance and set the public hearing for May 20th, 2026.

And next item is a second time set aside for public comment.

This is the final time set aside for public comment.

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

If you could just once you gather your things, if you could just state your name again for the record.

Hello, my name is Jack Trujillo.

I'm a disabled veteran.

I got over 60 medical conditions due to contamination and hazing in the Marine Corps.

Now I moved to Las Vegas to retire, relax.

No more working.

And the majority of the uh neighbors in the area are all retirees.

So we had these uh two youngsters move in the neighborhood, and for a year they've been fostering dogs.

Ten to fifteen dogs in there.

Now you see this big old pile of poop right on the right side of the car there.

It's full of fleas, leeches, and flies.

The flies are like horse horse flies.

And they won't clean it up, and they want to foster dogs.

I have two big bug zappers on my porch, and I can show you all the fleas.

It's terrible.

And they have bug zappers inside the house.

Now she says she's not fostering dogs.

However, I got lots of information where she's all over the internet.

Uh showing all her dogs.

And dogs on this one.

This picture here, there's eight dogs there.

There's this area, there's one, two, three, there's two down here, and there's some in the back.

You're only supposed to have three dogs to foster.

Now when they clean after the dogs, excuse me.

When they clean after these dogs, sometimes they don't do it for months.

And the stench is terrible.

It's worse.

It reminds me of uh Henderson's pig farm down there.

The stench is so bad for Easter.

My grandkids came, we all got bit by fleas and flies, and it was terrible.

This is not a place to foster dogs.

Now she is hoarding dogs and keeping officials from coming in.

Now I went the first place I went to the police station, try to make a report.

I went there several times, they did nothing.

They told me to come down to the courthouse and make a complaint there, go to senior legal help.

They gave me more documents to go to code enforcement, go to health department, go to all these different places, and I did.

Spoke to uh Josh Wright, and uh he has his uh supervisor, Mr.

McCoy, who decided he did go to the house and said that uh she had six dogs.

I'm sorry, unfortunately that your time's expired.

Yeah, you you reside in Commissioner McCurdy's district, uh, and he can help refer you to the right place.

Well, after the meeting.

The next problem is uh she your time's expired under our rules, so have a seat.

Uh we're about to end our meeting.

Have a seat, and Commissioner McCurdy's uh offered to come talk to you.

Next speaker, please.

Hello, my name is Elva Anderson, and I live at 2672, Barbadale Circle, and I'd like to tell you that I really like the Elks Lodge.

My dad was a member, and I appreciated them bringing in the El Dorado Parade and us.

We had three parades over the weekend.

It was wonderful, but I appreciate you for not having it in our rural area, because we couldn't have handled it.

Thank you very much.

Well, thank you.

Oh David Anderson, 6217, Obana Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Um that same issue 30 the 3134, whatever it is, the Elks Lodge, not having the RV parking right next to homes.

That's it.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak at this final time set aside for public comment, please come forward.

Seeing no one, we will adjourn today's meeting.

Thank you.