We're gonna we're gonna get our meeting started um planning commission meeting for Tuesday June 16th if you wouldn't mind please rise and join us in the Pledge of Allegiance Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America public over which is under God individual liberty roll call commissioner Fraser here Commissioner Mohica Present Commissioner Stone here Commissioner Kirk excuse Commissioner Kalarski Commissioner Brady here Commissioner Reutman Present Mr.

Chair we have a quorum thank you very much all right staff just go ahead first oh I'm sorry first item of business first item of business is uh public comments NRS tells us we have to allow anyone in the audience to come down and make public comments um the staff cannot and the commission cannot act on those comments but you're more than welcome to come down and put anything on the record all right seeing no one coming down for public comments I'm sorry come on down sure no not not for items on the agenda just if you want to put something in general on the on on the record okay all right so seeing no one coming down for that we're going to uh close public I'm sorry no I'm not no nope not not just in the audience you can come down and and name an address for the record and then ask your question if you have one we just have to keep the public record clear hi name name and address Matthew Womble 6509 Pepper Mill Drive for sure um question add you have uh well I just want to make sure I see something here on the agenda item about this uh uh family trust and turn of Michael Trust this vocational training facility proposal for uh Torre Pines Drive just gonna need more information on what a vocational training facility is you know this city has failed yeah so let me interrupt you what what what number are you talking about uh it's number four but it's uh number five UC 260248 okay so so if you need if you want to hear that item there will be an opportunity for you to pull it off routine and we'll hear it separately and then you can get your information you want it you want to lovely all right thank you sir anyone else want to put something on public record all right seeing the one we're gonna close the public hearing for the public record and next item on the agenda the uh next time uh item on the agenda is approval of the agenda after any additions holds or deletions um at this time we have the following requests hold the following no date specific per the applicants item nine PA 267015 item 10 ZC 260188 item 11 VS 260189 item 12 WS 260190 item 20 PA 267010 item 21 ZC 260137 item 22 w s 260138 and item 23 tentative map uh TM 26500033 hold the following to the July 7th 2026 planning commission meeting and corresponding board of county commissioners meeting to august 5th 2026 per the applicants item 32 PA 267000 two one item 33 zc 260255 item 34 WS 260256 item 35 PA26700022 item 36 zc 260257 item 37 vs 260258 item 38 DR 260259 item 39 PA2670023 item 40 z c 260265 item 41 DS to 60270 item 42 PUD 260266 and item 43 TM26500068 for the applicant's information additional renotification fees may be required in accordance with title 30 for items held or deleted uh or if there are modifications to original application the above public hearing items are going to be opened as a public hearing immediately recessed until the date previously stated this is for items 9 10 11 12 20 21 22 23 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 and

Or if there are modifications to original application.

This is for items 9, 10, 11, 12, 20, 21, 22, 23, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, and 43.

If there are no requests by the planning commission member, I'm sorry, by the planning commission or members of the public, the agenda stands ready for your approval.

Thank you, staff.

So as you heard, staff read in a lot of items that are going to be held.

So at this time, I just take a motion for approval of the agenda.

Mr.

Chair, I make a motion to approve the agenda holding items 9, 10, 11, 12, 20, 21, 22, and 23.

And items 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, and 43.

Thank you very much.

There's motion on the floor, cash a vote.

Excuse me.

Can you have our argument for motion on the floor, cash or vote?

Motion carries.

All right.

Sir, you can come down.

I'll recognize you.

Um I need your name and address for the record, and then and then I will take your question real quick.

Robert Youssef, um with LC Development.

We have the project in 7860, South Vicero Boulevard.

Las Vegas uh 89139.

And today we met with Romeo, the planner, and we were told that our item is not going to be on hold.

And to become a present the item, and he has spoken to some of uh okay.

So, sir, yeah, let me let me interrupt you.

Um, can you step to the side and talk to staff about that?

Um thank you.

Next item.

The next item on the agenda is approval of the minutes.

The planning commission briefing and regular meeting minutes from May 5th, 2026 are ready for approval.

I'll entertain a motion.

Motion to approve the minutes as presented.

Motion on the floor, cash to vote.

That motion passes next item.

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

All appeals must be filed in writing to the comprehensive planning department by 5 p.m.

on Wednesday, June 24th, 2026, and any appeals from tonight's meeting will be heard by the Board of County Commissioners on Wednesday, July 22nd, 2026 at 9 a.m.

in these chambers.

Per title 30, an agreed person may appeal in an item.

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

Members in the audience must be must complete the meeting sign and sheet found at the entrance of the of the chambers as well as near the dais.

To confirm their meeting and I'm sorry, to confirm their attendance at this meeting, mail notices of appealed applications will be sent to the property owners within the same notification radius as the original application and to those listed on the meeting's meeting sign and sheet.

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

Next are the routine action of the items, which consists of items 4 through 15, except those items that were previously deleted.

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

Also for the record, item under item eight, staff is asking that we add a condition for the dead for a 30-foot dedication of Redwood Street.

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

Thank you, staff.

All right, so at this stack section of our meeting, we're going to approve the routine action items.

So those are items that are on routine, and they're and they're all will be approved in one vote.

So if there's something that's on the routine action item that you want to hear separately, and I got item number five.

I think a young man wanted to hear number five.

I don't see them now.

Okay, all right.

So I got guide number five.

I'm pulling number five off of routine, but any of the other ones, they're going to be approved in one vote.

So if you want one of those pulled off and heard separately, now's the time to come down and ask for that to happen.

There's a young lady in the back that also wanted it to hear in the white cap back there.

Yeah, which number?

35x.

Okay, all right.

Yeah, that will be held um heard on the non-routine action items.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Klarski.

So, yes, item item 35 is being held, and that's being held to the July 7th planning commission meeting.

So for for the audience information.

Yes, sir.

Come on down.

One of your own, all right.

Fair enough.

All right, so what I have is um I have um I need a motion for approval of the routine action items.

We're we're gonna hear number five.

We're pulling it and hearing it in its order, and then I have staff added a comment on number eight.

Could you read that in the record, please?

Yeah, for item number eight, right away to include 30 feet for um for Redwood Street.

Okay, all right.

Right away dedication to include 30 feet for Redwood Street.

All right, so so those are those are the items, and if I could get a motion for approval, I appreciate it.

Motion to approve routine action items four through 15, pooling item number five, and adding the condition to item number eight, and holding items nine, ten, eleven, and twelve.

Perfect.

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

Um Commer Kalarski.

All right, well, we'll just go ahead and move forward with the vote.

We got enough.

That motion passes.

Next item is item number five.

Uh this is final action unless appealed.

Next item on the agenda uh on the agenda is item number five.

UC260248 use permit for Commissioner First.

Do we have a plan amendment on the routine action items?

We had five votes, right?

We have five six.

She voted before she okay.

All right, great.

Thank you.

Did we have a plan amendment on it?

Yes, 13.

Thank you.

So items um 13, 14, and 15 will be forwarded to the uh board of county commissioners for final action on July 22nd, 2026 at 9 a.m.

Thank you.

Next item.

Yeah, next item is item number five.

UC 260248, use permit for a proposed avocational and vocational training facility on 0.46 acres in a CP commercial professional zone, generally located west of Torrey Pines Drive and south of Sahara Avenue within Spring Valley.

Um there's an applicant in the audience for item number five.

Yes, come on down, sir.

Yes, please.

Come on down and um name and address for the record and tell us about your application.

Uh Joe Engel, uh 3316, Plaza del Paz, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89102.

Um, JWE Enterprises LLC is renting the property from the property owner and uh Mike Turner and I have a letter from Mike Turner that he approves of this, and I have a couple of the letters from the surrounding properties.

Um what what we're proposing to do is to run a DUI school out of an existing building that's already providing behavioral health services for adults.

Um it's licensed as an outpatient, it's state licensed outpatient facility right now.

Um we want to add an additional program to it.

There will be no changes to the surrounding areas, there'll be no change to the architecture, there'll be no change to anything.

It's just the evening classes Monday and Wednesday from 5 p.m.

to 9 p.m.

All right.

That concludes your presentation.

Yep, thank you very much.

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

Anyone in the audience like to speak on this item?

Now's the time to come down, sir.

Yep.

So just to be clear, your only addition is to have I apologize, sir.

Name and add Matthew Womble 6509 Pepper Mill Drive 89146.

Thank you very much.

Now I want to be clear because this commission's already responsible for shoving the campus for hope down our neighborhood, about a mile down the road.

So you're just adding nighttime DOI classes.

So you're changing the hours of operation for the current facility.

You said something about outpatient, saying that's what it is currently.

Okay.

Oh no, I don't talk talk, talk to us.

We he he can hear you.

You you talk to us, we'll ask questions for him.

Well, okay.

So I want to make sure what are the hours of operation that they're applying for.

Okay.

Okay.

And that's the only addition that you're applying for here.

So how's the I heard hours of operation, and we want to verify that's the only thing they're applying for.

And any other questions?

That's it.

All right, thank you, sir.

Can I get the applicant to come back up?

So I'm gonna close the public hearing, and um, so now we're gonna speak to the applicant.

Joe Engel for the record, uh, the hours of operation are Monday.

I can give you this letter, this justification letter.

I'll be happy to give it to you.

Just just um 5 p.m.

to 9 p.m.

Um Monday and Wednesday night.

All right, so no, no, you're you're you're fine.

Um else in the audience want to speak on items.

I think we close that part.

We closed the public hearing, so I can take a motion for approval.

Motion to approve UC 260248.

Motion on the floor, cast your vote.

That motion passes.

Good luck.

This is final action unless appealed.

Next item on the agenda is item 16, ET 264016, WS21082, waiver development standards, second extension of time for modified commercial driveway design standards.

Design review for vehicle maintenance development on five acres in IL industrial light zone, generally located south of Emerald Avenue and west of Boulder Highway within Whitney.

Thank you very much.

Name and address for the record.

Tell us about your application.

My name is Blaine Soule, spelled S O U L E.

I'm with Dwyer Engineering at 333 North Rancho in Las Vegas.

I'm here with the applicant and with the owner and developer.

For this project, we have met with the senior planner for this project, Steve Demerit, and he has asked that we share with the planning commission that they request to have this extension of time approved.

This is so they can continue to provide assistance that this project requires that it's it.

Okay, very good.

All right, so I'm gonna open this application up for a public hearing.

Anyone in the audience like to speak on this item?

Now's the time to come down and do so.

All right, seeing no one, I'm gonna close the public hearing and I'll open it up to commissioners for comments and questions.

Go ahead, Commissioner Clarski.

Thank you.

I I'm just wanting to, I guess ask public works because of the comment that is made here.

Uh that the improvements remain pending, so they've turned something in, I guess.

And the parcel map has not been approved.

Has the parcel map been turned in?

Um based on that.

You know, how long do you think it'll take for the permits to get approved?

And I'm asking this because I think that would determine how long I would really want to say question.

Is that a question?

No, I'm asking staff.

I'm asking staff.

Very well.

But I'm I'm just letting you know I'm asking this so that we know if we want to go for the amount of time that you're asking for.

Give me a moment.

I have to look up to see where they are in their offsites.

Sure.

So the parcel map has been submitted.

It is pending the off sites.

Off sites were submitted.

Um we are currently waiting for them to be submitted back to us.

Um we sent them out for comments and have not received them back.

So I can't tell you.

It depends on how when they get resubmitted and back and forth.

I cannot give an So is the amount of time that they're asking for.

Is that reasonable or would do you think we'd be done sooner?

Approximately.

It's up to how fast they submit their corrections and everything, so it's kind of up to them on if we have time.

We have that ready.

It was just when we were doing the parcel map, the extension of time came along, and they won't take the parcel map without the extension of time.

I understand that.

Okay, that was just my question.

Thank you.

Go ahead, Commissioner Moy.

Um I need some clarification from staff.

Um I'm gonna read what what is here.

Um staff cannot support the requested second extension of time.

Uh staff has reviewed the permitting history and notice that the building permits submitted in January 26th have not been reviewed due to incomplete submittals.

With other permits not being actively worked on by the applicant.

We have I'm not asking you, sir.

I'm asking staff.

I'm sorry.

Uh so we uh at the time of um uh writing up the staff report, uh, we uh researched the history of the parcel, and we realized that the jet uh on January 2026, uh there was a um permit submitted to building department.

I believe it was for grading, and um it was at the submittal status.

Uh means that no reviewer has received the plans or reviewed it.

So for planning staff, it was not sufficient uh progress to recommend approval of the extension of TIE.

Yeah, what I'm trying to understand is has it has this been failure on the part of the applicant to comply and submit the paperwork.

Uh yes, the basically the uh submittal for building department is the on an online submittal process.

So until they have a complete submittal, they're not gonna accept the application.

So that was the uh basically status of the permit.

It was not accepted by the building department, meaning that um basically not all the required documents or plans were provided as of that time.

So they failed to submit what they needed to and timely.

They they started the submittal, it was not uh completed, basically.

I'm gonna add something, Jason.

Yeah, I just want to say it's still as of today.

Um the comment was sent on January 12th, 2026, and there's still no response from the customer on that building permit.

And and to be clear, staff's recommendation is for denial.

Staff is not recommending approval as the applicant stated.

Uh, we do not support the application.

No, and that would be in agreement.

So thank you.

Josh Hainesworth, Mountain Vista Development 2675 East Patrick, we're the general contractor and developer.

Um, if staff will scroll further down to that application, they'll see that that resubmittal has been done.

Um of the comments received on the first application attempts was that they felt that the plans needed to be updated to the current code since this project was started a while ago.

So that resubmittal was done under the current code, and if you scroll down, I believe you'll see that the current submittal was done and accepted on June 9th.

We have email confirmation that all documents were received.

Um I see a permit was sub submitted um for the warehouse building, uh, and it was accepted or plans were were received um yesterday, June 15th.

Um I don't see any um acceptance status yet.

That doesn't mean that is uh still insufficient.

Uh building per building department has not got to the um this permit yet to verify that um all right before I go to the next person.

I just want to disclose that um the applicant's representative.

Um and I our company I that I work for do business every once in a while, but I'm still able to um act and speak on this item.

Yes, I agree.

Thank you.

Um Commissioner Klarski, do you have anything else you want to put on the record?

I I just want to make sure that I understand on the initial application.

It was it was approved.

Am I correct?

And this is just the extension of time, but staff on the initial one at a denial recommendation in 2021.

I guess.

Um we're talking about it.

I don't know what our recommendation was, but we're talking about five years later.

Uh they haven't made significant progress.

Uh so we'd like the project denied, and if they want to come back in with the same or different project, we can evaluate it based on the current code.

Since we've had the new code for two and a half years now.

Okay, thank you.

One more thing.

We we have a list of dates and everything we've submitted.

So I I'll recognize you, sir.

Go ahead, go ahead and make your comments.

Yes, okay.

So let's go back to January of 2026.

You can see since then that we've done uh submittal to Clark County Public Works in February.

We did a submittal to NV Energy in which comments were received in that same month.

Uh extension of time was applied for that same month.

Um Clark County Water Reclamation District submittal was done in March.

NB Energy right-aways were then done in April.

Las Vegas Valley Water District comments were addressed in April.

Parcel map was approved in April to go to Mylar pending the extension of time that we're at now.

Uh in May, NV Energy comments were reviewed and comments clarified.

And Clark County Building Department permit resubmittal in June.

And that puts us up to see scheduled planning commission meeting for extension temperature.

That's what that's our time now.

So we have been active, and we have had uh I think we're on a fourth submittal to the Clark County Public Works.

So thank you, sir.

Um personally, I don't I don't have any issue with the with the extension of time.

Um I and I don't particularly see a uh a need to send the applicant back through um a new code review, but um I I'll um I'll defer for a second.

Uh Commissioner Workman.

Uh just a question on process.

So they've submitted new building plans.

We asked that those new building plans be up to date with the new code, and the new plans that they submitted are up to date with the new code.

Or we don't know because we haven't seen that, but that that's what we asked for.

Uh, if the extension of time uh is approved tonight, uh their plan is uh basically needs to just match the originally approved plans.

So project gets an extension.

That being said, I think they just said that they had submitted new plans that maybe I misunderstood.

The plans are identical if I can respond.

Uh the plans are identical.

We just had to reflect them in the code analysis on a couple small tweaks just to reflect the updated codes, but the overall site plan I mean, nothing has changed.

The project is still identical.

Uh we just to clarify, I think he means that the building code they had to change.

Correct.

Um by the recommendation of denial for public works was based on the fact that Title 30 has changed, and since there has not been any off site improvements install permits approved or even installation, we would like them to start over so they can build to today's Title 30 and today's code for off sites because it's been like Jason said, two and a half years since our code has changed, and nothing on this particular parcel has been constructed yet.

That they are speaking about.

Okay, but back to you.

But with what they just submitted, do we expect that there will be changes so that it is up to date with respect to what public works or as far as the code?

If you guys approve the extension of time, they will keep the old code.

They will get to build everything to old.

Public works as well as building.

Building is separate.

Which means we would look at it for today's code.

If you guys approve the extension of time, they get to keep whatever the approved plans on file show.

You you I have a I'm sorry, go ahead, Commissioner Winkler.

I request so another question for staff, and you may or may not be Bankster's question.

What they submitted, if we were to send them back for the new code, would it change significantly?

Um it could, yes.

Um of our new codes is detached sidewalks.

This is not showing detached sidewalks, it's showing attached sidewalks.

Um there could be other changes based on the fact that there's been significant changes in the area with other developments that have actually weren't there when they first came in and now that it exists.

So traffic patterns and everything have changed.

All right, all right.

So all right, so I'm I'm can I can I make one more response?

Uh absolutely give me one second.

Can you put your plans on the dot up there so that we can see them?

And then go ahead, applicant.

You can make your comment.

Sure.

So I I hear staff's comments um and their concerns with uh concerns to the sidewalk.

This property sits at the end of Emerald Avenue.

It's a dead-end street that backs up to a drainage channel.

So although, yes, we could change the sidewalk at the front of the property, there's not pedestrian traffic in that area, as addition to adding traffic flow to the street itself.

Again, it's at the end of a dead-end street.

This is a small commercial building.

It's a minimal impact to the area and to the street itself.

Yeah.

Thank you for showing that plan.

That's helpful.

Go ahead, Commissioner Workman.

I I think I can probably support this extension, but for the sake of the conversation here, is there something if we were if we wanted them to get up to date with the new code?

Could we condition the extension on resubmittal of plans that would comply with the new code?

And would that be any different than just denying it and having them reapply as far as like you know, further applications or further delay or something like that?

Is there a way here to kind of you know split the baby so that public works gets what they need?

You know, if we need a detached sidewalk or something, that maybe that happens, but they we don't send them back to square one, or is or does that not make sense?

It would make more sense to deny it or have them withdraw and just start over.

Yep.

So so there's no other comments.

I'm I'm ready, I'm ready to make a motion and we'll see where it goes.

I'll I'll move for approval of ET 264000 six.

There's a motion on the floor, cash a vote.

Mr.

Chair, I'm gonna support this, but I want to put on record that this will be the last time if you come in and ask for another extension.

I will not be supporting that.

And I just want to be up front with you on that.

All right, so that motion passes.

Good luck.

This is final action unless appealed.

Next item is uh 17 ET 264043, WS20028.

Waiver development standards, third extension of time to allow proposed single family residential lots to have direct access to a collector street, Grand Canyon Drive on 2.5 acres in an RS20 residential single family 20 zone within the neighborhood planning.

I'm sorry, neighborhood protection RP overlay.

Generally located north of Stange Avenue and east of Grand Canyon Drive within Lone Mountain.

Uh Gerald Worthlin, 10032 Cineguac Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89149.

Uh, tell us about your application.

Okay.

Um I was contacted by the property owner.

Apparently, the engineer and surveyor that was working on this project throughout the years had kind of drugged their feet and let it stagnate.

He contacted me to take the project and go forward.

The parcel map had uh expired.

I've resubmitted the parcel map.

Uh basically, this extension of time is for just a frontage on Grand Canyon on an arterial, I believe, for the two lots.

Um we I did get my comments back on my parcel map application, and we are in the process.

I think I have an appointment in August.

Uh I'm gonna ask for a waiver of the development standards as far as the detached sidewalks because it is in a uh rural preservation neighborhood.

I don't know how that hearing's going to go, but that application is in progress.

All right, thank you very much.

So we have um I'm going to open this application up for a public hearing.

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

All right, seeing no one coming down, we're gonna close the public hearing and I'll open it up to commissioners for comments.

No comments, Commissioner Workman.

Any of those same issues on this extension of time?

I mean, what is is this something that we'd be expecting?

The new code, we just denied a almost denied a second extension.

What what are we looking at here, Steph?

Yes, um, Commissioner, because of they had to resubmit the parcel map now.

They got that they're required to do off-site improvements.

When they had the new code update, everybody that submits any land development has are responsible to construct full off-site improvements.

So what he's mentioning, he has to go for back to the board to get a waiver approval for off-site improvements, otherwise, his drainage study will change, his um parcel map um boundary will change as well if it's not approved.

So he's still gonna have to comply with the new code on this and ask for a waiver on the off-site approvements, and we'll get a chance to look at that potentially someday down the road here.

We do have an administrative um process as well, but since Grand Canyon is not an RP, he does have to go back to the board to get a waiver for off-site improvements.

I think I can approve uh support this if the rest of the board's okay with it.

I'm sorry, Commissioner Mojico.

If I'm on the fence with approving this, I know this is not your fault because you're picking it up.

But if we do approve this, please make sure it gets done.

Please.

I'm I'm working on that.

I am.

Um I'm hoping to get the waiver of off-sites um uh because he's he's it fully intended on putting stagn lane, it's paved, it's gonna be paved in, but the off um detached sidewalks, curb gutter sidewalks, street lights, we're gonna be asked to be waived, and that's gonna be on that other hearing.

And and I'm gonna make one more comment for the record.

Just you know, um, this is just as like the I would say the pain of going through our code change.

Um, I think it was a code change in January of this year, and so um, we'll be getting a lot of these things.

Um, and you know, no one's immune to getting caught in the in the mix of it.

So so we do appreciate you going through the process.

Um if you're ready, Commissioner.

Oh, sorry, Commissioner Colossus.

Can I just ask a question based on this um new as you were talking about the new code and everything else?

Don't we still have rural neighborhood the RNP overlays standards?

And do they not include?

And I guess I'm asking public works.

I don't know who I'm asking.

Uh don't they include where we don't have sidewalks and all that stuff, lights and they would still need to ask for waivers for them in new code.

Um the wording was taken out of new code that gave exceptions to those areas.

So all sites are required to put in full off sites unless we so there's no grant bothering because they're in the RP.

Correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right, Commissioner Brady, you want to take us home?

Hi.

So first off, I used to live right down the street from here.

Um, so I I'm looking at it overall.

I wish I could see the plot map and how it how it was supposed to be.

On this map, the two parcels are the yellowish colored where my finger is.

They're gonna be two one-acre lots that are gonna front on Grand Canyon.

I highlighted all of the I highlighted all of the properties up and down Grand Canyon just in that area that are fronting on Grand Canyon, which is primarily all of them.

The four that sit just north, uh they're brand new development.

They're not even built yet, but they're all fronting on Grand Canyon.

Yeah, and so that's that's where I looked at this.

So according to what normal rules would state is that this these lots would be turned the other way, so then they wouldn't be on the major road.

But I do understand where you're actually kind of opposite.

Yeah, so that's how it would actually be.

And so all the homes on that street, and actually the street over are in that same direction.

As well as north of Lone Mountain, you still have a lot of fronting on Grand Canyon, too.

The one thing that's going to change though, here is this road is going to get more traffic soon.

Um, because that's where that the temple got approved.

It's that same road.

Um, and so that's where I can understand why you would turn it because there are there's gonna be more traffic on that exact road and people pulling out.

Um though I don't have a strong strong opinion.

And I I I get where they're supposed to be based the other way.

So overall, I'm I'm in support of doing an extension uh on it um to bring everything up to code and everything, but that's something actually I'd like to talk to some of you guys about and kind of get some opinions and talk to some people on it.

So I will make a motion to approve um the extension of ET-26-400 uh four three um for uh an extension.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Brady.

Motion on the floor, cast your vote.

All right, that motion passes.

Good luck.

Thank you.

This is final action unless it's appealed.

Item 18, WS26062, holdover waiver of development standards to eliminate and reduce setbacks in conjunction with an existing single family residence and zero one, I'm sorry, 0.14 acres in an RS 3.3 residential single family 3.3 zone, generally located west of Crowley Way and south of fourth fourth side street drive within Sun Sunrise Manor.

Thank you, Staff.

Is there an applicant in the audience for item number 18?

All right, seeing no one.

Um so let's hold and notify that.

Well, I'll leave for you, Commissioner Kalarski.

You want to hold it and notify the applicants so they can come back to our meeting.

Yeah, I'm just surprised because when will we hold it too?

It would be two weeks, and I'll get a hold of them.

All right, two weeks.

Yeah, how's that gonna affect their renotification?

No, all right.

So yeah, we'll just do the two weeks.

Is that a is that a motion or I didn't know?

Yes, okay.

So I'm sorry, move to hold for two weeks on uh July 7th.

All right, so motion on the floor, cash a vote.

Sorry, folks.

That motion carries photo hold.

Next item.

I'm sorry, go ahead, community.

Just real quick.

Um the date's correct, the July 7th date, it's gonna be three weeks.

I don't want I don't want anybody to come back in two weeks.

We don't have a meeting, so it's one of those weird ones where it's a three-week hold July 7th.

Thank you very much, staff, for the clarification.

Uh next time on the agenda item 19, WS 260249 waivers of development standards for the following uh increase height and two reduce setbacks for a proposed existing accessory building in conjunction with the existing single family residence on 0.44 acres in RS2 5.2 RS uh residential single family 5.2 zone within the airport environs, AE60 overlay, generally located west of Montessori Street and north of Oquindo Road within Spring Valley.

Is there an applicant in the audience for item number 19?

Oh yeah, but come on down, sir.

Show us your your plans and name and address for the record.

Thank you very much.

Jeff Gates, 5880 Flight Wing Street, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89113.

Oh keep going.

Yeah, yeah, go ahead and tell us about tell us about your application.

Thank you.

We're here.

I'm asking for two variances.

One's on the height.

Your normal peak is allowed to be 14 feet.

We're asking for 17 foot five.

And that's due to the wanting a 10-foot garage door, which means you have to have a 12-foot interior height, which pushes the peak to 17 foot five inches.

And it's so we could have the same pitch, valleys, and tile roof as the existing house and everything else in the neighborhood.

If we kept it at 14 feet, it would be more like a flat roof and a square box looking, which to us is an eye sore.

And then the second one is the 10-foot setback because of the Montessori road.

And we're asking for five foot.

Um different times we've put paint on the ground, laying this all out.

How does it fit?

What's best, just trying to get maximum amount of room of what we have.

We've we're 13 feet away from the edge of the building from our north neighbor.

And that would that's why we're also asking for the five foot.

I supposedly you're allowed to be five foot away from your neighbor, but why can't I be five foot away from the back wall just because there's a street?

So it's that's the request.

All right, thank you for that.

Um I'm gonna open this application up for a public hearing.

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

Seeing the one rushing down, we're gonna close the public hearing, and I'm gonna open up the commissioners for comments or questions.

I'll just say for the record, I don't have any issue with the application.

I think it's gonna be a nice building, and and I appreciate you going through the process.

Thank you.

A long one go ahead, Commissioner Roitman.

Can you just show me on the map?

Or can you show me like on your site plan where the okay that one better?

Yeah, that's yes, sir.

Yeah, thank you.

And any conversations with your neighbor to the north north?

Nobody lives there.

Nobody lives there?

Right.

Uh he lives with it, he's elderly, lives with his neighbor, or excuse me, his daughter.

So no, I don't really have any communication with him.

And any communication with anyone else in the neighborhood?

Um, only the one that's straight across from us that actually can technically see into our backyard.

They don't have a problem with it.

Supposedly they were gonna sign the yellow piece of paper and saying it was okay and send it in.

Whether they did or not, I don't know.

That's just what we were verbally told.

Okay.

And the way that my house is laid out, our other neighbor to the other side, really can't see it.

Okay.

I'm all right with this.

If it everyone else good, all right.

I'll motion to approve WS260249.

Motion thank you for coming in.

Thank you.

Motion on the floor, Castro Vote.

I do have one question because I've never been through this before, so do I get notified by yeah, everything's okay?

Okay.

So there's a motion on the floor.

And and that motion passes.

Good luck.

This is final action unless appealed.

Next item on the agenda is item items uh 24 through 28.

These are companion items and be heard together.

Uh, item 24 is PA 26700017, plan amendment to redesignate the land use category from mid-intensity suburban neighborhood, MN to compact neighborhood CN on one point four four acres, generally located east of Walpike Way and north of Serene Avenue within Enterprise.

Z uh item 25, ZC 260208.

The zone change to reclassify 1.44 acres from an RS20 residential single family 20 zone to an arm 18 residential multifamily 18 zone, generally located east of Walpai Way and north of Serene Avenue within Enterprise.

Vacate and abandoned easements of interest to Clark County, located between Walpide Way and Kisador Street and Aletta Avenue and Serene Avenue within Enterprise.

Item 27, WS 260209.

Amended waivers of development students for the following.

One reduce rear setbacks.

Two eliminate required open space, which is uh no longer needed.

Three uh allow attached sidewalks, four reduced street intersection offset, five, reduce curved return radius, and six reduce uh driveway separations.

It's a design review for single family res attached residential development on 1.44 acres in an RM18 residential multifamily 18 zone, generally located east of Walpai Way and north of Serene Avenue within Enterprise, and item 28 TM 26500053, tentative map consisting of 14 single family residential lots and common lots on 1.44 acres in an RM18 residential multifamily 18 zone generally located east of Walpite Way and north of Serene Avenue within Enterprise.

Thank you, Staff.

Um, before we get started on this one, I think Commissioner this is Commissioner Mohica's area, so I think she wants to address the applicant real quick and so I'll allow that to happen.

Hello.

Um I would like to hold this item because I was not contacted at all, and I had a lot of questions about it.

So it's up to you.

You're more than welcome to present, or we can hold it, and I'd like to talk about it.

That might be a good yeah, we'll we'll we'll hold and then we'll have time to present it.

Excuse me, we'll hold it and we'll have time presented for you for the next slide.

Yeah, so we can hold it for what is it two weeks or three three weeks?

Does that affect the other process or the so you would be holding it to the next planning commission meeting would be July 7 7th, and this would go to the August 8, 5th uh BCC meeting then?

Okay, will you be okay with that?

Okay.

Okay, but before we do that, is anyone in the audience here for this item to speak on it?

I just wanted to ask that question because I was gonna allow you to come down and put some put some comments on the record, but seeing seeing no one coming down, I'll we can go ahead and you can make a motion.

Okay, um making a motion to hold items 24 through 27 for three weeks.

There's a motion on the floor, cash to vote.

Commissioner I think it's 28, right?

24 is it 28?

Yes, 2025, 24 through 28.

Correction 24 to 2028.

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

That motion party carries four hold.

Thank you.

Uh next items on the agenda are items 29 through 31.

These are companion items, and we'll be heard together.

PA 267020 plan amendment to redesignate the existing land use category from neighborhood commercial NC to entertainment mixed use EM on 2.16 acres, generally located north of Desert Inn Road and west of Pawnee Drive within Winchester.

Item 30, VS 20250897, vacate and abandoned a portion of Railway being Pawnee Drive, located between Desert Inn Road and Sombrero Drive, and a portion of right of way being Desert Inn Road between Pawnee Drive and La Canada Street within Winchester.

Item 31, UC 250896, use permit for office for as a principal use, waivers of development standards for the following.

One reduce setbacks, two, increase building height, and three alternative driveway geometrics.

Design review for proposed mixed use development on 2.16 acres in a CR commercial resort zone, generally located north of Desert Inn Road and west of Pawnee Drive within Winchester.

Thank you, Staff.

Anyone in the uh in the audience on items 30 through 31?

I'm sorry, that's 29.

Yeah, 29 through 31.

Wow.

We're we're batting a thousand tonight.

So you're not the applicant.

Okay, that's that's fine.

Are you the neighbors?

Oh anyone, anyone is there an applicant in the audience for items 29 through 31.

All right.

So seeing no applicant.

I'm gonna my area.

I'm gonna lean on staff for a second.

Can I can I can I open this up for a public hearing so that the the people that are here can speak on it, but then also hold it?

Yes, okay.

All right, Mr.

Chair.

I was just gonna ask if they wanted to speak now or if they wanted to wait until the actual application.

And if you'll hold off till the end of the meeting, I'll talk to you guys too, because it's my area.

Okay, so so I was gonna give them the opportunity to speak if they wanted to, and they can also come back if they want to.

All right, fair fair enough.

Okay, so um this particular item 30 29 through 31.

I'm gonna open it up for a public hearing.

Anyone in the audience like to come down and speak on this item, you can come down, put your comments on the record.

I need a name and address for um for the record, and then give us your comments that way that that way the record's clear, and we everybody everybody that listens to the meeting has your comments.

Go ahead, sir.

My name's Alfredo Serrano.

I live at 1679 Sombrero Drive in Las Vegas, Nevada.

Um so this is this is basically in my backyard.

And um I bought the property about 30 years ago, and I watched our property value plummet in the area when we were um in the downturn, and my mortgage went upside down.

But the neighborhood eventually became came back around, and uh we became actually the historic neighborhood which took a lot of effort, and we're very proud of our historic neighborhood.

Um we uh this building is right in our backyard.

It's the only even the hospital is only like five, six stories high.

This is a 15-story building in my backyard.

I um when the property value started going down, I thought, you know what?

What am I gonna how am I gonna survive and into retirement?

And I got solar panels on the entire back of my south facing back of my roof.

That it will now be in a big shadow from a 15-story building.

Um between that and and the what Nevada Energy is doing with our electricity right now, even with solar panels they're charging us.

I'm gonna be again once again.

I'm gonna not have anything, any sun on my solar panels.

Um the corner of Pawnee and uh and desert in is right where they're building.

That is our already a high accident area where they've done traffic studies and we tried to get a light put up there or something.

And um the development, the changing of the driveways and everything is gonna make that make that corner even more uh more dangerous.

Um we're constantly having accidents on on uh desert inn already, and the traffic diverts onto Sombrero and into the back alleyway that is between my house and the new structure.

Currently, it's a two-story building.

We can kind of out of my backyard, you can kind of see the the roofs of the building with the 15-story um well, the property owners number one.

I just want to talk about them a little bit.

The property has been left abandoned, basically.

There's two businesses in the property now.

It's the same owners, and they don't upkeep the property.

They they haven't done anything.

There's trash all over the place.

They finally, after our complaints, they finally put in a camera that basically fed um points right into our backyards.

So that was their solution to the the homeless people that were living on their properties.

Um, I kind of closed out my thing.

Um so also with the property owners.

Um, we're at our um neighborhood meeting that we have had with them.

We uh asked them about financing, and they don't have any answers for night financing right now.

So, what the last thing I want is the historic looking building right now that they have there, which is a beautiful smaller building, um, for that to be torn down and then no financing come through.

So we're living with a homeless empty lot in the backyard.

Um they're saying that this is gonna be a mixed use, the mixed use.

They they tried to go through and have it as a um just they were gonna turn it into uh long or extended stay type of thing, and that didn't go through because of the amount of parking they had or some issue like that.

So they went to this mixed use thing, and then mixed use permit that they're looking for also has an entertainment clause, and we're learning what in it what the entertainment clause is gonna have do in our backyard.

Um so that was another one of our concerns.

But really, the thing is is this is a historic neighborhood, it's a beautiful little neighborhood.

There's nothing the highest building around is the hospital at like five, six stories, and this is gonna be a monstrosity in our backyard.

The property value is going up right now because it is a historic neighborhood.

This is just gonna turn it back around as far as I'm concerned.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much for your comments, sir.

Anyone else name and address for the record, please.

Hello, April Mench 1661, Silver Mace away.

I am one street over off of Sombro.

I also sit on the Winchester Town Advisory Board.

Um, I just want to say for the record, this is a very contentious topic at the last meeting that we had.

Um, and additionally, within the neighborhood, I admin our neighborhood social media group, it's a closed group.

A lot of people are very upset about this.

Um personally, I believe this project to be out of compliance with the purpose of Title 30, specifically under its uh general purpose um articles three, 11, 15, and 16.

Um, as was mentioned already, the solar resources, so um solar access, new buildings should not cast a shadow.

I directly face the back of the existing building.

Uh, I do also have solar.

I'm very aware of how much the sign goes over my yard.

I'm constantly checking it.

I am fairly confident that this will absolutely kill the solar of any homes in its shadow.

Um, I don't know what kind of loans people carry, other people carry on their solar, but killing their solar panels plus leaving them with a debt that they have to pay and having to pay electricity would be a huge financial detriment to people.

Um, additionally, um, 11, which is protect existing neighborhoods and communities, including historic neighborhoods in 15, which is provide harmonious development compatible with the surrounding environment.

Um, as this gentleman mentioned, we are a historic overlay on both sides of Desert Inn.

Um, we are inarguably the most famous residential neighborhood in Las Vegas.

Um, we attract attention from tourists interested in architectural history, um, people interested in film and television scouts, um, national publications, all of that.

This a high-rise building of 15 stories in the middle of a neighborhood that is predominantly single family ranch style homes would completely destroy the character of the neighborhood.

Um, and finally, 16 prohibit the development of incompatible uses detrimental to safety.

Um, this is a very high-hazard uh intersection, the corner of Pani and Desert Inn.

We see loads of accidents there.

At the last meeting, the applicant stated that it is a 55 and up community, so people won't be driving.

Um, I'm sure many people in this room are 55 and up, uh, vibrant, drove here today.

Uh, I think the idea that there will be less traffic because of 55 and up is not only inaccurate, uh, but the absurdity I think brings into question the competence of the applicant to make such a crazy statement.

Um, finally, this is just an aside.

Um, the existing building is a really beautiful piece of mid-70s architecture.

It's pretty striking if you drive by.

Um, I understand that there's been a lot of neglect, renovations may be out of the question for the building, but it is in the middle of a historic district that people come to because of the beautiful architecture, and I would like that taken into consideration by the applicant.

Thank you.

Are you done?

I mean, you can continue if you have other things you want to make.

No, that was that was it.

Okay, I know I had three minutes.

No, you you got more than three minutes.

So we'll make sure I want I wanted to make sure you got everything on a record.

We have three.

Okay.

Well, you have three here, but um you can continue.

We're not, we're not we're not gonna force you to stop there.

Okay, all right.

Having said that, anyone else want to come down?

Okay, all right.

So no more comments on the record.

So I'm gonna close the public comment and then uh entertained a motion from Commissioner Kalarski for I'm sorry, for Commissioner Roitman.

I'm sorry, Commissioner Working.

Go ahead.

I I won't make a motion because it's not my area, but I will say um to those folks that showed up tonight.

When this comes back before us, if you're not able to come back for that one, I can assure you that we will remember you guys put your comments on the record this time.

If you're not able to come back for that one, I can assure you that we will remember you guys put your comments on the record this time.

And you know, I I'm like kind of this meeting generally, there's been a couple people who haven't showed up for their item.

And you know, if if we're all showing up and the the neighbors are showing up to make sure that happens, and I just as I sit on this board, I think you know, holding these things or you know, you guys take your time to come down here, so this is something I'm certainly gonna take into consideration that you know, folks should be coming or making sure that we get some advanced notice when things are gonna be held so that y'all don't waste your time and waste our time up here.

So thank you for coming, and we'll be sure to uh keep this in consideration when it does come in front of us.

Thank you, Commissioner Workman.

Um, Commissioner Kalarski.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um I just wanna say on the record that uh I'm I'm surprised and I'm a little bit I'm a lot unhappy because number one, the applicant did not call, has not made any attempt to get with me.

And then doesn't show.

Staff, did we get anything today from the applicant?

No, ma'am, we didn't.

Okay.

I'm gonna hold it and I'm only gonna hold it once.

So if the applicant does not show next time, then I'll just go ahead and and uh take any type of comments that public makes.

If you can make it, please do.

If you can't, uh April back there's got my phone, or she's got my card, she can give you my info.

Okay, and uh with that, I'm gonna hold this till July 7th.

So there's a motion on the floor to hold items 21 29 through 3 1.

Yep, 2931.

Motion on the floor, cash to vote.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

So this item will be held to the July 7th, 2026 PC, uh, and also the August 5th, 2026 BCC meeting.

The uh next items on the agenda are companion items, and we'll be heard together.

Uh, item 44, PA 267025, plan amendment to redesignate the existing land use category for neighboring commercial NCT compact neighborhood on 4.1 4.51 acres, generally located north of Blue Diamond Road and west of Montessori Street alignment within Enterprise.

Item 45 zone change to reclassify 4.51 acres from CG commercial general zone to an RM 18 residential multifamily 18 zone, generally located north of Blue Diamond Road and west of Montessori Street alignment within Enterprise.

Item 46, VS 260272, vacate and abandoned easements of interest to Clark County, located between Agate Avenue and Blue Diamond Road and Bel Castro Street and Montessori Street alignment within Enterprise.

Item 47, WS260273.

Waivers and development standards for the following reduce setback, two reduce lot size, three, increase retaining wall height, four, eliminate parking area landscaping.

Five, reduce street landscaping and six allow modified geo uh driveway geometrics design review for a proposed single family attached residential development on 4.51 acres in an R18 residential multifamily 18 zone, generally located north of Blue Diamond Road and west of Montessori Street Alignment within Enterprise.

Item 48, TM265070, tentative map consisting of 52 single family residential lots and common lots on 4.51 acres in an arm 18 residential multifamily 18 zone, generally located north of Blue Diamond Road and west of Montessori Street Alignment within Enterprise.

Thank you.

Name and address for the record.

Tell us about your application.

Good evening, Planning Commissioners.

My name is Susan Florian from Taney Engineering.

What we have here is a 52 uh lot subdivision on 4.1 acres.

We are uh proposing a uh zone change from commercial general to um RM18 and a land use from neighborhood commercial to compact sorry neighborhood commercial to compact neighborhood.

Um we do have um a uh we do have six waivers.

We are eliminating um waiver number four.

Um that one's to eliminate parking lot landscaping uh where required per section 30 oh four oh one D.

Um I know that staff recommended approval on numbers two, three, five, and six.

Um the first one is uh the first one is to reduce the rear setback 10 feet where 15 is required.

Um the uh townhomes are not in a straight line.

The ones in the middle do have a little bit more space than 10 feet.

Uh the ones on the side are the ones that are encroaching 10 feet.

Um with that I conclude my presentation.

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

Thank you very much.

Anyone in I'm sorry, we got open I'm gonna open this up.

I'm gonna open this application up for a public hearing.

Anyone in the audience like to speak on this item?

Now's the time to come down.

Thank you, sir.

Name and address for the record and give us your comments, please of the Clark County Planning Commission.

My name is Jeffrey Peters, 7325 West Agate Avenue, Las Vegas, 89113.

I am here tonight representing the concerned citizens for responsible development, the CCRD.

Uh we had uh forwarded our formal community report to staff earlier.

I have an extra cop if we need it.

I'd like to make sure that gets entered into the record.

Um there are uh more than a few issues we have with this proposed development.

I'll try to hit the highlights.

Um build what you bought.

That's one of our mottos.

This area uh was uh recently is 2024, had already been approved for a small uh or a commercial storage unit, which next to the apartments being built at that intersection would actually be a good match.

That conforms to the neighborhood uh uh commercial neighborhood uh standard, and that had already been approved.

Follow the plan.

Uh quite frankly, personally, I think it's kind of an affront to the hard work that staff does with long-term planning and zone use, only to have those uh uh ideas uh you know uh changed or modified that creates incongruency throughout these communities.

Uh it's simply way too dense.

Uh this is an issue of taking too much stuff and cramming it into too small of a place.

There's not enough parking.

Uh the uh provides maybe a handful of visitor uh uh parking spaces for the dozens of homes.

Uh more traffic.

There's only one in and out via West Agate.

Um this is a rural standard two-lane road that is not designed or equipped to handle that kind of throughput.

Uh I understand that this area is growing by leaps and bounds.

The CCRD is a pro-development group.

We want development, but what we need is reasonable commercial development in that area.

We have very large projects uh adjacent to this application already.

Uh I urge uh our group strongly urges you to uh deny this application.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

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

Okay, all right.

Seeing no one else coming down.

I'm going to close the public hearing and then I'll open up to commissioners for comments and questions.

Commissioner Kolarski, your lights on.

Thank you.

Staff, uh why are you asking for a PUD?

Not staff, I'm sorry.

I PUDs are the worst thing.

What benefits are you giving to the county?

We are not asking for a PUD.

You're not asking for the PUD.

No, we were gonna do a PUD because uh the reason that we can't do a PUD, um, I will clarify.

Uh this land right here is undeveloped.

If it was um if it was developed right now, uh, we would be able to do a PUD.

Um, however, this is also not five acres, so we are not we cannot do a PUD on the parcel.

When I see that, that just I I don't see, and staff knows this.

Everybody knows this, that PUDs to me just do not offer benefits for the residents, and so I don't normally approve PUDs.

Um But I gotta tell you, I don't really like your project.

So I'm not really in support of it.

I I've got to follow uh Enterprise on this one.

Um if I may um uh uh answer some of the concerns of the neighbor that showed up, and if you would allow me to.

I don't I don't know if that's okay.

I have to leave that up to the chair.

Okay, for sure.

Um please, please.

You can you can absolutely answer some of the um some of the questions that were raised by the concerned citizen, and then we'll give the commission a little time to give us some rebuttal.

Please go ahead.

Um yeah, well, I understand um that commercial is important um so that the residents have uh their needs are met.

Um I do understand that we are also experiencing um a house affordability and the housing supply crisis.

Um I know that uh right now I I believe that like homeowners are having trouble trying to afford um houses uh due to the rising costs.

Um I do know that um he well the applicant the neighbor one of the neighbors uh mentioned that uh built it with you what you want, and then it was approved for a storage unit.

Um I know that uh uh he the he wants us to follow the plan.

Um staff did recommend approval and uh we are asking for RM18 where we could have uh 18 units, but we are um doing 11 units per acre.

Uh for the for the parking spaces, we do have uh garages, and um for the traffic that he mentioned on the street, we will have to do a traffic study before this gets approved.

And then um the owner across the street is uh the same owner as this one, he is constructing uh commercial general right now.

Um with that I conclude um to answering the questions that you may have.

Thank you very much.

Um Commissioner Wakeman, go ahead.

Yeah, I I noticed that of course that that staff has approved this almost entire application, other than waiver one, uh which is the setback.

And as I look on, you know, kind of Google maps with the overlay.

If you go on the other side of Buffalo, many there is kind of this transition from the ranch estate into this compact neighborhood.

Um, and I think it does kind of match uh as a buffer in between that and some of the commercials.

So I you know, I'm interested in hearing what the rest of the commission has to say, but I don't have a problem with this.

Um as stated, I could approve.

Thank you, Commissioner Roigman.

I I would agree.

I I I don't I mean, I I would say I don't I don't love the project, but you know, I appreciate staff's hard work in and giving their opinions and and and I can respect the approval and I definitely can I understand the concerns from the community as well.

Um I I can support the application and um we'll we'll see where the next with the next comments are.

Commissioner Brady.

Um just really quick, I'm never a huge fan of putting residential back up to uh uh interstate and for freeways, big wider roads, and all of that.

That's where I don't love how it is.

I always do kind of agree with gentlemen that it should be reserved more for a little bit more commercial, um, though what um Commissioner Reichmann said also is it does kind of match down the line um when you go down the road.

So um I'm not in love with it, but it semi-conforms.

Any other questions, comments?

Um Commissioner Mohica, ready.

Okay, um so you address the the density.

Um it's you could put 18 units and you're not, you're putting 11 and a half almost.

Um you did address the parking, so they're gonna have their own parking.

How many parkings?

Um, so right now their parking required is two.

Um so we have 115 spaces.

115 and how many units?

Um we have uh 52 units.

How much 52?

52 units.

Yes, we also have on-street parking.

Um sorry, I didn't mention that, but we do have on-street parking.

So you have 52 units and 115 parking spaces, correct?

That's what you show in the plan.

So yes.

Well, that's what she's showing on the plan.

52 units and 115 parking spaces.

Um no, we do not need more storage uh on the blue diamond area.

We have enough storage units.

Um, I will say that.

Um okay, I'm ready to make a motion.

Um motion to approve plan amendment 267025.

Motion on the floor, cash or vote.

That motion passes.

Next next one.

And then motion to approve item 45.

Uh Z Z 260271.

Item 46.

VS 260272.

Item 47, WS260273.

And item 48 TM 26500070.

Thank you very much.

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

That motion passes.

Good luck.

Thank you so much, Planning Commissioners.

Next item.

Items 44 through 48 will be forwarded to the board of county commissioners for final action on July 22nd, 2026 at 9 a.m.

unless otherwise announced.

Review and ordinance to amend title 30 regulations as previously directed by the Board of County Commissioners to modify Title 30 fee schedule.

Amend language for court reporter.

Correct typographical errors within defined terms and make corrections and clarifications as appropriate and providing for other matters properly related there too.

Thank you, staff.

And just just to uh appease my senior moment and just for the uh for the audience record, this particular item we don't need to open it up for public hearing engines, just so we're gonna forward it to the board of county commissioners for for uh for um for their approval.

Yes, that's correct.

Okay, all right.

So um item number 49 is ordinance or d 26904.

I'm sorry, nine zero zero four two three.

Any comments from the commissioners on this item?

All right, seeing none, and then I'll I'll move for a motion to move this forward to the county for the county commissioner.

Yeah, I'm gonna require just okay.

All right, no motion is required, so we'll we'll skip that part.

All right, next item public comments.

All right, so last part of our meeting is public comments.

It's a part of the meeting by NRS.

The public is allowed to come down, make comments on the record.

Um the commission cannot vote or act on any of those comments, but now's the time to do so.

Um, you come come on down.

Well, I just want to know.

You you I'm sorry, sir, just so that so the records clear.

Um I apologize.

Gotta gotta have you come down.

Okay.

I was just wondering what happened to item 32 34.

All right, all right.

So so those items were held at the beginning of the meeting.

Okay.

Um, yeah, staff, staff write it in.

So so those items were held into the July 7th planning commission meeting.

And and and what I would say is if um this is a time of the meeting.

If you still wanted to put your comments on the records, you can do so now, or or you can come back on July 7th and or do both.

Okay, yes, sir.

All right, so um anyone else public comments.

Yes, sir, name and address for the record.

Give us your comments.

Fernando Padilla, P A D I L L A, uh 3457, Greenwood Springs Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89122.

And this is not a comment, but rather a question.

Uh, because I am here uh for items 35 through 38.

And um what what is the um uh when will this be uh brought up?

Sure, I'll I'll be happy to tell you.

So so those were also held into the July 7th planning commission meeting.

So so they'll be back in here on July 7th.

And uh again, you're welcome to put any comments you have on that application on the record and come back if you like.

I shall come back.

Thank you.

Okay, yes, sir.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Public comments?

Come on down, sir.

Excuse me, Mr.

Chair.

If I can just tell this gentleman that just spoke, Mr.

This is gonna be going back to town board, okay, on the 2nd of July.

So if you want to go to town board two, go to town board and then you can come back over here on the 7th.

And you know that's at Hollywood.

Name an address for the record.

Go ahead and put your comments on the road.

Carlos de Santiago, 5509, Pelasate Squad Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89122.

Is it safe to assume that uh items 39 to 43 also got moved?

Yeah, yep, 3039 39.

We're held.

Yep, yeah.

That's what I was here for.

Uh I wasn't really happy with uh the uh impact on air quality uh that the demolition had uh with the area.

I just came to see what they were gonna do with that space next, but I guess I'll be back.

For sure.

So we we got that we got on the record.

Air quality is an issue for you.

Um if you come back, fine.

If not, we have it on record.

Thank you, sir.

uh items 39 to 43 also got moved yeah yeah 30 30 39 39 to 43 were held yeah yeah that's what i was here for uh i wasn't really happy with uh the uh impact on air quality uh that the demolition had uh with the area uh just came to see what they were gonna do with that space next but i guess i'll be back for sure so so we we got that we got on the record air air quality is an issue for you um if you come back fine if not we have it on record thank you sir anyone else want to speak on the on the record cu come on gotta come down come come come down so the record's clear please say all the time so so so name and address for the record yes and uh I'm from alto and nellis item seven I'm being called and I don't know if it's gonna can we have your address please uh we don't have an address is to last there on alto and seven all stay free number seven oh so are you the applicant yes yeah yeah so so that was at the beginning of the meeting and the in the routine action items those were approved under one vote so you're you're already approved number seven okay so that's why we didn't hear no we we appreciate you hanging out with us well thank you so it was approved you're welcome so I'm I'm sorry I'm sorry sorry weren't clear you guys good luck thank you all right so seeing anyone else so so we will see no one else we will close the public hearing and adjourn the meeting thank you staff thank you commission