Chair Frazier here.

Vice Chair Mujica.

She's here.

Commissioner Stone.

Here.

Commissioner Kirk.

Here.

Commissioner Kalarski.

She's here.

Commissioner Brady.

He's here.

And Commissioner Reutman.

Live and in person.

Mr.

Chair, we have a quorum.

Thank you very much.

If everyone would please rise and join us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge of allegiance to the flag.

One meeting.

Undergone.

Individual with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you very much.

So the first item of business is public comments.

So NRS asks us to open every open every meeting up with a public comment section.

At this time, anyone wants to come down and make comments on the record, they certainly can do so.

Planning commission cannot act or speak on any of those comments, but you're more than welcome to come down and make some.

Sure.

I need your name and address for the record and put your public comment on the record.

Michael Sellers, 9973, Brazos Band Street, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89178, Mountain's Edge area.

I'm here tonight to talk about my support of DR 260290.

I'm in fully supportive this because it's badly needed.

And this design is here, perfect.

You have to have a raised pitching mail, and you have to have either a grass infield or synthetic turf infield, which is really the safest for the kids to play on.

Is if we could tweak these little bit to get that for baseball.

The other there's four two stadiums with four fields each, and if we could do four of the fields for baseball, four for softball.

The softball fields, play in fields are fine, but what they're requesting for all the fields is clay, and that just doesn't work.

You know, you've got to have a pitcher's man.

They could do play cutouts for the bases, and that would work perfectly.

So that's my quest.

And the other thing is I know it's timing about all this, but since we have no baseball fields at all in Mountain's Edge, we can't have a little league.

And I'm trying to start a little league, Mountain's Edge, little league, but I've got to have at least a four-field stadium to do so.

So right now my we play at uh Rainbow Park, Coley Little League is where we play right now.

That's the only closest one we have to play.

And like I said, there's no other place to practice in Mountains Edge at all.

So that would be my request.

And if there's any way they can move the baseball stadiums up in the construction to get those as soon as possible in the plan, that would be greatly appreciated.

All right, thank you for your comments.

Okay, thank you.

Anyone else?

Okay, all right.

So seeing no one else coming down, or we do we do have someone come down.

All right, so I need name and address for the record, and you can put whatever public comment you want to put on the record.

My name is Vincent Palmer.

My address is 9901 Trailwood Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89134.

I'm here to talk about the Patriot Housing.

I'm the region commander for Region 6 of the Military Order of the Purple Heart USA and commander of the Las Vegas chapter.

I'm here this evening to respectfully ask you to support improving the patriotic housing project.

As you know, our community has urgent need for quality housing for our veterans.

These men and women sacrifice precious time with their families while serving our nation.

Mr.

Chairman, I think I think he's talking about uh items 36 through 35.

29 to sure.

So the reason I didn't interrupt him because I didn't know if he wanted to put his comments on record and leave.

But but we're going to hear that item later on in the meeting, and you can you can give us your speech then if you like.

But if you want to continue, you're more than welcome to.

No.

Okay, so yeah, so we'll we'll we'll we'll we'll hear that item a little bit later on and then you're welcome, sir.

All right, so seeing no one else coming down.

I'm gonna close the public comment section and go ahead, staff, take the first item.

Take the first item.

Good evening, Mr.

Chair, Planning Commissioners.

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

At this time, staff requests the following.

Withdrawal of the following application per the applicant's request.

Item number 17, WS 260206, and hold the following applications to no date per the applicant's request.

Item number 33, PA 26, 7000.

Item 34 VS 250897.

Excuse me, item 34.

And item number 35, UC 250896.

For the applicant's information, additional renotification fees may be required in accordance with Title 30 for items held or deleted, or if there are modifications to the original application.

The above public hearing item is going to be opened as a public hearing and immediately recessed until the date previously stated.

These are for items 17 and 33 through 35.

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

Mr.

Chairman, um, I would like to know if the applicants for items number 33 through 35, which is the happy minor application.

If they're here, they're requesting a hold no date.

Okay, seeing that I'm not certain that I want to do a hold no date.

Uh I would like to have a specific date for us to hear the item.

Um if we do can I go ahead and and not accept that and do a specific date?

Yes, you can make a motion for a specific hold date.

Okay, so what would be 60 days from now?

I wanted to talk to the applicant uh to the applicant, but seeing that they weren't here and they aren't here so September 1st or September 15th, those would be the closest planning commission meeting dates to 60 days.

Okay, if we can put that to September 15th as the next time we hear it, and if you can get a hold of the applicant and tell them that I did not accept that.

Uh and that uh this is the date that they need to be here.

If they need to hold it at that time, they can, but uh I want to hold a specific date to be heard.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Of course.

Um Commissioner Kirk, any any any issues with the agenda.

If not, I I will okay.

No issues for me, thank you.

Thank you.

I'll I'll entertain a motion for approval of the agenda.

Motion to approve the agenda withdrawing item number 17 and holding items 33, 34, and 35 to the September 15 planning commission meeting.

Thank you very much.

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

Yes.

Commissioner Kirk.

Motion carries.

Next item.

The next item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes at this time.

The planning commission briefing and regular meeting minutes from May 19th, 2026 and June 2nd, 2026 are ready for approval.

All right.

I entertain a motion for approval of the minutes.

Motion to approve the minutes as presented.

All right, motion on the floor, cast your vote.

Commissioner Kirk, yes.

Who are we missing?

All right, the motion carries.

Next item.

Next for the announcements.

For the audience's uh 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, July 15th, 2026.

And any appeals from tonight's meeting will be heard by the Board of County Commissioners on Wednesday, August 5th, 2026 at 9 a.m.

in these chambers.

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

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

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

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

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

Next are the routine action items, which consist of items number four through 11.

Except those items that were previously deleted.

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

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

Thank you very much.

Okay, so there's a section of our meeting where we're going to approve the routine action items, and those consist of items four through eleven.

And we're going to approve all of those items in one vote.

So if you want to hear one of those items separately, items four through eleven.

Now's the time to come down and ask us to remove it from the routine action item so we can hear it in its order.

Otherwise, we're going to get ready to approve items four through eleven in one vote.

All right, seeing no one coming down to take anything off a routine action items.

I entertain a motion for approval of routine action items.

Uh some sorry, hold on one second.

Commissioner Reutman.

Uh I want to disclose that I my client is on item number six.

So are you abstaining on item six?

Okay.

Uh Commissioner Kalarski, your lights on.

Anything for routine?

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Chair, motion to approve.

Routine action items four through eleven.

And we're noting that Commissioner Reichman is um abstaining on item six.

Six.

Thank you very much.

Motion on the floor, cast your vote.

Commissioner Kirk, yes.

That motion carries.

Next item.

This is final action unless appealed.

The next item on the agenda is item number 12.

UC 260142.

Holdover use permit for a proposed banquet facility in conjunction with an existing commercial center on a portion of 1.7 acres in a CG commercial general zone, generally located south of Shopacana Avenue and east of Dunville Street within Spring Valley.

Is there an applicant in the audience for item number 12?

Okay.

Perfect.

So Lara.

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

Sure.

My name is Rebecca Mahan.

The address is 5785 West Turpicana Avenue.

This is regarding WAW party decor in LC.

A Buanquade Hall.

Uh special permit request.

So let's go ahead and tell us about your application.

So the staff was concerned that it might be too close to a family residence area.

And this is the innovation plan that I have.

I don't know if it's clear.

The unit that I leased is the third unit from this side, one two three.

And the commercial the family residence area is this building.

And in between there is a wall and there's a street to get into the compound.

All right, thank you very much.

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

Anyone in the audience want to speak on this item?

I see no one, we're gonna close the public hearing and I'll open it up to commissioners for comments.

Commissioner Kurt.

No comments, thank you.

All right, sounds good.

And um, Commissioner Reichmann looks like you can take us home.

Uh I just want to put a one-year review period on this.

And otherwise, I will motion to approve.

Item number 12, UC 260142.

Thank you.

Motion on the floor, cast your vote.

Commissioner Kirk, yes.

I don't have power.

All right, could give us a give us a verbal.

So I'm an aye.

That motion carries.

Good luck.

This is final action unless appealed.

Items 13 through 15 are companion applications that can be heard together.

Item 13 is GS 260278.

Vacate and abandoned easements of interest to Clark County located between Martin Avenue Alignment and Mall Avenue.

And between Hinson Street and Valley View Boulevard, and a portion of a right-of-way being Mall Avenue located between Hinton Street and Valley View Boulevard within Enterprise.

Descriptions on Bile.

Item number 14 is WS 260279.

Waivers development standards for the following.

One, eliminate street landscaping, two, eliminate buffering and screening.

Three, increased retaining wall height, and four increased fill.

Design review for a proposed single family residential development on 3.03 acres in an RS20 residential single family 20 zone within the airport environments, AE60 and neighborhood protection RP overlays.

Generally located west of Valley View Boulevard and north of Mall Avenue within Enterprise.

Tentative map consisting of six single family residential lots and common lots on 3.03 acres in an RS20 residential single family 20 zone within the Airport Environs AE60 and neighborhood protection RP overlays.

Generally located north of Mall Avenue and the west of Valley View Valley View Boulevard within Enterprise.

Thank you very much.

Name and address for the record.

Tell us about your application.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Commissioners for the record, my name is Bob Gronauer, 1980 Festival Plaza Drive.

I'm here representing D.R.

Horton on the three matters that you see before you on your agenda.

On the overhead, as you can see, highlighted in yellow, this is a vacant piece of property.

It's located in the rural neighborhood preservation area.

It is just on the north side of Mall, and you have Valley View located here that runs north and south.

What's important to note as I go through the presentation when I uh leave the aerial here for you to note a few things.

First of all, if you're familiar with this area, the 215 is to the north of us.

It is depressed in this location here.

In Valley View, if you're familiar with it, it rises up over here as it goes up and over the 215 in this area.

What's also important that I want to point out is as you look at the perimeter of the existing residential in this area, you'll see that there is no landscaping in this area.

Um on a north northern property in this area, and also along Valley View.

You'll also notice that there is no landscaping in those areas.

Um slope in this area.

Um this is our property line in yellow.

From here to the uh sidewalk in this area here, it goes anywhere from 30 feet all the way up to 70 feet, is a public right-of-way.

Um I'd like to get into the waiver development standards.

Um, this is a six-lot um uh subdivision.

Uh you have a private street as you come in.

This is an L uh L-shaped hammerhead.

Uh these are the six lots that would be facing east and west.

As I mentioned earlier, this is Valley Valley View Boulevard, this is Mall Avenue.

We are asking for a waiver development standard for no landscaping on the northern part of our of our uh property located up in this area here, and then also no landscaping along Valley View on the outside of our property.

Um, as I already pointed out, the town board did recommend approval uh for the waiver development standard uh to weigh the landscaping up in the northern portion.

However, along the west property line, excuse me, the east property line, uh, as you go up along this area, regardless where the landscaping, if it's 10 feet on the outside of our wall or it's all in inside of our rear yards, you're not gonna see it as you're driving valley view in this area.

What we'd like to do is to keep the landscaping all within the backyards instead of taking 10 feet out of the backyards in this area because it really doesn't matter.

You're still getting landscape areas in this area one way or the other.

We cannot touch this area here.

This is public right-of-way, this is owned by the county, so no matter what, you'll still get landscaping, whether the line goes 10 feet back this way or keeps it here, you're still gonna get everything landscaped in this area.

Um, there's other waivers that we asked for, uh, which is wall height along the mall.

Um we were asking for one more about nine more inches of uh retaining wall, which we have to ask for four feet where three feet is required.

Uh staff has pointed out there's huge topography issues on this property here.

There's a five-foot retaining wall that's existing along the uh west property line here, where it's we had come in with some additional fill that staff's recommending approval for the waiver development standard.

Uh we do have a vacation uh for a right-of-way down here along mall, so we could do the detached sidewalk.

Uh, what DR Horton is proposing is they got three different models.

They have two different models with the uh two-story homes that you see here, and then you also have a single-story model that's located uh here.

That's about 4600 uh square foot home.

Uh home prices are gonna be anywhere from a starting point 1.1 million to about 1.4 million.

That is a starting price, as you know, as you have add-ons from there, it's probably about another 30% plus or minus, depending on the additional upgrades that one would get for the house.

So we are in the RP area, we are building RP lots.

This is less than two units an acre.

It's an odd piece of piece of property, it's uh located right there with a ramp that's gonna go up for Valley View and a depressed uh uh 215 in this area.

That being said, I'd ask you to approve the application we are requesting, and I can answer any questions that you have.

Thank you very much.

Um, at this time, I'd like to open this application up for a public hearing.

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

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

All right, seeing no one coming down.

I'll close the public hearing and I'll open up to commissioners for comments.

Commissioner Clark.

Hi, just one question because I'm looking at uh town board's recommendation.

And they have added a combination of retaining wall decorative wall over nine feet to agree to that as the town board.

No, because what we're dealing with is not if it was a 12-foot, 14-foot high wall, that might be a different situation.

But the circumstances is we're dealing with about nine inches plus or minus once we finalize the grade.

So the retaining wall, we're asking for up to one feet or one foot.

So to step back for nine inches.

We don't think it's the right, it's it's appropriate there.

You won't really notice a difference between nine feet, nine feet, nine, nine inches.

Okay, so you did not agree to that.

No, I did not agree to that one.

No, no, that was that was put on as a condition.

Um, and then they recommended approval of everything else, but for the when I focused on on the east the eastern portion of our property, the landscaping there, because we'd like to because all it is is moving.

We can move the property line, the rear line 10 feet in for landscaping, or if you know five to ten feet, whatever the requirement is, or you keep the line there regardless.

Landscaping is there, and regardless, as you're driving on Valley View or the 215, you're never gonna see it.

I can tell you that I can support this.

So thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Kalarski.

Uh I'll go online to Commissioner Kirk.

Any uh on comments or questions about this application?

No, I'm not any questions.

Thank you.

All right, I'm gonna support it application, and I'll turn it over to Commissioner Wrightman.

Uh motion to approve number 131415 VS260278, WS260279, and TM26500075.

Thank you very much.

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

Commissioner Kirk.

Oh, I was muted, sorry.

Yeah, Commissioner Kirk, yes.

Thank you.

Uh that motion passes.

Thank you.

This is final action unless it feels next item is item number 16, WS260062.

Holdover waiver development standards to eliminate and reduce setbacks in conjunction with an existing single-family residence on 0.14 acres and an RS 3.3 residential single family 3.3 zone, generally located west of Crowley Way and south of Forsyth Drive within Sunrise Manor.

And so name and address for the record and tell us about your application.

Yes, thank you.

Um, my name's Rebecca, and I am here on behalf of the property owner.

Uh the address is 7219 West Sahara suite 105.

Um, let me go ahead and start with this guy.

Um, so these structures are all currently built.

Um we are asking for waivers regarding the addition mostly.

Um, it is on a zero zero setback.

Uh we have worked with the uh commissioner to um talk about taking the south patio, which is currently on a zero zero setback and reducing it to a three-foot setback, um, the lattice to a three-foot setback, and then the car port is at a three-foot setback.

Um, so that would be the lines for them.

Um again, this is already currently constructed.

Let me grab some the pictures.

I think that'll show it a little better.

So this is the inside of the addition.

Uh, it is used for entertaining family and gatherings.

It is not a have uh living space.

Uh, this is the currently constructed lattice that would again have that three-foot setback, the south patio, um, with again that three-foot setback, the carport, which is metal in construction.

Um, this is a look at the lattice um from the addition, um, the addition looking towards the single family residents, uh, the car port from the single family residents going out and then towards the single family residence.

This is their backyard with that addition.

This is where the edition sits.

So it is currently sitting on the uh joined wall.

Um and then this is the roof of the edition.

Um it is currently TPO, but um they are willing to go ahead and change it to the asphalt shingle um to match the existing SFR.

Um, and then we did discuss that they would need to obviously put gutters.

Um, everything will have to be approved and um looked at by the building department, and then of course, anything that is in then five feet of the property line would have that um fire rating.

And I'm more than happy to answer any questions you have about this.

Thank you very much.

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.

I see no one coming down to speak on this item.

I'll now close the public hearing and I'll start with my commissioners.

I I I remember this item, and um it looks like they took some of our comments, so I'm I'm pleased with them reducing getting their their their um their construction off of the neighboring wall.

Um I would say that to your comments about the TPO, I'm I'm okay with the TPO staying, that's better than shingles in my in my world.

Okay.

Um, and then I'll just wait for my comp for my commissioners to make some comments with the airbook.

You want to start with Commissioner Kirk?

I'll start with Commissioner Kirk.

Chairman, thank you.

You don't have no no comments?

No comment, thank you.

Okay, thank you very much.

Um other comments.

I got Commissioner Brady.

I I've spoken a lot on this type of thing since I've been here, where I hate coming up to the wall lines, and it comes into the fires, it comes into all of those different things.

And so for me, it's I look at this.

If we allow this neighbor to do it, I know everything is on its own merit and everything, but if now let's say the next door neighbors want to do the same thing and build all the way up onto the wall, and they're on the wall together.

I this is just how fires happen, and this is how everything gets spread, and also water um coming off of the off of the roofs and everything.

I I I'm not in love with this type of thing, and I hope that people don't do this in the future.

Um, but that's kind of where I just wanted to put that out there um for others to make comments.

And uh, and yeah, I'm I'm not a big fan of this.

I love what the how it looks inside, but I I I mean I'm almost thinking fire sprinklers or something like that to make it so this thing doesn't pass on to neighbors.

Thank you, Commissioner Brady.

Commissioner Wrightman.

Maybe for staff, what we had this before, and we made a decision.

This is like a month or two ago.

So did we I maybe I'm having blur here as to what we decided and why it's back in front of us again, but maybe give me a little background.

So this uh application originally appeared at the April 21st meeting, and my recollection of it is that the planning commission had concerns about the current plans and wanted the applicant to work with staff to redesign it a bit.

Um it was held again at the June 16th planning commission meeting, and as I mentioned earlier, the applicant has provided revised plans that changed the setback for the um patio covers on the north and south sides.

So, yes, it has been held twice.

Okay, so it came before us, we weren't quite sure what to do with it.

We asked them to kind of make a proposal because we told them it probably wasn't gonna pass as is, and now they're back, and the proposal is to move.

Oh, I think I remember we said basically you can't build on the dividing wall between you and your neighbor, right?

And so they have made that's the big changes that have maybe this for the applicant.

The big changes that have been made now are that now you're not building on your on the dividing wall.

No.

So originally um so originally both the lattice and the south patio were all the way to the property line.

Um, as working with staff, um, we the what we decided to do was to go ahead and move that back three feet.

Um, since the addition is kind of a more intensive structure and um would basically involve taking that whole thing down to do that.

Um that was what we left.

Um, but through the conversations with staff, um, that was what we ended up coming up with.

And so and part of that is because this edition, as you just stated, I guess it this is a fully built on structure, and just the cost, I guess, of dismantling that.

Uh yeah, so this is the inside of the current edition.

So it is a fully built structure as of right now.

Okay.

Yeah, I'm I guess for me for everyone on here.

I'm I am hesitant to ask them to take down this structure.

Um but I don't I don't really know.

Sorry, I don't have much more to add.

I I would before I turn it over to Commissioners again.

I would offer that, you know, um, whatever we allow from this board.

Um the applicant still has some hurdles to do because they whatever building apartment requirements they may have, they they will they will add those to their structure, whether it's to um have some type of fire mitigation between property lines because they're on the zero line.

I mean, so so I mean, we're just approving what's there, building apartment will approve what's built and inspect what's built.

So I'm I'm just offering that for the group.

I agree with Commissioner Brady that this is not ideal and no if the if someone was coming to ask for permission, we would say no.

Can I just say one quick?

Yes, go ahead, Commissioner Braden.

My only concern also is I I agree, I hate to make them take it down.

My but going along with that, I also don't want to have other people say, well, let's build something and they won't make us take it down.

Um so that's that's all I want to say.

That's fair.

All right.

Um go ahead, Commissioner Malika.

And and then Commissioner Karloski.

Where does the neighbor stand in all this?

Uh so we did get neighbor approval from every neighbor besides one empty home and then one home that had renters.

Um so um, oh, I wish I had my map, but um all the neighboring properties did go ahead and approve the current structures.

What about the one that's most affected?

Yeah, so the one that is um most affected on the back, one of them is vacant, um, but the other one did approve.

I yeah, I wish I brought my map for it, but okay.

So the one that's most affected is vacant, you said.

So um hold on.

No, no.

The one to the north approved it.

They have a letter that they brought sent in.

The one to the west also has a letter that was sent in.

Those are the ones that are immediately affected.

Yeah, those are the ones that are immediately affected.

The house to the south is vacant, and the house to the west of that vacant house is uh they sent in an approval letter.

And I believe there was another approval letter that was sent on the other on the east side of Crowley.

That is correct.

Yeah, they um they have a lot of houses that border them, so we tried to get as many as we could, but um.

But since it sits on the wall between both property lines, that's uh the because this one's gonna be the north and then that one's gonna be the west side.

Staff the what they're at, let's say that I can get on board with not tearing down this edition because it's already there.

Does the changes to the patio cover and the the ones on either side, does that now conform with code, or do they need waivers for they need waivers for that as well?

Right for that.

So the plans that we have on file, which do appear to differ from what the applicant is presenting now, the revised plans on file show the patio covers on the north and south sides compliant with code at five-foot setbacks, and that would you know remove waivers uh one C and one D.

But the plans being shown are not the plans that we have on file, the most updated versions of them.

Uh I'm I'm probably okay.

Uh Commissioner Clarski, where wherever you want to go with this, but maybe you know not not that we want to be punitive here exactly, but to say, look, if we're not gonna make them tear down this building, this that's already built the permanent structure, that we make them strictly comply with what they need to do on these other um these other sections of the house.

So then, you know, at least then there is a little bit of enforcement here that we just don't let we're not gonna let it all go, even if we give a little on well, give a lot, I would say, on that back one.

Maybe maybe that's you know, and and like you said, the the plans they have asked for here, have those complying.

And that way we wouldn't have we'd have setbacks at least on two of the borders um for fire concerns and stuff like that.

I don't I don't know.

I'm trying to get creative here about buildings.

Those are my thoughts.

Thank you, Commissioner Wrigman.

Commissioner Kalarski.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

And thank you, Commissioners, for your comments.

Um I went out shortly after this meeting and saw the place.

And I gotta tell you, I was uh I was impressed by the addition.

I wasn't impressed with the patio covers on on the north and the and the south side.

And we've taken care of that by now meeting code.

Yeah.

And you're also gonna have the gutters.

Yes, yeah.

But the addition has got cement tiles.

Were those cement tiles?

Yeah, they're um on the walls.

Yes.

So you have that a little bit of the entire and I've I've got a much better picture of on my phone than what you're showing.

Uh and I can pass my phone if you want, if anybody wants to see, so you can kind of see what it looks like.

I think that's the best picture.

Um was he going to get was he gonna try and get a picture from the other side from the neighbor?

Was he able to?

Yeah, we got yes, yeah.

What I asked him to do was to see if he could possibly match the additional on the neighbor's side so that it matched their home.

It didn't look like it was two different pieces uh to do what he could.

If you want to see oh, that's the video of the uh the the um addition.

And this is a picture of the addition, so you can kind of get an idea of yeah, so this is a video of the inside of the addition.

Of what what it looks like.

I was really impressed by the workmanship to get back to this.

So um I'm okay so long as as you as you say we meet fire codes, we meet building codes, we meet all of this, the permitting with the condition that uh staff has got about a year to complete the building permit and inspection process.

Uh if it's the permitting and off all that's not done, then you're gonna need to ask for an extension of time.

Okay, that sounds good.

Okay, does that sound fair?

So with that, I'm gonna move to approve WS 26-0062.

One second, Commissioner Klarski.

Commissioner Wrigman.

Just for a point of clarification, in in your comments you said that they were meeting code.

And so on the north and the south.

Right.

Exactly.

And staff is saying that in what the plans that they have, they are meeting code, but those are different than the plans that were just presented.

So are we gonna request that they go to right?

Am I correct?

So I can clarify.

So the most up-to-date plans that we have on file submitted by the applicant on June 15th, show the attached patio covers on the north and south sides of the uh residence complying with code, the other structure, so the carport in the front and the addition in the rear still do not comply with code.

Okay, but the ones they showed us now with respect to the north and south, which is good.

Yeah, I made it.

So it was unclear.

The plan itself did not match what's on file.

I couldn't read the setbacks on it to see if they match or not.

So what I'm going what I want to do then is since no, no, you're fine.

I want to approve WS26-0062 with waivers 1A, 1B, and 1E, noting that waivers one C and D are no longer required.

Is that what we're saying?

Yes, yes.

Okay.

And that would be my motion.

Thank you, Commissioner Klarski.

So there's a motion on the floor.

Cast your votes.

Commissioner Kirk, yes.

The motion passes.

Good luck.

Thank you for your time.

This is final action on this appeal.

The next item on the agenda is item number 18.

This is WS 260304.

Waivers at development standards for the following.

One reduced setback into increase retaining wall height in conjunction with a proposed single family residence on 0.47 acres in an RS-20 residential single family 20 zone, generally located north of Linden Avenue and east of Los Feliz Street within Sunrise Manor.

Thank you, staff.

Um so name and address for the record and tell us about your application.

My name is Antonio Flores.

Address uh 7130 Linden Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada in 9110.

And I'm uh intending to build the house about 5700 square feet, and I'm requesting uh three waivers.

Uh one is to uh to increase the um the retaining wall on the north side of the property, do it to the um to the uh grading design to prevent the water to go to the neighbors.

Uh we have to increase to six feet and one inch what is required six feet just to prevent the water to go to the neighbor.

And my second request, they saw on the rear of the house.

I have uh 29 feet eight inches, what is required 30 feet, and uh on the front of the house I have uh 37 feet.

What is uh required 40 feet, and um I'm asking to weigh those uh those items and see if uh we can build a house.

Thank you very much.

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

Anyone in the audience want to speak on this item?

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

All right, seeing no one coming down.

I'm gonna close the public hearing and uh open up to commissioners for comments, questions.

Commissioner Kalarski.

This is my item.

So okay, Commissioner Kirk.

No, I just want to thank the applicant for being so brief.

Ask me before you bill.

I'm sorry.

And asking for permission, she said, instead of asking for forgiveness.

Oh, ask for the waivers before.

All right, so so I'm gonna I can support the reductions, though they're the minimal in my in my in my book, so I'll turn it over to Commissioner Kalarski.

And and I can say that at the town board there were no neighbors, and town board agreed with the applicant.

So I'm going to move to approve WS26-0304.

If approved conditions, all right.

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

Commissioner Kirk, yes.

Motion passes.

Good luck.

This is final action unless appealed.

The next items are items number 19 through 23, which are companion applications that can be heard together.

Item 19 is PA 26704.

Amended holdover plan amendment to redesignate the existing land use category from ranch estate neighborhood RN to low intensity suburban neighborhood LN on 5.1 acres previously notified as five acres, generally located west of Buffalo Drive and north of Torino Avenue within Enterprise.

Item number 20 is ZC 260056, amended holdover zone changes for the following.

One reclassify 5.1 acres, previously notified as five acres from an RS20 residential single family 20 zone to an RS5.2 residential single family 5.2 zone, and two remove the neighborhood protection RP overlay.

Generally located west of Buffalo Drive and north of Torino Avenue with an Enterprise.

Item 21, VS 26057.

Holdover vacate and abandoned easements of interest to Clark County, located between Ford Avenue and Torino Avenue and Buffalo Drive and Miller Lane within Enterprise.

Item number 22, WS26058, amended holdover waivers of development standards for the following.

One reduced setbacks, previously notified as front setbacks, two increase retaining wall height, three modified residential adjacency standards, four reduced street landscaping, and five reduce street intersection offset no longer needed.

Design review for a proposed single family residential development on 5.1 acres in an RS5.2 residential single family 5.2 zone generally located west of Buffalo Drive and north of Torino Avenue with an enterprise and item number 23 TM265011 amended holdover tentative map consisting of 18 previously 20 single family residential lots and common lots on 5.1 acres and an RS5.2 residential single family 5.2 zone generally located west of Buffalo Drive and north of Torino Avenue within Enterprise.

Good evening.

Please state your name and tell us about your application.

Good evening.

Marissa Furman, 1980 Festival Plaza Drive here tonight on behalf of the applicant.

We are on just about five acres on the southwest corner of Ford and Buffalo.

The applicant is proposing an 18-lot single family residential development on this site at a density of 3.53 units an acre.

The site is currently planned ranch estates, and it is currently zoned RS20, the site being down here.

Buffalo Drive is a hundred foot major arterial street.

Buffalo today sees very high levels of traffic traveling north and south throughout the valley.

One more second.

Sticking with uh the increased intensity, I think it's important to note just recently in December of 2025, the existing roundabouts, the site is here in this hatched area.

There's existing, or there were existing uh there were roundabouts at the intersection of Wigwam and Buffalo, as well as uh Buffalo and Pebble.

Um, in December, those were removed, likely due to the increase in traffic no longer needed.

I think to it's meant to accommodate the existing traffic going up and down Buffalo today.

Um, just for reference, uh we after pulling the N dot average daily trip counts, um, just to give you an example, the intersection of Buffalo and Warm Springs and the intersection of Durango and Windmill are very similar in terms of average daily trips.

Buffalo and Warm Springs at about 23,000 daily trips.

Durango and windmill is about 26,700 daily trips.

Um again, I pointed out similarly, uh Rainbow is also an 100-foot right-of-way.

All three of these streets are meant to accommodate the same level of traffic, and I think that's important to note here.

The truth is this site, um, although currently zoned uh RS20, we are on the edge of an RMP because of the change in trend in Buffalo Drive and the increased intensity over time.

Um, it is no question there are there is much more traffic now than there was uh 15-20 years ago, um, and that uh supports the applications before you today.

Now, for a bit of background on the site, we did have a previous site plan submitted.

It was 20 lots at about uh just under four units an acre.

We revised those plans, and we now are proposing 18 lots at about uh 3.53 units an acre.

Another important change, all of the lots along the western property line are over 10,000 square feet.

Another important change in the previous application, there was a mix of one and two-story homes.

The homes proposed today are all one story.

Um also important to note all of each of the lots that are less than 10,000 square feet, about Ford and Buffalo, they are not adjacent to existing RS-20 homes.

The average lot size of the homes proposed is about 7500 square feet.

Um, the average size of the home is about 3100 square feet.

Access will be off of Torino here.

Um there will be two and three-car garage options.

Um the average total sale price, I should say anticipated total sale price is about $870,000.

Um, another thing I want to point out RTC is requiring this applicant to install a bus shelter along Buffalo.

That also speaks to the increase in traffic along Buffalo here.

Um RTC requires a bus uh shelter approximately each mile along a major arterial such as Buffalo.

So again, that's telling that there's been a change in trend to the traffic along Buffalo.

I'll just show you a colored rendering of the homes we are proposing here.

So again, all one story.

Um there are no longer two-story homes proposed.

We do have a few waivers on this application.

Um, for one, we have a uh front yard setback waiver at 10 uh provided where 20 is required.

However, that's only uh relevant to one of the floor plans offered.

Um second, we have a reduced uh rear setback to 18 feet where 20 is required.

Um very minimal reduction, and that only applies to lots 13 through 18, and that is due to a backyard patio.

We have increased retaining wall waiver along uh the western property line as well as the southern property line of lot 18.

We're asking for five feet where three is the maximum permitted.

Again, it's a minimal increase in the retaining wall height.

We have another waiver for lots less than 10,000 square feet, but again, I'd like to reiterate the lots adjacent to uh the homes to the west are all over 10,000 square feet, and the lots that are not 10,000 square feet are abutting the right-of-way here.

Lastly, we do have a waiver for reduced landscaping width and reduction in trees.

That is due solely to the RTC requirement that we install this bus shelter.

Um, otherwise, we would have likely met that requirement, but it's something we can't get around, so that is the reason for that uh waiver there.

Um I'd also like to point out a similar uh development with similar uh density was approved last year by the BCC at uh I believe 3.2 units an acre.

It's a 15-unit development or 15-lot development again at similar acreage.

We are about three tracts of land from existing RS 3.3 here.

We're about two tracts of land away from the existing RS5.2.

So again, um the ch the trend is changing in the area, and I believe a lot of that has to do with the increased traffic along Buffalo.

So we believe this application um before you today is appropriate given the growth and increased intensity along Buffalo, um, and it should be approved.

And with that, I'll conclude my presentation, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Uh thank you very much.

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

Um anyone in the audience like to speak on this item.

Now's the time to come down and give us your name, address for the record, and tell us your comments, please.

Yes.

It should engage Steve Small, 8565 South War Bonnet, uh, right around the corner from this.

The ex-president of the Enterprise Residents Association before Swan took over.

And uh I'm an opposed to this, mainly because all of this zoning that's out there surrounding this piece of property is all RE 100%.

One mile to the west, three quarters of a mile to the east, three quarters of a mile to the south along Buffalo, and a half a mile north.

The windmill.

And therefore, I see no reason to put 5.6.

None.

When eight lots, and everything out there has sold out on half acre.

So it's not a compression problem with the National Association of Home Builders.

Noir is asking for 5.6 when eight lots is all that would be allowed.

Under 5.6, you could get 25 lots.

We'd have another three-story stack with some other developer, whether it's these LLCs, as just a holder for flipping, which has been happening all along.

That happened just up the street.

Uh on the last two and a half acres that came through that I opposed.

That was inside the RP corner.

You approved that one.

I was hoping you wouldn't uh follow precedence that you'd see that uh what staff recommendations were that the town board recommendations were would be also held.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, sir.

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

Hello, my name is Glenn Caprillian.

Uh I live at 8729 Grand Pass Court.

Um Los Vegas, Nevada, 89113.

So here's a picture roughly of um the area they're talking about.

In red is the uh the acreage that they're looking to have rezoned.

I actually live directly across the street in between the other two houses that are right there.

So this obviously does uh concern me.

So I want to point out a few things about this.

Um if you notice again, here's the property in question.

Uh right across the street, there is another property, roughly five acres.

They're building homes on that right now.

Uh I it's zoned at half acres uh uh per house.

They're selling them for I believe starting at about three million.

We also have another property, which is also, I believe Torino Estates, which it's continuation, or actually that's the start, this continuation.

Those are also selling for three million home uh per home, and that's half acres.

If you look at all of the houses in this neighborhood that you see all around here, these are all brand new homes.

We bought a house in 2019.

These have all been built and developed since 2019.

So there is a market for these uh larger properties.

Um again, that this is the same thing.

It's showing you here's the property here, all these properties to the west and northwest, those are all brand new homes.

Some of these off to the east as well as our excuse me, the ones for the East were all brand new, some to the west are brand new as well.

Um they earlier said that this was at the edge of an RMP zone.

They earlier said that this was at the edge of an RMP zone.

That's disingenuous.

The picture they put up there at first showed this at the bottom of the green zone.

That green zone continues further down by a couple miles, I believe.

So I that was not really um all that uh honest, I don't believe.

Um, and then this again shows you know that this is about three-quarters of a mile the density that they're looking to do right across the street.

Um I'm opposed to it.

My wife is opposed to it.

There is a market for the half acre homes that's been proven over the last six, seven years without question.

They're still developing the area and selling them.

There's absolutely no reason to subdivide this to smaller lots for for the purpose of sale.

They can still make profit and build homes uh that are similar to with what's there, and I I believe that's what they should be doing.

That's what is zoned, and I respectfully ask that you uh you maintain that zoning.

And I also believe that the board originally um when we met the last time also unanimously agreed with us that uh this should not be changed.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

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

All right.

See no one else, I'll ask the applicant to come back up and then I'll open up to the board for for questions and comments.

I'll start with Commissioner Kalarski.

Okay, somebody else has got to talk for a change.

Um far north does the RP overlay go?

Do you know?

And south.

And while you're looking and able to have a map to tell me.

Um let me just say that the housing development that's being built directly across the street was approved in 2023.

So that's not that far off or that far back because we tend to take a while before the grading and all of that stuff goes through.

And I'm trying to see.

So, what is the northern boundary that's right there on Buffalo?

What is that street?

No, no, uh, the RP.

I'm looking at the RP, the whole thing, yeah, right there.

What is that?

I believe this is Camaro.

Okay, and what do we have south?

How far down does it go?

And that would be um Agate is along here.

Okay, so Agate would be what about two miles south.

I don't know, I don't have the are we are we talking two miles south, maybe two miles north, is what that RP is at.

Because I got to tell you, if that's the case, this does not sit on the edge.

It's it's smack in the middle.

And and you you can't tell me otherwise when I look at this overlay.

Okay.

I'd like to point out yeah, I I hear you.

Um, the argument is though, my argument is that we are on the edge of the RMP because of Buffalo.

Okay, and Buffalo is just one street.

You've got all these other streets going north and south.

This sits right in the middle of all of that.

I grant you that it is on an arterial, and I get that.

I just don't think that this is I personally do not think this is the right place for this.

You are smacking the middle of the RP.

You've got half acre homes.

This is one of the most viable RPs in the valley.

And you start doing this, you and what's gonna come before us down the road is people are gonna say, well, we can build because it's on the arterial, and they're gonna start getting smaller and smaller, and then you're gonna divide that RP because the Buffalo.

I just cannot support it, and that that's just uh I can't support the plan amendment.

I can't support the zone, and I definitely can't support any of the uh the waivers or the design review.

So I apologize.

I'm not gonna apologize.

I'm just sorry that because I know housing is is really needed, and I get it, and I think what you're doing is you decreased it a whole bunch, but I just don't think this is the right place for it.

Thank you.

Uh thank you, Commissioner Klarski.

Before I make my comments, I'll go to Commissioner Kirk online.

Nothing uh major other than uh I cannot support this application.

That's all I'll say.

Thank you, Commissioner Kirk.

I I know with the site plan that was provided, as far as I'm concerned, it you know it's it I understand the argument of Buffalo changing to a major road, and in theory, I'm I'm I'm definitely in support of the of the project for the means of um of having the construction of new homes.

Um but it doesn't sound like the rest of the commission is is is on board with that, but I will hear some other comments before I turn it over to Commissioner Mohica.

If there are any okay, no other comments.

Oh Commissioner Oregon.

I'm sort of on the fence on this one.

I think the design at one story and the one the 10,000 square foot lots.

Um and the arguments about Buffalo.

I'm sympathetic to that.

Um I mean there's no doubt about it, that's a big street.

And even if Buffalo were to go in this direction, I don't know if I if I have a big problem with that.

Um that being said, it is smack dab in the middle, which you know is concerning.

Um I guess.

Um though I do think it kind of provides the transition potentially, um, again, with Buffalo being this boundary between between what would become maybe two RMPs on either side.

Um but I can definitely understand the hesitancy of the rest of the commission, so um yeah, I'm I'm I'm a little it's it's a tough one for me, so I I'm just not quite sure.

All right, so before I turn over to Commissioner Mohica, I mean I and it may be something the applicant maybe want to think about as far as redesigning it to to maybe get rid of some lots to make it more appealable appealing to the to the to the uh neighbors.

Um not that they would support that, but at least it would give I think us a little bit more um I'll use the word it would allow us to have a better, uh easier time approving the the application.

But I'll turn over Commissioner Mohica and and then you go ahead and I'm sorry, Commissioner Brady, and then Commissioner Mohica.

I'm kind of liking the idea of what you're saying, is maybe go back to the drawing aboard a little bit on this one and try to see if you can do something about the um smaller lot portion before we go to a what might look like it might not go.

So that's my thoughts.

Um yeah, this is a bit of a predicament, but one thing that I learned when I joined the commission was um what my fellow commissioners share with me was is it the best use of the land?

And to me it is.

Um I I know that you went from 20 lots and went down to 18.

Then the lots are 10,000, the ones that are next to the other homes.

Um I think it's a good project.

Uh I I think Buffalo is very busy.

I I live in that area in Southern Highlands and I go down Buffalo a lot, and it's it's getting really really busy, and who knows?

Maybe if this project is not approved later on a few years from now, it maybe it'll be even higher density because we need homes.

I mean it's beautiful to have um half acre lots.

Uh but we do need more homes, and this is not that much, it's not five units an acre, it's three and three and a half.

So you're asking for one and a half.

I'm gonna go ahead and do what I think is right, and whether it goes, it is it is what it is.

So um I'm gonna make a motion to approve item number 19, plan amendment 26704.

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

Commissioner Kirk, no.

All right, that motion um plan amendment does it need to be super motion fails to need five votes.

Okay, all right.

So that motion fails.

Um I think if we well, we'll do the vote the other way, but it's probably the same thing.

Then we have to forward it with no with no no.

I think since the uh plan amendment failed, uh it renders the rest of the application moved, so it should just deny the whole thing, the remainder of the uh application.

Okay.

Um items what 19 through is it 23 20 to 23, right?

And so a couple more questions.

So if we deny the entire thing, the applicant still has the right to appeal to the board accounting commissioner.

Yeah, it'll just automatically go to the board.

Okay, it's the board.

Okay, fair enough.

So my question is do I have to go on record denying everything?

You can just no, you can't.

Can I just approve?

Can I vote to approve and then they would they vote?

Not on the uh the zone chains that will not conform the with the land use plan amendment because the land use plan amendment vote failed.

Yeah, you may have like the maybe the vacation abandonment maybe vote on that.

Um maybe that's about the only thing I think.

So go ahead, Commissioner Workman.

So but we don't have to re-vote on this.

No, you don't you don't have to vote deny.

We we as a practice though we were voting to deny it because it was simpler for record keeping, I think.

But you don't have to, since the land use plan amendment failed, uh the renders everything moot, so you don't have to take a vote on it.

You can just move on to the next item on the agenda if you want to.

Okay, I choose not to vote on it.

I mean not to yeah that that's fair.

All right, so so the plan amendment failed.

Um so the other two items in in conjunction also fail.

And so um we'll move on to the next item and we'll wish you good luck on that.

Thank you.

And those items will be forwarded to the board of county commissioners for final action on August 5th, 2026 at 9 a.m.

unless otherwise announced.

The next items on the agenda are items 24 through 27, which are companion applications that can be heard together.

Item number 24 is PA 267010, holdover plan amendment to redesignate the existing land use category from neighborhood commercial NC to compact neighborhood CN on 2.64 acres, generally located east of Decatur Boulevard and south of Moberly Avenue alignment with an enterprise.

Holdover zone change to reclassify 2.64 acres from a CG commercial general zone to an RS2 residential single family two zone, generally located east of Decatur Boulevard and south of Mowberley Avenue alignment with an enterprise.

Thank you.

I'm sorry, item number 26 is WS 260138, holdover waivers of development standards for the following.

One increase building height, two, eliminate and reduce setbacks, three, increase wall height, four increase retaining wall height, five, reduce street width, and six modified uniform standard drawings.

Design review for an attached single family residential development on 2.64 acres in an RS2 residential single family two zone, generally located east of Decatur Boulevard and south of Robin Dale uh Road with an enterprise.

Item number 27 TM2650033, hold over a tentative map for a 19 lot and common lots on 2.64 acres in an RS tier residential single family two zone, generally located east of Decatur Boulevard and south of Robin Dale Road within Enterprise.

Thank you, staff.

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

Uh Simona Stevens, 1950 East Warm Springs.

Um I'm here on behalf of the applicant.

Um the applicant is applying for a master plan amendment to rezone back to the residential, um, proposing to build 19 homes.

Um this application has been heard here uh by you a few weeks ago.

Um there were some concerns about the door facing Decatur, so we did revise the floor plans and and the side plan to to remove the door.

Um do you want me to go over the the basics of the project or to refresh the memory or just go straight to the changes or just questions?

Yeah, refresher.

Okay.

I was gonna say straight to the changes, but go ahead.

So the project is located um on decatur, and um between Robin Dale and the Mill.

Um the total is over two acres.

The owner is proposing to build 19 homes, which are separated in two buildings.

Uh the zone change, I mentioned that 19 homes, they're all two stories.

Um the the first floor is large garages that that would fit um RV.

Um second floor 19, uh 16, 19 square feet about somewhere in there.

Uh elevations, we have variations on it, different materials, different heights.

Um there were some um waivers that were mentioned, and we did we did remove some of the some of the waivers, like we worked with the staff.

Um, and then the the big concern was the doors that were located that were facing decatur.

And um those were the ones that got removed because the concerns were saying something about um possibly kids running out into the street.

I'm sorry?

Yes.

So this is basically facing this.

This is the decatur view, and this one this one's the same.

Just uh we removed some of the landscape so you can actually see the buildings better.

So there used to be a door here in each unit, so those were removed.

All right, so thank you for that presentation.

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

Anyone in the audience like to speak on this item?

Now it's time to have to come down and do so.

Seeing no one come down to speak on this item, we will close the public hearing.

Um I'm in support of the application.

Appreciate you making um the changes based on the comments of the commission.

Um, and I will um Commissioner Kirk, any any questions from your side?

No, I don't have any questions.

Thank you.

Commissioner Kalarski.

I just want to know what uh waivers were removed that now you comply with.

Sure.

Uh the height waiver.

We actually reduced the building height overall, so that that was removed.

Um we eliminated balconies on the west side, the the phase decator, therefore that that that setback requirement that we were was was removed.

Um originally we had eight foot walls around it, and uh that it was a waiver for that, so we actually did re reduce it to six feet.

Um, and then another one was the uh the width of the the drive that went around the site.

Um we we uh reduced the size of the pool area amenities to provide full drive requirements.

I just want to thank you for removing that door off on decatur.

That was I think we talked about it last time that was Toby that was gonna go run out and uh run into traffic.

So thank you for uh removing those.

Um I think this is a lot better.

Um and one thing I'm just gonna say is that's a lot of glass spacing Decatur, and so the sound is gonna go through those windows, but that's just mentioning that um for people that are residents-wise, it's gonna be louder inside the units, but um, I'm more in support of this one, how it is now.

Thank you, Commissioner Brady.

Commissioner Karski, were you done?

Sure.

Commissioner, may I ask the applicant to clarify which waivers are being withdrawn?

Yeah, go ahead.

If if the applicant could clarify which waivers are being withdrawn, so waiver number one, two.

Oh no, one, three, four, and six.

All right, so before I go to Commissioner Wrigman, Commissioner Mohica.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um, I was actually going to ask public works if they were okay with number six, but you're you're removing that you're okay.

Excuse me, Commissioners.

Per their uh revised plans, they still need the waiver for number six.

I think she may have meant like waiver number five for the reduced street width, not waiver number six for the reduced radius.

That's correct.

Are you understanding that?

So it's five, not six that you were drawing.

So in regards to six.

Um is public works okay with that?

Is it safe?

That's always still not in support of waiver number six.

The reduced radius is giving a tighter turn.

This um product is saying that it's for RVs, it's gonna make it very difficult for the RVs to make that turn and then turn into the um driveways or garages also if there is anybody parked on that opposite side of that 37 foot wide private street.

That is gonna even minimize the amount of space that they will have to do the turnaround movement.

So we still do not support the reduced radius.

So I know we're not gonna design at the podium, but I I wouldn't be able to support something that public.

I mean, she just explained.

Did you understand everything she said?

I do.

Is just uh this is not necessarily it it's the garage is big enough to fit on RV, but it's not being targeted as full RVs only.

Okay, but thank you.

I I would suggest, Commissioner Morhiga, that you know we the maker of the motion could approve it, but just not allow that waiver, so they'd have to meet the requirements if if that's a concern for the board.

So we don't design a deponum.

Yep.

But all right, so I'll turn it over to Commissioner Reutman.

Can you show me that one time on the uh I want to reiterate what um Commissioner Brace said?

I'm glad that you guys that I was also concerned about the doors there.

Um I know you made a lot of changes here.

I think I probably could have approved some of those other ones.

Um I share the concern on the radius and the turning and all this stuff here.

Um, but but I I am pretty ready to approve this, but for that, if maybe to staff, because you guys you know kind of see how the sausage is made here a little bit more than we do.

If we were to go and give them the approvals without six, does that just set them all the way back to the drawing board here?

Are we gonna are they gonna does that essentially reject this because they're gonna have to bring new plans, or is there a way to split the baby a little bit here?

They would have to revise their plans um to give us the full radius.

They may have to lose a lot or two, um, one on each side, depending on how they work it out.

I mean, it would be up to them for their design on the reduced radiuses.

Um, but they would have to do a redesign to meet the standards, but it wouldn't be a crazy redesign, it would just be a matter of possibly losing a lot or two.

It would not be a crazy redesign.

You well, we don't we are generally it would be up to them if it's for them to sign.

What do you guys think about that?

Mr.

Chairwell, they're talking.

If I could just interject, remember we're a recommending body, so we can go ahead and deny it and then have the board of county commissioners because this is gonna give you a make that because it's gonna go up anyway, or you can go ahead and just uh have them revise their plans before the next BCC in order to to take a look at.

I don't know if that's a possibility, um, but it's something to think about, maybe before you do anything.

Yeah, what how about this?

If I approved it and then denied six, um, then they could get that, they could get a second shot at BCC because they have to go there anyways.

They figured out yeah.

That is correct.

That's what I'm gonna do, guys.

Okay, all right.

Motion to approve item number 24, PA267010.

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

Councilman Kirk, uh Commissioner Kirk, yes.

That motion carries.

Next item.

Motion to approve items 25, 26, and 27 with the caveat that I am not approving uh waiver number six, and noting for the record the other waivers that were were withdrawn.

That is ZC260137, WS260138, and TM265033.

Thank you very much.

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

Commissioner Kirk, yes.

That motion passes.

Good luck.

Thank you.

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

unless otherwise announced.

The next items on the agenda are items 28 through 32, which are companion applications that can be heard together.

Item 28 is PA26, 7000.

Holdover plan amendment to redesignate the land use category from mid-intensity suburban neighborhood MN to compact neighborhood CN on 1.44 acres, generally located east of Hualapai Way and north of Serene Avenue within Enterprise.

Item number 29 is CC 260208.

Holdover zone change to reclassify 1.44 acres from an RS20 residential single family 20 zone to an RM18 residential multifamily 18 zone, generally located east of Wallapai Way, north of Serene Avenue within Enterprise.

Item number 30 is VS 260207.

Holdover vacated abandoned easements of interest to Carr County located between Hualapai Way and Conquistador Street and Aletta Avenue and Serene Avenue with an Enterprise.

Item 31, WS260209, holdover amended waivers and development standards for the following.

One reduce rear setbacks, two, eliminate required open space no longer needed.

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

Design review for a single family attached residential development on 1.44 acres in an RM18 residential multifamily 18 zone, generally located east of Wallafai Way and north of Serene Avenue within Enterprise and Item 32 TM26 500053 holdover 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 Wallapai Way and north of Serene Avenue within Enterprise.

So before we get started, just for the record, um the company that's representing the applicant and the company that I work for do business together, but we have no financial interest in this application.

Is it okay that I hear and vote on it?

Yes.

Thank you.

All right.

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

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

I'm with Civil One Engineering at 333 North Rancho Suite 900.

I'm here with the owner and developer to my right.

And we're here to present the development at the corner of Walla Pai and Serene, which includes a zone change to the current master plan.

Which current master plan is for eight duplex eight duplexes per acre to an RM18 or 18 duplexes per acre with a planned land use designation of compact neighborhood.

Our proposed zone change is based on current economic conditions of the area and growth patterns and housing market.

Each unit will be between 1456 and 1,546 square feet of living space.

Lots will range in size from 1,850 to about 2,550 square feet.

This additional feature which we added will exceed the required 1,680 square feet.

Will have two car garages with a private backyard.

We held a neighborhood meeting on May 25th, or excuse me, May 2025, and there was no opposition from neighbors.

And during the town board meeting on May 27th, 2026, a year later, we did not hear any opposition from neighbors on this development.

The following are the requested waivers that are listed in the agenda.

Number one, a waiver for 10 foot rear setback when 15 is required.

The current floor plan allows for a 15-foot kitchen depth.

Failing to reduce the rear setback by five feet will make the kitchen only 10 feet wide.

We will furly we will ful excuse me, we will fully furnish the rear landscaping of the homes.

And this is at the require recommended requirement of Justin Jones.

Number two was uh this area here that we provide uh common space, which we did.

So uh the second waiver has been fulfilled as by us in making that waiver number two no longer waiver that we are requesting number three we have a waiver to not have detached sidewalk on serene, and this is a little hard to see here, but underneath these trees, and I have a better drawing.

You will notice uh we'll turn it around the other way here in the green here.

You can see the the sidewalk that we propose over here.

We will detach, not a problem, but between the ADA access here, here, and here, and trying to connect to the existing sidewalk.

We just don't have the ability to get a separated sidewalk and to join back to each of those ADA ramps.

And I think you can clearly see that trying to fit a detached sidewalk in these short distances is very difficult.

So we seek a waiver for that reason.

Item number four.

Um we seek a waiver for a 71 foot distance between the intersection and the driveway, where 125 feet is required.

And this is simply because in no matter which direction you go, there isn't 125 feet.

You can't find 125 feet in either uh direction from the intersection.

So we have 71 feet here from the intersection to the driveway.

Number five.

We seek a waiver for a 15-foot radius, and that is this 15-foot.

We seek a 15-foot radius.

This item was discussed with Clark County planning, and they stated they would support the 15-foot radius because it is an egress for a private street.

There's since it's a stop condition on an egress, it doesn't cause any potential traffic issues maintaining a 15-foot radius as opposed to a 25.

These are the waivers that we were seeking.

Um we have staff approval for the zoning recommendation that we mentioned earlier, and this is my description of the project.

Are there any questions?

Thank you, thank you.

Oh, number number six.

Did I miss one?

Oh, I apologize.

I must have missed one.

Okay.

Oh, waiver for the thank you.

I did miss that one.

So let's look at I guess this this one will be fine.

Because these are duplexes, the driveways are side to side, and so we seek a waiver for three foot, three.

It'd be one point six altogether between the driveway and the property line for a little over three feet separation between the two driveways.

That concludes your presentation.

That does.

All right, thank you very much.

All right, so I'm going to 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 coming down, we're going to close the public hearing, and I'll open up to my commissioners for questions and comments.

Commissioner Brady, if you'd like, we'll start with you.

Do you have an elevation plan like from the front of the um units?

And so the separation in between the garage, how far is that?

Like yeah, sort of that right there.

That's a little over three feet.

Well, between the garage.

Yeah, so that post that you were pointing at.

Well, uh the driveways would be right uh in alignment with the garage door.

So it's it's about over three feet, just a little over three feet.

Um that's what I was kind of just wondering there.

I'm just thinking of doors opening.

If people pull in their driveways and park in the driveways, are those uh doors get wait?

How long are how big are the driveways?

How deep are they?

They're 10 feet.

Oh, 10 feet.

So no one's gonna park in the driveways.

Okay.

Is when the driveways are 10 feet, more people tend to try to park in the driveway, and then their tail sticks out.

And so if you get the elevation view and like helicopter view and go looking around all the different places that have uh 10-foot driveway, they try to pull in.

Um, if you actually go to a five-foot driveway, they don't try to pull in.

I thought that was kind of interesting, an interesting little fact that I learned on that.

Um that's the one thing I just kind of wonder is do you cut down the driveway and save and but I don't know.

That's I'm gonna throw it to everybody else to get their opinion.

Thank you, Commissioner Brady.

I'm gonna go to Commissioner Kirk online.

Any questions, comments for the applicant?

Yeah, just a couple.

Appreciate Commissioner Brady mentioning that.

Uh 10-foot driveways uh are much worse than even uh five-foot driveway after uh a lot of study and and uh research has shown that uh kind of we have empirical data that demonstrated that with the smaller driveway, people don't even try to park with their uh vehicle, but with a 10-foot driveway, people will pull their car up to the garage door, their vehicle being say 14 feet or so will hang right off into the right-of-way.

And we've seen that uh seen that time and time again around.

So that's the uh so I'm not a big fan.

I know you get the uh by right, you can do a 10-foot driveway, I believe.

But let me ask a question of staff, okay.

Um, and and that's this.

Do we uh after a development is approved and constructed?

Does the staff ever do a back cast, if you will, or a debrief of what's good and what's not good about a certain project?

Because I think if the staff would look at 10-foot driveways around the valley, uh I think they would agree that it's probably not the best configuration uh for parking.

Uh shorter driveways with more guests parking, seems to be a much better uh solution than giving them a 10-foot driveway.

So I I throw that out there and ask the staff.

Do we have the ability on staff to have uh planners, uh engineers, whatever, go out and evaluate projects after they're constructed.

So we generally do not um have the ability to do that.

Um you know, we look at um the consultant that wrote helped rewrite the code, used what were the best practices from various jurisdictions around the country.

Um definitely understand the concern with 10-foot driveways and five-foot driveways.

Um but if that's something that is proposed and um often approved.

I I don't know that there's going to be an appetite for actually getting that changed in the code.

But if that's a recommendation you all want to make, we can certainly take that forward and see if we can do a code change.

Yeah, I mean uh all it would take is somebody on the planning staff to drive around in a couple of these projects where there are 10-foot driveways, and even the the biggest novice would be able to see that it doesn't work, and that people double park both of their cars in front of their uh garage door, and the butt of their car hangs out into the right of way.

See, we see it everywhere.

And uh selling residential real estate.

Uh I see it all over the place.

Everywhere I go when I see these 10-foot driveways.

Now that's what I noticed.

I used to think that that was happening on five-foot driveways, but uh I've been uh I've been redirected to uh and now realize that that's not the case, those are 10-foot driveways that are causing all the problems.

I know that there are other jurisdictions that don't allow 10-foot driveways, but but the county does for some unexplicable reason in my mind.

So that's just a comment.

Second thing uh for the applicant, what is your street width?

37 from Baca Curb to Backer Curb.

And as a is that a private street?

It is.

And is there an HOA?

Uh there is an HOA.

There is an H O.

Okay.

All right, that's all I have.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Kirk.

I'm gonna go to Commissioner Brady.

Sorry, I just wanted to mention one more thing on it.

So I do appreciate all the greenery and uh that you put in there.

And that's one thing that you know you sacrifice when you go away from a 10-foot.

So it's like so.

What do you do?

Is that is the right answer a 10-foot or is it a seven foot?

And is it somewhere in between so you can still get that greenery and not make it feel like the house is sitting right on the edge?

But what's that?

What is that point where a car doesn't try to park in that driveway?

And that's where it'd be interesting to know.

So anyway, I just wanted to kind of make that comment.

Uh, thank you, Commissioner Brady.

I appreciate Commissioner Kurt bringing it up and Commissioner Brady bringing that up, and we'll we'll administratively you know look into that with staff on a separate um platform.

Um so with that, I will turn it over to Commission Commissioner Mohica, I believe.

Yep, yep.

Okay, I met with the applicants, and um we went over all these.

Uh it all makes sense, and so I will just make a motion to approve plan amendment PA267017.

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

Cast your vote.

Uh Commissioner Kirk, yes.

That motion passes.

And then motion to approve items 29, 30, 31, and 32.

All right, motion on the floor, cast your vote.

Commissioner Kirk, yes.

Motion passes.

Good luck.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Oh, the green.

These items will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners meeting for final action on August 5th, 2026 at 9 a.m.

unless otherwise announced.

The index items on your agenda are items 36 through 38, which are companion applications that can be heard together.

Item number 36, PA 267021, holdover plan amendment to redesignate the existing land use category from neighborhood commercial NC to business employment BE on 0.95 acres, generally located east of Decatur Boulevard and north of El Dorado Lane with an enterprise.

Item number 37, ZC 260255.

Holdover zone change to reclassify 0.95 acres from an RS20 residential single family 20 zone to an IL industrial lot, excuse me, industrial light zone, generally located east of Decatur Boulevard and north of Eldorado Lane with an enterprise.

Item number 38.

WS260256.

Holdover waivers of development standards for the following.

One, modify residential adjacency standards, two, reduce setback, three, reduce street landscaping, four increased parking, and five alternative driveway geometrics.

Design review for a proposed office warehouse on 0.95 acres in an IL industrial light zone, generally located east of Decatur Boulevard and north of El El Dorado Lane within Enterprise.

Thank you, Staff.

Um name and address for the record.

Tell us about your application.

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

As referenced, this site is just under an acre.

It's oriented north to south.

It's there north of El Dorado Lane and east of Decatur Boulevard.

Decatur Boulevard is a major arterial.

As you can see there, there's a large self-storage existing there right across the street.

There also is a large industrial development with the bakery located there to the northwest.

To our east, there is existing residential.

It's ranch estate.

But the point of this site is the fact that it is zoned or planned commercial already.

In fact, this whole Decatur corridor is.

And so our request is to switch from commercial plan to business employment and industrial.

But really, this ultimately is a 14,000 square foot warehouse office use space.

It's going to be broken into seven sections, so each around 2,000 square feet.

The end users are ultimately going to be trades, contractors, plumbers of the sorts that you know generally started out on their own.

They're now up to one to three employees.

They're going to come in at around seven in the morning, you know, get their trucks, go out for the day, come back around four or so.

With this, when we were discussing and going through the neighborhood meeting process, we didn't want to have the building right there on the eastern boundary, kind of towering over the neighbors or feeling like it's right in their backyard.

So we wanted to push the building away from the existing residential towards that arterial that is decatur.

And ultimately, when we did so, we have that 15 feet of intense landscaping on this side.

But what that brings us to is to some of our waivers.

Ultimately, a 20-foot setback is required.

We have a 14-foot setback.

We do have a detached sidewalk.

We have all of the landscaping along the frontage of Decatur.

We do have a decreased portion here, which goes down to around three feet in some change, but will have some ground cover in there.

Additionally, too, with this site, if you had commercial or any uses on it, you're ultimately going to have a waiver for the trash enclosure.

You just can't put it anywhere else on this site.

If you move it too close to Decatur, you're dealing with site visibility issues.

You're dealing with the trash enclosure being by the right of way.

So ultimately, it is internal to the site.

It has eight foot decorative walls around it on top of the eight foot decorative wall and the intense landscape buffer along that eastern boundary.

Additionally, we do have two public works related waivers.

One is the approach distance, which public works currently does not have any objection to, but they do on the throat depth.

We met with public works, and so those revised plans will be forthcoming, but we can accommodate the required throat depth.

So we will be able to submit those revised plans.

We will no longer need that waiver.

Something that I do want to mention too is that at first the site sat or the building sat around 35 feet.

And then there's a portion where it decreases two feet the grade does, so that brought it up to I think what you see in your staff report of 37 feet.

We have brought the building down to 30 feet architectural features and the parapets, take it up to around 32 to 33 feet.

So we've brought the building down.

Ultimately, our architect went to the Western Trails Park that's kind of central in that community there and drew on that for inspiration for the colors and for the rustic steel awnings that will be on the building.

We also do have the overhead doors because we push the building towards Decatur that are facing back to the east.

If we push the building back, those overhead doors would be facing the right of way, which creates another issue from a planning perspective.

Ultimately, these overhead doors are 14 feet between the eight-foot decorative wall and the intense landscaping buffer.

They will not be very visible from the neighbors or visible at all.

On the east side, there are no windows that will be looking over into anyone's backyards.

There's there's two neighbors adjacent to us to the east.

And so we do feel that this use in this design is appropriate.

It's a difficult site, but ultimately this development is much less intense in its traffic that will come to the site.

There's not going to really be customers coming, and I think it's evident we do have a parking waiver because the parking requirement on this is one parking space per thousand square feet.

So it's 14,000 square feet.

We have 28 parking spaces, and really that was to make sure, hey, we'll be a little bit more overparked and make sure there's not you know anyone parking out in the streets, parking back in the residential area.

If you look at similar commercial uses that could go on the site, those have parking ratios of one to 150 square feet for a restaurant, one to three hundred square feet for personal services, one to three hundred and fifty square feet for retail.

So just from the parking counts, it's much more intense in what they're anticipating to come to the site and be parked there, and ultimately that would probably garner a waiver as well.

So we feel that this use and these applications are appropriate.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

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

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

And it looks like we have some folks in the audience want to speak on it.

Um just need your name, name and address for the record and put your comments on the record, please.

Good evening.

My name is Lori Howard Mom, and I live at 7365 Elm Drive.

He's painting a really nice picture.

I live in the Western Trail Park area.

It's a rural neighborhood park.

So imagine that.

We have horses, we have children, we have people walking around, we don't have sidewalks, and he's gonna put an industrial light right in our neighborhood.

I want to say a few key issues.

When you change the land use, you get a whole new set of zone districts, which have their own set of rights about what can be built or not.

Once you change it, those rights can allow other uses that can be detrimental to the entire neighborhood.

It's like opening Pandora's box, essentially doing spot land use.

Industrial use on the east side of Decatur is not appropriate.

Take a look at Decatur and how the property narrows down from where he's talking about at El Dorado to Warm Springs.

Regarding traffic, there is not sufficient traffic mitigation.

A physical right turn exit only would mitigate the traffic.

Signs are not effective.

They come out on El Dorado, they're gonna come directly into our neighborhood, and they're only about a hundred feet away.

This project is too large for the land that is available, and I would ask that you please take a look at the recommendations of your staff and the Enterprise Town Board, which the consensus was to deny it.

Thank you.

My name is uh Barry King.

My address is 7330 Ulam Drive Las Vegas.

Um I have uh several concerns, and my uh primary concern is the traffic that we will get off of uh this project.

And um Decatur is a very busy street, as everybody knows, and when somebody comes out of this project, they're gonna look at going down Decatur or going through the neighborhood.

And I know all of us have been in a situation where we pull up to a red light and it says no our left turns only, and then we sit and watch as everybody starts making new-turns.

We're gonna have a similar situation here, and people are gonna be going down the streets or these uh large vehicles.

Okay, no.

We're told that there these are gonna be plumbers and these are gonna be up and coming guys.

We don't know.

This is unless he has this all rented out already, he doesn't know who's gonna be there.

I remember when I was working and I was working in an industrial work, and we'd come in in the middle of the night, we'd pull up the pull up the doors, and we'd start unloading our trucks.

Okay, these uh these doors are facing the neighborhood.

Okay, they're not facing out to the street, out to where he says that uh we have the industrial area across the street, they're facing the the people that are living there.

And I think of them as megaphones.

You pull it up and it reminds me of one of those little orchestra cones or whatever you want to call it, and that sound is gonna go out to the neighborhood, and we're told that we're gonna have this nice buffer and of trees and that, but it takes a while for all this to go in.

We're not gonna have it to begin with.

I'd like to see this project turned down.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

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

Okay, seeing no one else, we will close the public hearing and I'll open up to my commissioners.

I'll start with Commissioner Kirk online.

Any questions or comments for the applicant?

Uh not at this time, thank you.

All right, all right.

I see some lights down there.

Okay, Commissioner Kaloski.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um what I see is on the one side we do have industrial that is land use.

But we don't see that on the east side, and I really don't like industrial by adjacent to residential, much less a lower density residential.

I think this is one of the things that uh I've talked about this in the past, where we have certain categories and certain projects or certain types of uh things that can go into a commercial, but because it's a warehouse or it's whatever, it has to go into industrial.

Um, and I think there's somewhere, some way down the road if we take a good look, as we were talking about earlier, as the commissioner was talking about when he was talking about the water and and having stuff come before the board, maybe we can have a talk with staff and see if there's some things where this could be a special use permit and not industrial.

The industrial is my point.

Okay, I'm not gonna design, but I think that doors to the street are okay.

Sorry, but I do staff, uh, rather than them facing homes.

But that's not nothing that you can do.

You're trying to comply, and I get it.

But I do not like the industrial on this side.

I don't think it should be up against the RP.

Um, but I think the project isn't really a bad project.

I just think that the plan amendment isn't a good idea.

And so with that, that's all I'm gonna say.

Thank you, Commissioner Kalaski, Commissioner Brayton.

Um so I want to bring up so right now it's planned land use, um, neighborhood commercial.

How tall can you go on neighborhood commercial generally?

So the height limits are determined by the specific zoning district, generally for the commercial zones, um, up to 50 feet is allowed.

And on so on this, and it's it was zone classification residential, single family um or RS20, but commercial it could go up to the 50 feet.

So in this case, you're going to what height?

30 and then 32, 33 with the architectural pop-outs.

Um I do understand where you're coming from.

Where one thing I I actually appreciate that the building is off of the line of the homes, that it's actually pushed away a little bit.

Um I I actually appreciate that because it creates that buffer, and you did a lot of green landscaping that separates to try to soften that look.

Um, and I think you might have mentioned this, but having the doors that go up, if you could I don't know, do the rustic look or do something on those big doors that would make it kind of blend in so it's not just this typical bay door, but make it look a little bit more fancy so it could appear better to the neighbors.

I think would go a long way.

But I actually appreciate how it's pushed off, but so I'm I'm a little bit more in support, and of course, hearing what all the other commissioners say.

Thank you, Commissioner Brady.

I I I I would also say I'm in support of the application, and I believe that um it's a good project as well.

I think there's there's some sense to the fact that this this is um a good fit, it's not a 24-hour operation um type of a build, so that it it relieves the night time to the neighbors.

I I think I I can support the application as it's presented.

I think Commissioner Kurt said he was reserving his comments, and so I'll turn it over to Ku.

I'm sorry, Commissioner Brady, one more time, and then Commissioner Whiteman.

Really quick on this.

One thing I want to say that I appreciate for it for the homeowners is that, and it's I'm looking at it as a benefit that comes from this, is like when you go drive down the around the 215, there's a wall that goes around the 215, it helps hold out that sound.

What I can tell you is this building for those homes that are right behind it, it's gonna help keep out that sound from Durango.

So for me, if I lived on the other side of it, I would actually appreciate it for the side of of sound.

So that's just where I just wanted to say that last thing.

Thank you, Commissioner Whitman.

I think there's some concern here that from the neighbors that although we have a project before us that appears to be less intense than maybe some of the other uh commercial uses that could go in here as far as height, as far as parking, as far as uh is the hours of operation here gonna be kind of daytime hours?

Generally, that's that's the understanding from the applicant, yes.

Um that this is spot zoning, or there could be a bait and switch, or that if we're gonna have they're saying this is gonna be kind of office warehouse, but maybe it could be something else.

Maybe staff, can you speak to those concerns?

Um, you know, just if we if we approve this, don't we have some assurances that that's what's gonna be there or no?

Yeah, so I think the concern with the intense industrial zoning, the IL zone specifically allows for some higher intensity industrial uses, including you know outdoor storage, you know, recycling, kind of you know, waste-related uses.

So the zoning would allow that.

If they were going to you know, uh redevelop or redesign the site to allow those kinds of uses, you know, they would be subject to the design review that corresponds with that redesign or redevelopment.

But the uh industrial light zoning does allow for those types of uses potentially but if so, let's say they decide they want to do some more heavy industrial, that comes back before this board though, or no?

Yeah, so any you know significant changes to the site or the uses would have to come back for a subsequent design review.

So if we approve this today, then it will be this office warehouse concept and not some broader use without us getting another look at this.

Is that correct?

Correct.

So I just want to clarify that they they would have some leeway to make changes to the project.

So there are things that could be done administratively.

Such as uh change to the design of the project uh based on the square footage that they have.

Um we do have significant authority to do things administratively.

If you want to lock them down to something, you could add a condition, um, hours of operation.

So we could talk about hours of operation here, uh, but if you don't condition hours of operation, then there's no limit.

Um if you want to see something come back, it would have to actually wind up going back in front of the board of county commissioners, you could add a condition uh to require design review as a public hearing for certain type if you could enumerate the changes to the plans that you would want to see come back.

So if we were to say if this becomes something other than what um if this becomes a heavy industrial use rather than an office warehouse use, that would require a public hearing as a condition?

Well, it it would be more design-based that you'd be looking at if you wanted to limit the opportunity for heavier industrial uses, you could drop the zoning down to IP, which is the industrial park zone instead of the industrial light zone.

Uh I'm not sure why they're asking for industrial light.

If there's a certain use that they want to do that needs industrial light, that would make sense.

Um otherwise the industrial park zone would be more appropriate and that would protect some of those more intense industrial uses.

Does that work for the applicant?

Industrial park is what you said.

I believe so for the use, yes.

Commissioner Workman, um, before you go further, Commissioner Brady, did you want to put on the record some some some thoughts?

I'm just wondering if we put a restriction on the hours because the bay doors are facing those homeowners.

If the bay doors are opening up at midnight for sea, that starts causing noise to neighbors and all of that.

No, that might get kicked back to the what was that group that never mind.

That's kind of what my thoughts were.

So so I'm definitely supported application.

I I like some of the conversation that's going on.

I I think that um you make some great points, Commissioner Workman.

Um if you're if you're gonna motion to um even have um uh change the the use to park, that's fine with me.

I I could definitely support that.

Um if if uh if you want to make a motion that if the design significantly changes for what's presented before us, it needs to come back before us.

kind of what my thoughts were so so I'm definitely in supported application I I like some of the conversation that's going on I I think that um you make some great points Commissioner Workman um if you're if you're going to motion to um even have um uh change the the use to park that's fine with me I I could definitely support that um if if uh if you want to make a motion that if the design significantly changes for what's presented before us it needs to come back before so I would definitely support something like that too because um I would expect that what the applicant is presenting to us today is the intent of what should be built and that's what I would and that's the only thing that I would really be willing to approve um in the neighborhood so so well so whatever you however you want to phrase it with staff I'm um I could support something like that thank you okay any thoughts on that works does it work does okay uh okay so then I guess I will approve the plan amendment and then I will put the condition I'll down the zoning is what changes right to IP and then we'll put that uh so the first for your plan amendment we're good as is yeah okay so I'll motion to approve item number 36 PA26700021 there's a motion on the floor cash a vote commissioner Kirk yes that motion passes next item okay so on this one I might need some help guys I motion to approve right ZC260255 but instead of industrial light we're gonna go to industrial park all right and then I and then I also motion to approve the waiver of the design standards but if there are significant changes to the design review then I'll want it to come back in front of our board uh for another look and so with that I motion to approve Z62 ZC260255 and WS260256 with those conditions.

All right does that work for staff that's clear all right a motion on the floor cast or vote Commissioner Kirk yes that motion passes good luck.

Thank you these items will be forwarded to the board of county commissioners meeting for final action on August 5th 2026 at 9 a.m unless otherwise announced the next items on the agenda are items 39 through 42 which are companion applications that can be heard together.

Item number 39 is PA 2670022 holdover plan amendment to redesignate the existing land use category from public use PU to urban neighborhood UN on a 15.2 acre portion of a 31.58 acre site generally located south of Vegas Valley Drive and west of tree line drive alignment within sunrise manor item number 40 CC 260257 holdover zone change to reclassify a 15.2 acre portion of a 31.58 acre site from a PF public facility zone to an RM32 residential multifamily 32 zone generally located south of Vegas Valley Drive and west of tree line drive alignment within sunrise manor item number 41 VS 260258 hold over vacate and abandon a portion of right away being Vegas Valley Drive located between homeownership lane and treeline drive within sunrise manor and item number 42 DR260259 holdover design review for proposed multifamily residential development on 15.2 acres in an RM32 residential multifamily 32 zone generally located south of Vegas Valley Drive and west of treeline drive within sunrise manor all right name and address for the record and tell us about your application thank you Mr.

Chairman Commissioners my name's Bob Gronauer 1980 Festival Plaza Drive I'm here representing the applicant in this matter and I also have with me in the audience Sheila Lambert uh she's here to uh representing the applicant along with myself she may if you have any questions that are very technical with respect to the development and leasing of what we're proposing if I can't answer those she's here to step into my place there.

So with that being said though before I get into the application and the location of a property I think I need to give you a little bit of background of what this application is so as I go through the land use part of it you can understand how this piece actually fits with the land use of all this is a veteran affordable housing development that we are uh uh we're proposing before you today it will also have a concept of supportive housing um what that means is what we're dealing with here with this type of development is if this development does get approved with these concepts here we believe this is the first of its kind in the country where we get to help service our uh veterans in this area the way I look at the affordable housing here with the specific category it's somewhat similar to when you're dealing with uh senior housing right when you get senior affordable housing you get a specifically for seniors and in the affordable housing category you have some wraparound services that come to the property some agencies uh some medical you you help the seniors out with respect to filling out certain applications you have you provide rides and so on or um um is a vehicles so they could get to transportation to other areas uh with respect to this application here and I need to clarify this because there's neighbors here in opposition and there's some misinformation out there I will tell you what this

When you get senior affordable housing, you get it specifically for seniors, and in the affordable housing category, you have some wraparound services that come to the property, some agencies, uh, some medical you help the seniors out with respect to filling out certain applications, you have you provide rides and so on, or um is vehicles so they could get to transportation to other areas.

Uh, with respect to this application here, and I need to clarify this because there's neighbors here in opposition, and there's some misinformation out there.

I will tell you what this is not.

This is not a homeless shelter, okay.

When you apply for the how for the units here, you have to apply for an application.

We're looking at individuals somewhere in the uh 50% to 80% AMI category, okay.

Um, what we will make sure I need to clarify just like any other leasing rental is we will not allow, even if you're a veteran, if you have committed any violent crimes.

Also, crimes against children, you will not be allowed admitted into this uh residential development.

I need to make that clear because I think there's some misery misinformation out there.

So the question is is what kind of people actually will be living in this community within the community here that you see on this overhead.

These are people that you deal with every day, okay?

These are your food servers, these are your managers that you deal with at different store levels, these are the security guards, these are security guards that may be here at Clark County or security people that you see out in our community.

Uh these may be clerks, uh retail clerks, uh, bus drivers, teachers, electricians, and plumbers.

So basically, it's a wide spectrum of people that we deal with on a daily basis.

And these people, the only difference about living here is what qualifies them here even more is because they're veterans.

And as you know, and we've had these discussions, there's a big need, a housing need, not just for people in general, for all of us, but also for our veterans, and this is a veteran community, which I'll get into it later on in my uh presentation.

So, this for me and for my client, he's been looking for a location for many years to do this service, and I think it's a great service of what we're gonna be providing you with this development here today.

So, the next step that I need to do is show you the location of this property, and then I want to explain to you why this property is compatible and harmonious, just like all the other residential development that's been approved in this area, and I'm going to show you.

But first of all, let's take a look at the property location.

As you can see here, it's highlighted in yellow.

This is approximately 15 acres of property that we are looking to come in with this residential development.

The property is currently master plan for public facilities.

As a matter of fact, this is a portion of a 30-acre uh part of property that has existing solar farms on this property.

Um, we are in the middle of where we've already executed a development agreement with the city of Las Vegas, uh, where we are to be coming in with deed restricted property for what I am representing to you today.

Um, we believe that this application, when when I go through a number of examples here, what I'm going to show you is we actually meet a lot of the goals and policies of your master plan.

Number one, one of the goals is goal 1.1 that talks about diversification of housing for options for all ages, incomes, and abilities.

I'm going to go through that and show you that we we check that box.

Goal 1.2 expand on the number of affordable housing.

That has been the Clark County Commission's number one initiative to make sure we provide more affordable housing.

And the county has been on the forefront on that.

I've been a part of the community land trust that you're working on, or that we're working on together and other senior affordable projects that have been approved throughout the uh Clark County.

And what's more specific, there is a sunrise manor policy, believe it or not, that talks about reinvestment in re in revitalization in older neighborhoods.

This is an older neighborhood, and we're looking to put some about 90 million dollars of development just with this project alone.

So that being said, what I want to do is focus on changes.

And what I'm going to get into is what you're going to see here is I'm going to call this is the residential wave of development that you've seen over the last 25 years.

Now let me explain why.

And what is important, why this is a compelling justification, why this application, regardless if it was veterans or regardless, whatever it was, residential is appropriate in this area.

Because back in 1950s and the 60s, you had NV Energy that came in with their facility located here.

You had the Las Vegas, this is the water treatment plant, and then believe it or not, you did have recycling facilities that were approved around that point in time.

Matter of fact, everything that you see in this area highlighted in blue has either been approved change from a public facility or an industrial develop uh industrial plan development in this area.

So what you are seeing here over the last 20 25 years is changes where once it was planned for industrial or public facility uses, and what has happened is it is now all changing in this area for residential development.

And the irony is I'm gonna just cherry pick a few of these because you don't want me to go through all these changes.

I'll spend another 20 minutes or so.

But I think the point is just our site alone in 2004.

We were this property here was approved for an RUD development.

Okay, RUD development is for small lots.

So a project was already approved on this property for RUD, and it was for 268 homes on 25 acres.

The property in this area that's blue in 2004 was approved for DR Horton project for triplex development.

As a matter of fact, and unfortunately, there's neighbors here who live in this triplex development that are in opposition to this application.

But the funny thing is is when this was represented in 2004 and subsequent years, nobody didn't want those people there because it was not compatible, and nobody wanted triplexes in that area.

And then you fast forward about 20 years later, and now the people that weren't supposed to be here don't want these people here.

But we'll deal with that in my um in my presentation or my rebuttal after the neighbors speak.

With that being said, also what I'd like to point out this project is a LENAR project.

This was also approved in 2014.

It was M1 and M2 zoning on this property, and residential was approved.

Property over here in 2000 was public facility, residential was approved on public facility property.

Project right here, you may recall this if you're on the planning commission in the last couple of years.

Uh in 2020, uh, this it was Royal Lynx golf course.

And Tom McCormick, the developer of uh uh Touchstone Homes has come in and is building out residential right adjacent to the water treatment plant.

That was that was considered to be compatible and harmonious, even though there was still 100 people in opposition and protest cards in opposition to this.

Then just as late as last year, this piece of property in 2025 was rezoned to RM32.

Okay, so it was determined by the county that residential is appropriate in this area.

So as I think about this, and you start seeing all the changes in this area, you see that it's no longer public facility and industrial dominated.

I look at this if you're old school, if you know where the pig farm used to be in North Las Vegas, and if you think about that, and I was doing zoning, and actually, Commissioner Stone was a planning commissioner way back in the 2000s.

He's been doing this a long time.

And and I remember appearing before him and the board, the planning commission, and we were getting residential development approved near the pig farm, and everybody was saying you cannot put residential near near a pig farm, pig farm's gonna be there forever.

And then guess what happened?

One day the pig farm sold out, and what you see there today.

If anybody who lives up in that area where the pig farm was, the pig farm is never there, it was never there in their world, right?

That I use that, I don't know if that's a great analogy or story, but that's what I see what's happening here, right?

The only thing that's probably gonna arguably stay is this facility and this facility in this area, and maybe arguably because this is I believe the insurance auto auction property that's located there, but there's a price, and people sell their land over time.

And matter of fact, even though this property is zoned industrial today, I just took this application for a charter school, it's essentially got held.

It was a 30 million dollar investment in this area where we're gonna change this from outdoor storage and and recycling to a uh charter school for a Title I school in that area.

So changes do happen, and what I want to show you here, hopefully I impress upon you that residential, regardless, even if it was for veteran housing or not, housing is appropriate in this area because someone has told us the county has told us over the last 20 years, this is what's been predominated uh predominantly approved.

The other thing that I want to show you just quickly, I have many many examples, but I'm only gonna use one.

And I think this makes sense here.

In the staff report, and what people will say is residential is not appropriate near industrial uses.

This is exactly off of flamingo by Horseman's Park.

You got the water treatment plant, you have residential that surrounds that.

Now I could go through another 20 to 30 to 50 other examples throughout the valley where you have residential up adjacent to industrial, and it works somehow, some way it works.

That's that's how these trends have happened.

But before I get to the site plan here, the things that I want to mention is what I showed you on the last two or the last two, three exhibits, actually the first two exhibits, is that we actually clearly meet those goals and policies, right?

I show you diversification of housing.

I mean, there was mobile homes I didn't go through, there's single family homes, there's triplexes, there's apartments, there's other town homes, and now we're asking to come in with veteran housing.

To me, that's diversity.

That's how you meet that goal.

Uh it's it's affordable.

That's how we meet that goal.

And the best thing is is the investment from the Sunrise Manor policy of 1.1 that says, let's invest in revitalize older neighborhoods.

What better way to invest by putting 90 million dollars in this area to up these property values?

Now we get to the design review.

The best thing about the design review that I can stand up here, we have zero waivers that we're asking for.

Okay.

I'm not asking for a setback to uh rear yard setback.

I'm not asking for, we're not asking for a parking reduction, a height increase, we're not asking for throat deaths, nothing.

One of the things we wanted to make sure, and the developer here wants to make sure that this is a class A type of affordable housing development.

By that is we're more amenitized than what you typically see in this design review here, more amenitized than what you would see in another type of affordable product.

Okay.

We have two pools, we have two fitness facilities, we have two different dog parks, we have court uh sports courts in this area.

So there is a lot that goes on within this property of what we're proposing.

Um, the buildings, the buildings are three stories high, 40 feet in height.

Typically, you can go up to 50 feet, we're at 40 feet, and I'll show you.

Actually, let me just jump over to here quickly because I know there's some concerns of the neighbors that live in the triplex development over here, which is about 500 feet away from where we are.

If you take the line of sight and you go through the recycling facility, the parking lot to where we are, we are actually lower by several feet.

It's higher on their side and lower on our side.

And as you can see, when you're done here by the elevation here, you can see there's zero impact from a visual impact there.

Getting back to the site plan here before I uh conclude with my uh comments.

What I want to point out also what's important is transportation.

Okay, there's been a concern about transportation because these are veterans.

These people, as I said, will have jobs.

Not everybody will have a car because not everybody has a car, but a lot of these people will have cars.

We have more than enough parking on here.

We I believe there's 500 and something spaces are required, and we meet all of them 500 plus, okay.

If you don't have a car, we have a bus route that's just right down this location here.

We'll also be able to provide vouchers for the veterans, which is no different than what we do for seniors when you have a senior affordable project.

If you don't want to, if you don't have a car and you don't want to use the bus, you'll have shuttle services.

Shuttle services are no different than any other affordable.

I'm not going to use seniors because that's how I started with the comparison.

Is you'll have shuttles that will take you to the commercial that's in the area, they'll take you to your appointments, it'll take you to other area, other things that you need to do in the community, which is not unusual.

And the last thing that we're working on, it's not finalized, is working with Uber and Lyft because these are veterans to see if we could get some significant discounts and if they need to use an Uber or Lyft, that's something that they can do.

So transportation, just because the location of where we are, does not impact this project.

And then the last part is from commercial services from this design review and services.

You're down the street on Vegas Valley.

If you head further to the west, you get to Nellis Boulevard.

I was just out there today looking at all the amenities on Nell's Boulevard, which is less than two miles away.

You got Albertson's.

If you don't like Albertson's, you go to Smith's.

You got other uh you got other um pharmacies.

As a matter of fact, we have a pharmacy, a CVS.

If you walk right out here and you walk right down here to the corner, which is maybe less than a quarter of a mile, you go to CVS and you can get whatever you want there if you want to walk.

So there are services that you can actually uh achieve.

Just giving you some uh some of the mood settings here with the elevations and some of the amenities that we are proposing.

And so the last thing that I want to do is I think I'm gonna wrap everything up here because there's a lot to talk about on this project, but I tried to narrow some of the discussion points.

I know I'd like to make sure I could come back up on rebuttal and address some additional issues, but I think there's some fine points here that we need to understand as I end the presentation.

Number one, I don't think we need to argue the fact that this community, the Las Vegas, Southern Nevada community, is a military community.

We support Creech, we support Nellis.

We have a couple hundred thousand veterans that live in Southern Nevada.

What we're doing here is we're not providing a handout to the veterans.

We're actually giving them a hand up.

Okay.

This gives people that opportunity that want to achieve home ownership and want to live somewhere and live in a community where you have like what likewise people with other veterans to share your stories and your experiences.

That's what they don't have.

That's what we're providing here.

I've already mentioned there's a critical need, right?

There's a critical need out there for housing, especially for our veterans.

I've shown you without doubt that this area is residentially changed through the trends.

And it's not, it's not inappropriate to put this type of development where we are asking to put it.

So the last thing is I'm going to ask you not to make any excuses and try to find ways to not support a great development like this.

Because I can tell you when our veterans, when they went to make sacrifices for us, they didn't make excuses for our freedom.

And I think what's more importantly, what I'm going to end with here is one thing that always bothers me is when I'm in public events or when I'm even on the Southwest Airline and you have military on the plane and you have veterans and we celebrate them and we clap and we're so proud of what they've done for us.

But then when they come into our community, you have people like me trying to bring them into the community.

We don't clap for them anymore.

We go, we don't belong here.

Where they belong, they belong somewhere else.

So if we don't go here, you could tell us where we need to go.

But I'm going to tell you, this is a community that they need, and we need to have this within the community.

So that being said, I'll turn it over for other comments and questions that you may have.

Thank you.

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

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

I I know that we have a lot of people that want to want to speak and put their comments on the record, so I'm just gonna set a couple of rules real quick.

Um we we we definitely won't appreciate and hear everybody's comments.

Um if you're in if you're in favor and you give us your your your reasoning, that's fine.

If you're in opposition, that's also fine.

We just know that you know we're we we understand the oppositions, and if someone says they're against traffic, the next person doesn't have to say they're against traffic.

We we get it.

Um so please go ahead, name an address for the record and give us your comments.

I'd like to thank you for for listening to us uh this evening.

My name is Vincent Palmer.

I live at 9901 Trailwood Drive in Las Vegas, 89134.

I'm the Region 6th Commander of the Military or the Purple Heart USA and the commander of Chapter 7 Eleven here in Las Vegas.

I'm here this evening to respectfully ask you to support in approving this Patriot Housing Project.

As you know, our community has urgent need for quality housing for our veterans.

These men and women sacrificed precious time with their families while serving our nation.

They missed birthdays, anniversaries, graduations, weddings, and many of life's most important moments.

Many also return home carrying the visible and invisible wounds of war.

They answered our nation's call, and now it's our responsibility to ensure they are not forgotten.

If we want our veterans to continue being productive members of our community, we must provide them with safe uh quality housing in an environment where they can rebuild their lives with dignity, stability, and hope.

I have lived in Las Vegas for the past 10 years.

During that time, I have heard many discussions about the need for veterans' housing.

Unfortunately, too often those discussions have remained just that.

Talk.

Tonight we have the opportunity to turn words into action.

I have personally visited the proposed site, reviewed the project, and spoken with the those involved.

I bet based on what I have seen, I am comfortable with both the location and the plan.

I believe that this quality project will provide veterans with a safe place to live and opportunity to succeed.

I respectfully ask you to vote in favor of this project.

Together, we can make a meaningful difference in the lives of the men and women who have sacrificed so much for all of us and the freedoms that we enjoy today.

I want to thank you for your time, your consideration, and your continued service to all country.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

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

Hi, I'm Kelly Wentz.

Um I live at 6429, Zazu Pitts Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada, 8912.

Um, I lived in my home for 16 years.

Um, I love where I live.

I love the east side of town.

I lived in Henderson, I lived in Summerlin, and I think the east side of town is the best kept secret in Las Vegas.

Uh we have beautiful views of the strip.

Um, Hollywood Boulevard has seen a lot of improvements with a new police station, uh, which I think is a great addition to our community.

Um, I'm in support of that.

Um, and the Hollywood Park is beautiful and it's getting even better.

Um, and I just want to see the the community um keep improving and you guys doing good decisions for um where we live.

Um, this is a solar field.

I love the um that I bought this home knowing that it's a solar field, not many people would buy their home right next to a solar field.

Um, it's quiet.

It I can have views of the strip.

Um that borders tree line, which is a dead end road.

Um, before we asked the city to block the dead end road, um cars would frequently be uh taken up there and stripped um because of the privacy.

Um they would ride back there, there's a circle.

Uh they would do donuts back there.

I'm a teacher.

I've been teaching in the Clark County School District for 20 years.

I get up at 5 a.m.

and to be woken up in the middle of the night by screeching tires is uh the worst nightmare you could even imagine.

Um it would all get reopened to allow access for this new development.

Um, this development is is I think a wrong fit.

Um, it's not an area that's zoned for residential.

Um, if it was an empty lot and it was zoned for residential, I would say be my guest.

Um, I'm not against um housing veterans or housing at all.

Um, if you drive down Vegas Valley, they're building they got rid of the golf course, they're building one bedroom, two bedroom, three-bedroom homes.

There's plenty of homes.

You keep going down cabana, there's mobile homes, there's a lot of affordable housing uh being built up to squeeze low-income housing right into a solar field that never was supposed to be there, is just seems like a wrong decision.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Name and address for the record.

My name is Tiffany Padilla, and I live at 3457 Greenwood Springs Drive, Las Vegas, obviously.

Um, I have was born and raised on in Sunrise Manor.

I grew up on the state streets.

It was an amazing neighborhood when I was a child, and it turned to trash the minute they put in apartments nearby.

I moved to condos again in Ellison Sahara.

The more apartments that came in, the more violence came in.

The more homelessness was around us, the more trash happened.

I had I got married, I had two beautiful little babies, they're seven and nine, and I moved up to where we live now to escape the apartments, to escape the transient lifestyle.

I want my kids to be in a place where they can feel safe, and bringing apartments is not that.

I am all for these types of projects, veterans.

I come from veterans, a long line of veterans.

That's not my opposition.

This is not the place for them.

Especially right now, we just had the 4th of July.

It is terrifying up there.

It feels like war-torn country during the 4th of July.

Three weeks surrounding the 4th of July.

And then another three weeks surrounding New Year's Eve.

The cannons that are going off constantly, starting at 3 p.m., which I think is ridiculous.

Why people are wasting their money on fireworks at 3 p.m.

But it's so loud, you don't you don't even need to see them or hear it.

You can feel it in your heart.

You can feel it in your chest.

And anybody with PTSD will not thrive up there.

As she previously mentioned about the race car the cars racing and the squealing of the tires, you you wake up to that in the middle of the night.

I'm really hoping that the new police station is gonna fix that, but we never know.

Um, the town hall meeting that I went to, they said that there were so many places for these veterans to be able to go and eat and shop in so many places.

There's nothing.

I mean, I kind of moved up there because there was nothing.

There's a CVS.

Uh the traffic, as you mentioned too, is horrible.

And trying to get around is it it's it's impossible.

It's being built in the middle, square middle of like a bunch of industrial businesses.

It's not even next to homes.

And they're trying to build a charter school right across the street, which is gonna bring in more people, more traffic, more problems.

He said that apartments, that these are apartments and that they're gonna increase the value of my home.

They are absolutely not.

How are we calling this homeownership if they're apartments?

Am I missing something?

Are they condos or something?

Because I I was under the impression they're apartments.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Name an address for the record and put your comments.

Good evening.

Um, my name is uh Reno Tenorio.

I live in 6416 Bob Jones 101 Las Vegas, Nevada.

I'm a board member of the Hollywood Ranch, and I oppose the project.

But I want to be clear, I'm not against affordable housing for veterans because I myself work for veterans, you know, so uh we house veterans uh permanently.

So what our organization does is uh we connect them to Hadvash or uh we actually um uh connect them to employment so that they can increase their uh income or you know uh we also do uh help them, you know, uh with their applications for service connections and also uh increase their income by helping them apply for you know social security and stuff like that.

So I'm saying this because uh this is how I got into know Patriot Suites, and this is actually located on Craig Street in uh North Las Vegas.

So it is this ingenious to say that it's only for veterans because it's mixed, you know.

Yes, there are veterans that stay there, but it's not exclusively for veterans, it's for everybody, you know.

So and uh so that's why I'm uh opposing this because um because uh veterans can be housed anywhere uh because there are a lot of uh the VA and a lot of NGOs actually help them, and it's a veteran's choice, it's not uh they have to choose where where they want to live.

So you can't just say, okay, since this is uh uh a veterans housing that they will uh be housed uh there by um Vegas Valley because you have to ask the veterans where they actually want to live, so it's not you know, it's not just like okay, you you just can uh live there because it's still their choice to actually where they want to live.

And uh during our town hall meeting, I think I believe uh the uh Clark County um uh Clark County uh planning uh your cart comprehensive planning actually uh made a recommendation not to approve this because of uh there's a uh power plant uh nearby and there's the uh uh water reclamation also on the other side, and also the uh solar uh panel.

So I think they were saying that uh they were recommending not to approve this because in the future you uh it can uh have like problems you know uh coming up uh because it's so uh you know uh close to those uh facilities.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Anyone else?

Thank you.

Name and address for the record, put your comments on.

Good evening, Christy Lavender, 3616, Green Briar Bluff, North Las Vegas.

Um, I am the VFW commander for North Las Vegas, and I am uh approving this project.

I'd like to see the approval for it.

We veterans are a distinct community.

We need a good place to go and be around, just like he was saying that one of our own.

We uh tend to yes, have uh PTSD attacks from the fireworks.

I can tell you that it was not fun for the last week for me.

Uh but that's happening everywhere.

Um, I live up by Nellis.

That's just what it is.

Um, I've been here for eight years in the city.

I have moved and I've lived in different houses all across the city.

Uh my husband and I just bought our first home, but it's uh it's where we decided to stay, and the traffic sucks everywhere, and you just deal with it.

That's what we do.

We you know, rub some dirt on it and drive on.

Um this is not a homeless community.

This is going to be people just like me, uh, Vince, everybody, you know, other veterans in the audience, we want a place where we can call home, and this might just be the best place for it.

Uh, the rezoning, if that gets done, as he was saying, that it's in other parts of that area, it's already been redistricted, rezoned.

So this is not a bad idea.

Um just this is not a homeless shelter, it's not Vegas village downtown how it was five, six years ago.

It will be uh an up and coming nice area, and as veterans, we know what's good and what's bad, and we're not gonna allow RIFRAF with us.

So thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Name name and address for the record.

Thank you.

Fernando Padilla, uh 3457 Greenwood Springs Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada.

I live about uh a block away from there.

Um coming out of the uh previous meeting over uh Sunrise Manor Town How uh Town Advisory Board, uh it was uh said there's 348 units that are going to be placed there.

348 units.

We just installed a uh light uh half a block from there uh due to the uh uh difficulty to get around uh in that area, and uh just adding more vehicles is just going to be uh very difficult.

I do commend uh those who uh push uh to help our veterans and uh uh find uh uh um homes for our veterans.

I just think that that location is a lose lose.

It's about uh 35 minutes or 40 minutes walk to a grocery store if it's a walk.

Um it's just there are no amenities uh other than a CBS in that in that corner.

Um I just I I think I'm just here to oppose.

Yes, sir.

Thank you very much.

Name and address of the record.

Good evening.

Uh my name is Jason Lisby, 3909, West Del High Avenue, North Las Vegas, Nevada, 89032.

I am here in support of the veteran housing.

I myself, I served in the United States Marine Corps for 14 years.

All right.

I've seen a lot of places that deny veterans homes.

This right here will be something that veterans can call their own.

I understand where everybody is coming from, speaking as if they're opposing to this, but as far as we as a veteran community, we want some place where we can be a part of the community again.

Like she said, this is not a veteran shelter.

This is an apartment complex.

This is a home where veterans can go in and say, hey, look, I just got off work.

I can go lay my head down.

Now, as far as the rezoning, as far as everything, I don't know all of the technical terms or anything like that, and I'm not gonna pretend that I do, but I will say that as a business owner, you know, as a veteran that I've served this country, me and my business partners, we have a protection company.

We will be security for this.

We'll make sure that nothing is gonna even happen here.

Remotely dangerous or remotely even part of the violent commuter or anything like that.

We back the blue 100%.

So I say that, hey, ladies and gentlemen of this constituency, please support this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Name and address for the record.

Hi doing uh, my name is uh Stephen Pettis.

Uh address is uh 5250, Stewart Avenue.

Um zero five zero one zero five zero Las Vegas 89110.

Um I'm in support of this uh project.

Uh reason being I'm a veteran and myself, I was in the Marine Corps for 10 years.

And as we stated before, this meeting even started.

We all face the flag and we pledge allegiance to the American flag.

I myself uh fought for this country.

I have uh sacrificed my life as many as others.

I deployed to many combat zones.

Um Afghanistan, Iraq, Mogadishu, Africa.

I can go down a list of other areas.

So when I come home to the United States, the country that I served, that I sacrificed my life and my friends sacrifice their life for that flag for this country.

I say I've supported this project because it says uh some of my consistents said that we can call home.

You know, we can get uh connect with other people who come back home.

And I understand some people with their concerns.

Um there was point out that some of the areas was redistrict, uh rezoning.

I'm sorry, uh rezoning.

And uh also it was stated that there are different multiple tubes of transportation because it's slightly in a remote area uh where there's not necessarily uh groceries or whatnot.

But there are transportation that's gonna be in support of that.

So I in support of this project because there's gonna be different other things that's gonna be in support of veterans coming home, different types of um aftercare that possibly may need.

Um and then we can come home and lay our head that when we serve this country and we sacrifice our life for, and uh that we can really um we're not away home from wave home, and uh I that's a giveaway.

Thank you very much.

Um yeah, please come on.

Um, this is your opportunity.

No name and address for the record.

Um Maela Hernandez, 6553 Flatwoods Bay Court, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89122.

Um I support veterans, I'm an elementary school teacher, so we always support something specifically for Veterans Day.

Um I don't want to talk about the traffic again, but I just want to be specific.

He said he went up and saw location.

It is a one-way street at this way going this going towards Hollywood to go down Nellis.

Same with the amenities, you do just have the CVS, and if you go further this way, there's it's dead road, because then you've got the wetlands that you can't go through.

Um I'm all for housing veterans.

I just don't think it is the appropriate location for them.

I think there are, and it's not like what was said over here that we don't want them there, and people voted against this 20 years ago.

That feels very negative towards the situation.

I just think there are better locations suited for what they need.

The VA is on Nellis, and I know there, um, the veterans hospital on Nellis, and I know there's uh locations there.

We we do just have one Albertson's, um, and then you have the Smiths back to back, but then that's it.

If you want like clothing or anything else, you're gonna have to go further down.

There's no like clothing stores or anything like that.

So I just don't feel like the location is appropriate.

Same with the shuttles and everything else.

It is two lanes until you get to tree line and it turns into one lane.

And if they do approve the charter school, which I'm also against, that is impacting the traffic ten times more because it is one lane on tree line, going this way.

I'm sorry, I'm not in the right change.

This way and this way, it looks one lane and you're adding homes.

I'm also opposed to um changing it to residential.

I know we're booming and all these houses, but I just don't feel like we're being realistic in yes, we want to build homes, we're all about building homes, but at one point is how many homes is too many homes in one area when you have your streets being two lanes forward, two lanes back, and half the time there's no way to get there, and you're waiting 20-30 minutes to go like a mile.

Um I offer housing.

I just know there's a lot of empty lots near us that are already zoned for properties like that.

I just don't think putting it smack dab in the middle of solar panels is appropriate, and I also don't think we once we change that zone.

I feel like then we're just allowing more houses to come there and it's just very contested.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Anyone else coming up to speak?

Okay, so I if no one else is coming, we're gonna close the public hearing, and I'm gonna open it up to commissioners.

Um I've got like 17 items here on my notes, so there's a lot to go over.

And I will start with our comments.

Uh yeah, we can do that.

Let's let's let's let Bob respond and then we'll and then we'll ask questions.

Yeah, I'm gonna just I got about three or four that I think are really relevant to discuss.

The first, and I apologize, I might have not been clear in my presentation, but I believe the majority of the opposition is located on this property here.

Um respectfully, I think this is a pot call in the kettle black.

Um, what you have here, this is RM18.

This is for just shy of 15 units an acre.

When this was going through the approval process, the same exact arguments that you hear by the opposition today was exactly for this type of project.

We don't need more housing.

There's industrial already that that needs to be serviced in this area.

And if you take a look about at this property here, is where the opposition is, you know, show you it's located right here on the zoning map.

They're an RM18, they got commercial.

This is a CVS.

This is the auto auction location that's located here, and across the street from them is the outside storage uh recycling center that's located here.

So this as a one case scenario is no different than what's here, and it's ironic when you have people say we don't need any more housing, when they are the reason why you have more housing approved in this area.

So I hope that point actually gets across.

The second thing is as I said in my conclusion, is after handling applications like this, you hear excuses, right?

Transport, and that's what you heard today.

There's not enough transportation.

Yeah, there's an Albertsons and a Smiths.

I'm gonna tell you, I live in Summerlin.

It takes me about a good mile to two miles to get to in a vehicle to get to the Smiths or even to the Albertsons a little bit further, which is really no different if I had a vehicle and if I was a veteran, I lived here.

These veterans are families, okay?

These veterans have jobs, they can help support themselves.

But yes, there are some wrap around services that we will be providing here.

There's nothing wrong with that.

As I you said it, the analogous is like senior housing for the veterans.

Um so if anything, let's not make these excuses to tell them to stand up here when you have veterans that actually showed up here tonight, and we probably get the whole room full of people, veterans if need be, but they'll tell you we need a place.

I I'm gonna take some of the comments they were articulated well.

This is a home for me.

I could come home from work and we have a home and we have something in the community.

They want to be a part of the community.

If you don't want to live here, you don't have to live here, okay?

If you're a veteran, you have a family, and you want to live on the northwest side of town or south side of town, go ahead.

But if you want to live here, like one of the ladies said in opposition, she grew up here, and I bet you there are veterans and veterans' families that would love to have their families in this area here because the east side is a nice place.

And the irony is in the last month in this area alone, I've represented 120 million dollars of potential development in this area to clean up tree line to help Vegas Valley.

And actually, tree line here today is not only an eyesore, but it's a public safety issue.

If I showed you the picture when I drove there today, it's bolted off, and there's garbage and junk in there.

We come in, what we do, we clean up tree line, and now you come through through here and you have access, and you actually now have eyes on this.

This has not become a public safety issue.

So those are some of the comments.

I mean, there's others.

Uh, I guess the only other thing I'll just mention is property values.

Look, the solar field that's sitting there from a property value standpoint brings the county in zero money, zero investment.

You put something in here, you put 300 and something bodies in here, they're going to the commercial places down on Nellis.

They're a part of the community, they're paying there's taxes that are being paid off this property, there's taxes that are being paid.

So this is actually a good thing.

You want to develop on land like this because guess what?

There isn't land in this valley, there's a ring around the valley, and if I can't get a project like this approved here, we're gonna tell me where do we go next, and then where do we go?

And then there's no room for for the veterans because remember, as I said, this is a veteran community.

We support Nellis, we support Greach, and this is a needed use.

Thank you, Mr.

Corner.

Um, let's go.

I'll start with Mr.

Commissioner Brady.

You want to start?

You know, when I first saw this, I was uh a bit torn.

Um I love our veterans, and what I'm gonna tell you is I I wear American flag socks every day.

Um I can say here is when we talked about this, it broke my heart.

And I'll tell you why it broke my heart is because when we were talking about I I do think we need a place for veterans, but man, it's sad.

It's because they have to look out their windows and see a sewer, and they're the ones defending our country.

And man, I I hope that if we approve this, that one day you'll grab that recycling place and make that into veterans as well, because I would be great not to be surrounded by swamp.

So that's one thing I want to say here.

Um as far as shopping, all of those things.

There's DoorDash, it's the way our country's going.

There's there's Alberts and all that.

So I give that a lot of credit.

Um call our veterans them.

That's heartbreaking.

So I love our veterans, they're the reason why we're here.

So temperatures-wise, the solar man is hot, it's a hot, hot place.

We put in trees, we put in places for people.

This goes a long way.

the way our country's going there's there's Alberts and all that so I give that a lot of credit um to call our veterans them that's heartbreaking so I love our veterans they're the reason why we're here so um temperatures wise the solar man it's hot it's a hot hot place we put in trees we put in places for people this goes a long way so I was coming here on the fence because I was like I this isn't a place where I want to see our veterans but they need somewhere to go so it has my support I hope you can fill it that's your guys' job but man it's sad to see this is where they have to be so that's that's what I have to say that thank you Commissioner Brady um I I'll make some comments before we go to and I'll probably go to to Commissioner Kirk next um I got a question and I and I may have missed this is it not veterans only correct or is it veterans only yeah I I should have corrected that it's veterans in their families it's a deed restriction that's going to be placed on the property so that's it you got to be veteran in their family okay that's that's how that goes okay all right so I just want to make sure I got that clear in my in my brain and um tree line was answered that question was answered for me I I don't have any issue with it being I mean we wish it wasn't near you know a water treatment tram but I don't I don't have any any issue with the the community being built there I would say that I I the um if the rendering itself and the floor plan and the site plan that you showed um looks like it looks like a great project um let's see what are some other things that I have questions about 348 units 348 units all right just confirm that um I I want to say that I I appreciate um the community's participation uh I I would say that I'm gonna separate veterans from the apartments I think for and at least the way I felt is not that the community that came out to speak in opposition is against veterans I've I definitely felt that they are not against veterans what they are against is apartments and so for that I I think we all in the room support our veterans um but having said that I I can support the apartment complex because that's how I'm looking at this application not that it's a veteran community although it's important I want to make sure I make that clear commissioner Kirk do you have any comments you want to make or yeah just questions uh just one comment that the one problem I have with the site is the recycling center um if I if if I uh had some I'm like 4951 I mean if I had some assurance that the recycling center would be gone you know in the next five to ten years then that would make my decision a little easier uh I think it's outweighed uh though by the fact that uh this is for veterans if it was a standard um resale development or apartments I would be not only no but heck no but because the veterans uh is such an important part of our community and this uh this development I I think I'm I'm I've been persuaded to uh to approve it but can I ask uh Mr.

Gronauer to comment on that recycling center what are the plans uh do you know uh talk about that for just a minute yeah it's um it's been there since uh our research is probably in the 60s 70s in that area um we know I know we've reached out um we've had conversations uh or you've reached I I think we've reached out to ensure that we could work with them on one any buffering but obviously uh these things as you may know in private hands these things uh nothing's forever and as you can see by a lot of the rezoning as I pointed out to the other recycling facility up here in the northeast corner of that or kitty corner of that um so there may be a play on this at some point in time um to be able to expand andor to have someone purchase this for a different type of use um don't see that being there forever and just like some of these other uses that were on the property all right thank you all right thank you commissioner kirk I I before we move to my other commissioners I I know you brought this young lady to speak to some some specific items I'd like if she if she's okay to come up and maybe give us like maybe one minute of of how the process will work you know or or what was she going to comment on it would be if we got in the details of the leasing um the how we would go through the leasing or the supportive uh the supportive housing side um we have 80 of the um units I mentioned it was supposed to be I thought it was 108 it's a total of 80 studios okay and but they all go through the same referral process meaning I gotta apply for an application

You know, or or what was she going to comment on?

It would be if we got in the details of the leasing.

Um how we would go through the leasing or the supportive supportive housing side.

Um we have 80 of the um units.

I mentioned it was supposed to be, I thought it was 108, it's a total of 80 studios.

Okay.

And but they all go through the same referral process, meaning I gotta apply for an application, I gotta make sure that my background check passes, I gotta you know, be somewhat employed there and be able then to have the wraparound services on that.

So uh so Sheila's here to if there are in-depth questions.

I know enough to be dangerous, I know enough where if I don't know, I know I gotta turn to the smart one.

So that's the one I turn to.

Fair fair enough.

So there's the application process, and there's and there's vetting of of folks that are going to be leased.

Uh I will move on to let's go to Commissioner Stone.

No, I'm sorry.

Yeah, Commissioner Stone, go ahead.

Sorry.

Okay.

Mr.

Gronauer, uh, can you well let me let me say it this way?

You know, when I think of a standard department unit in town, even senior housing, there's generally a percentage of handicapped units, usually ground units are can be handicapped, uh you know, maybe one unit every 10 units.

But when I think of uh the veterans, I think it's the potential for some real uh more handicapped units that would be normally uh necessary, or some extreme handicap provisions for a unit, how will your client handle that?

Um I'm just curious if you put that on the record.

Uh and I'll be supporting this this project.

But if you could just give me a little bit on the handicap act uh aspect that's appreciated.

With the building code and with the type of project that we have, there is a certain requirement of making sure we have ADA accessible.

Um we do have a variety of studio one bedroom, two bedroom, three bedroom.

Um, and that is working with our architect to see how much more we need to have outside of the standard of what they they're thinking.

So we would have to make those adjustments as we go through for the compliance.

So do you do you envision having elevators at all for the second and third story units, or will it be just first story?

What yeah, one of the buildings will have an elevator in it.

That's kind of the thing I was hoping for.

Okay, all right.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Stone.

Commissioner Roitman.

Uh so I think the presentation makes clear that there's a ton of housing in this area, and all those people must need to go to the grocery store and must need to go to CVS, and they don't have any problem getting there.

So I don't see why our veterans would have a problem getting there.

I think housing is completely appropriate here, and if we were talking about a housing that wasn't low income, then I don't I don't imagine anyone would have a big problem.

And to the extent that there were gonna be homeless veterans living here, quite frankly, I think our homeless veterans need places to live also, and that's not even gonna be the case here.

These people are gonna be our veterans who I want to I first I want to thank you for your service, actually, is what I really want to do, and say that these they're they're gonna go through application processes, they're gonna be background checked, they have members of their community there that if someone's having a problem are the most um qualified, I would say, to probably help them if they were having an issue.

Frankly, I would love to be living next to a veteran, much less a bunch of veterans.

Um although I I do appreciate the neighbors coming out, I really do, and I do get that folks who live in nicer houses don't always want to live next to apartments.

I totally understand that.

Um but in this neighborhood and in every neighborhood, I mean, most every week we come in, and I'd say a third to half of the projects are in my district.

So infrequently do we have projects in this district.

Um, and so I you know, uh much less frequently than my own district.

So um, I I I mean, if it's not clear I can absolutely support this application, I think it's wonderful that um these folks who have done so much for our country will have a place for them that they can kind of have a little place of their own.

And and uh, you know, again, I frankly, I would love to be living next to a bunch of veterans.

So um, yeah, again, thank you for your service, and I can support this application.

Thank you, Commissioner Workman.

Commissioner Mohica.

I I also want it I I'm gonna repeat pretty much everything that Michael said, but um it's it's never too many times to say thank you.

Thank you for your sacrifice, thank you for your service.

The fact it's heartbreaking, the fact that we're even arguing about something like this, it's it's sad.

Um, and I can fully support this application.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Mohiko.

Before I go to Commissioner Kalarski, uh I I would just say that um, you know, again, I I I I I would also say, you know, my son's in the Marines, and I and I gotta share the story.

I mean, he's he's easy.

Yeah, yeah.

So he's a he's a major in Marines, you know, both my father, my father's a marine, um I come from a military family, um, and and I'm not trying to downplay the military.

I again I believe everybody in this room supports our troops, and I don't take anything away from the neighbors that came out to speak in opposition because I believe they came to speak out in opposition against the apartments.

Truly believe that, and so I want to make sure that I I want to say that I appreciate them being a part of the process.

Now, having said that, I'll turn it over to Commissioner Kalarski and she can take us home.

Yeah.

First of all, let me say I served 20 years with the Air Force.

I have been retired for over 40 years, so I'm old.

I I I joined when Vietnam was ending, and I retired when Desert Storm started.

So I did 20 years.

My husband did 20 years.

Six with the Marines, 14 with the Air Force.

So we are veterans.

This committee here, and I thank you for your service, but this committee here, we are, and this is where I'm getting a little lost, because we are here for zoning.

We are not here for a veterans community.

We are here for zoning.

That's what we should be looking at.

If we're not, then we're not doing our job in my mind.

Let me just say, I'm upset with you, and I'm upset with you.

One for telling the neighbors that it was the pot calling the kettle black, you for saying that the track that apartments usually bring trash and crime and all of this stuff.

I dealt with that for 10 years when I sat on the school zoning commission, and we had parents coming out saying we don't want the apartment kids.

Well, the apartment kids couldn't help where they were living.

So I do not appreciate that comment from you, and I don't appreciate the pot calling the kettle black, and I'm sorry for that, because you are such a good speaker, and you're very persuasive a lot of people.

I apologize.

I was I was going from zoning to zoning.

I didn't maybe there was an unintended consequence.

I did not mean to be insulting.

So I do apologize.

It's not my personality in my DNA.

Let me just say too, and this is unknown.

Further west, there were 300 homes that were have been approved to be built.

You have the RM 18, and I don't know how many, I don't recall how many homes were going there.

This whole area has been saturated again and again with the number of cars.

The infrastructure is not great in this area.

We have the town homes that are touchstone, which are to the west of the water treatment plant.

We need this project, but I just cannot, because we are zoning, I cannot put it right there.

I put it anyway, if we can find someplace else in District D, I'd be more than happy.

Would have been nice if the cannery would have sold to you guys and we could have put it there.

Um the location, the lack of services, especially for those that are gonna have to be dependent on public transportation.

Um to me is just too far away.

I I drove this area for years.

Uh approved one up that was done in 2014.

Uh and the one south of uh what is that, Desert Inn.

I remember those.

The ones up on the top, I wasn't a part of this commission at that time, but I'm just having a hard time putting putting our vets in a place where they where they don't have the services that may be needed, not readily available, and so that's where I stand.

Uh I probably don't have the support, and that's okay.

I'm used to being on on the one side, but with that in mind, I just I cannot support this because I cannot support the location.

And and you saw me with, and I've been very consistent on location, location, location with a lot of the the applications that have come forth.

I did that with with the RNPs, uh, with those sites.

So I have to stay true to this is not the right location.

I and the apartments, you're going three-story.

There is nothing three-story in this area.

Nothing.

So that to me is viewer two-story.

Maybe town board was talking about the density.

They couldn't support it because of that.

And again, it is not that it's veterans housing.

I would not support this if it was an apartment complex with three.

I would not support it anyway.

So it has nothing.

Please understand that.

It has nothing to do with veterans housing.

And so that's where I stand.

And if there's no questions, I would I'm not gonna be supported, and I know that, but I have to live true to myself.

And so with that, I am going to move to deny PA.

Help me staff, because I turned the pages.

267022.

PA 26-7002, and then we'll just probably do another vote motion to approve.

Okay, so but I have to do this because this is how I feel.

And this is what I think is best for this community and that this part of the valley, and this is what we're supposed to be doing because this is a zoning, not so much a use for veterans application.

Motion on the floor, cash a vote.

No, okay.

That motion does not carry.

Um I'll go ahead and move for approval of PA 267022.

Motion on the floor, cash to vote.

Commissioner Kirk, yes.

That motion carries.

I'll move for approval of ZC 260257, VS 260258, DR 260259 for approval.

Is the motion on the floor cash to vote?

Commissioner Kirk, yes.

Motion carries.

Good luck.

Thank you.

And again, I do want to apologize if I offended any of the neighbors or you, Commissioner.

That was not the intent.

It was to compare multi-family to multi-family.

That's all that I was trying to do.

But I apologize because thank you for that.

I appreciate that.

You won't sleep well unless I apologize, because I know that you don't normally make comments like that, so it kind of caught me off guard.

Next item.

These items will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners meeting for final action on August 5th, 2026 at 9 a.m.

unless otherwise announced.

The next items on the agenda are items 43 through 47, which are companion applications that can be heard together.

Item number 43, PA 267023, holdover plan amendment to redesignate the existing land use category from entertainment mixed use, EM to compact neighborhood CN on 29.46 acres, generally located northeast of Boulder Highway and southeast of Harmon Avenue within Sunrise Manor.

Item number 44 is EC260265, hold over zone change to reclassify 29.46 acres from a CR commercial resort zone to an RS2 residential single family to zone, generally located northeast of Boulder Highway and southeast of Harmon Avenue within Sunrise Manor.

So and Whitney.

PUD260266 holdover plan unit development for 279 lot single family detached residential development with modified development standards on 29.46 acres in an RS2 residential single family two zone, generally located northeast of Boulder Highway and southeast of Harman Avenue within Sunrise Manor and Whitney.

And item number 47 TM26500068 holdover tentative map consisting of 279 single family residential lots and common lots on 29.46 acres in an RS2 residential single family two zone, generally located northeast of Boulder Highway and Southeast of Harmon Avenue within Sunrise Manor and Whitney.

Thank you very much.

Name and address for the record.

Tell us about your application.

Thank you.

Good good evening, Mr.

Chairman, Commissioner Stephanie Grownower 1980 Festival Plaza Drive.

Here on behalf of the applicant Lenar Homes, if I could direct your attention to the overhead.

This property is located at the southeast corner of Boulder Highway and Harmon to the north.

You probably recognize the site or would know it as the former East Side Canary Hotel and Casino that's no longer there.

So we are here today with an exciting redevelopment project for for the property on behalf of Lenar Homes.

When you're looking at the area, it is important to look at you know what's around it because obviously the area is changing since a hotel casino is is no longer viable at this location.

You know, it's important to look at what else could go on this property from a redevelopment standpoint.

And as you can see, there's a whole bunch of colors on this map because there's a mix of all kinds of zoning in the area.

To the south of the property is RM18, so a multifamily project up to 18 units to the acre.

You've got a school located east.

You then have higher density multifamily RM32 to the east.

To the north, you have lower density residential, you have RS 3.3 and then RS5.2.

So a mix of residential around the site.

Um, when Lenar was looking at it, they took all of that into account and decided to do a higher density uh residential development.

They are proposing what they're referring to as basically a project that lives and feels like a townhome, but is in fact a detached townhome product.

Um the the unique nature of that, and the reason it requires a PUD is because it is unique.

Um, is some homeowners just want to actually have their their home detached, and so that's what Lenar is thinking here.

They're trying to do it dense because obviously it's a dense area, um, but it it the idea is more of a detached town home project.

So I will show you the site plan.

This is the site plan that's currently on file before you.

There's a main access off of Boulder Highway.

There's an access off of Harmon, and then uh emergency access here.

Very similar to the layout today.

Um they're proposing 279 detached homes on this property.

Um, the density is about 13 and a half units to the acre, which again is very much in line with that townhome development, a density perspective from a density perspective, but it does require some unique things, and that is why we have the PUD.

Um town board recommended approval of the density we're requesting.

They recommended approval of the plan amendment and the zone change to compact neighborhood and to RS2.

Um, their concerns were shared with what staff says in their staff report with respect to the deviated standards that we're asking for with the PUD.

So I do want to walk through that because the flip of it is yes, we're asking for for some deviations on our standards that would normally be in an RS2, but the exchange is there's a significant benefit to the way we've laid this out, and I'm gonna walk through those.

Um the main benefits are we have a whole lot more open space than an RS2 development would require.

We also have a whole lot more parking than an RS2 development would require.

So I'm gonna just walk through those.

Both of those are why Lenar thinks this is a better development and why the PUD is appropriate and more compatible for the area.

Because really, what you want is a sustainable community, a community that is gonna last for generations to come for homeowners to buy in and then move out of, and new homeowners to buy in and have it be sustainable over time.

And that's what Lenar believes they have with this project that's before you.

Based on some of the feedback I've gotten, we do have a slightly revised plan that I do want to share tonight.

We have not sent it to staff yet.

And so if this commission's inclined to consider it, then we will certainly make sure we submit that to staff.

But I do want to share it because it's important to discuss because it goes to that added benefit that the PUD has.

This shows the open space and the connectivity involved with this layout.

The original plan did not have a second park here, so I want to just highlight that.

The density has not changed, but we did add a second park area located here, and I'll submit this into the record.

So you've got two parks, one at the entrance off of Harmon, one internal to the site.

And it's important because that way all of the residents in the community can access it.

The blue shows sidewalks internal to the community.

All the streets have sidewalks, so lots of connectivity internal that also connects to the detached sidewalks along Harmon and along Boulder Highway.

And then what's even better is there's a trail that will go all the way along this east side of the property, again connecting to the exterior.

So it's a really walkable community, both exterior-wise and interior to the two amenity areas with tot lots for for younger kids.

But also, if you want to ride the bus in the area, you've got easy accessibility from a walkability standpoint.

This is an NV energy easement that's all the way along this eastern property.

So Lenar is doing a great job of utilizing that space with some amenities and a decomposed granite trail in that area again to just make for a positive amenity space.

From an open space standpoint, what's required in an RS2 is 200 square feet per unit.

We have almost 300 square feet per unit.

So that's a significant increase in what you would have if you did not have a PUD versus what we're offering.

And again, as I mentioned, we'll be adding the totlot amenities in both of those areas.

This is the first amenity area I just wanted to show that's already a part of the existing plan.

Sorry.

Along with the shade structure, and you can see the place structure, benches, and some game areas.

The second one that we would like to add, and I'll submit into the record is that other second park that we would add with another tot area.

So again, from an open space standpoint, we're about a third over what you would get if this were not a PUD.

Second is parking, as I mentioned, and this ties into the discussion about the 10-foot driveways versus five-foot driveways.

I know you all mentioned them earlier, so I do want to make sure I I discuss the driveways in conjunction with the parking.

For the parking, we have 229 parking spaces where 628 are required.

So we're over a hundred spaces more than you would normally be required in an RS2 development.

But in Clark County, it's important to kind of just point this out.

You can you can have a 10-foot driveway in Clark County in an RS2.

You shouldn't park on a 10-foot driveway because you really can't fit a car there, but unfortunately, people do try to park on 10-foot driveways.

So what we're proposing is a five-foot driveway.

Both Henderson and the city of Las Vegas allow a five-foot driveway or a longer driveway, like the 19-foot, similar to Clark County, but Clark County is 10-foot or 20 feet.

In Henderson and Las Vegas, the reason they have those shorter driveways is because you can't park on a shorter driveway.

And so it avoids that conflict and that issue that makes communities really not very livable, and Lenar does not want that.

If they're going to build a community, they want to make sure they're building a quality community that will have longevity and last the test of times.

This particular community at Stepstone and Greyhound was brought up as a concern.

And so we went out, or Lenar went out and did some homework.

This community at Stepstone and Greyhound has 10-foot driveways.

And you can see this sample of the cars hanging over those 10-foot driveways.

This has on-street parking only in this community.

It was constructed way back in 2008.

But in my opinion, it has not withstood the test of time because you see in these little bubble areas all the cars that are parking illegally and hanging over their driveways.

That's what the 10-foot driveways that are allowed by code.

Again, another 10-foot driveway Clark County project at Bellcrest Santoli and Doonville.

Again, you can see a whole bunch of cars trying to park on those 10-foot driveways.

You can see samples here.

This was developed back in 2004, but it's it's not withstanding the test of time in our opinion.

Similarly, this is an example at Arby and Bronco in the southwest where you have 10-foot driveways.

Again, you can see the cars in the aerials hanging over those driveways, and the pictures that show that it's just not working.

We also have some examples of some five-foot driveways in other jurisdictions that do appear to be working much better.

So this is a five-foot driveway at Grand Montecito Parkway in Deer Springs.

You can see there are not cars trying to park in the driveways.

There's one car parked at the radius illegally, so we did highlight that.

But there are not cars trying to park in that because five feet is just not enough space to park your car.

Similarly, at uh a similar one at Deer Springs in Grand Montecito Parkway.

You can see a couple where maybe they were trying to, you know, park in areas they shouldn't be parking, but not generally in driveways that are five feet.

Um it's just not, it's not happening.

And that was developed in 2005.

Lastly, this is at Grand Teton and Reading Railroad.

Um again, you can see a couple cars parking in a stub street area, but they're not trying to park on their on their driveways.

Um it's Lenar's opinion, and they feel pretty strongly about it that it's a better project to have a five-foot driveway.

The only way we can do that in Clark County is with the PUD.

There is no option for a five-foot driveway project without the PUD.

So that's one of the huge benefits to this project.

Um, from a parking standpoint, as I mentioned, we have over a hundred extra spaces.

We have 135 stalls that are extra parking stalls, mostly along this um area that's the NV Energy easement.

We have 54 on-street parking stalls, so you can see there are areas actually painted and designated on the map throughout the community, 54 of them.

In addition, there's enough room on these streets because they're wide, they're 43-foot wide streets to actually park on the streets.

So there's one parking space per every two homes that's available.

I highlighted this northeastern area so you can see.

Um, but all of these red uh spots are where cars could legally park on the 43-foot wide street.

There's a sidewalk on one side of the street, but you've got room in between the driveways because they place the driveways closer together.

So you've got room every two houses to park on the streets as well, in addition to those designated parking spaces.

So lots of parking, lots of amenities.

That's the reason for the PUD.

So that brings me to the actual product type and the design of the homes.

So Lenar's proposing two separate um lot sizes.

They're compact lots, as you know, that's the whole point.

In fact, in the staff report, they want more density.

The way you you actually can create more density is you have to create smaller lots.

So these live and feel like townhomes.

They've got small backyards, they've got small front yards.

There will be a tree in every single front yard, so you'll have a minimum of 279 trees, plus, there's about 90 trees throughout the rest of the project.

So way over 300 trees added, not to mention there's a ton of trees existing that they'll they'll keep and maintain along Boulder Highway and along Harmon.

Um, but this is an idea of some of the longer lots.

You can see they live like a town home, they're just not attached, and some of the shorter lots as well across the street with the parking on the street front.

Um, I asked Lenar to give me an example of some of their townhomes.

They found one today.

So this is a townhome project.

It's not the elevations, obviously, that are we're proposing, but very similar and how their patio uh rear yards live.

So this is just an example, you so you can see their small really rear rear yards.

They will not have this vinyl fence, they'll have a real wall in between the units.

But there's just enough space back there to basically have a table, um, have an umbrella, have your dog out there, some turf, however, you want to use it.

The idea is really to have an area so that homeowners don't have a lot of maintenance.

Um, they've got a community they can be proud of that they own that's detached.

They've got all the amenities in the world, lots of place for guests to park, and um we think this is a really great project and a great redevelopment of this site, and we hope that you'll support it.

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

Thank you very much for the presentation.

I will um open this application up for a public hearing and see if anyone in the audience like to speak on this item.

Seeing no one rushing down, I will close the public hearing.

I'll just say that I uh I can support the application.

I I would probably ask the devil's advocate question about maybe having a bigger uh driveway versus a smaller one, but I get the density task that you're trying to accomplish.

So I I'll I'll get behind the five foot um, even though I hate to do it, but I'll get behind the five foot driveway.

Um definitely appreciated you had me at walkable community.

I think we need more of those in our in our in our in our in our town.

I think it's important that you know someone can can take time to to walk around their community and get exercise and that type of thing before they go to work or after work, that type of stuff.

So with that being said, I'll go down the line.

I'll start with Commissioner Kalarski.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Steph, why did I feel like you were looking at me when we were talking PUDs?

I was I made changes to the plan for you.

Anyway, you're right.

I don't like PUDs.

I don't really see much benefit, but the fact that you added more open space, more connectivity really helps because that is a benefit.

And that's the one thing that I've always looked for is give me benefits for that PUD, and not a bus stop that's outside that can take you wherever you're gonna go.

We want something active for the with the residents, and when you do the the space, you do the trails, you do the sidewalks, that all brings the community together because they get to see each other, they're not just holed up in their homes.

So thank you for that, and I can be supporting this.

Thank you, Commissioner Kalarski.

Commissioner Brady.

Um, one question on the sidewalks here.

So I'm looking at the uh southeast corner, that finger um up left.

Oh right there.

Yep.

That whole entire row right there doesn't have a sidewalk.

Out of all the places, that's the only one that doesn't, I think.

Um just I guess to the north.

I'm just gonna I don't know why.

Yeah, you're right.

So just a little interesting spot on that.

That might be something worth putting one there.

Sure.

So people that are walking out from the uh their car spots can actually get across.

Um so there's that point.

Um then do you mind pulling up one of those images that had the cars in the driveways?

I just want to I wanted to see something.

All right.

Uh I just wanted I'm gonna come back to that.

And then one more question.

With the park is were there any playground sets in the park?

There are, and both of them.

So um this one's new, obviously, and we'll revise the plans and make sure staff gets it, but we'll do a play totlot area in this park.

There's already one proposed here as well.

Yes.

Okay.

And why I had you go to the car thing is I was like curious that it looked like AI put in.

Is all the cars were perfectly in line, perfect everything.

So I took a picture to see if it was AI, but it it won't tell me.

I don't I don't think so.

I think actually Parker did the research here from Lenar.

So that's how it was.

They were naturally like that.

Okay.

I was curious.

Those are like so perfectly parked in the straight lines, it looked fake to me.

So all right, that's what I was curious about.

All right.

Um that's all my questions.

Thank you, Commissioner Brady.

I'm gonna go online to Commissioner Kirk and let him do his comments and questions, and then I'll end with Commissioner Stone.

Thank you.

Um you hear me okay?

Yeah, yes, sir.

We got you.

Thank you.

Um probably the I'm probably the biggest opponent of uh the lousy parking uh the 10-foot driveways.

Uh I know uh last year we uh maybe it's a couple years ago we approved a uh 10-foot driveway project, and I was in a 10-foot driveway project a couple days later, and uh took pictures of it and sent it to a couple of members of the planning commission and said something like this is the kind of garbage we're approving.

Uh, because this is well people park in these small driveways, and I was under the mistaken impression that those were five-foot driveways, but they were actually 10-foot driveways.

So I'm glad that uh the applicant or Lenar has gone out, done some homework, and uh kind of set the record straight as far as um what the impacts of 10-foot driveways versus five foot driveways are.

And just for Jason and the staff, that's all it takes for someone on the staff to go back and do a uh review of a project that we approved to say whether it works or not.

It doesn't, I don't think it even takes a whole person.

Uh might take a you know, a couple of hours uh a year for someone to go back and and uh evaluate something like this to determine whether or not five foot driveways work better than ten foot driveways, and and and I think the uh the evidence here shown tonight is it's pretty straightforward that it that it does, and so that's not a criticism.

I just throw that out there is maybe it's something that we on the county uh the county can do a little bit better.

Um and that's evaluating projects that we approve.

Now, I I and you know, developers are gonna build what they're allowed to build, they don't wanna have to come in and ask for um you know waivers all the time, and so I think that it would be in the county's best interest to start thinking about the five foot driveway.

I I think that's something's important.

Now you said Stephanie that this is a redevelopment project.

Is it a is it a real redevelopment project?

I mean, are you gonna be uh asking for increment funds, tax increment funds from the redevelopment agency, or is there or help me with that?

No, sorry, I should have been more clear with that.

No, it's just a it's literally redeveloping the site from what was one time a hotel casino into a different use altogether.

So sorry.

And this is a question for staff.

Is this in a redevelopment district?

Jason, do you know?

Anybody?

Um we'll take a look real quick.

Okay, because well, anyway, just a question.

And then uh two more items.

One is the bus route, the the mass transit.

I understand why the staff is um wants this to be more dense.

Uh I think they want more density, and the way we get more density is to go up.

So I'm thinking that when I read the staff report and saw that they they wanted because it's like a transit or a uh a good transportation corridor there along Border Highway, they think it would be good for uh more high density.

Uh I could not disagree more.

Uh and all you have to do is look at who's riding the bus.

How many people in this room have ridden the bus in the last 30 days?

I I doubt anybody has.

And so nobody rides the bus.

The people in Clark County, the people that ride the bus are the people that can't afford a car.

And I uh and so until things change, and I think that's gonna be a long, long time.

Uh I don't think a uh a bus corridor, transportation corridor is gonna make a whole lot of difference.

And I realize that in Henderson is a redevelopment or reimagined Boulder Highway project, it's got the whole Boulder Highway torn up.

I think that's a uh anyway, time will tell as to see whether that's gonna be a good thing or a bad thing.

And I have my opinion on that.

Now finally, uh Stephanie, talk about the three-foot setback versus the five-foot setback that's in the staff report.

And it I think I think you showed a picture, but uh give me give me a dimension on the the picture that you're showing them uh with that patio.

Okay, so yes, the um minimum rear yard is a five-foot setback from from the back from the wall to the rear of the building.

Five yards, five five feet.

Correct.

They're that's the minimum.

There are about 20% of the lots that will be larger than that for the rear yards, but the minimum setback is five feet because it is it is a lives like and feels like a townhome.

So um, so yes, that's the minimum.

The three feet was the overhang.

Um, so if you opted to do like a patio overhang, it it's a three-foot set setback, but the actual building setback is five feet minimum in the rear yards.

So if I had a second story, which may have had a little balcony, that would might be three feet.

Correct.

Yep.

Well, patio.

Oh, patio cover, not a balcony.

Right, patio cover, right?

That's the three foot.

All right.

I I uh when I first saw this, I was absolutely opposed, no question about it.

I wasn't gonna support it, no matter what.

Um but then uh after we spoke, and after I looked at the five foot driveway versus the 10 foot, and the fact that you have provided things that I really like, i.e.

more open space and a trail system.

What a novel concept.

Wow.

I'm like falling over.

I can't believe it.

We actually have the developers gonna put in a trail system.

It's amazing.

And then uh the parking spaces.

Now, one thing I am grateful for.

I was talking to you yesterday and thought I was trying to think of how we could uh get more parking, but I I think you've demonstrated with some of the odd street parking that there will be quite a quite a lot of parking spaces available, and then with the uh the additional spaces, uh they're not quite as close to the residences as we'd like them, but there is a lot of them.

And so I uh it's not perfect, and uh I realize that that the only reason they're you know they're they're using that under the the uh right-of-way of uh Nevada is that Nevada Power Right of Way, is that what that is?

Yes, yeah, yeah.

The only reason they're doing that because they can't do anything else with it, so they might as well try to get credit for open space and some trails or I mean uh some parking.

So I commend you for that, and uh I am in full support.

Uh I didn't think I would be when I first saw this, but uh but I am so uh wish you the best.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Kirk.

I guess I got I got a couple more lights that came on.

So Commissioner Stone, you hold your horses for a second.

Um let's um go with Commissioner Brady and then Commissioner Kalarski, and then Commissioner Stone will take us home.

Sorry, just wick quick question.

Um front yards, are they gonna be taken care of by HOA?

They are, yes.

All right, because I was thinking of watering of all the trees and everything, otherwise people will pull back the water and they'll end up dying.

Yeah, and then just whoever does make a motion.

I know it would be neat to have that um one finger have sidewalks, but that's it.

All right, thank you, Commissioner Brady.

Commissioner Kalarski.

Yeah, just a quick question on the uh rear yard setback, the three feet.

So if they want to put a patio cover, does that mean that they're gonna have to come in for a waiver?

No, they could do a pat the the setback from the patio covers three feet, the setback from the building to the wall is five feet.

So you could you can do a patio with three feet.

And that I just want you know, we're building on lots that are so small now that if you want to do covers, you want to put a shed, you can't do that anymore because of the sizes.

So I just I just want these people to know that if you want a patio cover because you want to sit outside.

You're not gonna have to, it's not gonna cost you 800 bucks to do an application for a waiver or get called in by CCPRO.

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Kalarski.

Commissioner Stone.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh, with Steve being at home and uh recovering from his knee surgery.

I'm here uh I don't I'm not as handsome as him, but I'll be making the motion tonight for his item.

Thank you.

Oh, see Commissioner Kirk, are you still on the line?

But you're much smarter.

Let's see.

It's getting late here.

Let's let's finish the motion.

Steve, you didn't hear any of that, did you?

Um we'll make a motion to approve uh the plan amendment uh item 43 PA267023 with staff if approved conditions, that's 43 only.

Make your uh motion or vote now.

Thank you, Commissioner Stone.

Motion on the floor, cast your vote.

Commissioner Kirk, yes.

That motion passes.

Next item.

All right, I'll make a motion to approve item 44 ZC 26-0265.

Item 45 VS-26-0270.

Item 46, PUD-260266.

Item 47, TM 26-5068, with staff if approved conditions, and I want to emphasize that we are adding a second park.

Uh as reflected on the site plan, the applicant had on the screen with the date at the top that said a date.

Can you just tell me what that is?

Flash it on the screen for real quick.

It does say proposed 7726, and I'll submit that for the record along with this very you know sketched up drawing of the uh top right.

All right, so that'd be adjacent to lot two.

Oh put that back up, Steph.

Uh adjacent to lot 233 and 250 and 243 is the location of the second new perk.

Um and uh with the five-foot driveways, and uh just the acknowledgement that we are over uh with common open space at 300 square feet per unit where 200 is required.

Did I capture and come can I add something there, Nelson?

Can you add uh the little sidewalk that Commissioner Brady had mentioned?

Yeah, if you could repeat that for me.

I don't know, could you repeat it for me?

Yes.

What was the sidewalk condition?

At the end of the sidewalk at the southeast corner being oh uh correct correct the sidewalk omission.

I is that covered the sidewalk omission at the southeast corner.

Please correct that.

And that is my motion.

Please cast your vote.

Thank you very much.

Motion on the floor.

Votes are being cast.

Commissioner Kirk, yes.

That motion passes.

Thank you so much.

Have a great night.

Appreciate it.

And just to respond to Commissioner Kirk's question about the redevelopment area, this site is not within a county designated redevelopment area.

Uh these items will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners meeting for final action on August 5th, 2026 at 9 a.m.

unless otherwise announced, and that concludes the non-routine action portion.

Thank you very much.

And so comes to our final item of the evening, which is public comments.

So I will ask the anyone in the audience like to come down and speak.

Commission can commission cannot act on any items that are put on the record, but seeing no one coming down to make a public comment.

Um so we're gonna close that section of the meeting and adjourn.

Thank you very much.

I was trying to say that's going to be different.