Clark County Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Hearing. Sometimes an agenda item may be held at the request of a commissioner or county staff. When an item is held, it will not be discussed or voted on during today's meeting and will be brought back at a future meeting. There are two opportunities for public comment during this meeting, and it's important to understand the difference. The first public comment period takes place at the beginning of the meeting.

This public comment is only for items that are listed on today's agenda. Comments during this time must relate to a specific agenda item. If you wish to speak about a particular agenda item, you may comment at the beginning of the meeting, or you may wait to see if that item is discussed later and includes an opportunity for public comment when the item is being considered. Some routine items may be approved together as part of what is called the consent agenda. If you do not agree with a staff recommendation for one of these items, you must request that that item be removed before the board takes action.

If it is not removed, it may be approved early in the meeting as part of a single vote. Items that are not routine are considered one at a time and may include an opportunity for public comment before the board votes. When it's time to speak, please come forward. There are three microphones available, including the handheld microphone if you have documents you would like to show. If you wish to show a document, an overhead camera may be used at the direction of the board chair.

Please do not display documents that contain personal or sensitive information. When speaking, please talk directly into the microphone clearly and at a steady value. This helps ensure your comments are heard and recorded as part of the public record. Speakers are required to state their name, spell their last name, and state their address. At the end of the meeting, there is a second public comment period. This final public comment is for items not listed on the agenda. No action may be taken on those comments at that time. All public comments are limited to three minutes unless otherwise announced by the chair at the beginning of the meeting. During all public comment periods, board members may listen but are not allowed to respond. Thank you for being here and for taking the time to participate in your local government.

Good morning. Welcome to the May 6 continuation of the Clark County Commission. The first item on our agenda is public comment. This is the time set aside for anyone wishing to speak on items that are on today's agenda. Please come forward at this time. State your name for the record. As a note, items four through eight are scheduled for routine. Please. Good morning, Mike. If you if you could just pick up that microphone.

Good morning.

My name

is Jack Trujillo. I'm calling about a couple of my neighbors. They decided they've been fostering dogs for over a year.

So if if are you here on something on today's agenda? No. If not, I'll ask you to have a seat. And at the end of the meeting, our rules allow for you to speak more broadly. Thank you. Anyone wishing to speak on items on today's agenda, please come forward. Good morning.

Good morning. My name is John Ogg. Last name is spelled o g g. 6755 Costa Place, Las Vegas, Nevada 89146. I would like to speak on item number 11, holdover use permit to allow a day care facility in our neighborhood. I'd like to verify with someone that has the specific information. I assume this is 6737 Costa Brava. Is that correct?

This one is off routine, off consent.

Oh, it's off routine. So because this is after item eight, it is off routine. So if you'd like, there'll be a public hearing on

this I'm sorry, misunderstood.

No, I could've clarified that.

Thank you.

And I guess while we're at it, if the booth is aware, is Commissioner Jones on the phone? Yes. I am. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak on items on today's agenda? Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing and we can move to the approval of the agenda.

Good morning commissioners. For the approval of the agenda, we consider any additions or deletions and staff has the following request which may require re notification fees in accordance with Title 30. Hold to the 05/20/2026 zoning meeting, item 12, UC 20 six-one 165, item 32, ZC 20 six-one 157, item 33, UC 20 six-one 158, then hold to the 06/03/2026 zoning meeting item nine WS26-one 113. The above public hearing items are going to be opened as a public hearing and immediately recessed until the dates as previously stated. With these deletions which are items nine, twelve, thirty two and thirty three, the agenda stands ready for your approval.

Mr. Chair, I move approval of the agenda with the recommended changes written to the record.

Thank you. There's a motion for approval. Please cast your vote.

Jones, aye.

The motion passes.

Next item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes. The minutes of the 04/08/2026, zoning meeting are ready for your approval.

I move approval of our meeting minutes.

There's a motion for approval. Please cast your vote.

Jones, aye.

The motion passes.

Next item are the routine action items which consist of items four through eight. These items may be considered together in one motion or subject to the conditions listed with each agenda item. Additionally, staff has the following request: Item number five ET26-four hundred-twenty three for WS21-seven zero one Add the following comprehensive planning conditions until 05/06/2030 to commence per plans on file and any revisions to be approved by the Board of County Commissioners and a maximum of six lots. And item number six, TM26-five hundred-forty four, add the following comprehensive planning condition per plans on file and any revisions shall be approved by the Board of County Commissioners and a maximum of six lots. If there's no objections, the public hearing is now open and the routine action portion of the agenda stands ready for approval.

I move approval of our routine action items. There's a

motion for approval. Please cast your vote.

Jones, aye.

The motion passes.

Next item is item 10 ET25-four hundred-one 124 for AR 20 three-four hundred-one 123 and UC 20 one-three 32. Holdover application for review for use permit second extension of time for the following: one, a swap meet two, fairground and three, recreational facility with accessory food, beverage, and retail sales. We have heard development standards to eliminate landscaping. Design reviews for the following: one, a swap meet two, fairground and three, recreational facility on 4.6 acres in a CG Commercial General Zone, generally located West Of Boulder Highway and South Of Indios Avenue within Paradise. Good morning.

Good morning. My name is David Anderson on behalf of ERBR LLC at 4700 Boulder Highway. We were requesting a second extension of time, but we no longer needed we needed to plant trees on the rear rear rear of the property. They have been planted, so we don't need any more extension.

Okay. This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak on item 10, please come forward. Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing. Commissioner Segerbloom.

Thank you. Do you have any of the pictures of trees? Yes. After we don't trust you, if you could just put them there in the middle.

Does it work right here?

Alright, that's good enough for me. Do I make a motion to approve without extensions or what do I?

Right, you can make a motion to approve with no further reviews.

Okay, make a motion to approve. Thank you so much.

There's a motion, please cast your vote.

Jones, aye.

The motion passes.

Next item is item 11, UC26-eleven, holdover use permit to allow a daycare facility, waivers of development standards for the following: one, modify residential adjacency standards two, eliminate and reduce buffering and screening three, reduce building separation four, eliminate bicycle parking five, reduce parking and six, reduce throat depth in conjunction with the proposed daycare on 0.33 acres in an RS-ten residential single family 10 zone, generally located South Of Costa Brava Road and West Of Redwood Street within Spring Valley.

Is the applicant here? If there's no applicant on item 11, we'll move forward to the public hearing. This is a public hearing on item 11. Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward. You could just state your name for the record.

My name is Maria Walters, 6881 Bale Road. This business has already made it clear it's too large for our neighborhood as it has included plans for an addition to the house and putting in a parking lot instead of a front lawn. Also, what will stop them from increasing the amount of children in their childcare and making it open twenty four hours. By changing this property, increasing the size of the house and making the front yard a parking lot, it will make it an eyesore and decrease the value of our homes because one of the top selling points is how far away each house is from the house next door. Who wants to buy a house next to a business that's so close to the property line when the other houses are so far away.

Not to mention who wants to live next to a house where their front yard is a parking lot full of cars and has allowed children. With at least 18 day care facilities and less than three miles of this business, there's no need for one in this neighborhood. All these points emphasize how this business is only concerned about its business and not preserving, protecting, and keeping our neighborhood safe. Please keep our neighborhood classified as residential. Keep it looking like a residential neighborhood and safe for our children, neighbors, and pets by denying this request.

This business is located around the blind curve of road so you can see how dangerous it already is. The document labeled as parking analysis shows vehicles approximate size of a Mini Cooper. If you spend any time around an elementary school, a more realistic size would be an SUV or minivan. By following the same amount of vehicles as shown in this document, the vehicles will be blocking access to a street and driveways. With the increase of traffic and cars on the side of the road waiting to pick up or drop off the children, now remember that these children are on the second story so there will be a wait time, the road will be narrow, drivers will drive closer to oncoming traffic and there will be a greater chance of accidents and it will endanger the pedestrians and their pets.

This property is located near one of the busiest entrances of our neighborhood. We only have three and it's going to bring congestion that this neighborhood cannot handle. On trash day, this business already almost fills the street in front of their house with all their overflowing trash. Where are they gonna put all the trash cans when they add 24 children? What are all the vehicles gonna where are all the vehicles going to drive with the trash cans out on the road?

What about the increase in pollution litter and the smell of dirty diapers from all those children after sitting for a week, especially in the heat. Let's look at the numbers. This business already has 10 senior residents plus their 10 nurses add in the three staff members if they work eight hour shifts at 24 staff members then if each of their senior residents has two visitors that's 20 visitors. In addition to the two owners, one applicant, one correspondent, with a proposal of adding 24 children and 24 parentsguardians, plus one director and three staff members, add up all those numbers, that's 120 people. That's not mentioning vendors, delivery drivers, physical therapists, nutritionists, government workers, social workers, janitorial staff, and other providers, and possibly more visitors accessing this business especially during the holidays.

What is the fire code limit for people for house that size? Our small neighborhood cannot handle that many people. Please deny this application, keep our neighborhood looking like an application or like a neighborhood.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to speak on item 11, please come forward.

Good morning. Again, John Ogg, o g g. 6755 Costa Place. I'm one of the homes immediately adjacent to oops. Upside down.

Sorry. My apologies. So the home or the commercial facility, I would argue, that is up for consideration is already 80% larger than the surrounding homes. We had a very tenuous discussion in 2013 when this was made an assisted living facility and went all the way up to Harry Reid's office to try to stop it. Due to ADA, with 10 or fewer residents, we could have an assisted living facility and still be considered single family.

This is a day care, not covered by that. My home is right here. My wall immediately adjoins this property. There will be children, up to 24 children, playing in an area that's not designed for it. There's less than 400 square feet of non concrete area in that backyard. Also, my next door neighbor to me, Dixie, her home immediately adjoins. This neighbor I do not know, but you can see how close they are. It's as the prior person said, not appropriate for a day care. That's a commercial business. Does not belong in a residential neighborhood.

I understand that there can be exceptions. Exceptions aren't needed. We do not have children in our neighborhood. Oddly, I'm 61. I'm probably on the low side of most of the people in my neighborhood. A lot of the people like Dixie next door have lived there since 1979 when her home was built. Our neighbor across the street has lived there since 1979 when his home was built. We went through a very difficult time in 2013, couldn't get around it. This is situation. I was not aware of the the parking that was shown.

Another thing I'd like to hold the commission responsible for is the public notification of this went out on Thursday, was postmarked to the one I received, went out on Thursday, March 26 for a public meeting on Tuesday, March 31. That doesn't allow the neighborhood time to respond. I was out of town, didn't even know about the meeting until I came back. Also, I submitted this morning via the the website and directly to Justin Jones information regarding why this is not an appropriate facility, the increased risk of traffic as the prior person mentioned, and to highlight just the green space in the backyard, this is the total of the green space that's in that backyard. Everything else is concrete.

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

Thank you very much. Anyone else here wishing to speak on item 11, please come forward. Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing. Commissioner Commissioner Jones, Jones, this this is is your your item item 11. 11.

Thank you, mister chair. I appreciate the need for additional childcare facilities in our community, and I just wanted to let my colleagues know and the public know that the Southern Nevada Council of Governments has taken this on as its first priority, how we deal with these types of facilities in neighborhoods. However, this is wildly inappropriate for residential neighborhood. Adding 24 kids and all the transportation that would go along with that is simply not appropriate in this area. So go ahead and move for denial of agenda item number 11.

Thank you very much. There's a motion to deny the application. Please cast your vote.

Yes or no?

Was That motion passes. Thank you very much.

Next are items thirteen and fourteen, which are companion and can be heard together. Item 13 Versus-twenty six-one 134, holdover vacate and abandon easements of interest at Clark County located between Ford Avenue and Cougar Avenue Alignment and Dean Martin and I-fifteen within Enterprise. Item 14, UC 20 six-one 133, holdover use permit for outdoor storage waivers development standards for the following: one, reduce street landscaping two, security fencing three, allow non decorative fence four, increase maximum parking five, allow an attached sidewalk and six, modify driveway geometrics Design review for an outdoor storage on 1.14 acres in a CG commercial general zone generally located North Of Ford Avenue and East Of Dean Martin Drive within Enterprise.

Good morning Chairman commissioners. I'm Jim DiFiori of DiFiori Consulting and Business Services representing the applicant. On item 13, we would request that you approve the vacation of the patent easements which are on 30 feet on the inside perimeter of the property. Do you wish me to speak on item 14 at the same time? I would, yep.

Okay, all right. Well, we've met with the neighbors and we've also met with Commissioner Jones with regard to our proposed project here. At the town board meeting on April 15, the town board did recommend approval of the use permit and the design review. And we have made some changes with the original plans creating a one way driveway instead of a two way. And we have decided that we are going to landscape the entire frontal area as you ingress and egress the property.

On the waivers that were proposed, I have some changes to that as well. Waiver number one is going to be withdrawn simply because we're gonna re landscape that entire front area. Waiver number two on the security fencing 2A and 2B are also withdrawn. Item number three on the security fence, it is also withdrawn. The property has an existing wall on the west and on the north sides and chain link side on the east.

The chain link is proposed replaced by a block wall and rod iron gates at the point of ingress and egress. We are requesting approval as approved for recommendation by the enterprise town board items four, five, and six A. And we are requesting a withdrawal of item six B due to the fact that the driveway will be a one way driveway and not a two way. I'm open for any questions if you have any.

Thank you. That completes your presentation. This is a public hearing on items thirteen and fourteen. Anyone who would like to speak, come forward. Good morning.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Jay Heller, 8540 Dean Martin Drive, here on behalf of Dean Martin Business Center, which is the development immediately to the west and the north of this property. First, I'd like to thank the applicant for holding this at the town board initially give us the opportunity to discuss our concerns with potential issues. They did meet myself at my office with Tommy Lopresti who is the representative for the RMP in the neighborhood.

And they did address a number of the concerns that we had but just going on record, the parking was one item. There is, and we'll go unnamed, a landscape company just to the north, one Street north on Wigwam, and coincidentally at the end of the street. And they park two, three cars deep each day at the end of the street. The applicant assured us that's not their method, and hence the waiver from the increased parking. Unsightly outside storage, high piled, assured us that's not the case in this item.

And lastly was the landscaping, and especially along the perimeter inside. They agreed to plant the trees staggered with ours, which is the ideal way for screening. And also we'd much prefer a permanent structure, but understanding the cost feasibility of that, they had agreed to spruce that up. And so with those assurances, we are supportive of this item and welcome them to the neighborhood.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to speak on items thirteen and fourteen? Seeing no one, we'll close the public hearing and turn it to Commissioner Jones.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the applicant working with Mr. Heller, Mr. Lapresti, and coming to meet with me twice to discuss the concerns that were raised and appreciate the work they did in order to reduce the number of waivers. So I'll go ahead and move for approval of agenda items thirteen and fourteen with the withdrawal of waivers one, 2A, 2B, three, and 6B.

Very good. There's a motion for approval. Please cast your vote. The motion passes. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next are items fifteen and sixteen, which can be heard together. Versus 26 dash zero one six three. Vacate and abandon easements of interest to Clark County located between Pebble Road and Blue Diamond Road and Rainbow Boulevard and Inspiration Drive, and a portion of right of way being Rainbow Boulevard located between Pebble Road and Blue Diamond Road, and a portion of right of way being Pebble Road located between Rainbow Boulevard and Inspiration Drive within Enterprise. Item 16, UC 20 Six-one Hundred 64, use permit for a vehicle wash waivers the development standards for the following: one, reduce buffering and screening Two, modify residential adjacency standards. And three, allow modified driveway geometrics.

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

Good morning.

Good morning commissioners. James Grinestaff, 2608 Mountain Rail Drive representing the developer. First I want to thank Commissioner Jones and staff for working with us on working through the items of concern of both staff and planning committee I'm sorry, public works and of Commissioner Jones. So I want to go ahead and address those. As you can see, this is a retail commercial center at Pebble And Rainbow.

Zoning was already in place. We're here for design reviews and use permits. The three items of concern I have emphasized with dimensions in red were first let's address the vacuums for the proposed car wash. Commissioner Jones was concerned about the proximity to the residential. So as you can see here, we have moved the vacuums 143 feet and eight inches away from the adjacent residential.

And as you can also see I've reemphasized in red also that we have an intense double row of trees as a landscape buffer along with our CMU wall there to help mitigate both sound and visual to the commercial center. The other three items of concern are all of the same nature was the proximity of the speaker boxes to the residential. Now we all know that code changed a few years ago rather addressing the speaker box location it now addresses the drive through location. What we did to mitigate the concerns of the commissioner was that we specifically have detailed the locations that the speaker boxes will be no closer than. In addition to moving them further away we also pivoted them around the building so any sound from these speaker boxes as you can see would project north or south and not east towards the residents.

So we mitigated by distance and by direction. And we also know that today the technology keeps getting better and better on speaker boxes and they're quieter and quieter. But with that said we felt and Commissioner Jones has agreed that these mitigations were sufficient. If you'd like I can show you the elevation to the buildings as well. We have two buildings that are part of this application, retail A and Retail B which will be the first buildings that will be constructed as part of this application.

As you can see they are fairly standard in the grays and black tones. We have the architectural setbacks and things that are required per the code. That is Retail B. And this is the slightly larger building in Retail A. As you can see we've done the same thing.

We've mitigated the long string of elevations by breaking them up in hikes. They vary from 22.3 to 29 feet tall. And we've also put relief on the side of the buildings as well. As we can see, just so you can see it, on the landscape plan you can see here is the double rows of trees that we have that are recommended for this along with our CMU wall for mitigation of any visual noise impacts to the site. With that said, I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. This is a public hearing on items fifteen and sixteen. Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward. Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing. Commissioner Jones.

Thank you, mister chair. I appreciate the applicant making the notations on the proposed plan for the vacuum and speaker box locations. And with that additional consideration, I'll go ahead and move forward agenda item approval of agenda items 15 to 16.

Commissioner Jones, before you do that, I believe mister Papazian is waving you down.

K.

Thank you, commissioner. I just wanna make sure for the record, I don't see that these plans are the ones I have on record. We have a revised plan dated threethirty one. These ones appear to be older as we worked with the applicant, on the driveway closest to Pebble on Rainbow?

We my apologies. We did send it to the planning planning divisions. Sorry about that. We did send planning does have the most current copy.

And we are good with the most recent copy. We just wanna make sure the plan that is shown is not what is being approved.

So Mr. Grindstack, can you clarify that there's not a discrepancy between what you're showing today in terms of the the driveways and what you have previously worked on with miss Quasian? Yes,

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

Alright, with that clarification, my motion stands on approval of agenda items fifteen and sixteen.

Thank you. There's a motion for approval. Please cast your vote. The motion passes. Thank you.

Thank you, commissioners.

Next item is item 17, WS 20 five-eight 82. Holdover waiver development standards for the following. One, increase height for proposed accessory living quarters. Two, reduce front setback for proposed single family residence three, increase retaining wall height and four, wave full offset improvements for proposed single family residence excuse me, residential development on 0.46 acres in an RS20 residential single family 20 zone generally located South Of Bonanza Road and East Of Sari Drive within Sunrise Manor. Thank you. Good morning.

Morning. Joey DeBlanco. 2251 North Rampart Boulevard here on behalf of the applicant. I'll walk you through the site plan here really quick just so you can understand what it all means. The green dash line here, that's the setback line for the entire property. Here is the 40 foot setback that's required. Here is the 30 foot setback being requested. The yellow are the retaining walls. This one right here is the 10 foot retaining wall that he's asking for permission for and then, this is the footprint of the main dwell This is the footprint of the ADU. Right here, you could see the front elevation of the main dwelling, also an isometric of it.

And then here's the, front view of the ADU also with, isometric of it. And then here's the dimensions from the ground to to the roof showing 35 feet. If you want, I'll just jump into staff's denials. With respect to number one, the applicant agrees to file the covenant that required. And with respect to, the, building these simultaneously, he's agreed. So, if you have any other questions, I'd be happy to ask them answer them.

Thank you. This is a public hearing on item 17. Anyone who would like to speak, please come forward. Seeing no one, Commissioner Segerbloom.

Thank you. So, I'm go ahead and grant all the waivers, but I wanna add the condition that simultaneously we'll start with ADU and the building. So, we don't want this tall ADU there without a building in front of it. As long you agree to that, that's great.

Yes, yes, agreed.

Thank you. Is that okay, Jennifer?

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

Yes, commenced, but just not, it doesn't have to be completed, but commence.

Right, just start, yep.

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

There's a motion for approval. Please cast your vote.

Jones, aye.

The item passes.

Next item is Item 18, WS-twenty six-one 114. Holdover waivers of development standards for the following: one, reduce setback to increase wall height and three, allow modified driveway geometrics in conjunction with an existing single family residence on 0.19 acres in an RS 5.2 residential single family 5.2 zone, generally located East Of Boxwood Lane and North Of Baywood Avenue within Spring Valley. Good morning.

Morning. Charles Smith, 6619 Boxwood Lane. Just wanted to start with saying that the, I was reviewing the staff report, the revised staff report, there's still a couple errors there as far as the site address. It's 6619. It does state 6618 in the agenda sheet here, if you if you notice that.

And also the there was an error in the uniform standard drawing two two two. Property line to driveway should be six feet as far as far as I know, and it says 12 feet here. And I think they're aware that the planning department was gonna revise that, but that's minimal. And also, I'd like to waive or withdraw waiver three a. As I was working with the Department of Public Works and we decided that it was not a good idea to to add a second driveway to this proposed garage.

And I was able to reassess the situation and there's a better approach from the existing garage. So that would be, I guess, I'm wanting to withdraw waivers. Three a? Sound right? I don't know. Okay. And then as far as three b, I met with commissioner Jones and I was kinda kinda brainstorming some ideas. So I've got a a little bit of a solution

I'm here for the not sure.

I'm sorry if you're trying to demonstrate something. Can't see it if there's there we go. Thank you.

There it goes. This is something that I came up with with Commissioner Jones was a little bit of a planner. So, there's a decommissioned telephone box here next to the property line there. It's a small 15 by 30 inches or so, not in use, but it does mention in three b about the distance

from

the utility box. So I did go ahead and address that by putting something in the way so I would never drive. There's no parking at all in that area. I guess I need to explain this three b is a waiver because there's a piece of concrete that goes up to the property line. Now there was gravel here before, and every time it would rain, it's a pretty good pitch. It's like a 10 or 12 degree pitch or something up this driveway, and the gravel would wash down into the street. So, it's a really good solution. It's a walkway for the garbage cans. And otherwise, that's what I came up with for not parking there, is the little planter in the mailbox. And this is the three a.

The site plan was revised to show that the driveway would be approaching from the existing driveway instead of a second driveway into the street there. I believe that's all I need to talk about.

Thank completes your presentation, this is a public comment period. Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward. Seeing no one, Commissioner Jones.

Thank you, Chair. I appreciate the applicant working with me and with Public Works on this. Move for approval, agenda items 18 with the withdrawal of waiver number three a.

Thank you. There's a motion for approval. Please cast your vote. Motion passes. Thank you.

Next are items nineteen and twenty which can be heard together. Number 19 is WS26-one 148, waivers of development standards to eliminate street landscaping, design review for proposed single family residential development on 8.69 acres in an RS20 residential single family 20 zone within the neighborhood protection RMP and airport environs AE60 overlays, generally located West Of Hinson Street and Northam Mall Avenue within Enterprise. And Item 20, TM26-five hundred-eight, attended a map consisting of 16 single family residential lots and common lots on 8.69 acres an RS20 residential single family 20 zone within the neighborhood protection, RMP, and airport environments at East 60 overlays, generally located West Of Hinson Street and North Of Mall Avenue within Enterprise.

Good morning.

Good morning, County Commissioners. My name is Susan Florian from Taney Engineering, 6030 South Jones Boulevard here on behalf of the applicant. We're asking for a tentative map. These two streets used to connect, but the developer has chosen to complete the bottom and sell the top half. So now the street will not be going through it, it will just end in a cul de sac and then the other one will end up in a three point turnaround. We are asking also for a waiver of landscape on Hinson for these two lots that are in the right of way. With that, I conclude my presentation. I'm here to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you. This is a public hearing on items nineteen and twenty. Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward. Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing. I move for approval of items nineteen and twenty.

Gentleman's aye.

That motion passes.

Thank you

so much.

Next are items 21 through 24 which can be heard together. 21 is PA 20 five-seventy 52, holdover plan amendment to redesignate the existing land use category from Ranch Estate neighborhood to mid intensity suburban neighborhood on 1.12 acres, generally located North Of Smoke Ranch Road and West Of Apricot Lane within Lone Mountain Planning Area. 22 ZC 20 five-eight 36, holdover zone change to reclassify 1.12 acres from an RS20 residential single family 20 zone to an RS3.3 residential single family 3.3 zone generally located North Of Smoke Ranch Road and West Of Apricot Lane within Lone Mountain Planning Area. Item 23, Versus 20 five-eight 37, holdover, vacate and abandon a portion of right of way being Apricot Lane located between Roberta Lane and Smoke Ranch Road within the Lone Mountain Planning Area. And Item 24, WS25-eight 38, holdover waivers the development standards for the following: one, allow attached sidewalks and two, reduce street intersection offset Design review for proposed single family residential development on 1.12 acres in an RS 3.3 residential single family 3.3 zone, generally located North Of Smoke Ranch Road and West Of Apricot Lane within the Lone Mountain Planning Area.

Good morning.

Good morning. My name is Peter Bagnet with 5150 Smoke Ranch Road. And this application we would like to put up eight properties. We reduced it from 12 to eight properties. And thank you so much, by the way. We've been doing this since one years. Point So, for the staff and everyone who who's been we've been working together and and make this, project, being that this being the last stage. Do you have any questions regarding this property?

Maybe, but this is a public hearing, so I'm gonna open that public comment period. Anyone wishing to speak on items 21 through 24, please come forward at this time. Seeing no one, Commissioner McCurdy.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This has been quite the project. We've had meetings with the neighbors. We've literally went and just stood out on the corner there and talked with some of the surrounding area. And it's also a prime example of what's happening between the city of Las Vegas and Clark County with the ongoing annexing. On this street, on Apricot, you have the residential estates. You have a couple properties then. Next to that you'll have a city property where they've allowed higher density and historic rural neighborhood. And unfortunately residents are caught in the middle.

And this is down the street, which has been approved by the city. So we've worked with the applicant to reduce the number of homes from 12 down to eight. And this is the best case scenario for the neighbors because if we don't do it, then they would just be annexed to the city to be even higher density. So I've had the applicant agree to include eight foot block walls on the north side of the property as well on the west side. Along Smoke Ranch, they're all attached sidewalks.

We're gonna do detached sidewalks going into the neighborhood on Apricot Lane, which is great. The applicant agreed to make sure that it's ADA accessible on the North End so that neighbors who need to have accommodations met are able to do that. So I'm ready to move for approval of this project, and I thank the applicant for working with me.

Thank you. There's a motion for approval.

Got the I just Commissioner Kirkpatrick. Thank you. And Commissioner McCurdy, I just wanna put some things on the record because I this is a hard pill for me to swallow because I opposed it when the city annexed it to begin with, and they approved 24 units in the center of Apricot Lane, which honestly is not even up to public standards as a whole on that road if you went to travel that road, because it was never intended for that, right? But I do want to ask staff, you know, at what point I thought that there was a deal to be had when we bought the RJC and they were trying to annex 11,000 places that this area was protected. With Commissioner Weekly, we worked on this, right?

And I flagged it when it went before the city, and I don't understand how they just can keep doing this. How can they keep annexing in the center of, it's not even a 60 foot right of way, quite frankly. It's not even up to public standards. So I, Commissioner McCurdy, I said I would vote for it, but this is a prime example why we at least need a DM hearing in the legislature, because now the residents, at no fault of their own, are caught in the middle of it. There's a group home in this area, there is I've represented this area for ten years.

There's a group home that we have there that predominantly has disabled folks that are in there, and now you're adding all of this density in the center of it, the city continues to pick apart. I understand that this is a best case scenario to keep people from annexing it, but a deal is a deal. I said on this board when there was a deal made that we would bar the RJC to stop 11,000 units to be done. So I want to know why they don't have to keep their end of the deal. Cause on the interlocal, they're quick to send us letters if they think that we're doing something different.

So this is awful for these neighbors who have been there for a long time. What? Yes, there was a written agreement. Betsy Fretwell was the city manager at the time. So I just, it pains me to have to vote for this, but again, if we don't give them their way, they're gonna go annex and it'll be worse. And at the end of the day, that is not set up. The street is not set up for that. That's why it's a dead end. So, thank you for letting me get my peace out, but tired of people not keeping their end of the bargain.

There's a motion for approval on item 21 through 24. Please cast your vote.

Jones, aye.

Motion passes. Thank you.

Next are items 25 to 28 that can be heard together. Item 25 is PA 20 six-seven hundred-one. Holdover plan amendment to redesignate the existing land use category from mid intensity suburban neighborhood to corridor mixed use on 0.85 acres, generally located East Of Decatur Boulevard and South Of Ford Avenue within Enterprise. Item 26, DC26F0038, holdover zone change to reclassify 0.85 acres from an H2 General Highway frontage zone to an RS20 residential single family it's H2 and RS20 to a CG commercial general zone generally located East Of Decatur Boulevard and South Of Ford Avenue within Enterprise. Item 27, BS26S037, holdover vacate and abandon easements of interest to Clark County located between Decatur Boulevard and Cameron Street alignment and Ford Avenue and Pebble Road, and a portion of right of way being Decatur Boulevard located between Ford Avenue and Pebble Road within Enterprise and Item 28, UC 20 six-thirty nine, holdover use permit for outdoor dining, drinking, and cooking waivers of development standards for the following: one, reduce setbacks two, reduce street landscaping three, reduce buffering and screening four modify residential adjacency standards, and five alternative driveway geometrics, design review for proposed commercial building on 0.85 acres in a CG commercial general zone, generally located East Of Decatur Boulevard and South Of Ford Avenue within Enterprise.

Thank you. Good morning.

Good morning all. Renee Roland, r o l I n, with Momeni Engineering, 8360 West Sahara, representing the owner for a retail plaza at the corner Of Ford in Decatur. Items 25, 26, and 27 have either been adopted or approved, so I'll move straight to 28. Two of those waivers were denied, which was number two, reducing the street landscaping. Along Decatur, we have the site visibility zone here and here when you pull in and out of the space.

So the detached sidewalk in front of it at the street side has lower shrubs just because we can't have trees there. But the interior portion of that landscaping on the inside of the sidewalk closer to the building has the trees. Along Ford we have an easement right here where we can't plant anything and then our trash receptacle is also there which is causing issues with trying to plant. So we do have some shrubs there but not the amount that's required by title code. Item number three was the reducing the buffering and screening.

So one that applies to the street areas also at the back. We have proposed a 10 foot setback to residential neighborhood that's there. Currently not built as residential but zoned for such and we've put trees 10 feet apart to cause make a giant buffer from the building which is just the backside of it to the residential area. Otherwise working with public works we've eliminated parking spaces here and here due to our decreased throat depth so that people can traverse in and out with their cars still back out when someone's pulling in and such. It's not cause any accidents. You have any questions? That concludes what I think you need to know.

Thank you. This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward at this time. Seeing no one, commissioner Jones.

Thank you, mister chair. I appreciate the applicant has worked with public works on removing those parking spots. Still have concerns with relocation of the trash enclosure and would hope that there is a different place that it could be placed. But with that, I'll go ahead and vote for approval of agenda items 25 through 28 following planning commission's recommendations of denial of waivers two and three on agenda item number 28.

Thank you, Commissioner Jones. There's a motion for approval of item 25 through 28. Before that, Mr. Papazian.

Thank you, Commissioner. I apologize. I just wanna make sure where they remove the parking it just looks blank that we are gonna install some sort of landscape or median so those spaces don't come back.

If landscaping's required, you shall have

it.

Thank you.

Hearing the affirmative, there is a motion for approval of items 35 through 38. Please cast your vote. I'm sorry, 35 through 25.

25.

That motion passes. Thank you. Thank you.

Next, story items 29 through 31, which can be heard together. 29 is ZC26-one 166. Zone change to reclassify 1.79 acres from an RS20 residential single family 20 zone to a CG commercial general zone generally located North of Wimma Lane and West Of Bermuda Road within Enterprise. Item 30, Versus 20 68, vacate and abandon easements of interest at Clark County located between Bermuda Road and Fairfield Avenue and Windmill Lane and Mesa Verde Lane, a portion of right of way being Bermuda Road located between Windmill Lane and Mesa Verde Lane, and a portion of right of way being Windmill Lane located between Bermuda Road and Fairfield Avenue within Enterprise. And Item 31, UC 20 67, use permit for a gas station waivers of development standards for the following: one, modify residential adjacency standards two, reduce throat depth and three, allow modified street standards with a design review for commercial development consisting of a gas station, retail and restaurant on 1.79 acres in a CG Commercial General Zone generally located North Of Windmill Lane and West Of Bermuda Road within Enterprise.

Good morning.

Mr. Chair, members of the board, Denise Yogordillo, two zero four Belle Isle Court, Henderson, Nevada eighty nine thousand and twelve here on behalf of the applicant. As you can see here on an aerial, I'll get to the site planning here in just a minute, we are at the Northwest Corner Of Bermuda And Windmill Lane. Those are two arterial streets, very major arterial streets. It's roughly about two acres with the project as described in your agenda.

I do want to submit since we have finally a clean copy of this directly to the north, which is this parcel. I do have a letter of support from that property owner. We had a prior version, but it was not legible. There is a clean copy of the letter of support from this property, which is currently residential. This is existing office professional.

As you know, Commissioner Long Windmill, that corridor has been very troublesome over the years. It's been planned anywhere from office professional on both sides to now commercial general based on the trend that we are seeing based on the intersection of two arterial streets. On the first item, item number 26 Commercial General is entirely appropriate for that site. We appreciate staff's recommendation and we agree with all conditions of approval. Item 30 is more or less just a cleanup because we are doing detached sidewalks on both streets.

We have to vacate five feet of a right of way and then we do have an existing patent easement on the property. So again, we agree with staff's recommendation of approval on that. We appreciate that and we will comply with all conditions of approval as well. Item 31, which is the main or primary application is what's described in your agenda. So what we have is basically a convenience store which is now just a retail use, a gasoline station, and then we have a freestanding restaurant pad site with a drive through.

What we've done is we've mitigated where possible all the issues that have been brought up by staff, which in this case include a substantial amount more than what's required by code right at the Northwest corner. So now at this corner is where we touch what is called what used to be rural R and P is now NPO. So that is the only point that we touch the NPO district and we've enhanced not just we have three rows of large trees as opposed to two. And then of course, we brought the eight foot high wall 15 feet south on the property, on the west property line. So we believe that we've addressed all those all the issues that have been brought up that were brought up at Town Board as well.

And therefore, we request that you recommend approval of this project. And I'll be happy to answer any questions, especially if there are any neighbors here as well.

Thank you. This is a public comment period for items 29 through 31. Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward at this time. State your name for the record. Good morning. You could use any of the three microphones.

I'm Laurie Rod, r o d d. 8215 Fairfield Avenue. I'm sorry. I I thought that this was gonna be much later. I

if you could just use the microphone.

Okay. My first concern on this is his one of his egresses that is just past the intersection of Windmill And Bermuda, it actually is going to force people wanting to get back to go eastbound on Windmill to make a u-turn right where I'm fighting traffic already to get in the left turn to turn onto Fairfield. And then the people that will actually follow traffic rules, they're gonna make a right onto Fairfield. It's going to cause traffic in the neighborhoods that we are trying to avoid. The traffic down Windmill is just already so dangerous.

If this was a park, I wouldn't be here. I am vehemently opposed to a gas station. The architectural or the engineering firm that is right, you know, west of his project here, is so quiet. I I would never if that's what he was here for, I would be I would be happy, actually. Even the business across the street, very quiet.

I've been there my whole life. I used to ride horses in this area, so this means a lot to me. I'm still right in the house that I grew up in, next door. And I I just think a gas station, his other projects, I'm I'm okay with. We have many gas stations in the area.

I don't really understand why we're here for another one, but that's that's all I have to say. Sorry. I'm rushing in here, not prepared, but, I didn't think it was gonna be this quick. Anyway, I oppose this. Don't wanna live next to another gas station.

And his other the restaurant, which is a fast food joint, it's gonna cause a lot of traffic. His egress on Windmill, it's not good. It's very scary where, he's gonna be having different people fighting for the same lane. I appreciate your time, and thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to speak, please come forward at this time. Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing. I'll ask perhaps public works if you have a viewpoint on the comments made on egress to begin.

I'm sorry, commissioner. I was not clear on the question Okay. That she had, but if it were a park, it would be the same traffic movements. I don't think people are traveling on Fairfield. There's no real shortcut there. Windmill is our section line. Bermuda is our section line, and these type of streets are typically where commercial goes.

I tend to agree. I appreciate the comments. This is a privately held site. We can't put a park there. We do have quite a few parks, actually. You're pretty close to Duck Creek Park. You're close to Hidden Trails Park. You're close to the Silverado Ranch Park And Community Center. This site is on the corner of two arterials, and therefore this typically would be an appropriate use. They have made best efforts to mitigate some of the issues related to the immediate neighbors, and that's why I was satisfied to move forward with it because the buffering of the C store with the gas station to the residential I think is appropriate.

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

Yeah, if I can add one point to that. Maybe I misheard the comment or the concern, but if you look at the aerial, we do have a median on Bermuda directly adjacent to our site and a median on Windmill as well. So it does not allow full turn movements, which goes a long way to mitigate some of those traffic issues as well. And of course we will comply with any technical studies that we are required to do.

Thank you. And I would also just point out that the applicant is putting in full detached sidewalks on both edges of this arterial Bermuda windmill, which is a significant safety improvement for that area. Given that, I am prepared to move for approval of items 29, and 31. Please cast your vote. Johns.

Commissioner?

Johns, aye. Were you gonna add any questions?

Excuse me. That motion that you are voting on right now is inclusive of two conditions that I want added for the record. One is a condition that I apply on all fueling stations in my district, is to have enhanced stone cladding or stonework up the entirety of the pillars. The applicant agrees to that?

We do. And in fact, what you have on file, I kind of highlighted this, we are we have shown that on our plans as well.

So for the neighbors who live in the area, this is going be a really nice looking fueling station. Does that condition meet what you need from a planning perspective?

Yes, I got it.

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

And we are agreeable to that as well.

Thank you. My motion stands with those two additional conditions.

Can I just clarify one thing? So monument signage, but they can have building signage Yes. Per Thank you.

Motion passes.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair and Commissioners.

Next is item 34, which is ORD 20 six-nine hundred-two 97, introduce an ordinance to amend the official zoning map reclassifying certain properties as approved by the Board of County Commissioners meeting on 03/04/2026, and staff recommends the ordinance be introduced and set for public hearing 05/20/2026.

I'll introduce the ordinance and set the public hearing for 05/20/2026.

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

This is the final time set aside for public comment. Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward at this time. Once you gather things, if you could just state your name again for the record.

Hello. My name is Jack Trujillo. I'm a disabled veteran. I got over 60 medical conditions due to contamination and hazing in the marine corps. Now I moved to Las Vegas to retire, relax, no more working, and the majority of the neighbors in the area are all retirees.

So we had these two youngsters move in the neighborhood and for a year they've been fostering dogs, 10 to 15 dogs in there. Now you see this big old pile of poop right on the right side of the of the car there? It's full of fleas, leeches, and flies. The flies are like horse horse flies, and they won't clean it up, and they wanna foster dogs. I have two big bug zappers on my porch, and I can show you all the fleas.

Terrible. And they have bug zappers inside the house. Now she says she's not fostering dogs. However, I got lots of information where she's all over the Internet showing all her dogs. Dogs on this one. This picture here, there's eight dogs there. Well, there's area. There's one, two, three. There's two down here, and there's some in the back. You're only supposed to have three dogs to foster.

Now when they clean after the dogs excuse me. When they clean after these dogs, sometimes they don't do it for months, and the stench is terrible. It's worse it it it reminds me of Henderson's pig farm down there. The stench is so bad for Easter. My grandkids grandkids came.

We all got bit by fleas and flies, and it was terrible. This is not a place to foster dogs. Now she is hoarding dogs and keeping officials from coming in. Now I went the first place I went to the police station, try to make a report, I went there several times. They did nothing.

They told me to come down to the courthouse and make a complaint there, go to senior legal help. They gave me more documents to go to code enforcement, go to health department, go to all these different places, and I did. I went first place was the code enforcement, spoke to Josh Wright, and he has his supervisor, mister McCoy, who decided he did go to the house and said that she had six dogs.

I'm sorry. Unfortunately, that your time's expired. You you reside in commissioner McCurdy's district, and he can help refer you to the right place Well, that'll be after the

meeting. The next problem is

Your time's expired under our rules, so have a seat. We're about to end our meeting. Have a seat, and Commissioner McCurdy's offered to come talk to

you. Next

speaker, please.

Circle, and I'd like to tell you that I really like the Elks Lodge. My dad was a member, and I appreciated them bringing in the Haldorado parade and us we had three parades over the weekend. It was wonderful but I appreciate you for not having it in a rural area because we couldn't have handled it. Thank you very much.

Well,

David Anderson, 6217 Obanon Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada. Yes, that same issue, that 3134, whatever it is, the Elks Lodge not having the RV parking right next to Holmes. That's it. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak at this final time set aside for public comment, please come forward. Seeing no one, we will adjourn today's meeting. Thank you.