Clark County Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Chair Frazier? Here. Vice Chair Mujica? She's here. Commissioner Stone?

Here.

Commissioner Kirk?

Here.

Commissioner Kolarski? She's here. Commissioner Brady? He's here. And Commissioner Reutemann?

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 allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you very much. So the first item of business is public comments. So NRS asked us to 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 Bend Street, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89178, Mountains Edge area. I'm here tonight to talk about my support of DR260290. I'm in fully support of this because it's badly needed. With a couple of requests to tweak to make it better. I've been a baseball coach, played baseball, coaching my grandkids now. Mountain's Edge has no baseball fields at all for Little E. And this design here, perfect. The only tweak to it is baseball, you have to have a raised pitching mound, and you have to have either a grass infield or a synthetic turf infield, which is really the safest for the kids to play on. Quest is if we could tweak these a little bit to get that for baseball. There's two stadiums with four fields each, and if we could do four fields for baseball, four for softball. The softball fields, clay infields are fine, but what they're requesting for all the fields is clay, and that just doesn't work. You've got to have a pitcher's mound. They could do clay cutouts for the bases, and that would work perfectly. So that's my... 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. Little League will not give us an association. So right now we play at 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 Mountain's Edge at all. So that would be my request. And if there's any way they could 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, we do have someone coming down. 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 Palmieri. 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 Six 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. David.

Mr. Chairman, I think he's talking about Items 36 through 38.

29 through, yeah.

For sure. So the reason I didn't interrupt him because I didn't know if he wanted to put his comments on record and then leave. But we're going to hear that item later on in the meeting. You can give us your speech then if you like. But if you want to continue, you're more than welcome to.

No, I'll do it then.

So we'll hear that item a little bit later on. Thank you. You're welcome, sir. All right, so seeing no one else coming down, I'm going to close the public comment section, and go ahead, staff, 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, PA26700020. Item 34, BS250897. Excuse me, item 34. And item number 35, UC250896. For the applicant's information, additional re-notification 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, I would like to know if the applicant 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. I would like to have a specific date for us to hear the item. So if we do, can I go ahead and not accept that and do a, 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, 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, and that this is the date that they need to be here. If they need to hold it at that time, they can, but I wanna hold a specific date to be heard. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Of course. So, Commissioner Kirk, any issues with the agenda? If not, I will. None.

Okay.

No issues for me. Thank you. Thank you. 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'd 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 are the announcements. For the audience's information, items on tonight's agenda are final action unless appealed to the Board of County Commissioners or otherwise announced. All appeals must be filed in writing to the Comprehensive Planning Department by 5 p.m. on Wednesday, 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 agreed person may appeal an item. An agreed person includes the applicant, someone who attended this meeting in person or through an authorized representative, or someone who has submitted comments in writing, which may include a postcard or letter. Members in the audience must complete the meeting sign-in sheet found near the dais to confirm their attendance at this meeting. Mail notices of appealed applications will be sent to the property owners within the same notification radius as the original application and to those listed on the meeting sign-in sheet. Additionally, any person may call the Comprehensive Planning Department at 702-455-4314 or go to the county's meeting agenda webpage and review 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 and 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 11. 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 4 through 11, 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 getting ready to approve items 4 through 11 in one vote. All right, seeing no one coming down to take anything off of routine action items, I entertain a motion for approval of routine action items. So I'm sorry, hold on one second. Commissioner Roytman?

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

So are you abstaining on item six? Okay.

Commissioner Kolarski, your light's on. Anything for routine? Okay, thank you.

Mr. Chair, motion to approve Routine action items 4 through 11.

And we're noting that Commissioner Roikman is abstaining on item 6. 6. Thank you very much. Motion on the floor. Cast your vote.

Mr. 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 Tropicana Avenue and east of Dunville Street within Spring Valley.

Is there an applicant in the audience for item number 12? Okay, perfect.

name and address for the record and tell us about your application sure my name is Rebecca Mahan the address is 5785 West Tropicana Avenue this is regarding WOW party decor LLC a banquet hall special permit request so just go ahead and tell us about your application so so So the staff was concerned that it might be too close to a family residence area. And this is the elevation 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 family residence area is this building. And in between there is a wall and there is a street to get into the compound.

All right, thank you very much. All right, so what I'm going to do now is I'm going to open this application up for a public hearing. Anyone in the audience want to speak on this item? All right, seeing no one, we're going to close the public hearing and I'll open it up to commissioners for comments. Commissioner Kerr?

No comment. Thank you.

All right. Sounds good. And Commissioner Reutemann, looks like you can take us home.

I just want to put a one-year review period on this. And otherwise, I will motion to approve item number 12, UC260142.

Thank you. Motion on the floor. Cast your vote.

Commissioner Kirk, yes.

I don't have power.

All right, give us a verbal.

So I'm an I?

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 VS-26-0278, vacate and abandon 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 be Mall Avenue located between Hinson Street and Valley View Boulevard within Enterprise. Descriptions on file. Item number 14 is WS26-0279, waivers to development standards for the following. One, eliminate street landscaping. Two, eliminate buffering and screening. Three, increase retaining wall height. And four, increase fill. To sign review for a proposed single family residential development on 3.03 acres in an RS20 residential single family 20 zone within the airport environs AE60 and neighborhood protection RMP overlays. Generally located west of Valley View Boulevard and north of Mall Avenue within Enterprise. Item number 15 is TM 26-500-075, tentative map consisting of six single-family residential lots and common lots on 3.03 acres in an RS-20 residential single-family 20 zone within the airport environs AE-60 and neighborhood protection RMP overlays, generally located north of Mall Avenue and the west of 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 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 on a northern property in this area. And also along Valley View, you'll also notice that there is no landscaping in those areas. The other thing I do want to point out, as you can see here, there's a huge escarpment or slope in this area. This is our property line in yellow. From here to the sidewalk in this area here, it goes anywhere from 30 feet all the way up to 70 feet is a public right-of-way. Now I'd like to get into the waiver development standards. This is a six-lot subdivision. You have a private street. As you come in, this is an L-shaped hammerhead. These are the six lots that would be facing east and west. As I mentioned earlier, this is Valley View Boulevard. This is Mall Avenue. We are asking for a waiver development standard for no landscaping on the northern part of our property located in this area here. and then also no landscaping along Valley View on the outside of our property. As I already pointed out, the town board did recommend approval for the waiver development standard to waive the landscaping up in the northern portion. However, along the west property line, excuse me, the east property line, 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 inside of our rear yards, you're not going to 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 landscaped 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 it keeps it here, you're still gonna get everything landscaped in this area. There's other waivers that we asked for, which is wall height along the mall. We were asking for about nine more inches of retaining wall, which we have to ask for four feet where three feet is required. 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 west property line here, where we had to come in with some additional fill that staff's recommending approval for the waiver of development standard. We do have a vacation for a right of way down here along the mall so we could do the detached sidewalk. What DR Horton is proposing is they got three different models. They have two different models with the two-story homes that you see here. And then you also have a single-story model that's located here that's about 4,600 square foot home. Home prices are going to 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 R&P area. We are building R&P lots. This is less than two units an acre. It's an odd piece of property. It's located right there with a ramp that's going to go up for Valley View and a depressed 215 in this area. That being said, I'd ask you to approve the applications that we are requesting, and I can answer any questions that you have.

Thank you very much. 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 Kowalski? Hi, just one question because I'm looking at town board's recommendation and they have added a combination of retaining wall decorative wall over nine feet. Did you agree to that at 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 appropriate there. You won't really notice a difference between nine feet, nine feet, nine inches.

Okay, so you did not agree to that?

No, did not agree to that one, no. No, that was put on as a condition. And then they recommended approval of everything else, but for the, what I focused on, on the eastern portion of our property, the landscaping there, because we'd like to, because all it is is we could move the property line, rear line 10 feet in for landscaping, or five to 10 feet, whatever the requirement is, or we keep the line there. Regardless, landscaping is there, and regardless, as you're driving on Valley View or the 215, you're never going to see it.

I can tell you that I can support this, so thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Kowalski. I'll go online to Commissioner Kirk. Any comments or questions about this application?

No, I don't have any questions. Thank you.

All right, I'm going to support that application, and I'll turn it over to Commissioner Reitman.

I motion to approve number 13, 14, 15, VS-260278, WS-260279, and TM-2650075.

Thank you very much. There's a motion on the floor. Cast your votes. Commissioner Kirk.

Oh, I was muted, sorry. Yeah, Commissioner Kirk, yes.

Thank you.

That motion passes. Thank you. This is final action unless appealed. 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.

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

Yes, thank you. My name's Rebecca and I am here on behalf of the property owner. The address is 7219 West Sahara, Suite 105. Let me go ahead and start with this guy. So these structures are all currently built. We are asking for waivers regarding the addition mostly. It is on a zero-zero setback. We have worked with the commissioner to talk about taking the south patio, which is currently on a zero-zero setback, and reducing it to a three-foot setback, the lattice to a three-foot setback, and then the carport is at a three-foot setback. So that would be the lines for them. Again, this is already currently constructed. Let me grab some of the pictures. I think that'll show it a little better. So this is the inside of the addition. It is used for entertaining family and gatherings. It is not a living space. This is the currently constructed lattice that would again have that three foot setback. The south patio with again that three foot setback. The carport which is metal in construction. This is a look at the lattice from the addition, the addition looking towards the single family residence. The carport from the single family residence going out and then towards the single family residence. This is their backyard with that addition. This is where the addition sits. So it is currently sitting on the joined wall. And then this is the roof of the addition. It is currently TPO, but they are willing to go ahead and change it to the asphalt shingle to match the existing SFR. And then we did discuss that they would need to obviously put gutters. Everything will have to be approved and looked at by the building department. And then of course, anything that is in five feet of the property line would have that fire rating. And I'm more than happy to answer any questions you have about this.

Thank you very much. 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. 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 remember this item and it looks like they took some of our comments, so I'm pleased with them reducing, getting their construction off of the neighboring wall. I would say that to your comments about the TPO, I'm okay with the TPO staying. That's better than shingles in my world. And then I'll just wait for my commissioners to make some comments. You wanna start with Commissioner Kerr? I'll start with Commissioner Kerr.

I don't have anything. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

You don't have no comments? No comment, thank you. Okay, thank you very much. Any other comments? No other comments? I got Commissioner Brady.

I've spoken a lot on this type of thing since I've been here, 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, I look at this. If we allow this neighbor to do it, I know everything is on its own merit and everything. But 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. This is just how fires happen. And this is how everything gets spread. And also water coming off of the roofs and everything. I'm not in love with this type of thing, and I hope that people don't do this in the future, but that's kind of where I just wanted to put that out there for others to make comments. And yeah, I'm not a big fan of this. I love how it looks inside, but 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 Reitman?

Maybe for staff what we had this before and we made a decision, this was like a month or two ago, so did we 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 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. 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 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 going to 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 is for the applicant. The big changes that have been made now are that now you're not building on the dividing wall? No.

So originally... So originally, both the lattice and the south patio were all the way to the property line. As working with staff, what we decided to do was to go ahead and move that back three feet. Since the addition is kind of a more intensive structure and would basically involve taking that whole thing down to do that, that was what we left. But through the conversations with staff, that was what we ended up coming up with.

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

Yeah, so this is the inside of the current edition. So it is a fully built structure as of right now.

Okay. Yeah, I guess for me, for everyone on here, I am hesitant to ask them to take down this structure. But I don't really know. Sorry, I don't have much more to add.

Before I turn it over to commissioners again, I would offer that whatever we allow from this board, the applicant still has some hurdles to do because whatever building department requirements they may have, they will add those to the structure, whether it's to have some type of fire mitigation between property lines because they're on the zero line. I mean, we're just approving what's there. Building Department will approve what's built and inspect what's built. So I'm just offering that for the group. I agree with Commissioner Brady that this is not ideal and no, if someone was coming to ask for permission, we would say no. Can I just say one quick thing? Yes, go ahead, Commissioner Braden.

My only concern also is, I agree, I hate to make them take it down, 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. And so that's all I want to say. That's fair.

All right. Go ahead, Commissioner Monica, and then Commissioner Karlofsky.

Where does the neighbor stand in all this?

So we did get neighbor approval from every neighbor besides one empty home and then one home that had renters So I wish I had my map but all the neighboring properties did go ahead and approve the current structures What about the one that's most most affected? Yeah, so the one that is Most affected on the back one of them is vacant, but the other one did approve. So Yeah, I wish I had brought my map for it, but. Okay, so the one that's most affected is vacant, you said? So, hold on. No, no.

The one to the north approved it. They have a letter that they 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, they sent in an approval letter. And I believe there was another approval letter that was sent on the east side of Crowley.

That is correct. Yeah, they have a lot of houses that border them, so we tried to get as many as we could. But since it sits on the wall between both property lines, because this one's going to be the north and that one's going to be the west side.

Staff, what they're at, let's say, that I can get on board with not tearing down this addition because it's already there. Does the changes to the patio cover and the ones on either side, does that now conform with code or do they need waivers for that as well?

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 complying with code at five foot setbacks, and that would remove waivers 1C and 1D, but the plans being shown are not the plans that we have on file, the most updated versions of them.

I'm probably okay, Commissioner Kolarski, wherever you want to go with this, but maybe, you know, not that we want to be punitive here exactly, but to say, look, if we're not going to make them tear down this building that's already built, the permanent structure, that we make them strictly comply with what they need to do on 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 going to let it all go, even if we give a little on, well, give a lot, I would say, on that back one. Maybe that's, You know, and like you said, the plans they have asked for here, have those complied. And that way we wouldn't have, we'd have setbacks at least on two of the borders for fire concerns and stuff like that. I don't know, I'm trying to get creative here. Those are my thoughts.

Thank you, Commissioner Workman. Commissioner Kolarski.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thank you, commissioners, for your comments.

I went out shortly after this meeting and saw the place, and I gotta tell you, I was impressed by the addition. I wasn't impressed with the patio covers on the north 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... On the walls.

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

And was he going to try and get a picture from the other side, from the neighbor? Was he able to?

Yes.

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. To do what he could.

If you want to see.

Oh, that's the video of the edition.

And this is a picture of the edition, so you can kind of get an idea.

Yes, so this is a video of the inside of the edition.

Of what it looks like. I was really impressed by the workmanship, to get back to this. I'm okay so long as, as you say, we meet fire codes, we meet building codes, we meet all of this, the permitting. With the condition that staff has got about a year to complete the building permit and inspection process, if it's the permitting and 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 going to move to approve WS26-0062.

One second, Commissioner Hlaroski.

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

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 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. 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 want to do then is, no, no, you're fine. I want to approve WS26-0062 with waivers 1A, 1B, and 1E, noting that waivers 1C and D are no longer required. Is that what we're saying?

Yes, yes.

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 unless appealed. The next item on the agenda is item number 18. This is WS26-0304, waivers of development standards for the following. One, reduce setback, and two, 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. So name and address for the record and tell us about your application.

My name is Antonio Flores.

Address 71 Tony, Linden Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada, 8110. And I'm intending to build a house about 5,700 square feet. And I'm requesting three waivers. One is to increase the The retaining wall on the north side of the property due to the grading design to prevent the water to go to the neighbors. 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 is on the rear of the house, I have a 29 feet, eight inches, where it is required 30 feet. And on the front of the house, I have a 37 feet, where it is required 40 feet. And I'm asking to weigh those items and see if we can build a house.

All right, thank you very much. All right, so I'm gonna open this application up for a public hearing. Anyone in the audience wanna speak on this item? Now's the time to come down and do so. All right, seeing no one coming down, I'm gonna close the public hearing, and I'll open up to commissioners for comments, questions. Commissioner Kowarski?

This is my item, so.

Okay, Commissioner Kirk?

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

I'm sorry? And asking for permission, she said, instead of asking for forgiveness. Ask for the waivers before. All right, so I can support the reductions. They're minimal in my book, so I'll turn it over to Commissioner Kowalski.

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. Thank you. With staff, if approved conditions. All right, there's a motion on the floor. Thank you. Cast your 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 PA26700004, 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 ZC260056, 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 R&V overlay generally located west of Buffalo Drive and north of Trino Avenue within Enterprise. Item 21, BS260057, holdover, vacate, and abandon easements of interest to Clark County located between Ford Avenue and Torino Avenue and Buffalo Drive and Miller Lane within Enterprise. Item number 22, WS260058, amended holdover waivers of development standards for the following. One, reduce setbacks previously notified as front setbacks. Two, increase retaining wall height. Three, modify residential adjacency standards. four, reduced street landscaping, and five, reduced street intersection offset no longer needed. Design review for a proposed single-family residential development on 5.1 acres in an RS 5.2 residential single-family 5.2 zone generally located west of Buffalo Drive and north of Torino Avenue within Enterprise. and item number 23, TM26500011, amended holdover tentative map consisting of 18, previously 20, single-family residential lots and common lots on 5.1 acres in an RS 5.2 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 RS-20, the site being down here. Before I get into the application, I believe I should spend some time talking about Buffalo and its existence today in the county. The applicant believes the plan amendment and zone change is appropriate given the growth in the area and the increased intensity along Buffalo Drive. Buffalo Drive is a 100-foot major arterial street. That is similar to Durango, which is similar in width, planned width, 100 feet, as well as Rainbow. Buffalo today sees very high levels of traffic traveling north and south throughout the valley. One more second. Sticking with 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 were roundabouts at the intersection of Wigwam and Buffalo, as well as Buffalo and Pebble. In December, those were removed. likely due to the increase in traffic no longer needed. I think it's meant to accommodate the existing traffic going up and down Buffalo today. Just for reference, after pulling the NDOT average daily trip counts, 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 is about 23,000 daily trips. Durango and Windmill is about 26,700 daily trips. Again, I pointed out similarly, 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, although currently zoned RS20, we are on the edge of an RMP because of the change in trend in Buffalo Drive and the increased intensity over time. It is no question there is much more traffic now than there was 15, 20 years ago. And that 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 just under four units an acre. We revised those plans and we now are proposing 18 lots at about 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. Also important to note, each of the lots that are less than 10,000 square feet, but Ford and Buffalo, they are not adjacent to existing RS-20 homes. The average lot size of the homes proposed is about 7,500 square feet. The average size of the home is about 3,100 square feet. Access will be off of Torino here. There will be two and three car garage options. The average total sale price, I should say anticipated total sale price, is about $870,000. 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. RTC requires a bus 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. There are no longer two-story homes proposed. We do have a few waivers on this application. For one, we have a front yard setback waiver, 10 provided where 20 is required. However, that's only relevant to one of the floor plans offered. Second, we have a reduced rear setback to 18 feet where 20 is required. 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 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 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. Otherwise, we would have likely met that requirement, but it's something we can't get around, so that is the reason for that waiver there. I'd also like to point out A similar development with similar density was approved last year by the BCC at, I believe, 3.2 units an acre. It's a 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 RS 5.2. 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 before you today is appropriate given the growth and increased intensity along Buffalo and it should be approved and with that I'll conclude my presentation and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. So at this time I'd like to open this application up for public hearing. 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.

This is Steve Small, 8565 South Warbonnet, right around the corner from this. I'm the ex-president of the Enterprise Residence Association before Swan took over. And I'm 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. Therefore, I see no reason to put 5.6, none, on 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. Nor 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. on the last two and a half acres that came through that I opposed. That was inside the RNP corner. You approved that one. I was hoping you wouldn't follow precedence, that you'd see that 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 Caprillion. I live at 8729 Grand Pass Court, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89113. So here's a picture roughly of the area they're talking about. In red is 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 concern me. so uh... i want to point out a few things about this uh... if you notice again here's the property in question uh... right across the street there is a another property roughly five acres they're building homes on that right now uh... it's zoned at half acres 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, that's the continuation. Those are also selling for $3 million 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 our house in 2019. These have all been built and developed since 2019. So there is a market for these larger properties. And again, 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 are, excuse me, the ones to the east are all brand new. Some to the west are brand new as well. 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 that was not really all that honest, I don't believe. 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 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 that are similar to what's there, and I believe that's what they should be doing, that's what is zoned, and I respectfully ask that you maintain that zoning. And I also believe that the board originally, when we met the last time, also unanimously agreed with us that this should not be changed.

Thank you. Thank you, sir. Anyone else in the audience want to speak on this item? All right, seeing no one else, I'll ask the applicant to come back up and then I'll open it up to the board for questions and comments. I'll start with Commissioner Kolarski.

Okay, somebody else has got to talk for a change. How far north does the RNP overlay go, do you know? And south? And while you're looking and able to...

Yes, I believe I have a map.

To tell me. 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 that stuff goes through. And I'm trying to see. So what is the northern boundary that's right there on Buffalo? This is Ford. No, no. The RNP, I'm looking at the RNP, 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?

Agate is along here.

Okay, so Agate would be what, about two miles? I don't know. I don't have the, are we talking two miles south, maybe two miles north is what that RNP is at? Because I got to tell you, if that's the case, this does not sit on the edge.

It sits smack in the middle.

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

I'd like to point out, I hear you. 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 smack in the middle of the RNP. You've got half-acre homes. This is one of the most viable RNPs in the valley. And you start doing this, and what's going to come before us down the road is people are going to say, well, we can build because it's on the arterial. And they're going to start getting smaller and smaller. And then you're going to divide that RNP because of Buffalo. I just cannot support it, and that's just, I can't support the plan amendment, I can't support the zone, and I definitely can't support any of the waivers or the design review. So, I'm not going to apologize, I'm just sorry that, because I know housing 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.

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

Nothing major other than I cannot support this application. That's all I'll say.

Thank you, Commissioner Kirk. I know with the site plan that was provided, As far as I'm concerned, I understand the argument of Buffalo changing to a major road. And in theory, I'm definitely in support of the project for the means of having the construction of new homes. But it doesn't sound like the rest of the commission 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 Ortega.

I'm sort of on the fence on this one. I think the design at one story and the 10,000 square foot lots and the arguments about Buffalo I'm sympathetic to that. 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 have a big problem with that. That being said, it is smack dab in the middle, which is concerning, I guess. Though I do think it kind of provides the transition potentially, again, with Buffalo being this boundary 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'm just not quite sure.

All right. So before I turn it over to commissioner Mojica, I mean, I, and it may be, something applicant may we want to think about as far as redesigning it to to maybe get rid of some lots to make it more appeal appealing to the to the to the 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 to have a better easier time approving the application, but I'll turn it over to Commissioner Mohica 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 board a little bit on this one and try to see if you can do something about the smaller lot portion before we go to what might look like it might not go. So that's my thoughts.

Yeah, this is a bit of a predicament, but one thing that I learned when I joined the commission was what my fellow commissioners shared with me was, is it the best use of the land? And to me, it is. 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. I think it's a good project. I think Buffalo is very busy. I live in that area in Southern Highlands and I go down Buffalo a lot and it's getting really, really busy. And who knows, maybe if this project is not approved later on a few years from now, maybe it'll be even higher density because we need homes. I mean, it's beautiful to have half acre lots, 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 what it is. So I'm gonna make a motion to approve item number 19, plan amendment 267004. 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, you 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.

No, I think since the, uh, plan amendment failed, uh, the renters, the rest of the application moved, so they should just deny the whole thing, the remainder of the, uh, application. Okay. Um, items, what, 19 through, is it 23?

20 to 23.

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 of County Commissioners?

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

Okay, fair enough.

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

You can just, no.

Can I just approve, can I vote to approve and then they vote?

Not on the zone change that will not conform with the land use plan amendment because the land use plan amendment vote failed. Now you may have like maybe the vacation abandonment, maybe you could vote on that. 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 have to vote deny. 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, that 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's fair. All right, so the plan amendment failed, so the other two items in conjunction also fail, and so 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 26700-010, 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. Item number 25 is CC 260137, 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 Moberly Avenue alignment within Enterprise. Thank you very much.

I'm sorry, I'm sorry.

Item number 26 is WS260138, 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, modify the uniform state or 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 Robindale Road within Enterprise. Item number 27, TM26-500033, holdover tentative map for a 19-lot and common lots on 2.64 acres in an RST residential single-family two zone, generally located east of Decatur Boulevard and south of Robindale Road within Enterprise.

Thank you, staff. Name and address for the record. Tell us about your application.

I'm here on behalf of the applicant. The applicant is applying for a master plan amendment to rezone back to the residential, proposing to build 19 homes. This application has been heard here by you a few weeks ago. There were some concerns about the door facing Decatur, so we did revise the floor plans and the site plan to remove the door. And do you want me to go over the basics of the project or to refresh the memory or just go straight to the changes or just questions? Refresher? Okay.

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

So the project is located on Decatur and between Robindale and Midmill. The total is over two acres. The owner is proposing to build 19 homes, which are separated into buildings. The zone change, I mentioned that, 19 homes, they're all two stories. The first floor is large garages that would fit RV. Second floor, 16, 19 square feet, about somewhere in there. Elevations, we have variations on it, different materials, different heights. There were some waivers that were mentioned, and we did remove some of the waivers. We worked with staff. And then the big concern was the doors that were located, that were facing Decatur, and those were the ones that got removed. Because the concerns were saying something about possibly kids running out into the street. I'm sorry? Yes. So this is basically facing, this is the Decatur view. And this one, this one's the same, just we removed some of the landscapes 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 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. Seeing no one come down to speak on this item, we will close the public hearing. I'm in support of the application, appreciate you making the changes based on the comments of the commission. And I will, Commissioner Kirk, any questions from your side?

No, I don't have any questions. Thank you.

Commissioner Kowarski? I just want to know what waivers were removed that now you comply with? Sure.

The height waiver, we actually reduced the building height overall, so that was removed. We eliminated balconies on the west side, the phase decatur. Therefore, that setback requirement, that waiver was removed. though originally we had eight foot walls around it and it was a waiver for that, so we actually did reduce it to six feet. Oh, and then another one was the width of the drive that went around the site. We 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 going to go run out and 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 going to say is that's a lot of glass facing Decatur and so the sound is going to go through those windows but that's just Mentioning that For people that are residents wise it's gonna be louder inside the units, but 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 If the applicant could clarify which waivers are being withdrawn I

So waiver number one, two, oh no, one, three, four, and six.

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

Okay, thank you, Mr. Chair. I was actually going to ask Public Works if they were okay with number six, but you're removing that, okay.

Excuse me, commissioners. Per their revised plans, they still need the waiver for number six. I think she may have meant 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, is Public Works okay with that? Is it safe? That's always my question.

We are still not in support of waiver number six. The reduced radius is giving a tighter turn. This product is saying that it's for RVs. It's going to make it very difficult for the RVs to make that turn and then turn into the driveways or... garages also if there's anybody parked on that opposite side of that 37 foot wide private street that is going to 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 wouldn't be able to support something that public, I mean, she just explained, did you understand everything she said?

I do, it's just, this is not necessarily, the garage is big enough to fit an RV, but it's not being targeted as for RVs only.

Okay, but thank you, I would suggest, Commissioner Mojica, that the maker of the motion could approve it, but just not allow that waiver, so they'd have to meet the requirements, if that's the concern of the board. So we don't design a depot?

Yep.

All right. So I'll turn it over to Commissioner Reutemann.

Can you show me that one time? I want to reiterate what Commissioner Brady said. I'm glad that you guys, that I was also concerned about the doors there. I know you made a lot of changes here. I think I probably could have approved some of those other ones. I share the concern on the radius and the turning and all this stuff here. But I am pretty ready to approve this. But for that, maybe to staff, because you guys 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 they going to? does that essentially reject this because they're going to 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. To give us the full radius, they may have to lose a lot or two, 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, 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 well we don't we are it would be up to them it was for them what do you guys think about that mr chair while 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 make that, because it's gonna go up anyway. Or you can go ahead and just have them revise their plans before the next BCC in order to take a look at, I don't know if that's a possibility, 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 yeah that is correct that's what i'm going to do guys okay all right motion to approve item number 24 pa2670010

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

Councilman Kirk? Commissioner Kirk, yes.

The 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 withdrawn that is zc260137 ws260138 and tm2650033 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 PA 2670017, 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 RS-20 residential single family 20 zone to an RM-18 residential multi-family 18 zone. Generally located east of Hualapai Way, north of Serene Avenue within Enterprise. Item number 30 is VS-26-0207. Holdover, vacate, and abandon easements of interest to Clark County located between Hualapai Way and Conquistador Street and Aletta Avenue and Serene Avenue within Enterprise. Item 31, WS26-0209, hold over amended waivers of 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 Hualapai Way and north of Serene Avenue within Enterprise. And item 32, TM26-500-053, 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 Hualapai Way and north of Serene Avenue within Enterprise.

So before we get started, just for the record, 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 Soule, 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 Hualapai and Serene, which Includes a zone change to the current master plan. Which current master plan is for 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 1,456 and 1,546 square feet of living space. Lots will range in size from 1,850 to about 2,550 square feet. We are also providing 1,687 square foot of open common space that will consist of a gazebo, walking trail and benches. This additional feature which we added will exceed the required 1,680 square feet. These duplex homes will have two car garages with a private backyard. We held a neighborhood meeting on May 25th, 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 a 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. Because of the reduced 10-foot setback here and here, we will fully furnish the rear landscaping of the homes. And this is at the recommended requirement of Justin Jones. Number two was this area here that we provide common space, which we did. So the second waiver has been fulfilled by us in making that waiver number two no longer a 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, I'll turn it around the other way here. In the green here, you can see 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 separated sidewalk and to join back to each of those ADA ramps. 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, 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 no matter which direction you go, there isn't 125 feet. You can't find 125 feet on either 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. 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. We have staff approval for the zoning recommendation that we mentioned earlier, and this is my of the project. Are there any questions?

Thank you.

Oh, 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 one will be fine. Because these are duplexes, The driveways are side to side, and so we seek a waiver for a three foot, three, it'd be 1.6 altogether between the driveway and the property line for a little over three feet separation between the two driveways.

Does that conclude 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 units? And so the separation in between the garage, how far is that? Like, yeah, so that right there.

That's a little over three feet. Well, between the garage. Yeah, so that post that you were pointing at. Well, the driveways would be right in alignment with the garage doors. So it's about over three feet, just a little over three feet.

Okay. Okay. 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 doors... Wait, how big are the driveways? How deep are they?

They're 10 feet.

Oh, 10 feet. So no one's going to park in the driveways. Okay. Here was something that was very interesting that was brought up in going over another application 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 a 10 foot driveway, they try to pull in. 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. That's the one thing I just kind of wonder is do you cut down the driveway and save, but I don't know. I'm going to throw it to everybody else to get their opinion.

Thank you, Commissioner Brady. I'm going to go to Commissioner Kirk online. Any questions, comments for the applicant?

Yeah, just a couple. I appreciate Commissioner Brady mentioning that.

10-foot driveways are much worse than even a 5-foot driveway.

after a lot of study and research has shown that we had empirical data that demonstrated that with the smaller driveway, people don't even try to park with their 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 time and time again around. So I'm not a big fan. I know you get the, by right, you can do a 10-foot driveway, I believe. But let me ask a question of staff, okay? And that's this. Do do we, uh, after a development is approved and constructed. Does the staff ever do a, 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, I think they would agree that it's probably not the best configuration for parking. Shorter driveways with more guests parking seems to be a much better solution than giving them a 10 foot driveway. So I throw that out there and ask the staff, Do we have the ability on staff to have planners, engineers, whatever, go out and evaluate projects after they're constructed?

So we generally do not have the ability to do that. We look at the consultant that helped rewrite the code used what were the best practices from various jurisdictions around the country. We definitely understand the concern with 10 foot driveways and five foot driveways. But if that's something that is proposed and often approved, 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 wanna make, we can certainly take that forward and see if we can do a code change.

Yeah, I mean, 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 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 garage door and the butt of their car hangs out into the right-of-way. We see it everywhere. And selling residential real estate... I see it all over the place. Everywhere I go, when I see these 10-foot driveways, now that's what I notice. I used to think that that was happening on five-foot driveways, but 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 back of curb to back of curb.

And is that a private street?

It is.

And is there an HOA? There is an HOA. There is an HOA. Okay. All right. That's all I have. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Kirk. I'm going to go to Commissioner Brady. Sorry, I just wanted to mention one more thing on it. So I do appreciate all the greenery that you put in there. And that's one thing that... you sacrifice when you go away from a 10 foot. So it's like, so what do you do? 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 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.

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 commission isn't it commissioner i believe yep yep okay i met with the applicants and um

We went over all these, it all makes sense. And so I will just make a motion to approve plan amendment PA 267-00017.

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

Commissioner Kirk, yes.

That motion passes.

And a 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.

The what? The who? 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 next items on your agenda are items 36 through 38, which are companion applications that can be heard together. Item number 36, PA 2670021, 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 within Enterprise. Item number 37, ZC 260255, Holdover zone change to reclassify 0.95 acres from an RS-20 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 within Enterprise. Item number 38, WS-26-0256. Holdover waivers of development standards for the following. One, modify residential adjacency standards. Two, reduce setbacks. three, reduced street landscaping, four, increased parking, and five, alternative driveway geometrics to sign review for a proposed office warehouse on 0.95 acres in an IL industrial light zone generally located east of Decatur Boulevard in north of El Dorado Lane within Enterprise.

Thank you, staff. Name and address for the record. Tell us about your application.

Good evening. Mark Mulhall, 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 Eldorado 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 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, 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, 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 we'll 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. need that waiver. Something that I do want to mention, too, is that at first, 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 pushed 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 8-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 as one parking space per 1,000 square feet. We've upped that to around two, so it's 14,000 square feet. We have 28 parking spaces. Really, that was to make sure, hey, we'll be a little bit more over-parked and make sure there's not 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 1 to 150 square feet for a restaurant, 1 to 300 square feet for personal services, 1 to 350 square feet for retail. So just from the parking counts, it's much more intense than 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. If 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 audience wanna speak on it. Just need your 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 going to 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 100 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 Barry King. My address is 7330 Ulam Drive, Las Vegas. I have several concerns, and my primary concern is the traffic that we will get off of this project. 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 left turns only. And then we sit and watch as everybody starts making U-turns. We're going to have a similar situation here and people are going to be going down. The streets are these large vehicles. Okay, now, we're told that these are going to be plumbers and these are going to be up-and-coming guys. We don't know. Unless he has this all rented out already, he doesn't know who's going to be there. I remember when I was working... and I was working in industrial work, and we'd come in in the middle of the night, we'd pull up the doors, and we'd start unloading our trucks. Okay? These doors are facing the neighborhood, okay? They're not facing out to the street, out to where he says that we have the industrial area across the street. They're facing 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 going to go out out to the neighborhood, and we're told that we're going to have this nice buffer of trees and that. But it takes a while for all this to grow in. We're not going to 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 it up to my commissioners. I'll start with Commissioner Kirk online. Any questions or comments for the applicant?

Not at this time, thank you.

All right, I see some lights down there. Okay, Commissioner Kolarski.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 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, and I've talked about this in the past, where we have certain categories And certain projects or certain types of things that can go into a commercial, but because it's a warehouse or it's whatever, it has to go into industrial. 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 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, rather than them facing homes. But that's not the thing 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 RNP. But I think the project isn't really a bad project. I just think the plan amendment isn't a good idea. And so with that, that's all I'm going to say.

Thank you, Commissioner Kowalski. Commissioner Brayton.

So I want to bring up, so right now it's planned land use, 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, up to 50 feet is allowed.

And so on this, and it was zoned classification residential, single family, RS-20, but commercial 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.

I do understand where you're coming from, where one thing I actually appreciate that the building is off of the line of the homes, that it's actually pushed away a little bit. 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. 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. So 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 a good fit it's not a 24-hour operation um type of a build so that it relieves the nighttime to the neighbors. I think I can support the application as it's presented. I think Commissioner Kurtz said he was reserving his comments and so I'll turn it over to, I'm sorry, Commissioner Brady one more time and then Commissioner Waitman.

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 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 going to 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 sound. So that's just where I just wanted to say that last thing. Thank you. Commissioner Reitman?

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

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

Yes 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 going to 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 going to be there or or no

Yeah, so I think the concern with the intense industrial zoning, the aisle zone specifically allows for some higher intensity industrial uses, including outdoor storage, recycling, kind of waste-related uses. So the zoning would allow that. If they were going to redevelop or redesign the site to allow those kinds of uses, they would be subject to the design review that corresponds with that redesign or redevelopment. But the industrialized 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 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 would have some leeway to make changes to the project. So there are things that could be done administratively. Such as? a change to the design of the project based on the square footage that they have. We do have significant authority to do things administratively. If you wanna lock them down to something, you could add a condition, hours of operation. So we could talk about hours of operation here, but if you don't condition hours of operation, then there's no limit. If you want to see something come back, actually wind up going back in front of the Board of County Commissioners. You could add a condition to require design review as a public hearing for certain type, 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, if this becomes a heavy industrial use rather than an office warehouse use, that would require a public hearing? as a condition?

Well, 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. 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. 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 Roark, before you go further, Commissioner Brady, did you want to put on the record 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, per se, that starts causing noise to neighbors and all of that. Now, that might get kicked back to the, what was that group that, wait, never mind.

That's kind of what my thoughts were. So I'm definitely in support of the application. I like some of the conversation that's going on. I think that you make some great points, Commissioner Workman. If you're going to motion to even have a motion change the the use to park that's fine with me i could definitely support that um 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 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 so whatever you however you want to phrase it with staff i could support something like that thank you

Any thoughts on that?

Works. Does it work?

Yes. Okay. 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, so the first, your plan amendment, we're good as is, yeah? Okay, so I'll motion to approve item number 36, PA2670021.

There's a motion on the floor. Cash or 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 going to go to industrial park. 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 for another look. And so with that, I motion to approve ZC260255 and WS260256 with those conditions.

All right, does that work for staff? That's clear. All right, 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 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 treeline drive alignment within Sunrise Manor item number 40 CC 260 257 holdover zone change to reclassify a 15.2 acre portion of a 31.5 8 acre site from a PF public facility zone to an RM 32 residential multifamily 32 zone Generally located south of Vegas Valley Drive and west of treeline drive alignment within Sunrise Manor item number 41 vs 260 258 Holdover vacate and abandon a portion of right of way 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.

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

Mr. Chairman commissioners. My name is Bob grown our 1980 Festival Plaza Drive I'm here representing the applicant in this matter and I also have with me in the audience Sheila Lambert She's here 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. I So with that being said, before I get into the application and the location of our 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. First of all, this is a veteran affordable housing development that we are proposing before you today. It will also have a concept of supportive housing. 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 veterans in this area. The way I look at the affordable housing here with this specific category, it's somewhat similar to when you're dealing with senior housing. 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. some medical, you help the seniors out with respect to filling out certain applications, you provide rides and so on, or vehicles so they can get to transportation to other areas. 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 units here, you have to apply for an application. We're looking at individuals somewhere in the 50%, 80% AMI category, okay? 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 residential development. I need to make that clear because I think there's some 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 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 in 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 later on in my 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 going to 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 planned for public facilities. As a matter of fact, this is a portion of a 30-acre part of property that has existing solar farms on this property. We are in the middle of where we've already executed a development agreement with the city of Las Vegas, where we are going to be coming in with deed-restricted property for what I am representing to you today. We believe that this application, 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 check that box. Goal 1.2, expand 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 of 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 Clark County. what's more specific there is a Sunrise Manor policy believe it or not that talks about reinvestment and 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 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. As a 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 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 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 a D.R. 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. 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 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. In 2020, this was Royal Links Golf Course. And Tom McCormick, the developer of Touchstone Homes, has come in and is building out residential right adjacent to the water treatment plant. 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 RM 32. 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'd been doing this a long time. 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 a pig farm, the 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 was never there in their world, right? I use that, and I don't know if that's a great analogy or story, but that's when 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. As a matter of fact, even though this property is zoned industrial today, I just took this application for a charter school. It essentially got held. It was a $30 million investment in this area where we're going to change this from outdoor storage and recycling to a charter school for a title one school in that area so changes do happen and what I want to show you here hopefully 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 predominantly approved The other thing that I want to show you just quickly, I have many, many examples, but I'm only going to use one. 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 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 revitalized 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 Best thing about the design review that I can stand up here, we have zero waivers that we're asking for. I'm not asking for a setback to a rear yard setback. We're not asking for a parking reduction, a height increase. We're not asking for throat depths, 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. We have two pools, we have two fitness facilities, we have two different dog parks, we have sports courts in this area. So there is a lot that goes on within this property of what we're proposing. 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 conclude with my comments, what I want to point out also what's important is transportation. 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 have cars. We have more than enough parking on here. 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 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 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, they'll take you to other things that you need to do in the community, which is not unusual. And the last thing that we're working on that'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 of 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 Nellis Boulevard, which is less than two miles away. You got Albertsons. If you don't like Albertsons, you go to Smith's. You got other 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 wanna walk. So there are services that you can actually achieve. Just giving you 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 going to 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. This gives people that opportunity that want to achieve home ownership and want to live somewhere and live in a community where you have 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 has residentially changed through the trends. And 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. At this time, I'd 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 know that we have a lot of people that want to speak and put their comments on the record, so I'm just going to set a couple of rules real quick. We definitely want to appreciate and hear everybody's comments. If you're in favor and you give us your reasoning, that's fine. If you're in opposition, that's also fine. We just know that, you know, we're 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 get it. So please go ahead, name an address for the record, and give us your comments.

I'd like to thank you for listening to us this evening. My name is Vincent Palmieri. I live at 9901 Trailwood Drive in Las Vegas, 89134. I'm the region six commander of the military or the Purple Heart USA and the commander of chapter 711 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 returned 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 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 those involved. 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 our 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. I live at 6429 Zazu Pits Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89122. I lived in my home for 16 years. 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. We have beautiful views of the strip. Hollywood Boulevard has seen a lot of improvements with a new police station. which I think is a great addition to our community. I'm in support of that. And the Hollywood Park is beautiful, and it's getting even better. And I just want to see the community keep improving and you guys doing good decisions for where we live. This is a solar field. I love the... 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. It's quiet. I can have views of the strip. It borders Treeline, which is a dead end road. Before we asked the city to block the dead end road, cars would frequently be taken up there and stripped because of the privacy. They would ride back there. There's a circle. 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 The worst nightmare you could even imagine It would all get reopened to allow access for this new development This development is is I think a wrong fit It's not an area that's zoned for residential. If it was an empty lot and it was zoned for residential, I would say be my guest. I'm not against housing veterans or housing at all. 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. being built up to squeeze low-income housing right into a solar field that never was supposed to be there 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. I was born and raised 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 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 are people wasting their money on fireworks at 3 p.m.? But it's so loud, 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 card... Cars racing and the squealing of the tires. You wake up to that in the middle of the night. I'm really hoping that the new police station is going to fix that, but we never know. 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 and 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'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 going to bring in more people more traffic more problems He said that these are apartments and that they're gonna increase the value of my home. They are absolutely not. How are we calling this home ownership if they're apartments? Am I missing something? Are they condos or something? Because I was under the impression they're apartments. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Name and address for the record and put your comments on it.

Good evening. My name is Reno Tenorio. I live in 6416 Buck 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 we house veterans permanently. So what our organization does is we connect them to HADVASH, or we actually connect them to employment so that they can increase their income, or, you know, we also do... help them with their applications for service connections and also increase their income by helping them apply for social security and stuff like that. I'm saying this because this is how I've gotten to know Patriot Suites, and this is actually located on Craig Street in North Las Vegas. So it is disingenuous to say that it's only for veterans because it's mixed. Yes, there are veterans that stay there, but it's not exclusively for veterans. It's for everybody. So that's why I'm opposing this because because veterans can be housed anywhere because there are a lot of, the VA and a lot of NGOs actually help them and it's a veteran's choice. It's not, they have to choose where they wanna live. So you can't just say, okay, since this is a veteran's housing that they will be housed there by Vegas Valley because you have to ask the veterans where they actually want to live. So it's not just like, okay, you just can live there because it's still their choice to actually where they want to live. And during our town hall meeting, I believe the Clark County uh... clark county uh... planning uh... comprehensive planning actually 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 panels so i think They were saying that they were recommending not to approve this because in the future it can have problems coming up because it's so close to those 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 Greenbrier Bluff, North Las Vegas. I am the VFW commander for North Las Vegas, and I am approving this project. I'd like to see 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 tend to yes have PTSD attacks from the fireworks I can tell you that it was not fun for the last week for me, but that's happening everywhere. I live up by Nellis and That's just what it is. I've been here for eight years in the city. I've lived in different houses all across the city. My husband and I just bought our first home, but it's where we decided to stay and the traffic sucks everywhere and you just deal with it. That's what we do. We rub some dirt on it and drive on. This is not a homeless community. This is going to be people just like me, 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. The rezoning, if that gets done, as he was saying that it's in other parts of that area, it's already been redistricted and rezoned. So this is not a bad idea. This is not a homeless shelter. It's not Vegas Village downtown how it was five six years ago. It will be an up-and-coming Nice area and as veterans we know what's good and what's bad and we're not gonna allow Riff Raff with us.

So, thank you very much Thank you very much Name name and address of the record. Thank you for Nana Padilla. I

uh... three four five seven greenwood springs drive las vegas nevada i live about uh... a block away from there uh... coming out of the uh... previous meeting over uh... sunrise manor town hall uh... town advisory board uh... it was uh... set there's three hundred and forty eight units that are going to be placed there 348 units we just installed a light half a block from there due to the difficulty to get around in that area and just adding more vehicles it's just going to be very difficult I do commend those who push to help our veterans and find homes for our veterans i just think that that location is a lose-lose it's about uh 35 minutes to 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. My name is Jason Lisby, 3909 West Dale 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 going to pretend that I do, but I will say that as a business owner, you know, as a veteran that have 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 going to even happen here remotely dangerous or remotely even part of the violent community 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. Name and address for the record.

How you doing? My name is Steven Pettis II. Address is 5250 Stewart Avenue, apartment 1050, Las Vegas, 89110. I'm in support of this project. 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, I fought for this country. I have sacrificed my life, as many as others. I deployed to many combat zones. 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 serve, that has sacrificed my life and my friends sacrificed their life for that flag, for this country, I say I've supported this project because it's as some of my constituents said, that we can call home. you know we can connect with other people when we come back home. And I understand some people, their concerns. There was pointing out that some of the areas was redistrict, rezoning, I'm sorry, rezoning. And also it was stated that there are different multiple tools of transportation because it's slightly in a remote area where there's not necessarily groceries or whatnot, but there are transportation that's going to be in support of that. So I'm in support of this project because there's going to be different other things that's going to be in support of veterans coming home, different types of aftercare that they possibly may need, and that we can come home and lay our head that when we serve this country and we sacrifice our life for it. and that we can really, we're not away home from wave home. And that's what I'll give away.

Thank you very much. Yeah, please come on. This is your opportunity. Name and address for the record.

Myla Hernandez, 6553 Flatwoods Bay Court, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89122. I support veterans. I'm an elementary school teacher, so we always support something specifically for Veterans Day. 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 towards Hollywood to go down Nellis. Same with the amenities. You do just have the CVS, and if you go further this way, it's dead road, because then you've got the wetlands that you can't go through. 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 they're, the Veterans Hospital is on Nellis, and I know there's locations there. We do just have one Albertsons 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 Treeline and it turns into one lane. And if they do, approve the charter school, which I'm also against, that is impacting the traffic 10 times more because it is one lane on tree line going This way and this way, it looks one lane and you're adding homes. I'm also opposed to changing it to residential. I know we're booming in all these houses, but I just don't feel like we're being realistic. And 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. So 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, 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 if no one else is coming, we're gonna close the public hearing and I'm gonna open it up to commissioners. I've got like 17 items here on my notes, so there's a lot to go over and I will start with Yeah, we can do that. Let's let Bob respond 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. Respectfully, I think this is a pot calling the kettle black. What you have here, this is RM18. This is 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 needs to be serviced in this area. And if you take a look at this property here is where the opposition is. And I'll show you it's located right here on the zoning net. 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 recycling center that's located here. So this, as 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? 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 wraparound services that we will be providing here. There's nothing wrong with that. As I said, the analogous is like senior housing for the veterans. 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 can probably get the whole room full of people, veterans, if need be. But they'll tell you, we need a place. I'm going to 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 the 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 of potential development in this area. to clean up treeline, to help Vegas Valley. And actually, treeline 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 treeline, and now you come 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. 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 going to tell me where do we go next. And then where do we go? And then there's no room for the veterans. Because remember, as I said, this is a veteran community. We support Nellis. We support Reach. and this is a needed use.

Thank you, Mr. Cormier. Let's go, I'll start with Commissioner Brady. Do you want to start?

You know, when I first saw this, I was a bit torn. I love our veterans, and what I'm going to tell you is I wear American flag socks every day. One thing 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 it, 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 hope that if we approve this, that one day you'll grab that recycling place and make that into Veterans as well. Because it would be great not to be surrounded by a swamp. So that's one thing I want to say here. As far as shopping, all of those things, there's DoorDash. It's the way our country's going. There's Albertsons, all that. So I give that a lot of credit. To 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, 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, 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 what I have to say.

Thank you, Commissioner Brady. I'll make some comments before we go to, and I'll probably go to Commissioner Kirk next. I got a question, 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 and their families it's a deed restriction that's going to be placed on the property so that's it you got to be a 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 don't have any issue with it being

I mean, we wish it wasn't near, you know, a water treatment trap, but I don't have any issue with the community being built there. I would say that I, the rendering itself and the floor plan and the site plan that you showed looks like a great project. Let me see what some other things that I have questions about. Three hundred and forty-eight units? Three hundred and forty-eight units. All right. Just confirm that. I wanna say that I appreciate the community's participation. I would say that I'm gonna separate veterans from departments. I think for, and at least the way I felt, it's not that the community that came out to speak in opposition is against veterans. I definitely felt that they are not against veterans. What they are against is apartments. And so for that, I think we all in the room support our veterans. But having said that, 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 questions?

Yeah, just one comment. The one problem I have with the site is the recycling center. If I had some... I'm like 49, 51. I mean, if I had some assurance that the recycling center would be gone, you know, in the next 5 to 10 years, then... That would make my decision a little easier. I think it's outweighed though by the fact that this is for veterans. If it was a standard resale development or apartments, I would be not only no, but heck no. But because the veterans is such an important part of our community in this development. I think I've been persuaded to approve it. But can I ask Mr. Gronauer to comment on that recycling center? What are the plans? Do you know? Talk about that for just a minute.

Yeah, it's been there since our research is probably in the 60s, 70s in that area. I know we've reached out. We've had conversations. I think we've reached out to ensure that we could work with them on, one, any buffering, but obviously these things, as you may know, in private hands, these things, 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. So there may be a play on this at some point in time. TO BE ABLE TO EXPAND AND OR TO HAVE SOMEONE PURCHASE THIS FOR A DIFFERENT TYPE OF USE. DON'T SEE THAT BEING THERE FOREVER. JUST LIKE SOME OF THESE OTHER USES THAT WERE ON THE PROPERTY.

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's okay to come up and maybe give us like maybe one minute of of how the process will work you know, or what was she going to comment on?

It would be if we got in the details of the leasing, how we would go through the leasing or the supportive housing side. We have 80 of the units. I mentioned it was supposed to be, I thought it was 108. It's a total of 80 studios. But they all go through the same process. referral process, meaning I gotta apply for an application, I gotta make sure that my background check passes, I gotta be somewhat employed there and be able then to have the wraparound services on that. 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 enough. So there's the application process and there's vetting of folks that are going to be leased. I will move on to, let's go to Commissioner Stone. No, I'm sorry. Yeah, Commissioner Stone, go ahead. Sorry. Okay.

Mr. Gronauer, can you, well, let me say it this way. You know, when I think of a standard apartment unit in town, even senior housing, There's generally a percentage of handicap units, usually ground units can be handicap, you know, maybe one unit every 10 units. But when I think of veterans, I think of the potential for some real more handicap units that would be normally necessary or some extreme handicap provisions for a unit. How will your client handle that? I'm just curious if you put that on the record. And I'll be supporting this project, but if you could just give me a little bit on the handicap act aspect, I'd appreciate it.

Yeah, so 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. We do have a variety of studio, one-bedroom, two-bedroom, three-bedroom. And that is working with our architect to see how much more we need to have outside of the standard of what they're thinking. So we would have to make those adjustments as we go through for the .

So do you envision having elevators at all for the second and third story units or will it be just first story?

Yeah, one of the buildings will have an elevator.

That's kind of the thing I was hoping for. All right, thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Stone. Commissioner Reutemann?

So first, 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. 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 imagine anyone would have a big problem. And to the extent that there were going to be homeless veterans living here, quite frankly, I think our homeless veterans need places to live also. And that's not even going to be the case here. These people are going to be our veterans who I want to, first I want to thank you for your service, actually, is what I really want to do, and say that these, they're going to go through application processes, they're going to be background checked, they have members of their community there that if someone's having a problem are the most 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. So although 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. 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. And so, you know, much less frequently than my own district. So, I mean, if it's not clear, I can absolutely support this application. I think it's wonderful that 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 again, frankly, I would love to be living next to a bunch of veterans. So yeah, again, thank you for your service, and I can support this application.

Thank you, Commissioner Workman. Commissioner Mojica?

I also want, I'm gonna repeat pretty much everything that Michael said, but 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 sad. And I can fully support this application, thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Mojica. Before I go to Commissioner Kolarski, I would just say that, you know, again, I would also say, you know, my son's in the Marines, and I got to share the story. I mean, he's a major in Marines, you know, both my father's a Marine. I come from a military family, and I'm not trying to downplay the military. 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. I truly believe that, and so I want to make sure that 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 Kowalski, 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 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 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 times.

I apologize. 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 and my DNA. Okay.

Let me just say too, and this is unknown. Further west, there were 300 homes that have been approved to be built. You have the RM18. 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 a 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 anywhere. If we can find someplace else in District E, 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. The location, the lack of services, especially for those that are going to have to be dependent on public transportation. To me, it's just too far away. I drove this area for years. I remember when we approved one that was done in 2014. And the ones south of, 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.

I'm just having a hard time putting our vets in a place where they don't have the services that may be needed, not readily available. And so that's where I stand. I probably don't have the support, and that's okay. I'm used to being on the one side. But with that in mind, I cannot support this because I cannot support the location. And you saw me with, and I've been very consistent on location, location, location with a lot of the applications that have come forth. I did that with the RNPs, with those sites. So I have to stay true to this is not the right location. And the apartments, you're going three-story. There is nothing three-story in this area, nothing. So that to me is fewer 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'm not going to 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.

26-7-0-0-0-22.

PA 26-7000022. And then we'll just probably do another 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 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.

Commissioner Kirk, no.

Okay, that motion does not carry. I'll go ahead and move for approval of PA 2670022. Motion on the floor, cast your vote.

Commissioner Kirk, yes.

That motion carries. I'll move for approval of ZC260257, VS260258, DR260259 for approval. Is there a motion on the floor to cast your 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 multifamily to multifamily. 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 publicly.

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, PA26700023, 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, ZC260265, holdover zone change to reclassify 29.46 acres from a CR commercial resort zone to an RS2 residential single family two zone, generally located northeast of Boulder Highway and southeast of Harmon Avenue within Sunrise Manor. Ann Whitney. Item number 45, BS 260270, holdover, vacate, and abandon a portion of right-of-way being Harmon Avenue located between Boulder Highway and Jimmy Durant Boulevard within Sunrise Manor and Whitney. Item number 46, PUD 260266, holdover planning and 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 Harmon Avenue within Sunrise Manor and Whitney. and item number 47, TM 26-500-068, holdover tentative map consisting of 279 single-family residential lots and common lots on 29.46 acres in an RS-2 residential single-family two-zone generally located northeast of Boulder Highway and southeast of Parliament Avenue within Sunrise Manor and Whitney.

Thank you very much. Name and address for the record. Tell us about your application.

Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Stephanie Gronauer, 1980 Festival Plaza Drive. Here on behalf of the applicant, Lenar Holmes, 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 Eastside Cannery. hotel and casino that's no longer there. So we are here today with an exciting redevelopment project for the property on behalf of Lenar Homes. When you're looking at the area, it is important to look at what's around it because obviously the area is changing since a hotel casino is is no longer viable at this location. 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 multi-family 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 RS3.3 and then RS5.2. So a mix of residential around the site. When Lennar was looking at it, they took all of that into account and decided to do a higher density residential development. They are proposing what they're referring to as basically project that lives and feels like a townhome but is in fact a detached townhome product. The unique nature of that and the reason it requires a PUD is because it is unique is some homeowners just want to actually have their their home detached and so that's what Lennar is thinking here. They're trying to do it dense because obviously it's a dense area but it the idea is more of a detached townhome 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 emergency access here. Very similar to the layout today. They're proposing 279 detached homes on this property. The density's 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. 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. 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 wanna walk through that because the flip of it is yes, we're asking 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. 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 going to just walk through those. Both of those are why Lennar thinks this is a better development, why the PUD is appropriate and more compatible for the area. Because really what you want is a sustainable community, a community that is going to 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 Lennar 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 wanna share tonight. 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 we did act 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 harman 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. 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 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 Lennar's 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 a open space standpoint, what's required in an RS-2 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 tot lot 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. Along with the shade structure and you can see the play 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 lot 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 discuss the driveways in conjunction with the parking. For the parking, we have 229 parking spaces where 628 are required. So we're over 100 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 have a 10-foot driveway in Clark County in an RS2, you shouldn't park on a ten-foot driveway because you really can't fit a car there but unfortunately people do try to park on ten-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 nineteen-foot similar to Clark County but Clark County is ten-foot or twenty 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 Lennar 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 Lennar went out, and did some homework. This community at Step Center in 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 with the 10-foot driveways that are allowed by code. Again, another 10-foot driveway Clark County project at Bellcrest, Santoli, and Duneville. Again, you can see a whole bunch of cars trying to park on those 10-foot driveways. You can see samples here. There's only on-street parking. There's no extra parking spaces. This was developed back in 2004, but it's notwithstanding 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 and 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, a similar one at Deer Springs and Grand Montecito Parkway. You can see a couple where maybe they were trying to park in areas they shouldn't be parking, but not generally in driveways that are five feet. It's just not happening. And that was developed in 2005. Lastly, this is at Grand Teton and Reading Railroad. Again, you can see a couple of cars parking in a stub street area, but they're not trying to park on their driveways. So it's Lennar'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. From a parking standpoint, as I mentioned, we have over 100 extra spaces. We have 135 stalls that are extra parking stalls, mostly along this 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 street. So there's one parking space per every two homes that's available. I highlighted this northeastern area so you can see. But all of these red 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 Lennar's proposing two separate 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 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 keep and maintain along Boulder Highway and along Harmon. But this is an idea of some of the longer lots. You can see they live like a townhome, they're just not attached, and some of the shorter lots as well across the street with the parking on the street front. I asked Lennar 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 we're proposing, but very similar in how their patio rear yards live. So this is just an example so you can see they're small really 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, 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. 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 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 open this application up for a public hearing and see if anyone in the audience would like to speak on this item. Seeing no one rushing down, I will close the public hearing. I'll just say that I can support the application. I would probably ask the devil's advocate question about maybe having a bigger driveway versus a smaller one, but I get the density task that you're trying to accomplish. So I'll get behind the five foot, even though I hate to do it, but I'll get behind the five foot driveway. Definitely appreciate it. You had me at walkable community. I think we need more of those in our town. I think it's important that someone can take time 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 Kolarski.

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 residents. And when you do 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 Kowalski. Commissioner Brady?

One question on the sidewalks here. So I'm looking at the southeast corner that finger up left right there, 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. Just, I guess, to the north. 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 car spots can actually get across. So there's that point. Then, do you mind pulling up one of those images that had the cars in the driveways? Sure. I wanted to see something. All right. I'm going to come back to that. Then one more question with the park is, Were there any playground sets in the park?

There are in both of them. So this one's new, obviously, and we'll revise the plans and make sure staff gets it. But we'll do a play tot lot area in this park. There's already one proposed here as well.

And why I had you go to the car thing is I was curious. It looked like AI put in. All the cars were perfectly in line, perfect everything. So I took a picture to see if it was AI, but it won't tell me.

I don't think so. I think actually Parker did the research here from Lennar. That's how it was?

They were naturally like that? Okay. I was curious. Those were so perfectly parked in the straight lines, it looked fake to me. All right. That's what I was curious. All right. 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. Can you hear me okay?

Yeah, sir, we got you.

Thank you. I'm probably the biggest opponent of the lousy parking the 10-foot driveways I Know last year we maybe it's a couple years ago. We approved a 10-foot driveway project and I was in a 10-foot driveway project a couple days later and Took pictures of it and sent it to a couple of members Planning Commission and said something like this is the kind of garbage we're approving 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 the applicant or Lennar has gone out, done some homework and kind of set the record straight as far as what the impacts of 10 foot driveway 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 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. Might take a couple of hours a year for someone to go back and evaluate something like this to determine whether or not five-foot driveways work better than 10-foot driveways. And I think the evidence here shown tonight is it's pretty straightforward that it does. And so that's not a criticism. I just throw that out there as maybe it's something that we on the county, that the county can do a little bit better and that's evaluating projects that we approve. Now, developers are gonna build what they're allowed to build. They don't wanna have to come in and ask for 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 think that something's important. Now, you said, Stephanie, that this is a redevelopment project. Is it a real? redevelopment project, I mean, are you gonna be 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.

Is this, and this is a question for staff, is this in a redevelopment district? Jason, do you know?

Anybody we'll take a look real quick.

Hey, because well, anyway, just just a question and then 2 more items 1 is the bus route the mass transit. I understand why the staff is. Wants this to be more dense. 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 good transportation corridor there along border highway, they think it would be good for more high density. I could not disagree more. 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 doubt anybody has. And so nobody rides the bus, the people in Clark County, the people that ride the bus by the people who can't afford a car. And I, and so until things change. And I think that's going to be a long, long time. Uh, I don't think a bus. Corridor transportation corridor is going to make a whole lot of difference. And I realized that in Henderson is redevelopment or reimagine boulder hybrid project. It's got the whole boulder highway torn up. I think that's a anyway, time will tell us whether that's going to be a good thing or a bad thing. And I have my opinion on that now. Finally, Stephanie talk about the 3 foot setback. Versus the 5 foot setback that's in the staff report. And I think you showed a picture. But give me a dimension on the picture that you're showing with that patio.

Okay, so yes, the minimum rear yard is a five foot setback.

From the back, from the wall to the rear of the building. It's five feet.

Correct. 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 lives like and feels like a townhome. So yes, that's the minimum. The three feet was the overhang. So if you opted to do like a... patio overhang it's a three foot 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 one might be three feet correct yep well that'd be really close oh patio cover not a balcony right patio cover right that's the three foot

All right, when I first saw this, I was absolutely opposed, no question about it. I wasn't gonna support it no matter what. But then 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 going to put in a trail system. It's amazing. And then 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... get more parking, but I think you've demonstrated with some of the on-street parking that there will be quite a lot of parking spaces available. And then with the additional spaces, they're not quite as close to the residences as we'd like them, but there is a lot of them. And so it's not perfect. And I realize that that the only reason they're you know they're they're using that under the the uh right away of uh nevada is that nevada power right away is that what that is correct yes 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 i didn't think i would be when i first saw this but uh but i am so i wish you the best thank you thank you

Thank you, Commissioner Kirk. So I got a couple more lights that came on. So Commissioner Stone, you hold your horses for a second. Let's go with Commissioner Brady and then Commissioner Kowalski. And then Commissioner Stone will take us home.

Sorry, just a quick question. Front yards, are they going to 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. And then just whoever does make a motion, it would be neat to have that one finger have sidewalks, but that's it.

All right, thank you, Commissioner Brady. Commissioner Kolarski? Yeah, just a quick question on the rear yard setback, the three feet. So if they want to put a patio cover, does that mean that they're going to have to come in for a waiver?

No, the setback from the patio cover is three feet. The setback from the building to the wall is five feet. So you could do a patio with three feet.

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 want these people to know that if you want a patio cover because you want to sit outside, You're not going to have to. It's not going to cost you 800 bucks to do an application for a waiver or get called in by CC Pro.

Correct.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Kowalski.

Commissioner Stone?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. With Steve being at home and recovering from his knee surgery, I'm here. 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 yeah Well, it's getting late here. Let's finish the motion. Steve, you didn't hear any of that, did you? All right. We'll make a motion to approve the plan amendment, item 43PA26-700023 with staff if approved conditions. That's 43 only. Make your motion, your vote now.

Thank you, Commissioner Stone. Motion on the floor. Cast your vote.

Commissioner Kirk, yes. Yes.

The motion passes. Next item.

All right. I'll make a motion to approve item 44ZC26-0265. Item 45VS-26-0270. Item 46PUD-260266. Item 47, TM26-500068 with staff if approved conditions. And I want to emphasize that we are adding a second park 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 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 tolerance.

Right, so that'd be adjacent to lot, oh, put that back up, Steph, adjacent to lot 233 and 250 and 243. location of the second new perk and with the five-foot driveways and just the acknowledgement that we are over with common open space at 300 square feet per unit where 200 is required did I capture and can I add something there Nelson can you add the little sidewalk that Commissioner Brady had mentioned If you could repeat that for me, I don't know. Could you repeat it for me? Yes. What was the sidewalk condition?

Adding the sidewalk at the southeast corner.

Correct the sidewalk omission. 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. Good luck.

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. 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 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 nope so so we're going to close that section of the meeting and adjourn thank you very much