Clark County Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. Good evening, everyone. We're going to get the Planning Commission meeting started. This is Planning Commission for Tuesday, August 8th. If you wouldn't mind, would everyone 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. Can I get roll call, please?

Chair Frazier?

Here.

Vice Chair Mujica?

Present.

Commissioner Stone?

Here.

Commissioner Kirk?

Here.

Commissioner Velarski? Here. Commissioner Brady?

Excuse.

Commissioner Royman?

Live and in person.

Mr. Chair, we have a quorum.

Thank you very much. So in our planning commission meeting, the first item on our agenda is public comment. It's a part of the meeting where anyone in the audience can come down and make public comments, but the commission cannot act or interact with any of the comments that are made, but you're welcome to put anything you would like on record. All right, seeing no one coming down to do that, we will close the public comments. Sure, come down and... Is this for one of the items that we're gonna hear tonight? No, we can do that when you, yeah. All right, so we're gonna close public comments and we'll go to the next item on the agenda.

The next item on the agenda is approval of the agenda after any additions, holds, or deletions. At this time, staff has no requests. If there are no requests by the Planning Commission or any members of the public, the agenda is ready for your approval.

Mr. Chairman, there's nothing from any member of the board. I will move to approve the agenda.

All right, so the motion to approve the agenda is on the floor. Cast your vote. Commissioner Mojica.

Commissioner Mojica, yes.

I've got to get out of my screens, so I'm a yay. All right.

That motion carries. Next item.

The next item on the agenda is approval of the minutes. The Planning Commission briefing and regular meeting minutes from July 7th, 2026 are ready for approval.

I move for approval, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Motion on the floor for approval of the minutes. Cast your vote.

Commissioner Mojica, yes.

Thank you.

That motion carries. Next item. For the audience's information, items on tonight's agenda are final action unless appealed to the Board of County Commissioners or otherwise denounced. All appeals must be filed in writing to the Comprehensive Planning Department by 5 p.m. on Wednesday, August 12, 2026, and any appeals from tonight's meeting will be heard by the Board of County Commissioners on Wednesday, September 2, 2026, at 9 a.m. in these chambers. Per Title 30, an aggrieved 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 meeting notice of final action to find out if any items have been appealed. Now we'll move on to the next item, which are the routine action items, which consist of item number four. This item may be considered in one motion and is subject to the conditions listed with the agenda. 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, staff. All right, so this, we're about to approve the routine action items, which consist of one item tonight, item number four, which is UC 260303. If anyone in the audience would like to remove this from the routine action item and actually hear it, now's the time to come down and do so. And if seeing no one coming down, we're going to look for a motion for approval of item number four.

Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve item number four.

Hold on a second. Sorry. Name and address for the record.

Mr. Chair.

Denicio Gordillo here on this item representing the applicant. I believe we can still keep it on consent. I just wanted to submit. I know Hunter, the planner, he already has a copy of this. But I think if we can make... What I've done is I've listed 11 conditions that basically clarify what's already in your agenda as far as the town board action. But if you look at the text under the town board, it's a little confusing. And I'd like to submit those conditions clarified so it's clear what that actually means in that text without having to pull it off consent if the commissioners would be amenable to that.

Let's hold that for one quick second. Staff, have you seen those conditions that he's presenting correct right now?

We have.

Okay. All right. Commissioner Roitman, you have a question?

If we were to prove this on routine, would we be able to prove it with the town board's conditions? For the applicant, do you have a problem with these four conditions?

With the way it's written in your agenda item, we do not. But if you read those, I think it might be a little confusing for some. I know it was a little bit at the town board, and so all I've done here is basically clarified those.

Maybe for staff. Go ahead and then the attorney would like to say something.

I was just going to say, I think we should pull it off routine and just go ahead and read the conditions. It seems confusing right now.

Okay, all right, fair enough. Thank you.

All right, so... Can we just consider, it's the only item on routine, can we just roll right into it?

Yeah, let's roll.

Yep, all right, let's roll right into it. All right, so we opened it up for a public hearing, and I'll let staff do their piece.

All right, so item number four is UC26-0303, holdover use permit for proposed recreational or entertainment facility within an existing office warehouse complex on a portion of 5.31 acres in an IP industrial park zone within the airport environs AE60 overlay. generally located west of Tenaya Way and north of Sunset Road within Spring Valley.

Thank you very much. And for those of you in the audience, we just basically are going to hear this item. It was supposed to be a routine approval, but we're going to hear it so we can add these conditions the applicant would like to do. So go ahead and tell us what you want to add.

up limited to like 30 seconds here. So our property is located on two suites at Tenaya Lofts, 300 feet north of Sunset on the west side of Tenaya Way. It's for basically a gaming competition, online gaming competition. No issues. We appreciate staff's recommendation. Town board unanimously approved it, but in making their conditions of approval, They went off of my justification letter, which was a lot more in-depth than just simple bullet points. And so what we'd like to do, and we volunteered those. The applicant volunteered those conditions of approval. So Hunter has them. Jason just got a copy of them. Do you want me, Rob, do you want me to read through each one? Just go for it.

So are we doing the town board's conditions of approval? No, we're trying to modify the town board's. Then I think they need to be read in directly.

Okay. Go ahead, Commissioner Reitman. Just one quick second.

I reviewed your list and while I'm happy to make sure that we put conditions on this that are most appropriate to appease the neighbors and make sure that you guys are being good neighbors, I'm a little concerned that the 11 conditions may be a little bit more difficult to interpret than the four conditions that were already suggested by the town board. I want to go to staff here. When you look at the four conditions there for town board, do you think those are sufficient or do you think this might be better from a kind of monitoring review standpoint to add in those 11 conditions? And then after that, let me segue to the applicant Is there something about those 11 that you prefer to these four? Because if not, I would be probably inclined to go with the town board's suggestion. So with that, let me first go to staff and let me know what you guys think.

Commissioner, thank you. I would suggest that we You don't normally hear me say it, but I would suggest we go with the town board condition. I'm not crazy about the one-year review, but if we do the one-year review, we'd also suggest that there's one year to commence. And then also clarify, do you want to do the one-year review from the time they get their CFO or business license, or do you want that one year to run from today? And the reason I say to go with those conditions is because I think there may be some unintended consequences from the 11.

Yeah, I'm with you. When I read the 11, I thought, I think the intent, frankly, I think everyone's goal here is the same, to be good neighbors. I just think the town board's approval may provide enough guardrails here without, like Jason mentioned, some unintended consequences. So if it's okay with you.

We are fully in agreement with that, yes. We are amenable to that.

Okay, then to Jason's point, yes, let's do the review one year after they open to the general public and they have their right, because otherwise they may not open for six months and then we would have, is that okay?

Yes, absolutely. That was the intent.

Please be a good neighbor, as always, and with that, I will make a motion to approve. Excuse me, Mr. Chair. Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead, Commissioner Kolarski.

That's okay. That's all fine, except for when I look at this backup, I see more than four. So I want to know what I'm approving. What are the four, or what are the conditions, are we talking about?

What's listed on your agenda item. On the briefing notes, I believe the four conditions I'm referring to are to establish and enforce a parking and transportation managed plan to include not promoting on-site parking, establish and enforce operational oversight and management standards to include crowd control, guest contact, safety and security, Establish and enforce guest conduct and site control policies to include no loitering, controlled entry with no reentry permitted, proper guest etiquette, and guest removal procedures, with a one-year review as a public hearing following the date of opening. Frankly, I think these conditions should apply to everyone. But let's go ahead and do that. Is that cool?

Yeah, no. It was on the briefing and not on the backup material. That's what I was looking at, and I...

Thank you. Commissioner Kowalski, there's a motion on the floor. Cast your vote.

Commissioner Mojica, yes.

Thank you. Dr. Mohsen-Patches. Thank you, Commissioners.

Appreciate it.

That is final action unless appealed. The next item is item number five, which is companion with item number six and can be heard together. So item number five is WC26-400064, waiver of conditions of a waiver of development standards requiring 24-inch box cypress trees every five feet in conjunction with an existing office warehouse complex on 0.5 acres in an IL industrial light zone within the airport environs AE70 and APZ2 overlay, generally located north of Cary Avenue and east of Ables Lane within Sunrise Manor. item number six is uc 26-0349 use permits for the following one allow manufacturing light and two outside storage waivers of development standards for the following one reduce parking to modify residential adjacency standards and three modify buffering and screening design review for proposed modifications to an existing office warehouse facility on a 0.5-acre portion of 13.57 acres in an aisle industrial light zone within the airport environs AE70, AE75, and APZ2 overlay, generally located north of Cary Avenue and east of Ables Lane within Sunrise Manor.

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

My name is Jacob Garcia. I'm here representing Armando Morales, MB Automotive, or AJMO, AJMM Holdings, sorry. Sorry, first time we're here.

You're fine, you're fine. Just tell us about your application and you're okay.

First one is the use of the waiver standards for the outside storage. We're a remanufacturer for power steering parts, car parts. Also, we're requesting a parking reduction waiver of development standards. Special use of permit to allow outdoor storage and manufacturing. We're on 2522 Ables Lane, right off of Alto and Cary, in between Cary and Alto on Ables Lane. This is the outside storage here. And this is the parking. We're supposed to be sharing all this parking here in this development. So we should have enough parking.

Let's do this. So let's open the application up for a public hearing. Anyone in the audience like to speak on this item? All right, seeing no one coming down for a public hearing, we'll close the public hearing. We'll open up to commissioners. We'll ask you some questions, and we'll go from there. So having said that, any questions for the applicant currently? Oh, yep, Commissioner Stone.

Commissioner Mohica, no.

Thank you.

Do you have any pictures to show us what the outside storage is, and can you see that from the street or from the exterior in any way?

Yes, I have some pictures here. I do not believe you can see it. We're completely guarded all the way around with the wall and a gate. Let me show you here. This is the back wall here.

Is that from your side?

This is on our side. Okay. Behind this wall is the residence. On this side is, this is facing Cary here.

This picture doesn't show anything being stored outside. What do you plan to put in that area there? Parts or something?

Yeah, in these containers we have steering parts, auto parts, rack and pinion, steering gear boxes. These are all the landscape photos, sorry.

So the parts are inside the connexion? Okay.

This will give you a better idea. The open part of the containers are facing towards our building. So, even if you're looking from the residents, you're just going to see a white wall. Of the containers.

Okay, so I have thanks.

All right.

Um, Commissioner, I mean, you had line up for a 2nd.

You're good.

Okay.

Um, Commissioner, you said no questions.

No questions. Thank you.

All right, thank you. I can support the applications. Commissioner Kolarski?

Those first pictures that we saw, that's for item number five. That's where the cypress trees are. I think they're supposed to have ten, and nine of them have died. And so they've replaced them with a different type of drought tolerant. So I'm okay with that. I had a whole bunch of concerns with the outdoor storage. But in talking with the applicant before the meeting, I'm a little more clear on what he has and what he doesn't have, what can be seen from the street, what can be seen from the back. But I do want to ask about the parking, because they were requesting five or eight. And shared access, doesn't that kind of eliminate the number that the business has to have of spaces?

So from what I could tell, there was a final map on that property that there was cross-access between all of the suites there.

Okay, so then is waiver number one really required? If there's shared access and it's recorded, is waiver number one?

Absolutely. Absolutely what? Absolutely required. Why? They have to provide enough parking for all, I don't know, 20-something parcels. Throughout the 20. There's insufficient parking on all 20 parcels. Uh-huh. And that's what the cross-access sold. Right. Yeah. And these parcels are individually owned parcels. People have illegally done outdoor storage and removed parking and things like that. Okay. Yeah. But yeah, they absolutely need to move forward with the waiver.

Okay, well, that was really, that one and the outdoor storage was the ones that I had concerns with. And that being said, I am going to move for approval of WC26-40064. And the pyrocanthia is fine. You can plant more in there to, Kind of bolster it up, that would be good too. Something similar to that. And then approve UC 26-0349 with staff's if approved conditions. And you know what those are, right? You have the lineup or the backup? Yeah. Okay, so you know staff's if approved conditions. And that is my motion.

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

Commissioner Mojica, yes.

That motion passes. Good luck. Thank you. Are we all done?

That is final action unless appealed. Item number 7 is WC26-40059, waivers of conditions of use permits requiring the following. One, traffic study update and compliance. And two, coordinate with Public Works for the installation of school zone slash pedestrian flashers on Desert Inn Road in conjunction with a school and daycare on 0.64 acres in a CP commercial professional zone generally located north of Desert Inn Road and east of Torrey Pines Drive within Spring Valley.

Your applicant in the audience for number seven. Oh, sorry. Name and address for the record and tell us about your application.

Good evening. Lilliana Geary, 1405 Santa Margarita Street, Unit H, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89146. My name is Lily Aguirre, founder and administrator of Blessed Day Academy, located at 6440 West Desert Inn Road. I am here respectfully requesting approval of WC26-4059, waiving the conditions requiring an updated traffic study and the installation of school zone or pedestrian flashers, including recognition that the previously completed traffic study and traffic mitigation letter remain valid because our proposed student enrollment has not increased and approval of the waiver concerning the required installation of school zone or pedestrian flashers. I want to begin by emphasizing that we share the county's commitment to child, pedestrian and traffic safety. Our request is not an attempt to avoid responsibility or minimize the importance of safety. It is based on the documented history of this property, the actual nature and limited scale of our operations and the safeguards already built into our program. The property previously operated as both a daycare and a school for approximately six years. When I applied for the business license, I learned that the traffic study and flasher conditions had been applied to the entire property. Since then, I have worked cooperatively with county departments to understand the land use history and determine what is reasonably necessary for the specific operation. I also contacted G. CW Inc., the engineering firm associated with the prior traffic study, to clarify whether a new or updated traffic study was necessary. GCW contacted Clark County Public Works regarding the matter. In written correspondence dated April 27, 2026, Clark County Public Works confirmed that the existing traffic mitigation letter remains valid as long as student enrollment does not increase. Our proposed enrollment does not exceed the enrollment previously evaluated Therefore, based on the written confirmation from Clark County Public Works, the prior traffic analysis remains valid and an updated traffic study is not required solely for this application. I am providing the prior study and the related correspondence as supporting document and respectfully request that they be included and considered as part of the record. The same correspondence indicates that the remaining issue is not the validity of the traffic study, but the separate notice of final action conditioning requiring the installation of a pair of school zone flashers along Desert Inn Road. This distinction is important. The county's own staff has confirmed that the previous traffic analysis remains valid. Therefore, the question before the board is whether the flasher condition remains necessary and proportionate for the academy's actual enrollment, transportation practices, pedestrian activity, and highly supervised operational model. We respectfully request that the board considered the documented validity of the existing traffic study together with the specific facts of our operation. Blessed Day Academy will not increase enrollment beyond the level previously analyzed and our students will not generate that type of independent pedestrian traffic ordinarily associated with a conventional neighborhood school. We continue through licensing because both the childcare and school operations are structured very differently from the conventional high volume school. Our enrollment is limited by the property approved occupancy and student arrivals and departures will not occur as one large or uncontrolled rush. Most importantly, children will not be walking to or from the daycare or school. They will arrive and depart in vehicles and will be accompanied by a parent, caregiver, authorized family member, community support professional, or academy staff member. No child will be expected or permitted to independently walk along Desert Inn Road, cross the roadway alone, or travel between the surrounding neighborhoods and the campus without direct adult supervision. Many of the children we serve have autism. developmental disabilities, behavioral needs, communication differences, or other individual support needs. For that reason, they are ordinarily escorted directly by a responsible adult during arrival and dismissal. There will be no unsupervised street crossing, no curbside release onto Desert Inn Road, and no student permitted to leave campus independently. Children arriving through community-based programs or outside service providers will be accompanied by the responsible support staff assigned to them. Academy personnel will be available to receive children from their parent, caregiver, or support professional and to ensure direct supervised transition into the building. Schedule arrival and dismissal times are part of enrollment and each student's individualized support plan. Families agree to those times so staff can be prepared to receive each child safely and provide the level of individual attention the child may require. Staff will coordinate onsite circulation, monitor the parking area, assist with transition, and release children only to authorize adults. Our families understand the property and the operational plan. Every family on our waiting list has toured the campus, reviewed the site, and discussed the scheduled arrival and dismissal procedures. Our waiting list has already exceeded our current occupancy. These families support the plan and have expressed the staggered arrival times provided greater safety structure and individual support for their children. I would also respectfully note that during the town advisory board meeting held in July 2026, a neighboring resident expressed opposition to the installation of the proposed crosswalk or school zone flashers and supported proceeding without them. I recognize that individual public comments do not replace the county independent safety review. However, that testimony is relevant because it demonstrates that the surrounding community concerns are not uniformly in favor of installing flashers and that at least one nearby resident believed the devices were unnecessary or undesirable at this location. Our request is therefore supported not only by the property's established history, but also by Clark County Public Works' written confirmation that the prior traffic mitigation letter remains valid because student enrollment has not increased. The children will not independently walk to campus. Pedestrian traffic generated by the academy will be minimal and every child's arrival and departure will be managed through adult accompanied vehicles. This request also meets the standard for approval. The need for this program is significant. Nevada's October 2025 IDA count identified 45,045 Clark County students receiving special education services, including 11,278 students, identified with autism. Nevada Child Care's data also showed approximately 160,506 Clark County children from birth through age five, while License Center capacity was approximately 33,646 spaces. Blessed Day Academy is not proposing a theoretical program. We are fully licensed, families are waiting, staff are preparing, and the property has demonstrated history of serving children. We are offering a year-round setting where education, behavioral support, communication, development, family involvement, and therapeutic coordination can occur together. Approving this request will allow an existing property to continue serving its educational purpose while helping address a documented shortage of appropriate childcare and school options, especially for children whose needs are often difficult to support in traditional settings. We respect We respectfully ask that you approve WC264059. Blessed Day Academy is prepared to remain accountable, maintain structure, and supervise arrival and dismissal procedures, continuing coordinating with Clark County to ensure safe operations. We're committed to protecting our students, families, neighboring properties, and the broader community. Thank you for your time. I just want to show for the record that since we started this, A year ago, it's hard to find commercial property in Las Vegas, Nevada suited for children. We found this property and acquired the rights in November. In November, we had 140 students enrolled and ready to begin. As of today, we still exceed our capacity at 73 students. I also want to provide for the record the email correspondence from the county showing that there was not a need for a previously updated traffic study.

Can you, ma'am, can you slow down for a second? We didn't catch the first one.

So should I start again by showing? No. No? Okay. And then here we have our childcare licensing. We are less than what the previous operation was. So our occupancy is less than what it was in operation six years ago. We also have our private school license as well. This is the notice of completions for our emergency operation plan. We cannot receive a license to a private school by CCSD without an emergency operation plan on the current property. This is just the example of the length of our emergency plan, including considering what the county's concerns are. This is our health permit that we have passed and been approved for. This is the Nevada State Fire Marshal approval. This here is the previous organization childcare and school that was there. They received their business license in 2019. This is their certificate of compliance. Here is the traffic mitigation letter. And the approval for the fire Marshall. From that previous organization who was there. And then this you have the property. These are the plans of the property, but I do want to be able to show. Exactly what it looks like. We have double doors. They require a key to open up. This is the front of the entrance. This was taken today at 3.05 p.m. As you can see, our roundabout for pickups and drop-offs. Families will enter from the west side of the building, go into the roundabout, and exit right here, this driveway. That is the enter only, where families will be entering and going into the roundabout. That is the front of our building. In front of the building, you see this wall. There's a garden in between, and then there's the building of classrooms. That is gated. So before the building, you have one sector that is gated and you need to use a key for. This is the side of the building. It has concrete walls. It also has a gate here, as you can see, that requires a key to be opened. That requires a key to be opened, and all these gates surrounding it as well require a key. And then this is our driveway. And that will show here. This is what it looks like on the plans. Thank you for your time. I'm ready for questions if you have any.

Thank you very much. All right, so I'm going to close, I'm sorry, I'm going to open it up for a public hearing. Anyone in the audience who would like to speak on this item, now is the time to come down and do so. Name and address for the record.

My name is Tanya Terciano, address is 6288 Shinerbaugh Court, North Las Vegas, Nevada, 89081. Good evening chair and commissioners my name is Tanya Terciano and I am here today as a parent in support of Blessed Day Academy. Like many families finding a safe nurturing inclusive place educational environment for my child has been incredibly challenging. Blessed Day Academy offers something our community needs, a place where children of all abilities can learn together while receiving individualized support and where families are treated as partners in their child's success. As parents, we trust that licensed facilities have met the requirements established by the agencies responsible for protecting children's health, safety, and education. Knowing that the Academy has already received its childcare license and Nevada private school approval gave our family confidence in choosing the program. Every day in delay and opening means families like mine continue searching for services that are already short in supply. Many children, especially those with autism, developmental disabilities, and other unique learning abilities, Sorry. Learning needs cannot simply wait months or years for another option. I also want to share that as a parent, we are committed to following the academy's arrival and dismissal procedures. Our children are not walking to school independently. They are dropped off and picked up by parents, caregivers, or other responsible adults. And we understand our role in helping ensure the process is safe and orderly. I respectfully ask the commission to consider the impact this decision has on our families who are simply looking for quality educational environment for their children. We hope you allow Blessed League Academy to move forward that our children can begin learning, growing, and receiving the support they deserve. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in the audience like to speak on this item? Yes, come on down, sir.

Name and address for the record. 4026 Spitz Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89103. Good evening to you all. I'm here tonight in support of Blessed Day Academy for transparency, I serve as the academy's real estate professional and assisted in the leadership in securing the property. I'm not here to speak on behalf of the county or to offer any technical opinion. I'm here to share what I personally observed throughout this process. From the beginning, I have seen the academy's leadership act in good faith, ask important questions, review the property's history, and work diligently to satisfy the requirements necessary to operate a licensed childcare program in private school. Blessed Day Academy has already invested in significant time, resources, and planning into creating a safe and supportive environment for children and families, including children with special needs who may have limited educational and childcare options in our community. This delay is affecting families who are depending on the academy, staff who are preparing to begin work, and an organization that has continued to cooperate with appropriate agencies and provide supporting documentation. Based on my professional interactions with the academy, I have found its leadership to be responsible, responsive, and committed to meeting its obligations. I respectfully ask the commission to consider the approvals already received, the prior educational use of the property, and the academy's willingness to continue working collaboratively with the county. I support a fair and reasonable path forward that maintains safety while allowing Blessed Day Academy to open and serve the families who are waiting for its services. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in the audience like to speak on this item? Okay. Seeing no one else coming down, we're going to close the public hearing. I'm going to open it up to commissioners. I do have some questions, but I will start down on my left. Commissioner Stone.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Public Works, if I could get your attention, I've got just some general questions. Is this a school zone pedestrian flasher? Is it a pedestrian crosswalk with physical actuator buttons? Or is it simply a mast arm with a flashing yellow as a cautionary signal to drivers? So it's not a crosswalk, is it? It's just a flashing, constantly flashing yellow flasher. Is that right?

That's correct, Commissioner.

Okay, so it's important everybody understand we're not talking about a crosswalk with pedestrian refuge on either side or even in the middle with actuated buttons. We're talking about a warning uh flasher um now that could probably put and i'm asking public works that doesn't need a special uh street light and master arm could it not be affixed to some of the existing street lights that are already out there maybe you know that answer i'm not sure if you do or not but

There could be some modifications, but we do have a standard of what the flashers should do.

Okay, all right. So that's number one. You know, and then number two, I got a few things to say here. So as a board, and you've heard me say this before, we're here to protect the life safety of the public. We do that by relying upon our experts, our expert district attorney. are expert public works, are expert planners that have the education and the credential to act, not politically, but to act in the interest of the codes and standards established, in this case, by the professional engineering community, and specifically the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, which oversees traffic control devices in Clark County and across the country. You know, dare I say I could not put a price on the one in a million kids that might escape and run accidentally into the street. You know, kids are funny that way. I don't know about you, but I ran away from my parents when I would see them after school, you know? It was a game to me. I would run, or I might play hooky and, you know, just kids are kids. So, you know... I also don't know that as a planning commission we are able to evaluate professional engineering arguments, which is what they are, as a board. That's why we have Dennis Cederberg, Public Works Director, and his staff of licensed professional engineers with college degrees and our planners with college degrees and our lawyers which protect us from risk. And why there's things called traffic studies, traffic analysis, and traffic warrants. And a warrant is something that evaluates the need for a safety device for traffic. And I don't know, but I'm sure that traffic warrant analysis has been done in this case, like every school in Clark County, public and private. The traffic analysis studies the peak hours of pedestrians using it, using the area, the peak volume traffic gaps, and 85th percentile speed on the adjacent arterial road. I'd like to put Public Works on the spot here. Do you have any idea what the speed limit is on Desert Inn Road?

It's 35 miles an hour.

Okay. That is the 85th percentile speed. Would people break the law and go faster than that as a rule? Probably. They'd probably do 45. I don't... Personally, I'm not sure that the board can vet a technical issue like this any more than we could vet a legal issue or a billing department code issue. We always say subject to approval by this, that, and the other. I would ask our deputy county attorney if this application is even on solid ground that we could actually

with arguments presented even waive a life safety requirement or if you have an opinion on that maybe is what i'm asking well there's a waiver application before the board it sounded to me like there was a previous a traffic study based on a similar use that did not require the crosswalk and i don't know if that's the case not public works may want to clarify that, but if that's the case, then I think based on the application for you, it's still within your discretion. Yeah, it's one of my questions, not to take over Commissioner Stone.

I just, there's a representation that there's an existing school that was there before, and nothing's really changed. And so my question is, why are we here if nothing's changed? I mean, if there's no issue, with the daycare, but there's a daycare plus a school, and they had this previous traffic study in place with also a waiver of the flashers. Why are we here now saying we need those things? So if staff could just maybe lean into that for me, I'd appreciate it.

Thank you, Commissioner. In 2019, the school came before us and had early childhood up to first grade, and then it was conditioned to a traffic study. They waived the standards for commercial curb return and driveways. and that application that was approved, traffic study was a condition of approval. They submitted the traffic study on that use and those amount of students. They came back in 2023 and included early childhood up to fourth grade and increased the students from 50 to 60 students. So that use in 2023 required an updated traffic study and to coordinate with Public Works for traffic, flasher, pedestrian crossing. So the increased use of the second application is a reason for an updated traffic study and the potential for the flasher installation. I guess I heard the applicant for this application said she was above what was approved in 2023. They were approved for 50 to 60 students. She said she was already at 70 plus students. So that is the reason why the conditions for the updated traffic study and the flashers were on the 2023 application.

Yeah, 73 to be exact. Yeah, we'll give you an opportunity. I'm gonna move on to Commissioner Roikman and then Commissioner Polarski. You know what, if you don't mind, let her respond first. I'm sorry, go ahead, please.

Yes, so that was an example of our waiting list. We're currently, occupancy is 48. The waiting list to show that the delayed, since we started this and took the rights in November, we had 140 students enrolled, but because we've been delayed, we're now at 73, which is our waiting list. Our occupancy is 48.

All right, so that I can clearly understand, your occupancy for the building is 48.

Correct.

And you have 73 children enrolled.

Correct, who are waiting. They enrolled, meaning providing their information as interest as we look for another site. So right now, we have 48 students enrolled.

Okay, so then I'm clear. So the intent is that you will never have over 60 students in your building. Okay, all right, I think I'm clear there. I'm gonna go, Commissioner Rickman?

The hesitancy behind getting the traffic study, I've been on this board a little over a year now. I've never had anyone ask to not do a traffic study. So maybe it's just because I'm a new guy, but I've never heard this. And so I think the hesitancy of the board is this is the kind of thing that seems pretty standard. We approve things subject to the traffic study, not by waiving it. I guess my question, it sounds like, and maybe I'm wrong here, but the reason you don't want the traffic study is because you guys are eager to get going as soon as possible and because of the cost?

No, so the reason why is because, yes, we have families who are waiting. However, the traffic study has already been conducted.

Right, but I'm just saying. Sorry to cut you off, but the reason we don't want a new one is because you don't want to wait for one, right?

No.

Like if they could do a traffic study tomorrow and we could have this done with, would that be a problem?

Certainly.

It still would be a problem?

Oh, no, no, it would not.

Okay, so it's the delay that is the issue.

It's the delay, yes.

Sorry, and is that the same issue with the lights?

Correct, because in speaking with Public Works, they're a year out for those flashers.

So if for, and I'm not gonna, this isn't my motion, but if we were to say, sure, open up tomorrow, let's get this traffic study done and get a light put up in the next year, then that would solve your problem?

Correct.

Okay. And so, and again, just to drill down on what my fellow commissioners are saying, you're saying that there is, maybe this is actually the staff, Are we being, if we were to condition the approval of this on that there's not gonna be more than the amount of students allowed under the previous use which did not require a study, you're okay with that condition? You're not asking for any more?

I agree.

Commissioner, if I can clarify, the 2019 use required a traffic study, the use that she is also, required an update to that study because of the increase in the students.

So what was the amount of students allowed under the 2019, which was already approved?

The 2019, it was from, they didn't have a specific, I'm just looking at justification later, it wasn't specific, but it said early childhood to first grade. The 2023 did early childhood up to fourth grade.

Okay, so there's two issues. There is not just that potentially there was an ask for an increase in the students, but that we are going from first graders to potentially fifth graders, right? Yeah. Okay, you agree with that?

I'm sorry?

The last use, which was approved without this traffic study, was only for first graders, and now we have up to fifth graders.

Correct.

um is it true that it takes a year to get this light put up um commissioner i couldn't really answer that it would be one of those things i would have to do a little bit more digging into but i mean the lead items i mean they would have to do an off-site permit of course traffic study it's not a year out so possibly some time let me ask one more question is the result of the traffic study say we get the traffic study done

Is anything other than putting up this light potentially going to result from that traffic study that would increase safety?

Signage. And just to clarify too, flashers in the school zone alert the traffic around, not just that it's school ahead, slow down, potential of kids coming. And then also the site is very limited on parking and The old-style driveways, that was another waiver that was approved in the 23 application. They're still using old-pan driveway, which we would prefer curb return. That helps get cars out of the right-of-way easier without stopping, negotiating the turn to get over a pan driveway. So it's those combinations of things why the traffic study is important, and also with the flashes, because it alert all of the traffic around that. It's a school ahead to slow down in that area.

So it's possible, sorry, it's possible that we would get the, if we required the traffic study were done, that it's possible that there would be additional improvements in addition to the flashers that would ultimately be required six months from now or whenever?

It could be warning signs, right, because the flasher, you need to know it's a flasher headed. So those things all come out within the traffic study.

I'd love to hear what everyone else has to say. Give me one second. I appreciate the desire to get this done as soon as possible. I might consider that we require they put in the flasher for the point you made. No matter what, whether kids are crossing the street or not, if cars are zooming down Desert Inn, maybe we want them to slow down next to the school. And if the only reason we don't want that we're kind of asking for this waiver against it is in the interest of time. Well, even if we were to allow the school to open up without it, maybe we get that thing up as soon as possible together with the traffic study. You know, again, I would be open to something like that. But thank you, that's my comment.

Thank you, Commissioner Roykman. Go ahead, applicant. Go ahead. Okay. Yeah, before I go to the next commissioner, go ahead.

If I may, I do want to state that less than a mile, it's Las Vegas Day School off of Desert Inn and Jones. If you go drive west, On Desert Inn, on Rainbow and Desert Inn, there is a what used to be Journey Middle School right there off in between Desert Inn and Sahara on Rainbow. And then on Rainbow and Sahara, there are three daycares less than a mile as well, all in the same vicinity as Desert Inn. Also, I want to notify you that once we found out this information back in April, we have been doing our due diligence in communication via email with the Public Works, as well as the staff with the county. And I do have email correspondence stating how long, because of the equipment, those flashers were to take. And we are not opposing you know, any of the safety. I just want to, you know, make it clear that we are working with the county to open up for these families, especially because there is a crisis in the Department of Family Services with children who are not going back to school. There's a high influx of many factors that play into it.

Thank you. We got it. All right. So Commissioner Kolarski, go ahead. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Okay, I'm a little confused here because evidently the previous applicants, I guess, for lack of a better way to put it, came in for a school and daycare together. That would be the 2019 application where the traffic study was required. Am I correct on that? Correct. Okay. When did the school go away or has it gone away?

July of 2025.

The school went away?

Correct. It's no longer in business.

So the students that were in there up to fourth grade, which is when the 2023 application came in, those kids are no longer there. When that number went up to 60, I think is what what that application was good for?

That application was also conditioned to do a traffic study update, which they did not do, and they had to do the flashers. So they did not satisfy the conditions of approval. They never came back, right? They got their approval with the conditions to update the traffic study. Okay. And to install.

And that was in 2023?

And that was in 2023. Okay. So. Commissioner, if I could.

Commissioner. Just to also clarify, that school was operating for years without a county business license. So that, all of that was caught back in the early 2020s. And they were told they couldn't operate. But they operated off state licensing. And so, because the state gives them licenses, they think they're okay to operate. But yeah, we have this comment that dates back at least four years on the traffic study. And granted, it was a different applicant, but the traffic study and then back to 2023 for letting them know that they have to do the flashers.

So when did you take over the daycare?

So the daycare was not in operation. I took property of the rights as leasing it because we're currently in escrow. We do have the bank, the SBA backing us up.

When did you start operating with Blessed Day Academy?

I'm not in operation because I don't have a Clark County business license.

Okay, so then where are the 48s?

They're waiting, ma'am.

You said they were there and the 73 were the additional on the waiting list. At least that's what I heard.

They're on the wait list, yes, but they're not on campus.

You said there was 48 is your occupancy?

Correct.

So there is no one in this building period right now?

As of November when I acquired the rights.

And so you acquired the rights in November?

Yes, I am leasing the property and we've been in escrow since November and have spent an enormous financial resource. Okay, that's fine.

Where's the nearest traffic signal? To this location?

May I?

Staff will answer the question. Thank you.

And is there a median in front of this school? On Desert Inn.

There is no median in front of the school.

Okay.

And it is approximately... about almost 300 feet away to the west.

So it'll be on Torrey Pines and Desert Inn?

Correct.

And, Commissioner, if I can also chime in, Las Vegas Day School does have a flasher on Jones.

And Jones is further west of Torrey Pines. I'm correct. Am I correct on that? I don't get to the west side of the freeway very often, so I'm not certain. Okay, did you say something about, you were looking for commercial properties for the school? Because you know that schools can go basically day cares and some of these schools can basically go in any type, correct me if I'm wrong, can go almost in any type of zoning district. Am I correct on that?

Essentially, yeah. I mean, it can go in most districts.

Even daycares? Because I know that's a commercial.

That one I'm not familiar with, but at least the schools you can do with a use permit in most districts.

Okay. And then the other thing that I just want to put out is that two things. The elementary school that my sons went to is on Desert Inn on the east side of town. Now, we're 45 on that side.

And clarification, it's 45 on this side as well, sorry. On the? On desert end, it's 45.

On the west side? Yes. Okay, yeah, well, on the east side I know between eastern and Boulder Highway it's 45, and parents are doing 50, and they're doing 50 when the flashers are on. Now, I'm saying this only because this is a public school, and nobody, across on the south side of Desert Inn is zoned to this elementary school. Nobody. So we have flashers. We don't have kids crossing. What we do have and what you have are parents that don't really pay much attention. You know, one of the things that I've heard is that the worst place to be driving is at an elementary school during pickup. Not so much drop off, but pickup, and that's horrendous. That's where you're gonna have your problem. And the way you've got it worked in and out, you're gonna have backup on Desert Inn unless you have a dedicated lane. And that's gonna cost you because you cannot have people trying to get into that little curve at your driveway, if you're talking 100, 200 kids, I don't know what your initial thing is here. I don't think this is a really good site for you. And while I understand the need for the type of services you give, because I know that they're needed, I'm just having a hard time I think that we need to, let me finish, please. I think we need to follow through with what was started in 2019, which was, and then when they came back in 2023, And I think we need to finish it. I think we need to do it right. And if you're going to stay here, I think you need to complete all the things that were initially agreed to. Either that or you need to get out of escrow and find a different place. I cannot support your application. And that's just it. Thank you, Commissioner Kolarski.

I'll give you one second. I just wanted to offer to the board before I chime in to Commissioner Mohica. I kind of like where Commissioner Whiteman was going. I can get behind a delayed traffic study, but I would definitely want the flashers. And so I'm kind of going to lean on staff for a quick second. Is there anything, any world out there where there's flashers that are maybe solar powered so that we don't have to bring power, we can just install them and they go to work right away? Does something like that exist? I mean, you know, I'm just throwing things out there right now because it's something that I believe would be important. Yeah, something I believe would be important. Go ahead, staff.

We have the standards where the county would maintain the flashers, so they would have to meet our public standards. It's a possibility that we can do some non-standard flashers in the meantime, but that would be something that would need to be... Temporary. It would be temporary, and it would need to be studied as well. I mean, they still would have to meet certain criteria to be within the public right-of-way. and to alert the traffic, but that needs to be determined by a traffic study. It's not just something that we can speak on here at the meeting.

Okay, for sure. So you're saying we can't do one without the other?

And if it's a non-standard, that usually ends up having to go for a structural review as well, which would put the timeframe even longer because then it needs to go for a structural review because it's not our standard flasher. And then... get approved to be able to be installed and have inspections. So usually a non-standard one would take a little bit more time just based on having to need a whole nother rodeo.

Just trying to find a win-win. Before I go back to Commissioner Workman, I will, let's let the board finish and then we'll give you some time. Go ahead, Commissioner Workman.

Yeah, I mean, I'm very sympathetic to the parents and to the school and wanting to open up. And it's, you know, it's too bad that things sometimes take, you know, time to get done. But again, I've never heard of having these traffic studies waived, and I just wouldn't be comfortable at this point, I think, doing anything that could potentially put these kids at risk. So I just don't, I'm not, despite my earlier comments, I don't know if this is something I can get behind. I'd be interested to hear what Commissioner Mahiga has to say.

Okay, so before I go to Commissioner Mojica online, applicant, you wanted to speak, I'll go ahead and recognize you and then we'll go to Commissioner Mojica.

Okay, so what I'm hearing the county say is they're not wanting to approve the updated traffic study or the flashers. What we are willing, and again, we're very cooperative, is we're open to starting the daycare where we're able to hand off the same pickup drop-off utilize the space for the daycare as we phase out the update updated traffic study for the school as well as the flashers contingent that we work with the county to ensure you know those flashers and the timeline for that thank you very much for that um commissioner mojica

Yes, Mr. Chair, I apologize for the noise in the background, but I am appalled and disheartened because I spoke with staff and I reached out to the applicant and I talked to the applicant at length and I tried to reason and try to find a solution. solution to the problem. And then I spoke to public works and found out that they had spent a considerable amount of time trying to find the best option. And they gave her some recommendations about splitting it so that it's not the daycare. And anyways, I am not gonna belabor this. I am very upset at everything that I heard because I am not gonna approve this. There is no way that I am approving this. I tried, I was gonna hold this, but I am going to deny WC26-400059 because I'm thinking of the children's safety that is foremost and at the very front of everything that we do. That is my motion.

Okay, there's a motion on the floor. Cast your vote. Our motion carries. Thank you.

That is final action unless appealed. Our next item is item number eight, WS26-0285, waiver of development standards to reduce setbacks for a proposed accessory living quarters in conjunction with an existing single family residence on 0.45 acres in an RS20 residential single family 20 zone within the airport environs A60 overlay, generally located north of Five Pennies Lane and east of Pecos Road within Paradise.

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

Good evening. Victor Knight, 9582 Iris Flat Court, 89178. Before I use the application, it was previously approved back in like 2007 for this piece right here. It was going to be an RV garage with an apartment above it. So this is the main residence right here and this is an existing garage with a connecting breezeway. We have now changed that to just be a two-story apartment. The waiver before you is for the adjacency to the north property line right here, which is a little over two feet. It ended up in that spot because of needing to have access to the backyard for maintenance of the property. There's a pool back there right now. that was recently built and it's in somewhat disrepair so they'll need to get back there and do some repair maintenance and everything up to that on that. The pad is existing. It was constructed back in 2009 and approved through structural review and all that. And then with the financial crisis, they pretty much ran out of money and had to stop construction. New owner has taken over the property and they'd like to move forward on the apartment in that area. And I'm here to take any questions you may have.

Thank you very much. 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. And just name and address for the record and give us your comments.

Good evening, Chair and Commissioners. Bart Donovan, 3612 Happy Lane. I'm a resident one street north of this proposed building. I just wanted to point out that this property was previously approved with the neighbor to the north by the name of Bertha Dibble when the applicant at the time, Louie Leonetti, had told her that he was going to build a single-story building. She found out after the fact when it went to town board it was a two-story building. It moved forward, nothing happened, the pad was poured, and apparently the applicant ran out of money. We're talking about a property that is .45 of an acre with a 7,169 square foot home, five bedrooms, six and a half bathrooms. It's got a pool inside, it's got a pool outside, it's got a garage. with a breezeway and now we're going to cram in apparently a two-story building adding up almost two thousand square feet with a kitchen this this this is adding into our neighborhood a a basically multi-family residents. We have none of this on Happy Lane, Five Pennies, Mall, Tobias, in this whole area. We have worked for years with the county to to prevent and to keep our r&p as single-family residents uh... we're gonna have a struggle with the whole way newton property i'm sure but uh... hopefully we can work that out the the setback of two feet to the neighbor to the west of this without a doubt is going to cause some hardship. The neighbor to the north, who I'm here to kind of represent by the name of Angela Trujillo, which cannot be here tonight, her property sits lower than this one. This is a 21-foot high building, and they're asking for a setback five feet from the north wall. Apparently, they're claiming that this will not negatively impact other properties and the proposed building is compatible with others nearby. I've lived on Happy Lane for 35 years. I know every single property there, those that have little casitas, none of them. have any kind of setbacks like this. They all have at least a 10-foot setback between the property to the north or south and certainly meet all the setbacks east and west which is a five-foot between a property line so i i'm totally opposed to this uh... i i i don't get why we would cram anymore building this is a massive structure on a tiny little lot and please keep in mind that point four five of an acre includes the road a sixty-foot wide road it includes that thirty-foot portion of it I'll pass this on to somebody else. Thank you very much.

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

Good evening. James Bradford, 3521 Happy Lane. I'm opposed to this because it doesn't look like an ADU to me. It looks like another house. I know that we have set back variances sometimes, but typically not on something that's two stories high, backed up to other houses that have approximately a four-foot grade break between one side to the other. So the neighbors behind us now are going to have a looming structure that looks down in their backyard uh... also question whether not only the setbacks right i've built my house ninety four on the same same group of lots that there were restrainer reduce the size of my house because there was also a requirement uh... maximum square footage on the roof of an ari lot like question whether this one is Overcome that as well and what it really looks to me like is if we're gonna put that many more people there They're gonna be parking on the street. I just I think it goes against the entire Feel the neighborhood as far as being a good neighbor. I think what we're gonna end up with is Multi-family use that's not conducive to what we have. That's all

Thank you very much for your comments. Anyone else in the audience like to speak on this item? All right, seeing no one else come down, I'm going to close the public comments and I'll open it up to commissioners for, go ahead, we'll start with Commissioner Workman, go ahead.

I think if Commissioner Brady was here, he's made some comments about some things we've seen before about compounds and, you know, It is a huge footprint on a house there that already has a huge footprint. Again, I'm not, I'm interested to hear what everyone else has to say here, but I am definitely leaning towards a no. I think the neighbor's comment about it being two stories and butted against the wall and potentially serving multifamily is, I share the concern.

Thank you, Commissioner Roikman. I'll just put on the record before I go to the next commissioner. I don't really have an issue, per se, with the setback. And my issue is with two stories. I mean, even if it was single story, I might be able to get behind some type of an approval, but not two stories. I'll leave it there for now, and I'll go to Commissioner Stone, put his light on.

Yeah, thank you, Chairman. Question of our planning staff. When I was with another entity, we had something called the floor area ratio calculation on a lot, which is just more or less a way that you could limit lot coverage by a house. Does Clark County have something similar and how does this application rank in terms of the allowable floor area ratio?

Yes, so Clark County does have a in our case. We call them law coverage maximum For the RS 20 it's a 50% law coverage Staff would have evaluated for that when they were looking at this too.

What's the floor area coverage on this project I?

I don't know the floor area in particular, but that would have been evaluated.

It was evaluated. Does that take into account whether it's one or two story? It's only going to be the, it'll be building footprint. Footprint, okay. So I might comment that floor area ratio is relevant, but it becomes not as precise when you have multi, level structures, in this case two-story in both cases. So I have real concerns about this application. Thank you.

Commissioner Kerr?

Anybody else? Go ahead.

All right. So Blarsky?

Thank you.

I'm going to agree with both what Commissioner Stone and Rutten were talking about with the two-story. And I believe also the Chair said the same thing. Do you have any type of elevation that shows what you're actually looking at, where the windows are? There you go.

So there's no windows here. This is the west side that faces this property line. We have the two lower windows on the first floor that would face the north property line, none above.

And then you have, this would be the front elevation, and this would be into the backyard of the... Did you talk to your neighbors to the east, west, northeast, north?

The previous owner had, and apparently some of that information was not forwarded to me as to what their feelings were towards it.

Well, they live on Happy Lane.

Right, yeah. And I'm not certain. said that he spoke directly to the west neighbor, and she was not a fan of it, and I was not aware of that.

Okay. Well, I know that this area has been a really The neighbors have looked out for each other. They've always come in, and it's one of these neighborhoods that has stayed the same over, I don't know, the last probably 40 years. I don't know how long it's been there, but it's been there a long time. So whenever anything goes there, the neighbors on Happy Lane always show up. Thank you.

Commissioner Mohica?

Commissioner Mejica, I agree with my fellow commissioners.

All right. Thank you very much. Commissioner Kirk.

Thank you. You know, oftentimes when a development comes into this area, we kind of joke and say the people on Happy Lane are not very happy. And the reason is they're not very happy is because they see developments like this. What you're proposing here is to take a .45 acre, I think 19,602 square foot lot, And you already have a six-bedroom, nine-bathroom home on that. At least that's what the MLS said that was sold in 2023. And that home is almost 11,000 square feet. And now you essentially want to make, like you said, an apartment. You want to put an apartment building in there. This is not the place for that. It just isn't. And if you would go back and have a neighborhood meeting, I challenge you to do that, okay? go send out flyers or walk the neighborhood, tell them what you want to do, and then come back to us and tell us how many people are in favor of your project. Because sometimes we don't have the best sense of the pulse of the neighborhood. But I live relatively close to this. And I know some people that live in here, Dr. Portz and his family, And that's not the kind of thing they are going to be supportive of. So my motion is going to be to deny unless there's something else. Anybody else have anything to say?

Do you want to hold it or deny? Nope.

Okay. No reason to hold it. I'm going to deny it and he can take it up with the board if he wants to. But my motion is to deny WS260285.

All right, thank you very much. There's a motion on the floor. Cast your vote.

Commissioner Mojica, no. Oh, yes, to deny. Sorry.

Thank you. All right, that motion passes for denial. Good luck. Thank you.

That is final action unless appealed. Item number nine is WS26-0331, holdover waiver of development standards for parking area design standards, design review for site and building modifications to accommodate a drive-through feature for an existing cannabis establishment on 3.29 acres in a CG commercial general zone within the airport environs AE65 overlay, generally located south of Harmon Avenue and west of Paradise Road within Paradise.

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

David Brown, 520 South 4th Street, on behalf of the applicant. I know it's been long, so even though I'm an attorney, I'll try to be brief. This is an application for a drive-through at a cannabis dispensary. It's named Mint. This is, right here is Harmon and Paradise. This is the southwest corner. So right across of Harmon is the now Virgin Hotel, former Hard Rock Hotel. This is the overall shopping center. Staff does recommend denial, but when you read the report, they support a lot of the application.

Could you flip that around 180 degrees?

Sure. There you go. Just counter to the way I think of it, because this would be, I guess, to the...

to the south.

But staff finds that the proposed stacking lanes meet the intent of Title 30 and that there is ample dedicated overflow parking there so they don't have any issues with that part of the traffic. Staff also does not have a concern with the location of the proposed drive-through window. What staff is concerned with is the way the traffic would flow. And if you look over here, the proposed entrance would be right there on the southwest which is over close to Harmon. And when you read the staff report, they would prefer it if the entrance was off of Paradise Road. Right now, and I'm going to switch to a map. If you look right here where the arrow is, these are three different buildings. On this building is Dunkin' Donuts. And if you look right here between the two buildings, this is the... It looks good to you.

It looks good to us. That's okay.

When it's lifted up. So this is... the dispensary, and right here is the drive-through for the Dunkin' Donuts, which is a couple doors down to the left. I'm going to switch back. You see that. So there's really no way to go in. Obviously, in that shopping center, Dunkin' Donuts is the busiest of any drive-through in that area. But if you look over there, this is where the board would be to order. So if there is anyone at the Duncan, no one would go there just to go through. If you go back here, the Duncan traffic goes right this way and towards the entrance that staff seemed to support that it would be there. They say they have no problem with the location of the drive-thru, which would be right there, and this is where the queuing would be. We would just propose that the entrance over here, and also if you went staff's recommendation direction, the drive-through would be on the passenger side of the vehicle. And I've never seen a drive-through on the passenger side of the vehicle. This is a dispensary. It is not a high-volume drive-through. Really, the amount of people that go through the drive-through, a large portion of those people are people that are there for the medical and don't have the ability to get in and out of the vehicle. So I would say that going across the driver's side, going to the passenger's side would be difficult. There is plenty of parking there. There would also be those... bear with me get the right terminology the delineator posts to make it clear you know where to go I'm going to show you another picture of the area behind it it is not even though this is a very busy shopping center the area behind the stores is not busy the proposed location would be right here as where the window would be and the stanchions would be, similar to exactly what Dunkin' Donuts did. And I think Dunkin' Donuts would, of course, be a higher volume drive-through than it would be for the dispensary. With that in mind, happy to answer any questions and help any way I can.

Thank you very much. So I'm going to open this application up for a public hearing. Anyone in the audience like to come down and speak on this item, now's the time to do so. Seeing no one rushing down, we're going to close the public hearing. I'll just speak for the commission. I can support the application, but if we do it, I'd like to have some type of a review, so maybe we could take another look at it in a year or two. Having said that, Commissioner Mojica, any comments about this application? I WILL COME BACK TO COMMISSION MOHICA. COMMISSIONER KURT?

DAVID, CAN I ASK YOU TO PUT THE TOP PLOT PLAN DOWN? THERE YOU GO. THE REASON I WANTED TO SEE THAT IS THE OVERALL CIRCULATION PATTERN WITHIN THIS CENTER IS COUNTER CLOCKWISE. I MEAN, AT NO PLACE DOES ANYBODY GO OFF OF PARADISE AND THEN GO CLOCKWISE TO ANYTHING. THEY GO COUNTER CLOCKWISE. IF THEY GO TO TROPICAL SMOOTHY, THEY HAVE A DRIVE THROUGH, RIGHT?

They do, and they also enter the same place where we would propose.

That's my point. My point is all the circulation is counterclockwise. So tropical smoothie people come off of a Harmon. I'm sure some people that go to Dunkin' Donuts would go in that way as well, that they can go in in this way. OTHER LOCATION. I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THE APPLICATION AS PRESENTED. I MEAN, WHEN I READ THE STAFF REPORT, I WAS SURPRISED WHEN IT WAS RECOMMENDED FOR DENIAL BECAUSE THE FIRST HALF OF THE COMMENT OF THE NARRATIVE SEEMS VERY POSITIVE AND ALL OF A They think that having the drive-through from Paradise Road instead of current design navigates traffic. I couldn't understand why they thought that. And so I'm going to move to approve it, but we'd like to have a, how long will it take to construct the drive-through permitting all the stuff you need to go through to get that done? You think eight months?

Candidly, I don't know. If the inclination is to have a review, I would ask for two years just to give time for it to be built.

All right. then that's what I'll move for. I'll move to approve WS260331 with a two-year review period.

Motion on the floor, cast your vote.

Mr. Chair, this is Commissioner Mohica. I apologize, I'm having trouble unmuting, but I can support the application, so I will be a yes. Thank you.

Thank you very much. That motion carries. Good luck.

That is final action unless appealed. Item number 10 is WS26-0338, amended waivers of development standards for the following, one, increase building height, and two, reduce setbacks for proposed accessory structure no longer needed. In conjunction with an existing single family residence on 0.45 acres in an RS 20 residential single family 20 zone within the neighborhood protection RNP NPO overlay. Generally located north of Todd Lake Court and Jensen Street within Lone Mountain.

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

Good evening. My name is Adrian Plata, 7219 West Sahara Avenue, Suite 105. I'd like to start out here and just show you the assessor's map. Our project is located here at the northeast corner of the cul-de-sac. To the west and to the south within the neighborhood cul-de-sac, we were able to get letters of support. We did reach out to uh... other adjacent neighbors but we were unsuccessful and uh... communication with them i do have the letter here here's our uh... site plan and leaders can point out this is the structure that were proposing the first floor is uh... hang out uh... lounge second floor we have a general home office and then there's a roof terrace This is where it's located here in the northwestern part of the property. They have a pool under construct, sorry, fire pit, pool under construction, existing home. Here's your site analysis. We are under the 50% total coverage, 7,200, where 10,000, about 10,000 is allowed. And we're here to ask for a waiver for a For the height, we are only allowed 25 feet over here, max above finished grade, or the SFR, whichever is greater. And 25 feet is greater than the existing SFR. Here are the elevations. The reason why we're requesting more than 25 is after we take, we have a nine foot first floor ceiling, and then we have a, what is it, 18 inch floor truss, and then another nine foot second floor, and then deck truss, and then guard walls. And the guard walls get up to about 25, four, and then we have a four inch protrusion of some skylights over the stairs leading up there. So our total is 25 feet, nine and a half inches over the, 25 feet, nine and a half inches, which is nine and a half inches over the 25 feet allowed. This is just the first floor. I'll show you, it's like a lounge, bathroom, stairs leading up. And then we have a, you enter, go up the stairs, you come into your gym, and then a home office. You can go up the exterior stairs, and then it's just a rooftop terrace. And that concludes my presentation. If you have any questions, I'm here to answer them.

Thank you very much. So I'm going to open this application up for a public hearing. Anyone in the audience like to speak? Now it's time to come down. Seeing no one coming down, I'm going to close the public hearing, and I'll open up to commissioners for questions and comments. I actually don't have any. I can support the application. I mean, what are you going to do? I'm okay with it. So Commissioner Reutemann?

So this is nine inches above what would be allowed?

Is that right, staff? No. So they're doing, it's an increase in height. It's about a foot. A foot more than would be allowed?

Yeah.

So they're requesting 26 where 25's allowed.

You know, Commissioner Roikman, I'm just going to state for the record, I mean, instead of having nine-foot ceilings, they could have had eight, seven. But, you know, that's tomato, tomato. I'm okay with it. I'm just, yeah, I'm just saying, instead of having a nine foot ceiling on the two floors, they could add eight foot seven ceiling on the two floors. And it would have been, so it's just a design thing. That's fine.

And, you know, I'm thinking back to the one that we just didn't approve, which in some way felt a little bit similar. I would guess the distinction here is that there's no setback. We're not asking for a setback waiver, right?

Yeah, no setback waiver. There was one, but we were able to remove that, yeah.

And again, a foot doesn't seem like a lot to me. I mean, I know Commissioner Brady's not here and it's in his district, but I think I'm okay with this. Commissioner Kirk?

Thank you. Yeah, the setback waiver, they've withdrawn that?

We we withdrew that.

Oh, we okay. We went through that You know the the only thing I I mean looking at your elevations here I gotta tell you that north elevation man. You guys need to do something In their way do a pop out or some architectural feature. I mean is that stucco?

Yes

And are you, tell me how much higher are you than the people, than the house behind you? Same height, this gonna be stick over their wall by 10 feet or what?

I don't know what the exact height is. I do know we have to install a retaining wall here as part of our project. So that would lead me to believe that they were higher than us to begin with.

Okay, what's the width of that north elevation that I'm looking at? It looks like a big, I mean.

The north, total 44.

No, is that the width of the building? Yes. So I'm looking at 44 feet of nothing? No pop out, no window? Right?

That is correct.

Can you do something about that? I mean, throw us a bone, man. You know, I mean, think about it. I mean, it's an architectural feature. It's the neighbor's going to have to look at it for a long time. If you had that neighbor in here and I think of that neighborhood, that neighbor knew what this was going to look like, they would not be happy. I can't imagine anybody being happy looking at that. So if this is the best you can do, I'm not going to support it because of that. I mean, I know it's a small item, but it's the small little items that make the big difference in architecture. You know that. put in a window, put in a fake window, put in a pop-out, put in something faux that gives an architectural articulation that breaks up that 44-foot wall. And I'm behind you 100%. But if this is what we're getting, I'm not supporting it.

Thank you, Commissioner Kirk. I'm going to come down the line. Commissioner Stone and then Commissioner Reutemann.

I might amplify Commissioner Kirk's comment. You know, foam pop-outs you can add for literally no cost, you know. And my question for staff is foam pop-outs, you know what I'm talking about, they don't, they're not part of a setback, correct? Up until six inches I think that they're allowed before they

So if he's right at the setback, he'd have some leeway for architectural intrusion.

Yeah. I think, Commissioner Kirk, I would support if you wanted to change or add to the conditions of approval architectural embellishments or similar at the at the direction of staff, something like that. Is that something, staff, that you could work with?

Does the staff kind of get the understanding of what we're talking about? Yeah, yeah, yeah. And let me ask you, I'm sorry. Yeah, so that's why we're friendly. Doesn't this, don't we have standards where we, do we typically allow that kind of,

No. So yes, we do have standards. It's two articulations on each facade. However, the way we kind of process that sort of deviation from code is how it's being done right here. So you'll notice in the last sentence of the of the analysis. It talks about the design is inconsistent. That's where we're kind of addressing the facade in that instance.

Yeah, and then, I mean, even this is, to me, this looks very contemporary, right? The house is not contemporary, is it? The house isn't pitched roof, right? So it's like, this is almost a perfect example of the kind of design we really don't like to see. I mean, contemporary design next to more traditional. But that part I can live with. If you guys could do something with the articulation on architectural accoutrements, is that what they call them?

We usually say articulations, architectural articulations.

If you guys are willing to work with staff and do some kind of architectural articulation on that side of the wall and accept that condition, then I think I could go along with it.

We'd be more than happy to add some intrusions and articulations on the north side. Commissioner Workman?

Was one of the neighbors who you got in touch with the one that would be looking at this, or is that someone we don't know about here?

The North, which is the one in question, we made attempts, but we weren't unable to have them review and approve.

You have heard nothing from them?

Nothing, yeah, there was no contact.

Commissioner Mojica, any comments on the application?

Mr. Chair? This is commissioner Monica. I totally agree with both. Commissioner Kirk and commissioner stone on the only way I would approve this is with that condition.

Okay, all right, I'll, I'll, I'll make a motion. So I'll make a motion to approve W. S. 260338 with staff's. Notation that the applicants. Elevations are consistent with Clark County, not code, but standards, meaning that you can't deviate from that. And the direction is to work with staff for some type of architectural pop-outs to make that side of the building more, the sides of the building more appealing. So that's the motion on the floor. Cast your vote. Was that clear enough, staff?

So I'll summarize maybe a little bit, but I work with staff to add articulations to that north elevation. Yeah.

All right. So there's a motion on the floor. Cast your vote. Commissioner Mojica? I have one question.

Commissioner Mojica, yes.

Okay. Before we cast that, applicant has a question. Go ahead.

Are those intrusions for all sides or just the north side in question? I didn't catch that.

So I will... limit it to the north side. I kind of said all, but I'll limit it to the north side. So that's the motion on the floor. If the commission is still okay with that, cast your vote. Just the north side. Commissioner Mojica?

Yes.

Okay. That motion passes, good luck.

Thank you for your time.

That is final action unless appealed, and that will conclude that portion of the agenda.

All right. Thank you very much. So we're at our last item of the meeting, which is public comment. Anyone in the public is allowed to come down and make a comment? Still no? Okay. All right. So no one's coming down. We're going to close public comment and adjourn the meeting. Good night, folks.