Clark County Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good morning. Welcome to the continuation of the Clark County Commission board meeting. Today's Wednesday, August 5th. I'll invite everybody to take a seat. And before we get into the business of today's meeting, I'd like to ask us each to observe a moment of silence in honor of our officer who was lost in the line of duty just yesterday. Each of our hearts, this entire board and our entire community is mourning with the family and with our extended LVMPD family. Please join me in a moment of silence. Thank you. I'd also like to remind the entire community that should anyone feel the need, counseling services are available through our resiliency center. You can visit resiliencyandjustice.org for more information. At this time, we'll go ahead and open our meeting. The first item on the agenda is public comment. Anyone wishing to speak on items before us today, please come forward, state your name for the record and the item you wish to speak on.

Yeah.

Just for the audience, I know we had some questions related to items 6 and 7. Commissioner Jones intends to have those items heard separately. Mr. Director Allswing, I'll turn it to you as I've closed public comment.

Good morning, Commissioners. Second item is the approval of the agenda. After considering any additions or deletions of items, Commissioner's staff has received the following requests, which may require renotification fees in accordance with Title 30. Withdraw, number 8. VS-26-0341. And withdraw item 16, ET-26-400-057, UC-22-0459. Hold to the August 19th, 2026 zoning meeting. Item 22, WS-26-0332. Item 23, PUD-26-0329. Item 24, TM-26-500-086. Item 25, WS-26-0334. Item 42, PA-26-700-022. Item 43, ZC-26-0257. Item 44, VS-26-0258. Item 45, DR-26-0259. Item 46, VS-26-0289. Item 47, WS-26-0288. And hold to the September 16th, 2026 zoning meeting. Item 53, ZC-25-0833. Item 54, VS-25-0835. item 55, WS-25-0834, and item 56, TM-25-500200. These items are going to be open as a public hearing and then immediately withdrawn or recessed to the dates as previously stated. With these deletions, which are items eight, 16, 22, 23, 24, 25, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 53, 54, 55, and 56. The agenda is ready for approval.

With the changes written to the record, I move approval of the agenda. Thank you, Commissioner. There's a motion. Please cast your vote.

The motion passes. item three is the approval of minutes the minutes of the july 8th 2026 zoning meeting are ready for approval i move approval there's a motion please cast your vote the motion passes next are the routine action items which consist of items 4 through 15 except any items that have been held or withdrawn These items may be considered together in one motion and are subject to the conditions listed with each agenda item and as amended below. Staff has the following request to change the condition. On item 14, WS-26-0340, add to public works development review, applicant is advised that all gates need to be outside of the site visibility zone. If there are no objections, the public hearing is open and the routine action portion of the agenda is ready for approval.

I move approval of items four through 15. Thank you, there's a motion, please cast your vote.

Sorry, just a part of that motion, could we say we're pulling six and seven to be heard separately?

With six and seven being held separately. Thank you, there's a motion, please cast your vote. That motion passes.

Next items are items six and seven, which are companion items and will be heard together. Item six is UC26-0350. Use permits for the following. One, multifamily residential development and two, modified development standards. Design review for a multifamily residential development in conjunction with an existing golf course on a 1.7 acre portion of 8.05 acres. in a C2 zone within the Southern Highlands Plan community, generally located north of Robert Trent Jones Lane and west of Southern Highlands Parkway within Enterprise. Item seven is TM-26-500-090. It's a tentative map consisting of 17 multifamily residential units and common lots on a 1.7 acre portion of 8.05 acres in a C2 zone within the Southern Highlands Plan community, generally located north of Robert Trent Jones Lane and west of Southern Highlands Parkway within Enterprise.

Good morning. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Bob Gronauer, 1980 Festival Plaza Drive. In this matter, on these items, item number six and item number seven, I'm representing the Southern Highlands Golf Club. The first thing that I'd like to do is just orient you from the Big overview here of where this piece of property is actually located. As you can see here, this is the map of Southern Highlands that I have. You have I-15, which is over in this area here, and you have the St. Rose Parkway located just down in this area. As you get off in this area here, you have the Southern Highlands Parkway. which is a major arterial street that runs through Southern Highlands. As you get into this area here where you see Robert Trent Jones, this is where you get into the gated community where the golf course is actually located. And then I'll start getting ready to zero in here of the exact location of the property that we're gonna be discussing today, but this gives you a pretty good overview of the general location of what we're talking about today. The next thing I want to show you, what's interesting, what's important as we go through the presentation here is now you're inside the gates of Southern Highlands and this is the zoning map. As you can see here in red, this property in this area is zoned C2. The rest of the area that you see in orange and the golf course is zoned R2. What's important for me to at least address this up front here as we go through the presentation is in the C2 zoning district, you already have the clubhouse which is located here, and you have 10 casitas that are located in this area. We are looking to build our project in this area of the C2 zoning, which allows us by a special use permit today to come in for condominium multifamily development, which I'm gonna discuss. And then the rest of this area that's although zoned R2, what's important to note also, because this is under Title 29 under Southern Highlands Development Agreement, the R2 zoning allows you up to 10 units an acre. which is important as I go through this presentation, and that we're going to do multifamily in C2. And then the R2, even though R2s are allowed up to 10, the application is coming in with 10 units an acre also of what we're proposing. That being said, the other last thing that I do want to mention is in this area of C2, we're allowed of a height up to 50 feet. The clubhouse has about 50 to 53 feet in that area, which I'm gonna show you here fairly quickly. That's why I thought it was important to show you the zoning map that you see. Now I'm gonna zoom in a little bit here to the aerial that you can see what's exactly existing in this area. So as I mentioned to you, this is the existing clubhouse and parking in this area. This is the approximately 1.7 acres of property that is existing today is where the casitas are. There are 10 casitas here that are existing. We will be looking to remove these casitas and in place and put in these condos. What I also want to point out is this area in here because I'm going to talk about this area here where we previously had an application for entitlements about several years ago. And then I do know that when I go through and I talk about the neighborhood outreach, One of the main ladies or neighbors that we've spoken to in this area here. I'll talk about her property and some of the things and her concerns. And then at the town board, the adjacent neighbor over here came out and spoken opposition. So I'll be addressing these two neighbors specifically because they're the most closely impacted. But I want to explain to you as I go through the presentation how we've minimized the amount of impact in this area. So the next thing I'd like to do is go through the application here that you see is our site plan. So in the site plan here, what we are proposing is 17 units of high-end condominiums. These are luxury condominiums. We are, as I mentioned, is looking to remove 10 casitas in this area here that are existing, and we're gonna replace it with three buildings. You have building number one, which is located here, and we're gonna have six units there. Building number two in this area here, we're gonna have nine units. And then building number three, we have two units. So we have approximately 17 units. These 17 units are gonna range anywhere from square footages of just under 1,900 square feet all the way up to 5,000 square feet. So the prices of these units are gonna be approximately $4 million. all the way up to $10 million per unit. So this is no different than what you see in the trends of other golf courses, like Amare, that's here in the county. You have also the Summit, and you also have McDonald Highlands, where you have these high-end condos that are being built on golf courses, such as what we're proposing to do here. Access to the property is, once you come into the gates, you come along the Robert Trent Jones area, private drive. We have access coming into the... seventeen units that are located here we have an additional access gate there we have additional parking for visitors here that will go with our valet parking that's existing in this area here we will have a gated fence around the property and will be separated with some spacing with some pilasters in that area The building heights are going to be 50 feet mainly, but we have some architectural intrusions up to 53 feet on the elevations. This gives you an idea if you're on the golf course of the view that you will see for the high-end luxury condos that we're proposing. So these are the elevations. This is as you get into the entryway. You can see the existing and intense landscaping that's already located here. And then I'm gonna talk about this a little bit because this is that third building, excuse me, the building number two. And one of the concerns with one of the neighbors is somebody sitting up on this balcony here overlooking into your yard, which is about 115 feet away. What I'll show you in subsequent elevations here is we're gonna add a condition from the town board meeting. We're gonna now add a screening in this area to block any views looking backwards into a potential someone's backyard. But I'll get to that in a second. And actually, here it is. So this is a change that we made from the town board. So if you're inclined to approve this application today, we'd ask you to approve it with the screening in this area as depicted for building number two. And the reason why we're showing that is because then, I'll show you in a sec. What you'll have in this area with that screening is a view corridor for someone living in building number two in this high-end condo. This is their view corridor. They will not be able to have any visual intrusions to the southern portion of the property, which is that one property that I mentioned to you earlier that had concerns about people looking into her backyard. So now I want to focus on the last part of my presentation is our neighborhood outreach. Okay, so we've done three things. One is we had a club membership meeting a couple of months ago that is with all the members of the club. So we explained the site plan, the elevations, and the business plan that we wanted to build on the property. The second thing that we did about four weeks later, we had a voluntary neighborhood meeting because this is not a zone change. We're not asking to change the zoning on the property. We're not required to have a neighborhood meeting, but we had a voluntary neighborhood meeting. We had about 10 people at that neighborhood meeting. There are some concerns with the architecture of what we're proposing. There are some concerns about views, whether or not they're protected in this area and the impacts of the views onto the golf course. And as you know, one of the main concerns, and then actually the other thing is, with one of the neighbors that we've been in discussions with, I believe is located right here. And they have representation today. Excuse me, it's located right here, sorry. Some of the concerns were views onto the golf course. So as you know, views are not a protected right. In addition, the CCR is when the Southern Highlands Golf Club in Olympia, Southern Highlands came in to develop this property. They put into the CC&Rs, and we have three different sections here, I won't go through it, but the highlights is there's view restrictions, view impairments, and basically what it says in here is giving notice that the golf course or third party builder on the golf course can impact views on the golf course and they're not a protected right. So what I want to do is what you see here, this is not what is before you today. I want to go back a little bit in history. Several years ago, this was a site plan that we were proposing, okay? This is, these were condo buildings that we're proposing. They were about 64 feet in height. The neighbors in this area here, and we had more opposition. We probably had, I think, about 40 or 50 neighbors at a neighborhood meeting that were concerned about the amount of density that we were proposing and then the intensity that we're proposing with the building and the building heights. And the reason why I bring this up is on the history is because we did make changes. And although what you will see today that the neighborhood the two of the neighbors for sure that are not in support of this application may not like, but I want to point out to you one of the major changes that we did instead of putting buildings in front of their houses here, we took these buildings and we put them all onto the C2 property that I was showing you earlier, and so I could go back and show you. So if you take a look here, and earlier I was showing you this brown area, So that was the area where we were looking to extend all the condos down in this area several years ago. So what we've done is we've removed all this and we put everything in here and we bunched it together up adjacent to the golf club. So everything is located in the C2 area. The use permit allows us to do the density, which comes in at 10 units an acre. And this is where the existing cottages are. So if anything, this lot right here, who before would have had complete obstruction with all the buildings located in here, What we've done is tried to bunch it all in here to limit the amount of intrusion that you'll hear in the opposition. So in closing, what I want to show you is this is the existing landscaping. I think this is very important for you to understand what's there today. So right behind here are the cottages that I've been discussing with you. This is a landscaping. And then this is a landscaping along Robert Trent Jones in this area. What I'm going to show you next is the existing landscaping, which is one of the neighbors who's in opposition today. This is a landscaping that you will see there. one of the things that we want to do is put an additional two trees on the outside of this property and if you're inclined to approve this application just two of the four trees that we're going to put in here that we're going to be proposing is that we want to put in 48 to 48 inch box trees to start out at minimum 15 feet to be planted within the next three months if this application is approved The reason for that is, is we believe by putting the two trees in this area, and I'll show you on an exhibit... It would be located in this area here, these two trees. These would be two Mondale pines at 48 inch box trees. We believe by planting them now within the next three months gives it enough time to start maturing. As you know, Mondale pines, they grow fairly quickly over on an annual basis. So we believe that will also help provide, although we're not required to help protect any views, we believe that will help with some of the landscaping in that area. And then in addition is to the landscaping adjacent to the property, we would be putting two more trees located on our property which would be the same thing would be the mondale pines and those would also be planted within the next three months from approval and then those would be able to start growing and this is what i mentioned about the added screening so those are the three added conditions that we would ask you to look at approving then the last thing is one of the next door neighbor came to the enterprise town board and had some concerns same same concerns that the the other neighbor is going to come up and mention. And this is a view of their house. I got this off the, their house has been for sale for over I think the last several months. And one of the reasons why I wanted to show you is this was the marketing material of them selling their house. It was just taken off the listing price I think last week for, I don't know, for whatever reason. But the reason why I'm showing you here is because what you'll see here is the landscaping that you have in the area. This is the clubhouse. of this other house that you have. And again, these are pictures that were taken off the website on the MLS for sale. You can see some of the landscaping that's back here. You can see the house. So we don't believe that there is necessarily an intrusion with our building because I think what you have already is a landscaping in this area that you see. So that being said, commissioners, in conclusion, I think I want to point out that your staff is recommending both approval of item number six, our use permit modification to our design standards. They're also approving, recommending approval of the tentative map. As I told you, we've had a history of trying to work with the adjacent neighbors over the last several years. I think what we've done in coming here today, even after the town board meeting, to minimize the impacts, I think we've done a really good job. As you know, views are not protected, no matter how much we want our views to be protected here. But I think we've done a really good job of where we started several years ago to where we are today to keep everything compacted on the C2 property. So that being said, I'd ask you to approve the application with those added conditions. I'm sure there's some neighbors here that I may need to make some other, address some other questions or issues that come up.

Thank you very much. At this time, I will open the public hearing on items six and seven. If you're wishing to speak on these two items, please come forward.

Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Mike Kosor, K-O-S-O-R. I live in the golf clubs, but I will tell you I'm not one of the lucky people that live in those two large homes that we'll be talking to you here in a minute. They will be talking to you, though, about views, and I agree that this is not consistent with my community. But what I want to talk to you about is the use permit, which was not addressed at all here. I sent an email to each of you and this commission and like that part of the record, if I can, in that they're asking for Title 30 treatment, but as you know, this is a Title 29 project and has been so, Title 29 has been obsolete now for what, 24 years, 25 years, and they're asking for it to be used for 40 years. Under Title 30, as I understand it, a mixed-use commercial property, which is what they're arguing this is, requires that that commercial property be open to the public. This is a private golf course. It isn't open to the public. So I argue that it doesn't meet the use requirements, yet staff has not actually said one way or the other. It kind of walked around that argument saying, well, it's consistent with. So they're asking for the zoning criteria, the density of Title 30 in C2, yet they're not willing to comply, or at least from my perspective, I don't see how they comply with the public access requirement, and that's why you're here looking for a use permit. Approval of this would be very troubling. It would establish a land use permit for any golf course that wanted to use commercial zoning and then allow them to then add infill high-rise condos or condo units. I also was abused to cast the staff's characteristic description that this is progressing as scheduled. It's already 26 years old, and they're asking for another 15. Progressing this as scheduled really is not how I describe it. But in requesting the additional 15 years to 2040, they did tell you that there were two areas that needed additional development. That's the developer's permission. He said it would be in the estates and a 54-acre Westridge partial. There's no indications nor mention of the golf course being additional. commercial units at all. I'll also add one final point and that has to do with the number of dwelling units. That's not specified here at all yet the development agreement calls for 10,400 is the max amount. According to the October 2020 Clark County report there were 9,584 units that had already been processed. The county expressly explains that this COUNT INCLUDED ONLY UNITS ASSOCIATED WITH ISSUED ACTIVE BUILDING PERMITS. IT DOES NOT INCLUDE PLOTTED OR APPROVED UNITS BUILDING HAS NOT YET APPROVED. SO I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THE TOTAL NUMBER IS BEFORE THE COMMISSION APPROVES IT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD MORNING.

Good morning, Melissa Ury, E-U-R-E, 1055 Whitney Ranch Drive, Suite 210. I'm here on behalf of one of the abutting neighbors that are most affected, Judith Keltner. And you can see her home is the one right here in relation to this particular project. And so what we have is the recent legislation AB 241 really opened the door to allow the multifamily and commercial. Previously, none of the codes allowed residential in the commercial zoning. But what the developer is being allowed to do is take advantage of that without taking advantage of the other, without having to incorporate the other pieces of the code that help protect the abutting neighbors. So we have things like residential adjacency, which is in the current Title 30 that's not being applied. This helps with mitigating height and mass when it's close to neighbors. So they're being able to bring in one piece without bringing in everything. And we appreciate everything that they are doing. The added trees, yes, we would love that. That will certainly help. The added shading on the decks, that also helps mitigate privacy issues. But it's not just the view. This is what my client currently sees from the back of her home. And we took survey work, their own tentative map, and the two-scale plan submitted to the county to provide a photo simulation of what this would look like once it is built. And while they have provided quite a bit of articulation in certain areas, because of the irregular shape of this lot and how it faces my client, she is getting... this very tall monolithic side of the building that she will see. And then trees, you can see the mature trees. I mean, it's not covering that top part of the building. So while we appreciate the trees, it's really not reducing the height and the mass that she will see. And I know there were some things said at town board about how this could maybe be a little incorrect with how it reviews, even though we're using very factual information to provide it. So it took me some time to find something vaguely close to what this is. So this is actually in Henderson at St. Rose and Seven Hills. There's an existing hotel where at the back, at the very tight, it's 45, 43. There's only 40 feet between the existing single family and that building. And you can see the height that they have there. And this Robert Trent Jones is only roughly 25 feet wide. And then you have the landscape, which is another 15. So while our neighbors sit a little bit higher, this is definitely right on top of them. So the thought that this is an inaccurate representation seems to be rather unfair. And so what we've asked, and we understand that compromise helps bring development forward. But what we would ask is that they remove the third floor unit. I've been told that they can't lose units. And so we'd ask that that be placed on building one. That increases the height there, but given the proximity of these buildings, we won't see it. So we would remove it from here, add it to building one. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak on items six and seven, please come forward. Good morning.

Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Sue Bhatia, and I live at 18 Olympia Hill Circle, and I'm one of the two homes that are impacted directly by these proposed condominiums. We went through the same process nearly nine years ago, and at that time, the project did not move forward. We are not opposed to the development, but we're asking for development that is compatible with Southern Highland standards, and this proposal... significantly impacts the privacy and open views that homeowners relied upon when they invested in this master plan community. As you can see, this is what we see from our home. This is one of the casitas, which is only single story, and we're gonna see two more stories above that. And also, The town board recognized another important issue, compatibility. This project does not reflect the established character of the golf clubhouse or the surrounding custom home neighborhood. This is how the neighborhood is right now. You can see all the buildings and they're very different than what they're proposing. So the character doesn't match at all. Southern Islands has earned the reputation of a thoughtful, planned-out, master-planned community, and its identity has a strong identity. Clark County has repeatedly recognized that luxury custom home communities derive much of their value from consistent planning, compatible development, and preservation of neighborhood character. Communities such as ASCAYA and the Summit demonstrate that compatible planning protects long-term investment and community expectations. I would like to show some lines from the bill AB 241 under which this development is being proposed. Lines 20 to 24, the zoning regulations must be adopted with reasonable consideration among other things to the character of the area and its peculiar suitability for particular uses and with a view to conserving the value of buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout the city, county or region. And as you can see, even though views are not protected in the CCNRs, AB 241 clearly states that they have to take that into consideration, the privacy and the views. So we respectfully ask you to deny this application or require it to return with a more compatible design that fits in with the current neighborhood. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Gulab Bhatia. I live in 18 Olympia Hill Circle, the home that's most drastically impacted by this development. We bought our home 13 years ago with the assurance that we would have subdivision that would be in compliance with the laws and regulations of the county. This development does not in any way portray that. If the commissioners were to pass this project, it would be a grave injustice to us Because they will be building 53 feet buildings right in our backyard the pictures that the developer showed nowhere come close to what it actually do because the tree height over there Maximum some areas 30 feet some areas even less 20 feet and these these buildings will be 50 feet in in our backyard i can't imagine anybody being able to come in and do that and get waivers like they're asking for so i strongly hope that the commissioners will deny this project thank you very much thank you last call for anyone to speak on items six and seven is there anyone else after this gentleman okay you'll be our last speaker on these items

Brian Lee, 5185 South Durango, suite number two. I'm here representing Judy Keltner also, who I've known for a long, long time. She has some concerns. She can't be here due to some other circumstances that prevent her from coming here, but she feels very strongly about opposition to this project. And most of this has already been covered, but I'll reiterate for her. Number one, she believes it doesn't blend with the existing neighborhood or the surrounding area. It's completely out of context. Number two, she's extremely upset that the same developer who sold her the expensive custom home building lot is now kind of shoehorning this project in with maximum densities and height up to 53 feet. The architecture does not match anything surrounding it. And she would strongly suggest that the density be lowered, the setbacks be increased, and the height be reduced also. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. At this time, I'll close the public hearing on items six and seven.

Commissioner Jones. Thank you very much. Mr. Alswang or Mr. Varla, can you comment on Mr. Kosor's concern with regards to residential being built in C2?

So the Southern Highlands has adopted the portion of Title 30 that allows, based on the new state law, that allows residential in the commercial zoning districts. Our code, the Title 30 code, requires it to be part of a mixed-use development. When it's not, a use permit's required, and that's what the use permit is today, is because it's not part of a mixed-use development, they need the use permit.

And they are allowed under their development agreement to adopt portions of Title 30 without adopting all of it?

Correct.

Okay. Mr. Gronauer, with regards to the view shed, can you comment on the grade separation between the Batia's home and the proposed development?

Yes. Thank you. I forgot that in my presentation. So we are 14 feet lower than the existing grade that's over on this side. And you're looking about an excess of 100 feet from our building actually to this home located. This is the Keltner's home. So that's about 115 feet in that area. With all the landscaping in, we're 14 feet lower also.

All right. I understand the concerns have been raised by the immediately adjacent neighbors. I certainly would be annoyed if I were you too. However, my job is not to mediate private disputes between the golf club and the residents there. That's between you guys. When it comes to community character, I understand those concerns, and if it were somebody coming out of the blue to build something brand new in a neighborhood, I would get it. But again, this is the golf club, and I would expect that if there was truly an outcry among Southern Highlands residents about the design itself then there would be more than one or two people here today and haven't received any other comments from other residents in southern highlands expressing concern and even if i did again not really my job to mediate uh design um criteria like that so i i again appreciate your concerns i'd be kind of annoyed but also i think this is something that can be mediated or mitigated with the proposals that we have heard today. So I will go ahead and move for approval of agenda items six and seven with the additional conditions that have been read in with regards to four additional trees and also the additional screening on the second floor unit.

Can I add to make sure just for comfort that the trees need to be planted within three months from approval?

Yes, trees need to be planted within three months of approval.

If there's nothing further, Commissioner Jones has made a motion. Please cast your vote. That motion passes.

Thank you. Next item on the agenda is number 17, UC-26-0311, use permit to allow outdoor storage, waivers of development standards for the following. One, eliminate parking, and two, reduce throat depth. Design review for proposed outdoor storage on 2.38 acres in an IP zone, generally located east of Corporate Plaza Drive and south of Badura Avenue within Enterprise.

Good morning.

Morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. John Vornsand, 62 Swan Circle, Henderson, representing the applicant is Majestic Realty. This property has been approved for a 37,000 square foot warehouse. The applicant is requesting an interim temporary use of semi-trailer storage until this warehouse building is constructed. This same owner operates all of the surrounding, got the plan on upside down here, but all of the surrounding warehouse properties, they own and operate all of these, including the existing trailer storage area directly to the west of our site. The applicant's properties are also the only ones that access corporate Plaza Drive in this area. The site consists of 88 stalls for the parking of the semi-trailers that's accessed from corporate Plaza Drive. And also the use will be buffered by a large landscape area. That landscape area is between 21 feet and 42 feet in depth. We're also requesting a waiver to the throat depth reduction. Public Works indicates they have no objection to that. And a waiver to eliminate seven parking stalls required for employees and customers. There are no customers whatsoever coming to this site. The employees They park at the adjacent sites under the same ownership and they are prohibited from parking on this site. In addition, the mix of passenger vehicles and semi-trucks trying to maneuver on this site would definitely create a safety issue in our opinion. We respectfully request that you approve our application as submitted. We're in agreement to all staff's if approved conditions and glad to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. At this time, I'll open the public hearing on item 17. Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward. Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing. I'm going to go ahead and move for approval, but because the intention is for this to be an interim temporary use, we don't really have a way to do that. I'm going to add a review for public hearing at the four-year mark. That's agreeable. Very good. Move for approval with that additional four-year condition. Please cast your vote. The motion passes, thank you.

Next is item 18, UC-26-0345, use permit to allow a daycare, waivers of development standards for the following. One, modify residential adjacency standards. Two, eliminate and reduce buffering and screening. Three parking area design access for eliminate bicycle parking five reduce parking and six alternative driveway Geometrics for a proposed daycare in conjunction with an existing single-family residence on zero point one three acres in an RS 3.3 zone Generally located east of Grand Canyon Drive and north of Reno Avenue within Spring Valley

Good morning.

I'm not the person to talk. I'm a little bit nervous. I'm the owner of the location 5076 Thunder River, and my name is Asia Hovhannisyan, H-O-V-H-A-N-N-I-S-Y-A-N. I was in a town board meeting, and I heard my neighbor's concern, which, as I understand, is a residential home. Their main concern was parking and noise for 12 kids. I understand the parking. If they come and park, yes, it can be a problem. But my parents have a perfect direction to drop off and pick up the kids. They're not staying more than two minutes. And I do have the neighbor in front of me. He's okay and he's happy. And I know my neighbor's right next to my house. She's concerned about the noise. But the kids have a special program. They're not always, like, noisy. They're playing. They... learning, and they have a special program for that. And for 12 kids, the licensing required to have two caregivers. I do have two caregivers, and I do have my mom. She's helping me as a volunteer. That means the kids always supervised by them. And even outside, they have specific time to play outside. And the same thing that my caregivers and the volunteers, they are looking all the time and playing with them. I don't have so much to say. This is not only business. It's just that my joy, my happiness to, you know, take care of the kids, give them love, give them healthy life. program to play, learn, and grow when the parents can work with the peace of mind. I understand this is my neighbors. I'm the homeowner, and I'm trying to be a responsible person. And if they require special or licensing required special changes, I'm ready for that. And that's all. And I know it's residential. I request a lot of waivers for parking, for a lot of stuff. I don't have anything to say. It's just up to you and up to my neighbors if they allow to have this child care. Thank you very much. Yeah, that's it. Thank you.

Thank you. If that completes your presentation, you can go ahead and have a seat and I'll open up the public hearing on this item. We're on item 18. Anyone who's looking to speak on item 18, please come forward. Good morning.

Good morning. My name is Shannon Chandler, C-H-A-N-D-L-E-R. I am the owner of 5068 Thunder River Circle, which is the property that shares a common wall with hers. And while I understand she does want to provide daycare and help kids, it's something to consider if you lived in an apartment or a townhome. that shared a wall with the daycare and was going to have 12 kids next door, there's obviously concerns for the noise that would be there. I don't currently live in the property. I have renters in there, but that would also impact my ability to rent the property, you know, with a daycare next door. There's definitely parking concerns because of the residents not having enough parking currently. It was always an issue when I lived there that there wasn't enough Spots for just the residents, much less if you have people coming in, drop off, pick up, you know, staying there. If anybody does come to work there eventually. Also safety concerns because where the drop off would be, the residents and anybody that pulls into the neighborhood have to turn around there. So you have delivery trucks, you have anybody trying to exit the property turning around there. So that's a concern. for children with traffic. Also, concerns with the backyard common wall that there is build-up planters in the backyard and if the kids were to climb up there, they could easily fall over the common wall and into a pool where there's a deep end or the back part of the wall where they would fall over where there's lowered elevation for the property behind. So just general safety concerns, concerns about noise in a residential neighborhood like that. And I do wish her the best with her daycare. I just think it would be best to find an appropriate commercial setting for something like that, you know, where it wouldn't disturb the residents in the neighborhood. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else here to speak on item 18? Please come forward. This time I'll close the public hearing. Commissioner Jones.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think this is one of the first of these to come to us due to the state sending out notices across the state for daycares that are operating between 7 and 12. So I appreciate what you guys are trying to do. We do have a tremendous need for daycare opportunities here in Southern Nevada. Can you step forward? I do want you guys to address the issue of wall height, and there is, I can see, a pool very... very close to your wall there. So what measures do you have in place to ensure that kids aren't climbing over walls?

My name is Vahan Balian. I'm a friend of Aisha, and I'm here to support her. And I am involved with her in the daycare. I help her to fix stuff and the backyard that she's saying, like we have a planter. First of all, we are putting gates in front of it anytime the kids are there. And also the kids are never there like without attendance. So there's always attendance with the kid. Playing like for 20 to 30 minutes and they coming inside. And the front of it, we do have like two car driveway. And front of the house, there's a place to park as well. So the parents, they just come in, they drop off the kids and they leave. And we do schedule them like between like six to nine o'clock to drop off. So none of them are like coming all together. And some of the parents, they have like two children. So, you know, it makes less cars to come in. and approve this, we would appreciate that.

All right, I'm gonna go ahead and move for approval of agenda item number 18, but also gonna put a one-year review. So that means you guys have to come back in a year, prove that you're not a traffic burden, that there aren't other noise issues for neighbors. So are you agreeable to that condition? Okay, all right, yep.

Can I ask a question, Commissioner Jones? So let me ask this question. I think that it's going to be a hard pill for all of us to swallow in a lot of these, and this is the first of many. Are we going to make sure that, I mean, how do we get it out to the community that the legislature, the state said that you can have up to 12 kids in these environments? I just want to make sure that We get the blame for a lot of things, and we do need childcare, no question. But at the same time, we're now having to, we've always said six, and I think now we're going to 12 at the state's urging, correct?

So the state notified all of the in-home daycare child cares from that took care of 7 to 12 children and they put them all in contact with us so we have a list there's 29 in unincorporated Clark County two of them already have use permits the other 27 will be coming in but yes in this case in these cases the state has already approved them and in some cases they've been operating you know over a dozen years um and so but it is still with the use permit it's still within your discretion to determine whether or not it's appropriate and if the use permit is denied or reduced in the number of kids we would communicate that with the state and let them know what happened all right that's our motion thank you commissioner jones has made a motion please cast your vote

That motion passes. Thank you. We'll see you in a year.

Next items are 19 and 20, which are companion items, will be heard together. 19 is VS-26-0293, holdover, vacate, and abandon easements of interest to Clark County located between Cimarron Road and Warbonnet Way alignment and Pebble Road and Raven Avenue within Enterprise. And number 20 is WS-26-0294, holdover waivers of development standards for the following. One, increase retaining wall height. Two, increase fill height. And three, waive full offsite improvements. Design review for a proposed single family residential development on 2.43 acres and an RS-20 zone within the neighborhood protection RMP overlay. Generally located east of Cimarron Road and south of Pebble Road within Enterprise.

Good morning.

Good morning, Jennifer Lazovich, 1980 Festival Plaza Drive here today on behalf of TriPoint Homes. The application sits right here just south of Pebble Road and east of Cimarron. Our site plan is for basically four lots. We are showing a little bit of landscaping along Pebble Road. The need for the waivers are entirely driven by the drainage that comes through the site, so that drives the need for the waivers that we're asking. We're also asking to waive the off-sites just to stay in harmony with what's been developed around us. But with that, I believe what's been discussed is to provide a five-foot asphalt path along Pebble Road. And this kind of gives you a bit of an idea. It's a little hard to see, but within Pebble Road, we would plan to put some landscaping adjacent to the edge of where the right-of-way is, then that five-foot asphalt path, then the remainder of landscaping on the other side of it, and then you see the sidewalls for the homes. So we would ask that a condition be added to reflect that.

If that completes your presentation, I'll open the public hearing on item 19 and 20. Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward. Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing. Commissioner Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Papazian, can you comment on the proposal for the landscape and the asphalt path? And in particular, if at some point in the future we decide that Pebble needs to be paved all the way through, does it retain our ability to go ahead with those types of improvements?

Thank you, Commissioner. It does. If we decide to widen Pebble Road in the future, it will absolutely work with the future improvement of Pebble Road.

All right. With that, I'll go ahead and move for approval of Agenda Items 19 and 20 with the additional condition that has been stated by the applicant.

Thank you. There's a motion by Commissioner Jones. Please cast your vote. The motion passes. Thank you.

Next item is 21, WS-26-0238, holdover waivers of development standards for the following. One, increase wall height, and two, allow modified driveway geometrics in conjunction with an existing single family residence on 0.46 acres in an RS-20 zone, generally located west of Palm Street and south of Hacienda Avenue within Paradise.

Good morning. Good morning. If you could just use that handheld microphone.

Good morning. I'm John Ayers, the owner of the property AYERS. And I have a prepared statement. I'm the current owner of 4387 East Hacienda located in Las Vegas. I'm here today because it was brought to my attention. I have numerous unapproved construction on my property. I've been working with my representative, Jim Gibbons, and Public Works to try to remedy this problem. After a few meetings and compromises, we have come to a solution. First and foremost, my inappropriate no trespassing sign was removed as I was asked by code enforcement. And in regards of defense and added RV gates, I shall now read an email sent that is agreed upon by all parties to remedy this non-permitted construction. Number one, your fence height can remain as is and you do not need to lower it. Number two, the speed limit sign will be relocated by Public Works by either raising it or moving it to a new location. You do not need to pay for this. The driveways may remain provided they function as one entrance and one exit. The exit driveway must comply with the required site visibility standards. In addition, both gates may not swing outward into the public right of way. Number four, continuous sidewalk must be constructed between the two gates. The driveways must be rebuilt so that the vehicles access the property through proper driveway approaches rather than driving over the curb. Number five, these improvements must be designed by a licensed engineer and submitted to Clark County off-site permit. All work within the public right of way must be completed by a licensed contractor and is subject to inspection by Clark County inspectors. I have approached several of my direct neighbors and acquired a petition of acceptance from over 25 people in my area that don't wish to see the fence altered. will label the gates entry and exit to further make sure to make safe of this area i feel the agreement been presented is totally acceptable and i please ask it be passed i have licensed contractors ready to move forward and i'm anxious to complete this project and be done with it i would like to thank jim gibbons susan gersh blanca vasquez and everyone here today for your help I will now conclude my presentation by answering any questions in regards to this proposal. And I would just like to add, unfortunately, I live at the end of Hacienda, and yesterday an officer lost his life, less than a block from my house. And in my paperwork, which you probably have, I've had SWAT teams come into my neighborhood. I've been told not to come out of my house until things are cleared up. And when I purchased the home, because I've lived in that zip code for over 50 years. I'm born and raised here. When I purchased the house, I thought the wall was gorgeous. And I was wondering about the signs. But I thought that everything was legit. And now that I'm going through the proper channels and proper permits to keep the wall, I just really ask that you pass this. I guess I could take any questions you might have about it.

Thank you. Thanks for explaining that all so clearly. At this time, if you want to have a seat for a moment, I'll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward. Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing. And in Commissioner Gibson's absence, I will turn it over to Commissioner Kirkpatrick.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Gibson also gave me the list of things, so thank you for working with him. Antonio, I think there's a couple things you want to put on the record.

Thank you, Commissioner. First, I would like to say that working with Commissioner Gibson's office, that speed limit sign that's shown has been moved already. It's been relocated. You can read the speed limit sign. And would you like me to read the conditions, Commissioner, or would you like to read them?

Either way.

I could read them in. So we're going to allow both driveways to remain, one of them for ingress and one of them for egress only. The one for egress has to meet all of the site visibility standards. They will have to hire an engineering firm to show the site visibilities and submit a plan for us to review. In addition, we believe right now both gates swing out into the right-of-way. We want to make sure that the gates actually either roll or swing into the property rather than out so that nobody's harmed in the area and not opening out in the right-of-way. We're asking that a continuous sidewalk be constructed between the two gates. The driveways must be reconstructed per Uniform Standard Drawings 223 so that vehicle's accessing the property through proper driveway approach rather than driving over the curbs. Public Works doesn't want to be responsible for repairing curbs if vehicles are driving over, so to build a proper driveway. And I believe that is it. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Antonio, so stepping in for Commissioner Gibson, I'm going to go ahead and make a motion to approve with the additional conditions as listed.

Thank you. There's a motion for approval with the additional conditions. Please cast your vote. The motion passes. Thank you very much.

Okay, 22 through 25 have been held, so the next item is 26. WS-26-0335, waivers of development standards for the following. One, eliminate street landscaping. Two, reduce parking area landscaping. Three, eliminate buffering and screening requirements. Four, increase fence height. Five, reduce access gate setback. Six, modify residential adjacency standards. Seven, alternative driveway geometrics. And eight, waive full off-site improvements.

and design review for a proposed vocational or avocational training center on 0.96 acres in a cg zone generally located north of spring street and east of revere street within good springs thank you good morning good morning uh my name is steve darnell my address is 48 revere in good springs i'm here today to request a design review at uh for a 4 800 square foot steel building um It's a vocational training center that I'm putting up in Good Springs. The building will be a personal shop also where I'll be doing some of my creative custom fabrication on vehicles. It will also be where I hold my welding classes. The classes are small, six to 10 people, so there's not a ton of people and it's reserved only. The proposed building will be a steel building that I've actually weathered, had it weathered to look rustic like the town. My property is a big part of a historical, is a big part of the history of Good Springs. And I've made every effort to ensure that the building will look like the historical buildings on my property and around the town. Good Springs is an old town. here in Clark County, and my site has buildings and trees on it that are well over 100 years old. Placing the building on the site will... Let me start again here. Placing the building on the site... We've gone through extensive trying to make this thing sit right so we don't have to mess up any of the old landscaping and the historical trees that are there that are 100 years old. Good Springs is one of the, sorry, wrong one there. Let me start again. Yeah, Good Springs is one of the oldest towns in Clark County. I messed up here. OK, so on this property, there's 40 large trees. We've got mesquites, palo verdes, on a site which achieved the intent of the landscape requirements of the code. Even though they aren't planted perfectly in line and set up exactly, it'd be terrible to tear out some of these trees that are well over 100 years old. So we've moved the building basically to fit this and look right. The way that the building is set and the way that the doors are set, we've set it up where the building will face trees and old buildings where you won't see the roll-up doors at a neighbor's house. I'm asking to waive off-site since there is no existing off-site anywhere in Goodsprings. I've been living there in Goodsprings for two years and I've been cleaning up the property and trying to preserve it to the history that it is. The neighbors have been coming by for the last two years, stopping, walking through, enjoying it, loving it, and super excited that I'm there preserving this cool little old town. At the Good Spring CAC meeting last Thursday, or last Tuesday, There were many neighbors there that supported this, and I'm asking for your guys' support, too. And if there's any questions that you have about the cool little town, I'd be glad to answer them right now.

Thank you very much. At this time, I'm going to open the public hearing on these items. Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward. Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing. Commissioner Jones.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for your presentation today. I appreciate the fact that you have chosen to live and operate in Good Springs, and I think it's been a tremendous benefit. And I agree that there is no need for substantial off-sites in Good Springs, and you're trying to maintain the character, maintain the 100-year-old trees that are out there. The only question I had is just, can you clarify on waiver number five, which is the extra room on the where the gate would be placed to get closer to the 18 feet. Can you clarify on that?

I think on that one, it's right here. So Vegas Street runs right here, and it's literally almost like a walking trail. I mean, it's not much of a road, but if we need to move it, we can. But if we can keep it up close, it'd be... it'd be nice too. So there's just not much traffic on that road. There's only one neighbor that lives across the road and that's it.

Okay. Mr. Pazin, can you comment on that one specifically? I think we already talked through everything else, but is that, are you concerned about the additional feet that's need on the driveway?

Commissioner, we could figure it out. Minimal traffic in this area, as he presented, and we can work to figure it out.

Okay. All right. Well, then with that, I will go ahead and move for approval agenda items, item number 26. And if the applicant could work with Public Works on the siting of the gate on the driveway, I'd appreciate it.

Yeah, no problem. Thanks for having me. This is really cool today. Thank you.

We're glad you're here. There's a motion for approval. Please cast your vote. That motion passes.

Next item is number 27, WS-26-0348, amended waivers of development standards for the following. One, allow a gated community. And two, reduce access gate setback, no longer needed. Three, reduce call box setback. Four, allow modified driveway design standards. And five, reduce call box medium width in conjunction with an existing single-family residential subdivision on 1.97 acres and an RS-20 zone within the Neighborhood Protection RMP overlay. generally located north of solar avenue and east of conquistador street within lone mountain

Good morning. Good morning, Jim Yancey, 2844 East Viking. I'm here on behalf of the applicant. Basically, there's four homes in this community, and they've had some security issues, so they are requesting to put a gate up for their community. We worked closely with Clark County and the agencies to basically get full support on this. So I won't talk about what they supported, but I will discuss quickly. I understand Public Works' concern about stacking in the right-of-way and possibly interrupting the flow of traffic in Solar Avenue. I completely understand the concern. but i will mention that the standards and the codes are measured to right-of-way and the right-of-way is actually another 20 feet away from the edge of pavement and the flow of traffic so even though we're requesting it to reduce to 25 in in reality, there's closer to the 50 feet of stacking available before anyone would actually be in the flow of traffic. So that's more or less my rebuttal to that. And other than that, if there's any other questions, I'd be more than happy to address.

Thank you. At this time, I'll open the public hearing on item 27. Those wishing to speak, please come forward. Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing. Commissioner Becker.

Did you have anything to address this, Antonio?

Thank you, Commissioner. No, we agree with him. I think the minimum standard is 50 feet for the call box setback. It's only four homes. 25 feet is well meets what we are looking for.

I've had a chance to look at this, and there are multiple neighborhoods in this area that have the same type of gate, so I'm comfortable. So I would move to approve it.

Thank you. There's a motion by Commissioner Becker. Please cast your vote. That motion passes. Thank you.

Next item is 28, WS-26-0357, waiver of development standards to allow a new power pole on 6.38 acres in an RS-20 zone generally located north of Cairn Avenue and east of Burnham Avenue within Winchester.

Good morning.

Good morning, Chairman, Commissioners, Mark Mulhall, 1980 Festival Plaza Drive. Here on behalf of the applicant. So this site was previously zoned commercial. It's located there at the northeast corner of Cairn and Burnham. It was approved in July of 2025 for residential development. And with that approval, it caused The existing underground power line to be rerouted the existing power pole is on the parcel to the east of us, so in order to reroute the underground power lines, we would need an easement. We were unable to obtain an easement from them, so we worked with envy energy on this power design. to add a power pole within the common element on our site and then reroute the power lines underground. So it doesn't add any new overhead power lines, doesn't affect those power lines. It's within the existing configuration. It just adds one power pole. Winchester Town Board recommended approval and happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. This time I'll open the public hearing on item 28. Anyone looking to speak, please come forward. Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing. I've spoken with Commissioner Sagerblum on this and understand he was supportive and worked with the applicant to get to this point. And on his behalf, I'll move for approval of item 28. Please cast your vote. The motion passes. Thank you. Thank you.

Next are items 29 through 33, which are companion items that will be heard together. 29 is PA 26-700-004, amended plan amendment to redesignate the existing land use category from ranch estate neighborhood to low intensity suburban neighborhood on 5.1 acres, previously notified as 5 acres, generally located west of Buffalo Drive and north of Torino Avenue within Enterprise. Number 30 is ZC26-0056. Amended zone changes for the following. One, reclassify 5.10 acres, previously notified as five acres, from RS20 zone to RS5.2 zone. And two, remove the neighborhood protection RMP overlay, generally located west of Buffalo Drive and north of Torino Avenue within Enterprise. 31 is VS-26-0057, vacate and abandon easements of interest to Clark County located between Ford Avenue and Torino Avenue and Buffalo Drive and Miller Lane within Enterprise. 32 is WS-26-0058, amended 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. And four, reduce street landscaping. Five, reduce street intersection offset is no longer needed. Design review for a proposed single family residential development on 5.1 acres in an RS 5.2 zone, generally located west of Buffalo Drive and north of Torino Avenue within Enterprise. And 33 is TM-26-500-011, amended tentative map consisting of 18, previously 20, single-family residential lots and common lots on 5.1 acres and an RS 5.2 zone, generally located west of Buffalo Drive and north of Torino Avenue within Enterprise.

Good morning, Jennifer Lazovich, 1980 Festival Plaza Drive, here this morning on behalf of Beezer Homes. The site plan in front of you reflects the site plan that the staff report has been amended to show. Previously, when the application was originally filed, there were 20 lots showing on the site with a mixture of one and two story homes. The site that we are presenting today and that's addressed in the staff report has a total of 18 lots and the most important fact is that along our west boundary all of those lots are 10 000 square feet in addition the site and development has been amended to be all single-story homes there will not be any two-story homes So first two things that I want to point out again is that there are 10,000 square foot lots adjacent to the west boundary, and the entire development will have all two-story homes. We do have a waiver to— I think you mean one-story homes. I'm sorry. I'm so sorry. Yes, and the development will have all single-story homes. We are happy to agree to a condition that notes that. We do have a waiver and I just want to point out why we would still need the waiver to have lots that are less than 10,000 square feet adjacent to, and the language is it is waiver number three. where residential development abutting or adjacent RNP overlay. That is not for the west boundary, but we have a street to the north of us forward, and we have a street to the south of us on Torino. And on the other side of those two streets are areas that are within the rural neighborhood protection overlay, and so that's why we have to keep that waiver. But I did want to make it clear that on the side where we are immediately adjacent, We have all 10,000 square foot lots. On Buffalo Drive itself, that is 100 foot wide right of way. For a number of years, for those of us that have lived out here for a long time, we will remember the traffic circles that were on Buffalo. And at that time, they were there for a while. I would say Buffalo felt a little bit more like a residential street when you traveled Buffalo. But Buffalo, in your mind, is the same width as a Durango, is the same width as a Rainbow. Those traffic circles have been removed now. And in further reflecting the full development of what Buffalo is going to look like, the RTC has requested a bus shelter turnout right in this location to be part of our application. That's reflecting the need for buses to be along major arterials, of which Buffalo is one of them. So we are accommodating that on our site. On this site plan, and we haven't changed it, all of the entrance and exit to the community will be here on the south off of Torino. And I did also want to point out that Just a couple of more things. When we had the waivers for the setbacks, again, when we went to a single-story home on all of the lots, we had some lots, not all of the lots, that either needed a front setback. That actually applies. We're asking for it to apply to all the lots, but it only applies to one of our floor plans. And then for the reduction of the rear setback to 18 feet where 20 feet is required, that's for lots 13 through 18 only. and it deals with the fact that we've gone to a single-story product and the patio cover that would sit in the back, so we need about a two-foot reduction there to accommodate that. Finally, the retaining walls deal with the drainage that is coming through here. If we don't have to do retaining walls, we never want to ask for it, but just looking at preliminarily what we think we're going to have to do We are going to need some retaining walls in the area. So that was the need for that waiver. And then I addressed the waivers about the 10,000 square foot lots. So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to come forward at this time?

Steve Small, 8565 South Orbonnet Way. I've represented this against this project at the town board, planning commission, and now I'm here again for the turndown on this, even though it was a reconsideration from the change from five acres to 5.1. That seems like very minor and could have been waived administratively. The problem with the project is that I don't know how many people sent in their cards, but I believe they were all against it. Did the staff have any information on the amount of cards that were sent back?

So we're not going to go back and forth, but we'll allow the client to come up and speak on behalf of those and also if there's anything else.

Okay. Well, the big thing is that for one mile to the east and one mile to the west is all RS-20. A half a mile to the south and a half a mile to the north is all RS-20. This is spot zoning, dead on, the worst kind. When they originally proposed to the RNPs There was a lot of discussion about Buffalo having offsets of 330 or 660. That was all turned down. That was submitted and went through with the long range planning committees and everybody else. So now here we are fighting what you had already determined or the previous commission on those projects for over 10 years. And so now we're still having to say, no, keep it RS-20. Even the large developers across the street who could have had a larger amount of takeout still developed half acre streets backing to Buffalo. Toll Brothers did it all. They didn't go after commercial and they could have. So highest and best development is exactly what was there as the zoning. Thank you very much.

Thank you. You're welcome.

Hello, good afternoon or good morning. My name is Glenn Caprillion. I live at 8729 Grand Pass Court. Essentially I live directly across the street from the proposed development. We're not against the development. We're just against the rezoning. We believe that at this point there's plenty of demand within this neighborhood for the half acre lots. As you look directly across the street, these lots here are actually being developed as half acre lots right now. I believe there's over 40 lots being developed as half acre in this neighborhood right now. So there's clearly a demand for the half acre lots. If this was just about getting more housing within the valley, there's other lots that don't need to be rezoned for that purpose. One of the big things on this is this is directly in the center of the R&P. As Steve had previously noted, half mile above north, half mile south, mile east and west is all RNP. This is directly in the middle. If this is granted, this will then allow for everyone else to come into the RNP and basically say, hey, it's already been done. It's been done in the middle. This will basically eliminate the RNP. It will allow it to be dissolved from the center out. So we're definitely against reduction in the zoning. Let's see I know that there Steve had also brought up a number of the Other people living in within the area have submitted their cards in opposition of this I know I have I've spoken many of my neighbors who have also confirmed that they've done this I'm a little concerned with the developer and the way they did stuff because in the last meeting they misrepresented that this was on the edge of the RMP versus being directly in the middle and So there's definitely some concerns from the neighborhood on how honest they're being about with what their intentions are. So That's all I have.

Thank you Thank you Anyone else wishing to come forward?

Welcome Good morning, Tom Freeman fre EMA n7 866 Wildwood Ridge Court and I'm gonna read off for prepared if you don't mind and thank you for everything that you do and I live at Wildwood Ridge, which is right off Buffalo and Wigwam, and I'm asking that you deny 29 through 33. And while I'm not opposed to reasonable development, my concern is that the infrastructure in this area is not keeping pace with the extraordinary amount of development already happening within just a few blocks of our homes, which already include new residential construction, schools, temples, and churches. I experience the traffic impact every day. I enter Buffalo at Wigwam where our traffic circle was removed. We now have no stop sign or traffic signal controlling that traffic and vehicles are traveling significantly faster. I think the records will show that. We see the tickets happening on a routine basis. It has become dangerous to enter Buffalo from our neighborhood, and this proposal isn't simply a request to build 18 homes. The applicant is asking to change the land use designation from ranch estate to low-intensity suburban, rezoning RS-20 to RS... and remove the neighborhood protection overlay, vacate easements, and receive waivers for reduced setbacks, taller retaining walls, modifying residential adjacency standards, and reducing landscaping. The Planning Commission has already denied this land use amendment, and I believe that deserves significant consideration. before adding greater density i would ask has the county evaluated the cumulative traffic impact of all the development recently approved or under construction in the immediate area particularly since the traffic circle at buffalo and wigwam was removed as well as the one down the street at pebble Growth is inevitable, but density should not increase faster than infrastructure is needed to support it. I respectfully ask for you to deny items 29 through 33. Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else looking to come forward at this time? Seeing no one, we'll close the public hearing and turn it over to Commissioner Jones.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. It's a tough one. I understand the concerns that have been raised here today, and I've had multiple discussions with the applicant on this, and there have been some significant concessions that have been made, buffering of the existing half-acre lots that are there, and a bit of a surprise that the RTC had requested a bus turnout in the area there, which made the lot size even smaller than anticipated. My colleague here has some concerns that I'm sure that she'll be happy to articulate. One of the things that she said is if this were approved, would there be a consideration of putting up signs that indicate past the development to the west that they're entering into a rural neighborhood area? So is that something that you would consider paying for?

Yes, sorry. I heard somebody behind me say something Yeah, so the the idea would be that there would be a sign perhaps put on Torino and Ford and before you get, like, on the edge of our side of the property, maybe in our landscape area or something like that, that would say entering rural neighborhood preservation overlay? Is that the idea?

So, Commissioner Jones, we have a standard county sign that says that it's a rural preservation area that we use, specifically in the northwest that we've been using. We did meet with the Rural Advisory Committee, and they thought that that would be helpful because some of them do have Animals out there and different things. So I think the county has a standard sign. They're about 900 bucks each and typically they like to put them in the median. If there's not a median, then they'll figure out where that goes. Maybe it can go on the wall. Maybe it can go as a monument sign in the right of way. But just just so people know what's coming.

All right. With that, I'm going to move for approval agenda items 29 through 33 with the additional conditions that have been stated today. However, I will also say that I understand that some of my colleagues have their concerns, and it is what it is. That's my motion.

Can I clarify the two conditions? All single-story homes and pay for and install a sign that indicates entering a rural preservation overlay area.

Correct.

Commissioner, I'm sorry. I'm voting no because at some point we have to protect those people that have been there. And as much as they're not wrong, that it will be a precedent. Buffalo is a hard street. Now it's a major thoroughfare and all those other things. It's no different than Jones. It's no different than Tenaya. So, sorry.

And, Commissioner, just in fairness to the applicant, I would be the same way. So...

I would like to hold this for two weeks.

Then I will rescind my motion and make a motion to hold this for two weeks.

Thank you.

There is a motion for a two-week hold. Please cast your vote. That motion passes.

Okay, so those items will come back to you on August 19th, 2026. The next items are 34 through 38, which are companion items and will be heard together. 34 is PA-26-700-017, plan amendment to redesignate the land use category for mid-intensity suburban neighborhood to compact neighborhood on 1.44 acres, generally located east of Wallop Highway and north of Serene Avenue within Enterprise. 35 is ZC-26-0308, zone change to reclassify 1.44 acres from RS-20 zone to RM-18 zone, generally located east of Hualapai Way and north of Serene Avenue within Enterprise. 36 is VS-26-0207, vacate and abandon easements of interest to Clark County located between Hualapai Way and Conquistador Street and Olita Avenue and Serene Avenue within Enterprise. 37 is ws-26-0209 amended waivers of development standards for the following one reduce rear setbacks two eliminate required open spaces which is no longer needed three allow attached sidewalks four street intersection offset five reduce curb return radius and six reduce driveway separation design review for a single family attached residential development on 1.44 acres in an rm18 zone generally located east of Wallapai Way and north of Serene Avenue within Enterprise. And 38 is TM-26-500053, intended to map consisting of 14 single-family residential lots and common lots on 1.44 acres in an RM18 zone, generally located east of Wallapai Way and north of Serene Avenue within Enterprise.

Good morning.

Good afternoon, Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Blaine Soule, spelled S-O-U-L-E. I'm with Dwyer Engineering, and along with me is the applicant and owner of the property, This property we are proposing a zone change of the current master plan which allows to build up to eight duplexes per acre to an RM18 which is 18 duplexes per acre with a planned use designation of a compact neighborhood. Our proposed zone change is based on current economic conditions of the area and growth patterns and housing market. By increasing the density, we address increasing demand for housing options in our community. Each unit, which is a duplex, Each unit within the duplexes will be between 1,456 and 1,546 square feet of living space. Lots will range in size from 1,847 square feet excuse me Of that will be a common space right in this location here, which we are doing as we once sought a waiver for but we decided to comply and we provided this common space, which consists of a gazebo, walking path, and benches. This common space exceeds the required 1,680 square feet. These duplex homes will have a two-car garage, and we have some drawings if you want to show those. These homes will have a two-car garage with a private backyard. We held a neighborhood meeting on May 20, 2025, and did not hear any opposition from neighbors. During our town board meeting on May 27, 2026, we also did not hear any opposition and there was also not any opposition on the July 7th Planning Commission. The following are waivers that are being requested. Number one, put that back. Number one, a waiver for a 10-foot rear setback when 15 feet is required. We feel that the surrounding properties of the development, our homes, are consistent in use, height, and building form with the surrounding neighborhood. We also are including increased landscaping within that 10 feet of setback that we're requesting. as a buffer. Waiver number two was eliminated. That was the open space which we conformed to. We are no longer seeking that waiver. Number three, waiver number three would be a waiver to not have the sidewalks attached excuse me, not have the sidewalks detached. And this is because of the lack of room to develop a full detached sidewalk. If you can help me open this. So in green we show the sidewalks that we will have as attached sidewalk only because we do not have the length sufficient enough to bring them as fully detached and then bring them back again for the areas of sidewalk crossing. Number four, the fourth waiver we're seeking. a waiver for a 71-foot intersection when 125 feet is required. That 125-foot requirement doesn't even get us this full length here. There's just not adequate room in either direction for a full 125 feet. We have 71 shown from this point here to the driveway. And that's the waiver we're seeking for this private street. In addition, oh, here it is. Unless exempt per Section 2 below, street intersection shall be offset a minimum of 125 feet measured from right-of-way line to right-of-way line.

I think you can speed it up. Oh, I'm sorry, yes.

And the final one, or there's two more. A waiver for a 15-foot radius when 25 is required. Can you bring it? Perfect, thank you. That would be right. This radius here would be 15 feet, and this would be 25. And finally, the last. A waiver for a one point, basically a one and a half foot distance from driveway to driveway. And this is because they're duplexes. They're side by side. So the driveways will end up being side by side. And that distance is about one and a half feet to the property line for a total of about three feet between driveways.

If that completes your presentation, I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing on items 29 through 33. Anyone wishing to speak on these items, please come forward.

I think you mean 34 through 38.

I do 34 through 38. Anyone wishing to speak on 34 through 38, please come forward. Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing. Commissioner Jones.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate you guys working with a challenging infill site here and that you worked with Planning and Public Works to do as best you could do under the circumstances. And so with that, I'll go ahead and move for approval agenda items 34 through 38 with the removal of withdrawal of waiver number one.

Thank you. Commissioner Jones has made a motion. Please cast your vote.

Mr. Jones, was that waiver number one or waiver number two? Because I thought the applicant said waiver number two. Apologies, waiver number two.

That motion passes. Thank you very much.

to the right page for the right number um i'm on uh okay 39. uh so 39 uh is companion with 40 and 41 so we'll hear those together uh 39 is pa 26-700021 plan amendment to redesignate the existing land use category from neighborhood commercial to business employment on 0.95 acres generally located east of decatur boulevard and north of el dorado lane with an enterprise 40 is ZC-26-0255, zone change to reclassify 0.95 acres from RS-20 zone to IL zone, generally located east of Decatur Boulevard and north of El Dorado Lane within Enterprise. And 41 is WS-26-0256, waivers of development standards for the following. One, modify residential adjacency standards. Two, reduce setbacks. Three, reduce street landscaping. Four, increase parking. And five, alternative driveway geometrics. Design review for proposed office warehouse building on 0.95 acres in an IL zone, generally located east of Decatur Boulevard and north of El Dorado Lane with an enterprise.

Very good. Good morning.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Bob Gronauer, 1980 Festival Plaza Drive. I'm here representing the applicant and property owner on this matter. The first thing that I want to mention is this is one of these challenging infill pieces of the properties that you will see in this general area. This is less than one acre. It is adjacent to Decatur and you have El Dorado just to the south down here. As you can see by the configuration of the site, not just because of the size of being less than one acre, but the width of the property here makes this very difficult to develop no matter what zoning district you have, more than likely or you will have a multiple of waiver of development standards. The property, as you can see here, is already zoned, excuse me, it's a neighborhood commercial zoning in the area, a master plan with a BE over here in the general vicinity. So basically you have commercial going up and down or some other industrial uses planned and or existing on Decatur in this area. When you take a look at the aerial here, one of the concerns that you have, even with the commercial zoning here, if we were to come in with the commercial zoning to develop, even if we came in with the convenience store, if we came in with fast food, or even if we came in with strip retail buildings, you will have some type of waiver development standards, some that we have here or even more with those commercial uses. But more importantly, if you're going to come in with commercial uses here, you are more akin to having a 24-7 hour type of uses here, such as fast food or other commercial uses that we believe are more intense than the zoning and the land plan that we're asking for. Because although we have commercial zoning here and we could have certain uses under C2, under the commercial uses in here that would allow for hotel, motel as of right, and other commercial uses that we think are more intense than your industrial. We're asking to come in with the business BE land plan along with, initially we were coming in with IL zoning, but at the planning commission it was knocked down to IP because that actually hits exactly what we want. Because what we're proposing is an office warehouse type of building, which is, when you think about it, is far less intense than coming in with the commercial that we can do in this area. As a matter of fact, the IP, the type of uses that we're going to have, they're not 24-7 hour uses. They're mainly uses that you'll have during the daytime of working because these are going to be office warehouses for small contracting businesses. I want to get your attention on the overhead on the site plan. We've had a couple of neighborhood meetings over the last year or so going through this process. Initially, we were looking at putting the building up adjacent to some residential that's located in this area. We had numerous conversations of where to put the building, locations, and landscaping, and design. And where we are today is we moved the building as far as possible to Decatur that we can. Initially, I think we moved the building an additional 10 more feet from where we were from our neighborhood meetings. What we've done is We've eliminated a landscape waiver along the east property line here where we have a minimum of 15 feet of landscaping, which is double row of trees. So we've buffered this area here fairly significantly. We moved the building as far back as possible so you don't have a building that's imposing up adjacent to the east property line. Because the property is very narrow, we do have some waivers. One of the waivers is for trash enclosure. We do have a trash enclosure that's placed like in this area here. It is shielded with concrete or block walls in this area here. No matter where we put this trash enclosure, it will necessitate a waiver one way or the other. And so what we wanted to do is put it down here as far away from anything that we can have to have an impact. Some of the other waivers is by moving the building as far as close to possible as the cater. We have a little bit of reduction. in the landscaping along the DCHAT sidewalk between the sidewalk and the building. However, we are keeping the amount of trees that were required to be in this area along Decatur. We do have a waiver with respect to the approach distance to Decatur, to our driveway here. The staff in Public Works was recommending, are they okay with that approach waiver? Because as you know, As I already mentioned, you only have so much room to work on this piece of property for ingress and egress. And we can meet that up here on Decatur because we have enough room here, as you can see, with the frontage that we have out onto Decatur. We did withdraw one of our driveway throats, waivers of development standards. We removed some parking in this area. where that is no longer required, and I believe that's noted in the updated staff report. What I want to finish with is the elevations. This is the front elevations of the building that we have. As you can see, we have some windows that are going to be facing out here, so you don't just have block walls in the area. This is facing out onto Decatur. Initially, when we were coming in, we had windows facing out into the neighbors, into the east side. This is our east elevation here. We had roll-up doors, and initially we had some windows in here. But we've made some changes, and some of the changes that we've had since the neighborhood meeting and going through the hearing process, we actually removed the windows that were up on top in this area here. and we have roll-up doors, but we've made some changes to the roll-up doors that you see here. This is the current elevation that we are moving forward with. The elevation here, is a roll of doors are 14 feet in height. They'll have windows for the architectural elevation there. We removed the windows that were initially up in this area here. The building that you see, we also reduced the building height. Initially, we were at 37 feet in height. And today, this is mainly at 30. We had 30 feet with some 33 feet. Also, with some architectural changes, in intrusions into the area, but anywhere from 30 to 33 feet that you can see with the building. And then, as I already mentioned, is with the rolled doors, we're putting the windows that are in there. So we've made some changes to the area here to lessen the impact overall on the property that we have. As I said, this is a challenging piece of an infill piece of property. So we've made a lot of changes here to limit the amount of impacts in this area. And I think we did a fairly good job of moving the building as close to the cater, changing the elevations here. And some of these elevations that you see are similar to some of the architectural elements that we took out of the Western Trails Park that is in the area nearby. That being said, I'm here to answer any other questions that you may have.

Thank you. This is a public hearing on items 39 through 41. Those here to speak, please come forward.

Good morning. My name is Lori Howard-Moll. I live in this neighborhood, and we have had several meetings with the owner and the developers. I will use an exact quote from your staff. This is a very ambitious development, meaning that it is 14,000 square feet on a very small lot. That's one of the problems. We asked that there would be no roll-up doors. They didn't listen to us, although that's in Title 30. Also, there is an exit and an entrance right onto El Dorado, and not even 100 feet from there, you've got the Western Trail Park, and there are horses there. This is a rural neighborhood, and there are people riding their horses on the road because we don't have sidewalks. There's no safe way. to move our horses in that whole area. And we will be getting that commercial traffic down El Dorado because it will come directly out of their back parking lot and it will turn east and come on our street. There's no way to do that or to prevent that with a sign. People ignore signs. The other consideration is that when they change this zoning, if you approve this zoning, it's going to impact all of Decatur from El Dorado to Warm Springs. And I know Commissioner Knaff understands that area. It becomes more narrow as you get closer to Warm Springs. So the width changes. The center line is not even from Decatur over to that area. This is such an ambitious project for our neighborhood, and it's a rural neighborhood. We keep forgetting that this is a rural neighborhood. We're backed right up into it. And we've had many a conversation with the gentlemen that have been presenting. You'll note that the staff didn't agree with a lot of this. You'll notice that the Enterprise Town Board disagreed. And unfortunately, the Planning Commission didn't listen to us at all. just the way it rolled out. But I'm asking for you to reconsider this project. It needs to be a lot smaller, less intense, and we need to have that Eldorado issue somehow mitigated so they're not going to be using that street if you do decide to go forward with this. I appreciate all your help. Thank you again, Commissioner Naff and everyone.

Thank you. Good morning.

How are you?

I'm good. If you could just use that handheld microphone.

My name is Barry King and I live at 7330 Ulam Drive, Las Vegas, 89139. I'm right across the street from her. Okay, this is really an interesting site plan. I've never seen anything like this before. Okay, the first thing is you'll notice it says bus stop. Okay? There is no bus stop there. And not only that, the bus stop is over on the shoulder of the road. The bus stop goes for 100 feet, and there's also a median that puts traffic out into... from the bus stop out into the Decatur Boulevard. Okay, none of that exists. Okay, then you have down here at the site plan, you have the scale, and the scale is, it goes from 48, and then it says this little bit here, it doubled, it becomes 96. Really, if you measure it, it's only 60 feet. Okay, so who knows what's right on this site plan? You know, it's a mess. Okay, now let's take a, before we've always been, I'm always being told that the people that are gonna use this are up and coming young people and they're gonna come in in the morning They're going to exit during the day and come back in the evening. And the example is a plumber. But this is not really the way some plumbers operate. For instance, you have plumbers that install air conditioners, and they have a need for a warehouse. The average plumber that's making visits, he doesn't have a warehouse. He is not... He's taking things out in the morning and sending them to the job site. But during the day, he's taking air conditioners in. Okay, there's a problem with getting these air conditioners in. And the first is, there is not enough room to turn. Okay? So you have... If you have a 12-foot trailer, and that has a 12-foot bed, and it has a 3-foot tongue, you can back that trailer in. Okay, but extend it to 17 feet, and you have a trailer... You can finish your sentence. You have a trailer that's... You have 17 feet, and that trailer... It has a tongue of three feet. And doing the math on it and looking at AI also, I've done it both ways. One is probable if the wheels are 60% back. And if they're 80% back, it's only... Wrap up your comments. Well, there's so many issues here, I don't think it's quite fair that we don't get to discuss all the issues.

Well, there's been a year and a half of discussion, but I hear your point.

Well, I haven't been involved in the discussion. These developers have.

Okay, your time has long expired, so go ahead and have a seat.

Well, this is completely unfair. You know, I mean, we don't have a...

I would just remind you, you don't even know how this board's going to vote yet, or conditions I might put on the application.

You've heard everybody else's.

Okay, have a seat, and we'll go ahead and see if anyone else is here to speak on these items. This will be the last call for items 39 through 41. seeing no one i will close the public comment period i will invite the applicant to come back up um i want to thank uh miss mom oh there you are uh especially you have been involved in this for a very long time you've been at uh both the public meetings and the neighborhood meetings that have gone on really for a year and a half i think on this so thank you for that um i I am cognizant, though I disagree with the assertion that this is necessarily precedent setting, but I am cognizant of that. Mr. Warhol, is there any protections here that you think anything approved here would apply to everything along that alignment? No, every property is different. It doesn't set a precedent, and this is a unique situation, so. very good so the record's clear on that as it relates to anything further down the road but i do think it's important to apply some conditions that at least the community knows i would be holding others to as well some of which uh have already been reflected in the plan some of which have not so i'm going to go ahead and put them all on the record now and then mr groenauer i'll ask you to respond to some of those and to some of the other concerns raised we spoke about height while the plans don't call for anything higher than what is allowed in the residential zoning i'm going to make sure that we condition it to a maximum of 35 feet they're not even asking for that but we're gonna the reason i want to do that is because i don't want anything to maybe come back administratively without there being a condition on the application that is very clear from this board and in future applications that can be referenced as well so there'll be a maximum height of 35 feet which both of you can do by right at your own home Related to El Dorado, I'll ask Mr. Papazian to weigh in on that. That is important. I think you're right. It probably requires more than just signage. What can we impose? Maybe a pork chop?

Thank you, Commissioner. We've done this in the past to try and separate the commercial traffic heading east, so I'd like to add a condition that Do I have a moment to talk about other items?

Sure, I've got a long list outside of that. We will come back to what essentially I'm going to ask Mr. Popozian to propose a condition that limits the flow of traffic, the right out only onto El Dorado.

Correct. It'll say coordinate with public works for the design and construction of the driveway on El Dorado to prohibit eastbound movements. And we've done this in the past.

And so that's more than signage.

Correct. We would also add signage to that condition, so they will on-site have to add those signage so they know that all they can make is a write-out from that driveway.

Okay. I shared the initial concerns related to the roll-up docks. I'm going to put a couple conditions as it relates to those roll-up doors. One, those are to be at-grade, so they're not loading docks. They're just simply roll-up doors. But I also think they need to look... They need to be enhanced so there were a couple things that were demonstrated The requirement is going to be that they are and Jason I'm going to look to you to clear this condition up, but the intent is that they be glass that they be Enhanced that they not be just the metal typical garage doors that we see but they have a higher aesthetic value and

Yes, I think we could do that the roll-up doors are to give the appearance of glass, so they can do glass or give something that gives the appearance of glass with the final design to be approved by staff so that once they know what that final design is, they can give us a plan and we can work together and make sure that's what we're looking for.

Very good. You can sit down. This is not a public hearing. Sir, you're going to have a seat. sir the time for public comment has expired if you wait patiently you know this is totally unfair i'm sorry you feel that way have a seat i've got a lot more to say uh there's also tell you what was said at our first meeting and that was all these things have been worked out the uh comment that related to the quantity of the roll-up doors i think is also concerning so this will be a condition but mr all swing tell me if there's a way i need to read into the record more clear uh there's to be a maximum of five roll-up doors so where seven is currently presented in the plans there'll be a maximum allowed of five okay that's clear okay uh and then as it relates to the gentleman's comments uh i think that were related to hours of operation i'm going to put a cap on those hours of operation limited to daytime hours only which is defined in title 30. uh that's something new mr groenauer the applicant let's take it or leave it but Okay. And then I'm going to head back now to Mr. Papazian to address both that and perhaps the bus stop issue.

Thank you, Commissioner. First of all, we do have a project on Decatur. It's in design right now. We're acquiring additional right-of-way so that it's not sawtooth. starts from blue diamond and it will meet our warm springs we have a warm springs road project right now so it will um ultimately be from blue diamond to warm springs so it will be widened uh decatur boulevard is not like any other arterial it's actually a range line which means it's an additional uh our typical arterials are 100 feet wide and this indicators particularly 120 so we have plenty of room for a bus turnout they will be using the shoulder for the bus turnout so it will be out of the traffic and again we'll not impeding this property in any way not impeding the property that 120 right away that's that's new or that's been around a long time Been around a long time back when BLM broke down the properties in Clark County.

Very good. And then I do want to just recognize that this is down zoning from what was initially requested, which I think it was an appropriate decision made at prior public hearings. Are the conditions that I've imposed clear to the applicant?

Yes, sir.

Is there anything else you want to clarify?

No, I think I went through in the presentation unless you have any specific questions.

I don't, but just so the record is crystal clear, maybe you could go through the public hearings that have happened related to this item, the notification that was provided for those public hearings, and then well prior to any public hearings, neighborhood meetings that have been held.

Yeah, we had two, I know one neighborhood meeting I was not at. I wasn't hired. Our firm was not retained at the time. So that was pre-me. August of last year, we had a neighborhood meeting down off one of the hotels off of Jones or Decatur in that area. a rainbow one of the hotels and then we had some subsequent discussions with some other neighbors at the neighborhood meetings we had a good showing at the neighborhood meeting we had i'm going to say probably up to about 15 solid to maybe 20 on the high end but probably about 15 people the things that we discussed are what i was discussed here today which is the location of the building we talked about commercial versus industrial I do feel that the industrial, as we explained to you by coming in with that, is a far less intense use than the commercial, regardless of what someone wants. We're not going to have the major truck traffic, you know, where you have the loading docks. We don't have loading docks here. As we explained through the whole public hearing process and the gentleman mentioned, this is for smaller contractors, right? The intent here is there's a market here for the small businessmen or woman where they have a contracting business and they don't need anything more than 3 000 square feet you know because the rents are much higher you know you have 10 000 square feet you have 100 000 square feet you have those but but as far as the opportunity for communication um Yeah, in all fairness, whatever we do with every other item, we have communications as we go through this process, and then we try to make adjustments as we go through. So yes, we've had those communications.

Okay, thank you.

So if there are no questions from the board.

from the members of this board. No, you may go ahead and have a seat, sir. I'm going to go ahead and... I'm going to move for approval. Is this going to be the zoning that you're going to vote on?

Industrial Park? Or are you going to...

IP is what has been reduced to. So my motion is for approval of items 39 through 41 with the additional conditions that were clarified for the record. Is that for both public works and planning, those conditions are crystal clear? Yes, they are. Very good. There's a motion for approval. Please cast your vote. That motion passes. Thank you.

Thank you, and have a good day.

42 through 47 have been held. That brings us to items 48 through 52, which are companion items, will be heard together. 48 is PA 26-700023, plan amendment to redesignate the existing land use category from entertainment mixed use to compact neighborhood on 29.46 acres, generally located northeast of Boulder Highway and southeast of Harmon Avenue within Sunrise Manor and Whitney. 49 is ZC-26-0265, zone change to reclassify 29.46 acres from CR zone to RS2 zone, generally located northeast of Boulder Highway and southeast of Harmon Avenue within Sunrise Manor and Whitney. 50 is VS-26-0270, vacate and abandon a portion of right of way being Harmon Avenue located between Boulder Highway and Jimmy Durante Boulevard within Sunrise Manor and Whitney. 51 is PUD-26-0266, planned unit development for a 279-lot single-family detached residential development with modified development standards on 29.46 acres in an RS2 zone, generally located northeast of Boulder Highway and southeast of Harmon Avenue within Sunrise Manor and Whitney. And 52 is TM-26-500-068. Tentative map consisting of 279 single-family residential lots and common lots on 29.46 acres in an RS-2 zone. Generally located northeast of Boulder Highway and southeast of Harmon Avenue within Sunrise Manor and Whitney. Thank you. Good morning.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner. Stephanie Gronauer, 1980 Festival Plaza. Here on behalf of the applicant, Lenar Holmes. We're here with an opportunity to develop what was previously constructed as the east side cannery site. The property is located on the east side of Boulder Highway and on the south side of Harmon Avenue. This area in yellow here is almost 30 acres, so it's a pretty significant site. When Lenar got involved in this project, obviously the area has changed with the demolition of this casino site. Currently, the property is master planned and zoned for the most intense uses. Since there was a casino on the property, it's currently planned for entertainment mixed use and zoned for commercial resort. So when Lennar was looking at what would be appropriate in the area, they really did look closely at the other zoning categories in the surrounding area. And you can see just by the multitude of colors on this site, there's a whole variety. variation of densities and uses within the area. To the northeast of the property there is residential single-family RS 5.2 and RS 3.3. To the east of it is multi-family so you have RM 32 directly to the east of it. There's Bailey Elementary School located to the east of it as well and then to the southeast of it is RM 18 so Again, a real mix across the street, across Boulder Highway. You know, you've got the commercial, but then you also have quite a bit of RS 5.2. So when they were looking at the property to figure out what type of residential zoning would be appropriate, they wanted to make sure, number one, it would obviously be a good quality project, but also the longevity of the project for years to come. And so what they've landed on is an RS 2 PUD development, which allows for a higher density, small lot zoning, single-family detached product. We've got 279 homes that are proposed on this site. This is Harmon Avenue, as I mentioned, along the north property, and then Boulder along this western edge of the property. There's a MB Energy power easement that runs along the entire east side of the property, which they're using as an opportunity for an added amenity with a trail, decomposed granite trail, all along that portion. You can also see in blue, there's connectivity throughout the site with sidewalks on one side of the street, and then as I mentioned, this DG trail. They'll also be detached sidewalk along the frontage streets for walkability within the community. also accessibility to public transportation and to the elementary school that's just to the east of the property. When they decided to do a PUD, the reason is, is it allows for obviously flexibility with the design standards, but also there's substantial benefits that they're offering that otherwise wouldn't be provided with an RS2 development. With this, we've got about twice as much open space as would normally be required with an RS2 community we have two parks one that's located on this northern area here that will have a tot lot for kids and then the planning commission asked us to add another one located here along the south edge also with tot lots again about twice as much open space than would be required if we did not have a pud also from a parking standpoint all of these homes will have two car garages they're detached and we'll have two car garages but we also have an additional 100 parking spaces for extra guest parking throughout the site. So you can see there's designated parking spaces along this eastern edge and throughout the site along the south in a few areas. The streets are wide. They're 43-foot wide streets, so you can also park on both sides of the streets. So when you've got these smaller lot detached homes, parking's super important. It was very important to Commissioner Gibson when we brought this project to him. So we've got those wide streets and a ton of additional parking provided. Also the added open space that we provided at the Planning Commission. From a tree standpoint, there'll be trees in every single one of these front yards, and then you can see perimeter landscaping. We are limited along this eastern edge with the Nevada NV Energy easement, but it will be activated for residents to use with a pathway. I believe that covers most of it. I did have one condition that we'd asked to be revised that I did email late to, I'm sorry, to Jason and Antonio. It's a fairly straightforward condition. But under the building department addressing condition, it currently says that the streets shown as Cantera Bend Drive shall assume the same name as Harmon Dune Drive. There's two different names here, Harmon Dune, and then this turns into Cantera Bend Drive. The community's planned to be called Cantera, so we'd prefer that that street be named Cantera Bend as opposed to Harmon Dune. So we just ask for a little bit of flexibility with that condition that the streets shown as Cantera Bend and Harmon Dune shall assume Cantera Bend Drive or a name acceptable to the building department. we understand that makes more sense to have one street name. So that's our only requested condition. The Planning Commission did approve this with the changes that you see today unanimously. They felt strongly that the changes that were made, the connectivity, the open space, And just the unique flexibility that have been provided is a great project for the area. It will be compatible with the area. As I mentioned, there's a school just immediately east of it that's under capacity, Bailey Elementary School. The high school and the middle school in the area also are under capacity. So it's exciting. It's a change from a casino, obviously, but it certainly is compatible and harmonious with the area and the other residential developments in the area. And we'd ask for your approval with that one changed condition.

Thank you. At this time I will open the public hearing on items 48 through 52. Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing. Commissioner Kirkpatrick.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, so Commissioner Gibson asked me to move forward to approve as per Planning Commission approval, which includes the updated site plan submitted July 7, 2026. I don't believe that's the one we have seen today because this one supposedly includes more added open space and trail connections on the northeast side of the development. Is that the plan in front of us?

This is, we have submitted the revised plans with the open space. This one does have the connectivity. There was a condition that we connect the sidewalk in this area. So we will submit this. I will submit it. The only change to this plan is this connection point here, which is a condition of approval as well.

Well, we just want to make sure we have the right map, right? So the right map is what was approved on the July 7th, 2026 meeting, which included that additional things, correct? Correct.

correct yeah we're not going to lock them down to that specific plan just in case there's little tweaks but yeah the comment the open space is shown and then we'll get this updated one that also shows the walkway um and with the conditions were covered oh i just thought that she said there was a map up top where there was a tot lot and if it's that itty bitty green spot then i thought she said a park

it is just for my clarification it's just not it's not in a different color is that correct it's not as clear as it could be so this is the park area here we've got about two acres of open space with this park area here and then this is an odd shaped park but both will have tot lots and they'll be activated we're just trying to clarify to make sure that we met commissioner gibson's plan okay that's my motion

Thank you, Commissioner. There is a motion. Please cast your vote on items 48 through 52.

Excuse me. Could we have the one revised condition I read in as well, please?

Yes, that's reflected in the motion.

Okay, thank you.

That motion passes. Thank you very much.

Thank you. And items 53 through 56 were held. That brings us to 57, AG-26-900457. The staff recommends that the Board receive the required two-year review of the Summerlin South Development Agreement.

Hello. Good afternoon, Chair and Commissioners. Matt Walker on behalf of Howard Hughes Communities. Just wanted to say thank you to staff for their diligence in compiling this 24-month report and their recommendation that it be received. And I do have a couple of brief comments, if it would be acceptable at this time. Of note, but recognizing that I'm on item 57. I'll be brief to say that this 24-month period includes approval of Village 17C, which is our final single-family village for the southern portion, the Clark County portion of Summerlin. Additionally, the report reflects that we have not yet opted into Title 30, but I did want the record to reflect that both Ms. Ammerman and Dr. Director Alswing have been persistent in forwarding that conversation because of the efficiencies for staff and processing applications. And we plan to make serious progress in good faith over the next year to remedy that and appreciate their continued support and dialogue on that issue.

Very good. Thank you. There's no public hearing required on this item, but Commissioner Jones, I don't know if you have comments.

I just appreciate the update and continue working with you on the next phase. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Walker.

The next two items are ordinances for introduction. Item 58 is ORD-26-900429, introduce an ordinance to consider adoption of a development agreement with HD Olita LLC and Las Vegas Paving Corp for an office warehouse complex on 9.67 acres. generally located south of Alita Avenue and Western Jones Boulevard within Enterprise. 59 is ORD-26-900492, introduce an ordinance to consider adoption of a development agreement with LV Warm Springs by its general partner, LV Warm Springs, LV Warm Springs CP LLC, by Flex GP Holding Corp, owner for a warehouse and distribution center,

on 6.47 acres generally located west of tinea way and south of rb avenue within spring valley staff recommends that you introduce the ordinances and set the public hearing for august 19 2026. thank you i will introduce the ordinances and set the public hearing for august 19 2026. that completes our agenda we're on the public comment thank you this is our final time set aside for public comment anyone wishing to speak come on down Seeing no one we will adjourn today's meeting. Thank you very much. Have a good rest of the day.