Clark County Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you, everyone. Thank you for joining us to the Planning Commission for Tuesday, September 15th. If you wouldn't mind, would I get everyone to please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance? I pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Staff, can I get roll call?

Chair Frazier?

Here.

Vice Chair Mihica?

She's online.

Commissioner Stone?

He's here.

Commissioner Kirk?

Here.

Commissioner Kolarski?

She's here.

Commissioner Brady? Here. Commissioner Reutemann?

Excuse.

Mr. Chair, we have a quorum.

Thank you very much. First item of business is public comments. This is a part of the meeting where anyone in the public is allowed to come down and put their comments on record. The commission is not allowed to act or vote or comment on any of those comments, but you're more than welcome to come down and put your thoughts on record. Seeing no one coming down, we're going to close public comments and we'll start the meeting. Thank you, staff.

All right. The next item on the agenda is approval of the agenda after any additions, holds, or deletions. At this time, staff has the following requests. Hold the following to October 6, 2026 Planning Commission meeting per the applicant, item number 27WS260535. hold the following to the November 3rd, 2026 Planning Commission meeting and the corresponding Board of County Commissioners meeting to December 2nd, 2026, per the applicant. Item number 37, PA 2670034. Item 38, CC 260450. Item number 39, WS 260451. Item number 40, TM 26500106. hold the following to the january 5th 2027 planning commission meeting and the corresponding board of county commissioners meeting to february 3rd 2027 per the applicant item number 28 pa 26 seven zero zero zero two zero item 29 zc 26 dash zero five zero four item number 30 vs 25 dash zero eight nine seven item number thirty one uc twenty five zero eight nine six For the applicant's information, additional re-notification fees may be required in accordance with Title 30 for items held or deleted, or if there are modifications to the original application. The above public hearing items are going to be opened as a public hearing and immediately recessed until the date previously stated. This is for items number 27 through 31 and 37 through 40. If there are no requests by the Planning Commission or any members of the public, the agenda stands ready for your approval.

Thank you, staff. I got a couple of administrative items, so I'm gonna start with Commissioner Stone.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Item 37, 38, 39, and 40 are in my district, and I would like to hear them in the order in which they're presented on the agenda, so therefore I do not want the whole language to be placed on the agenda. We'll hear those in the normal course of our meeting tonight, and for those in the audience, you might be aware of that, and the applicant, you're aware of that as well.

Yeah. Yes, we'll wait until it's called at its appropriate time. Thank you. All right.

That's my revision to the agenda.

Thank you very much. I think I'm looking for Commissioner Kolarski, but I believe she had some comments on 28, 29, 30, 31. I don't know if she found the applicant or not.

Okay.

Well, we'll just keep moving.

If there's nothing further, Mr. Chairman, I'll move that we accept the agenda as stipulated by staff, holding item 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31. Thank you very much.

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

Before we do that, can I just ask if the applicant for items 28 to 31, is he here? Happy Minor? Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, no worries. There's a motion on the floor, cast your vote. Commissioner Mohica? Yep, so let's go ahead and cast that. No, we're going to go ahead and cast it with her not voting. That motion passes.

Next item. The next item on the agenda is approval of the minutes. At this time, the Planning Commission briefing and regular meeting minutes from August 18th, 2026 are ready for approval.

Mr. Chair, I move that we approve the minutes.

There's a motion on the floor. Cast your votes. I'll try again. Commissioner Mojica? All right, let's cast it. The motion carries. Next item.

Just a quick announcement. For the audience's information, items on tonight's agenda are final action unless appealed to the Board of County Commissioners or otherwise denounced. All appeals must be filed in writing to the Comprehensive Planning Department by 5 p.m. on Wednesday, September 23rd, 2026, and any appeals from tonight's meeting will be heard by the Board of County Commissioners on Wednesday, October 21st, 2026 at 9 a.m. in these chambers. Per Title 30, an agreed person may appeal an item. An aggrieved person includes the applicant, someone who attended this meeting in person or through an authorized representative, or someone who has submitted comments in writing, which may include a postcard or letter. Members in the audience must complete the meeting sign-in sheet found near the dais to confirm their attendance at this meeting. Mailed notices of appealed applications will be sent to the property owners within the same notification radius as the original application and to those listed on the meeting sign-in sheet. Additionally, any person may call the comprehensive planning department at 702-455-4314 or go to the county's meeting agenda webpage and review the meeting notice of final action to find out if any items have been appealed. The next item on the agenda are the routine action items, which consist of items number 4 through 18, except those items that were previously deleted. These items may be considered together in one motion and are subject to the conditions listed with each agenda item. If there are no objections, the public hearing is now open and the routine action portion of the agenda stands ready for approval.

Thank you, staff. make a vote on this, on the routine action items. I just gotta read something into the, so routine action items are going to be approved with one vote. So items four through 18, all of those items will be approved with one vote. So if anyone in the audience wants to hear or pull one of those items off of the routine action item list, now is the time to do so. All right, seeing no one coming down. I think you wanted to add a condition to one of yours that's on routine.

Yes, Maren Perry.

Name and address for the record.

Maren Perry, 1980 Festival Plaza Drive. And with respect to item 17, we'd like to request that the item be approved with the condition consistent with Town Advisory Board approval as follows. Approved for a maximum of three events per year with each event not to exceed three days with one week for setup and one week for takedown.

Thank you very much. All right, so we're about to cast our votes for routine action items four through 18. I'm willing to entertain a motion.

Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve items four through 18.

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

Mr. Chairman, does that include removing that bullet for the item that... Yeah, they have it, the staff has it, and it includes the motion that was read in by the applicant.

Mr. Kirk, that includes the condition that Ms. Perry read in the record? Correct. Correct, yep.

And just to clarify, the current condition of current planning is going to be removed. Correct.

So this will replace it. Yes, yes. Thank you. Motion on the floor. Cast your vote.

Commissioner Mojica, yes.

Thank you.

Motion carries. Next item. All right, our next item is item number 19. Item number 19 is companion with item number 20 and can be heard together. Item number 19 is SC26-0557, street name changed to name a private drive aisle Bush Brothers Drive, generally located northwest of Las Vegas Boulevard North and southwest of Checkered Flag Lane within the Sunrise Manor planning area. And item 20. is sc26-0558 street name change to name a private drive aisle rowdy road generally located northwest of las vegas boulevard north and southwest of checkered flag lane within the sunrise manor planning area thank you very much staff there's applicant in the audience for items number 19 and 20.

Is the applicant here?

Yeah, I'm going to ask one more time. Is there an applicant in the audience for items 19 and 20? Which are the name changes? All right, seeing no one else, we'll hold it.

I think we can proceed with it. Can't we, staff? Jason?

We've got to open it up for public hearing, and then we can vote on it? Okay. All right, so seeing no one coming to present, the board is inclined, we'll open this application, both these applications up for a public hearing, and then anyone in the audience like to speak on this item, now's the time to do so. All right, seeing no one coming down to speak on it, I will close the public hearing and entertain a motion for approval or denial.

I see a light. Nope. Okay. I forgot to turn off. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is in my district and It represents a bit of a legacy for the Bush brothers who have really put Las Vegas on the map when we really didn't have racers that were, at the time, part of Las Vegas. And I'm happy to make a motion to approve item, we'll do this in two motions, item 19, SC-26-0557 for approval for street name change for private drive aisle to Bush Brothers Drive. I'm proud to make that motion.

Thank you very much. There's a motion on the floor. Cast your vote.

Commissioner Mojica, yes.

Thank you. That motion carries. Next item.

Do we have anything to add on 20, or can we proceed right to a motion? Yes. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to make a motion to approve item 20SC-26-0558, a street name change to a private drive aisle called Rowdy Road. And I didn't know this earlier, but I was told that Rowdy was a nickname. for one of the Bush brothers and again proud to make that motion on behalf of the county. My motion is for approval.

Thank you Commissioner Stone. So there's a motion on the floor. Cast your vote.

Commissioner Mojica yes.

Thank you. The motion carries. Thank you. Next item staff.

All right that is final action on those items unless appealed. Our next item is item number 21 UC 26 0365 holdover use permit for a place of worship waivers of development standards for the following one increase retaining wall height to increase building height three modify residential adjacency standards for eliminate parking lot landscaping island and five reduce parking requirements a design review for a place of worship on 1.59 acres and an RS 20 residential single-family 20 zone generally located south of Sahara Avenue and east of West Wind Road within Spring Valley

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

Good evening. My name is John Grutich, 4750 Desert Plains Road, Las Vegas, Nevada. So tonight I want to present again, we had two weeks ago, church, Ethiopian church, and the site is located one block from intersection Sahara and on south side. And we...

Samuel Makonen, 7270 Berkland Court, Las Vegas. I am here to speak on behalf of the church. The last meeting we had, the discussion concerned or was concentrated on the significance of the dome and the height of the dome. As Orthodox parishioners, when we worship inside our churches, we look up into the heavens and we believe the Lord and the heavens do see us. The center dome of our church is not just a structure. It is a place where biblical stories are told. The higher the dome, the more biblical stories are painted on it. As the saying goes, one picture is worth a thousand words. Even though the literacy rate is improving now in Ethiopia, in the early years of Christianity, Majority of the population was illiterate, did not read. Hence, church leaders use iconography to spread the gospel and tell the story of Christ in the form of picture in the interior dome of each church. In the Ethiopian Orthodox tradition, most churches are named after a particular saint, Saint Michael, Saint Gabriel, Saint Mary, and so on. The story of these saints and the battle they fought in service to the Lord is told in pictures painted starting at the interior wall, rising all the way to the ceiling of the dome.

I have a couple of pictures to show you what the churches look like.

Upside down this.

This church you're looking at, the exterior of Boli Medani Alam in Addis Ababa, this is the exterior of the church, and here is the interior. of that same church. And as you can see, most of the story is told in the paintings of the center dome. That dome carries a lot of weight. I also have another church. This is a church, St. Michael Ethiopian Orthodox Church in Addis Ababa. As you can see, the center dome has two tiers windows. What we are asking here is just one tier window. Each window is probably about 14 to 15 feet high. And here is the interior of this particular church and how the story is told. So the significance of the dome is very important. I hope that you will approve the project and allow us to worship as our ancestors have done so for thousands of years. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Does that conclude the presentation? Are you still presenting?

Yes. Two weeks ago, we started with the 112 tall dome and 14,000 square feet of the church, and we had actually shortage in the parking lot. Then what we did actually, we downsized to area to be 12,000 square feet. And by doing that, we actually, we were available, was able actually to remove four waivers that we originally asked for. So now you can see here we do have additional parking. So now we have required parking is 48. We providing now 57. So now we have nine extra parking lots than actually what we need. So also, since we downsized, before we had 1,200 seats in the church. Now we're going down to 800. So we downsized at least for 400 seats. So... Also, by reducing size of the church, so also now we removing some waiver on the filling, and also we downsizing retaining walls. Before we had for north and east side, we had 10-foot retaining wall. Now we actually going on the north side, we go toward the commercial we do from 10 to 8. And on east side, we actually going from 10 originally, if you ask, we going... only for six-foot retaining wall. So now all these waivers that we ask for regarding filling, which actually go away. We don't need it anymore. So this is actually representing now what actually fill we do have, but since we don't need that, so I don't need to present that. So last time, somebody asked if you have some tools to demonstrate actually from adjacent private owner what actually what they're going to see. So since we downsized the building, so now we actually have a... So this is a property of... then when ralph wenger whatever so from his property we have actually 324 feet uh horizontal distance between his property and the backyard to the dome so i also also demonstrate here uh like in scale this is a human six foot tall and so uh looking toward the toward the church, toward the dome. And so I did, just kind of to show what kind of situation we have. So first option is, originally what I said, we had 112, so that's not option anymore. So now I'm showing here 95, 90, and 80. So now if you do 95 feet, that we would like honestly to get approval on that height. So also on this landscaping area that we have for property line, that's about 160 feet from back of his property, where we have a buffer 15 feet, actually 22 feet landscaping area. And we are planning to plant tall trees And trees actually here in scale I put typically in Las Vegas area 30 to 50 feet height of the full ground tree. I put here 40 feet. So now if you put entire this buffer with the trees, so I have here 18 degrees actually that person can look there. and we have about 11 feet above the top of the tree that we can see a piece of dome, just across and the top of the dome. If we do 80 foot, so we actually have only eight foot. But if you do 80 feet, we have only three feet. But problem with less than 85, I want to show you here. You can see actually, let me see. Here, 95, you can see how we have a full-size window. If you're going less than that, since we have a... Also, I forgot to tell, this is a 28 feet full, most of this actually a church. It's just a dome. This one is 60, this is 64, and this is 95. So by reach of roof line, here we have 28 feet, three feet higher than 35 feet what actually is required. So now let me go back and see. If he's squeezing down, if he's pushing down, so technically you can see here 95, we have full windows. So going down, we actually have a, you see this kind of curve area, we cannot install window, so we have to install, we can install a very small window, then 80, it's actually impossible. So I want to just show you here, that's actually, we have a proposed church, what we're doing. So this is, he showed earlier, this is one of the churches where they do typically in Ethiopia, this church is in Addis Ababa. So you can see here if he going down with this, this window technically they don't have a place to install this window. That's what would be for us desirable height 95 but not less than probably maybe you still can do something but will not be kind of realistic would be probably 90 it's probably still Okay, but not ad you can see it's really is not even close what they supposed to have Yeah, thank you.

All right. Thank you, sir. That concludes your presentation Yes, okay. Very good. All right So let's open this application up for a public hearing and they wanted an audience like to speak on this item Now's the time to come down and do so Come on come on sir And name an address for the record and give us your comments.

Good evening, commissioners. Ralph Steven Wenger, 2625 Lindell, and my property abuts to this. My presentation and my image tonight are based upon the information that's available on the county website. And I just wanted, wasn't sure, Mr. Kirk, what you were asking for for line of sight, but after taking some information, putting in some information in, this is what the image that was generated for the church that would be right behind my house. We're not opposed to this church. We're not opposed to the religious use of the property and we're not asking the county to interfere with anyone's right to worship. Our objection is to the magnitude of this particular development and the number of development standards that must be waived or modified to fit on this particular residential site. The clearest example is building height. The proposed church rises to approximately 112 feet. plus multiple high 60 to 90 foot domes. But the land use question before us is not whether the congregation may have religious architecture. The question is, does the religious architecture need to rise to this height on this particular site immediately adjacent to existing homes? Could the same religious use and architectural expression be accomplished with a substantially lower building? If 112 feet is essential to this particular design, then the commission should consider whether the design is simply too large for this particular property. Parking creates another serious concern. A church of this size must accommodate not only the building, but also the vehicles generated when the congregation gathers. There's also the impact of parking itself. The proposed grade along portions of the property is elevated above neighboring residential problem. properties that means vehicles headlights parking lot lighting building lighting and traffic and activity are not occurring at the same elevation as neighboring homes as for the development standards this is where i would ask you to look at the project as a whole Don't look at a building by itself. Don't look at the retaining wall, the grades by themselves, the setbacks, the residential adjacency, parking, buffering, screening, or other requested modifications by themselves. Stack them together. an approximately 112 foot religious structure, an elevated development site next to existing homes, parking and vehicle activity serving that developing, lighting associated with both the building and parking areas, and then the requests to waive or modify development standards that would otherwise help protect the surrounding residents. The cumulative impact is the issue. Development standards exist to establish what can reasonably fit into a property while protecting neighborhood properties. Continue, go ahead. Thank you. When the project requires waiver after waiver to achieve its proposed size and design, the commission should ask a very basic land use question. is the property being made to fit the project rather than the project being designed to fit the property. Again, this is not an objection to religious use. The congregation, we welcome them. We have four churches in our neighborhood within a block of my home. The question therefore is whether this particular design at this particular scale and with the requested waivers is appropriate for this particular site. We respectfully ask that you deny the requested waivers and require a substantially reduced design that preserves the congregation religious use while respecting the homes and residential neighborhood that are already here. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much for your comments.

I'd be happy to answer any questions. I've been on this for two weeks now.

If we have them, we'll call you back up. Thank you very much. Yes, ma'am. Name and address for the record and give us your comments.

Linda Gutierrez, 3191 West Wind Road. I live just south of this development, not adjacent, but south, down the street. And I was very impressed with the beauty of this church, especially hearing the significance of the dome, and agree with my neighbor that we welcome churches and congregations in our neighborhood but I don't understand why they would choose this location knowing they would have to change so many waiver standards and knowing that the dome is so important to them it doesn't fit at that size does not fit in that neighborhood obviously those standards are to protect our neighborhood or all neighborhoods and the plan, so choosing that location to me is problematic knowing that you're gonna come in with such a massive dome of such religious significance. So I too oppose the project as it's currently being proposed.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in the audience like to speak on this item? All right, we'll get back to you. Seeing no one else in the audience like to speak on this item, we will close the public hearing. I'm gonna turn it over to my commissioners and I will start with There are no lights. I'll start with Commissioner Kolarski.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, I've had a couple of churches with the spires or with the domes not quite as high as this, and they're in neighborhoods that are adjacent to arterials, not smaller streets as we see here on Westwind. and I'm talking about Desert Inn, so. I support the church. I do not support the height of that dome, even though the Islamic, and I forgot to do this in the two weeks, I wasn't as diligent as some, but there's an Islamic church that has a spire right there on Desert Inn, and lamb close in that vicinity. And I think that's probably, if I recall, probably about 40 feet, give or take. So maybe that high I could go, but I certainly cannot, I can't support a 95. I just can't do it.

Thank you, Commissioner Kolarski. can i get the district attorney just to kind of give us the for the audience's information kind of what the county's view is on on as far as religious applications and what we can and cannot you know approve and disapprove right there's a federal law and that federal law basically protects the use for that part of it the instrument for a place of worship and in order to to deny the

The use permit, we need compelling justification, which is a really high standard. It's a strict scrutiny standard, so we really have little discretion. And so what you're supposed to use is the least restrictive means. So if it doesn't fit, basically, you should approve the place of worship use permit, but then try to downsize it or have them come back with a plan that actually fits with the property. So basically what I'm saying is you have little discretion on the use permit, but you have discretion on the waivers to deny the waivers.

Thank you, appreciate that, staff. So I'm going to, I'm kind of on the fence a little bit, and I do see another light coming on. I absolutely agree with the district attorney. I can support the church use. I'm still struggling with the height of the dome, so I'll turn it over to Commissioner Kirk.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I appreciate the line of sight. That helps to get a sense for the mass of what the neighbors are going to be looking at. But what I'm confused about here, and maybe this is a question for staff, That is I think the applicant indicated that they don't need all the waivers and Have you had a chance has a staff had a chance to review the new waivers? That the applicant has submitted

Yes. So the applicant did provide staff with an updated set of plans. And based on looking at the plans and the applicant's narrative, what we have is the waiver development standards number one, the retaining wall height is going to be reduced to eight feet along the north and six feet along the east. Waivers 2, 3A, and 3B, which relate to height, are being reduced from 100, I believe it was 112, to 95 feet. Waivers 3D and 3E, which deal with fill height adjacent to residential development. They've brought it down to code standards, so those would not be required anymore. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. So 3B is not required anymore? 3D and 3E. 3D is in David. 3D as in David and E as in Edward.

Not required anymore.

Would not be required anymore. Waiver Development Standards Number 4, they're showing parking lot landscaping per code, so that would not be required anymore. And because they're now providing the required number of spaces, Waiver Development Standards Number 5 would not be required.

Something as complicated as this is, I don't really like evaluating it on the stand during the meeting. I think it gives us a better opportunity to evaluate it if we have more time to think about it and look at it, but that's not what we have. This is what we've got before us. I'm not comfortable, completely comfortable with the mass. I think the mass of the building is still too high. I mean, 95 feet across the street. I mean, there's a first Korean Baptist church That doesn't look like a very it's like maybe a two-story typical two-story building and it has kind of a residential flavor to it and I think that's the same with The other churches that are in the neighborhood they they have more of a residential feel now I appreciate the fact that this applicant that the dome is critical it's super important and I understand that and I'm not opposed to the use. I'm okay with this being a religious use for this parcel. I just am having a hard time getting my head around the height of the dome. Let me ask the staff one more time, with the adjustments at the that the applicant has made, does your recommendation change?

Staff was still concerned regarding the height.

The height is still an important issue. Okay. Okay. Just one more question. Do we have a landscape plot plan?

Is there a... Yeah, there should be one. There should be one in... Do they have it? I do have it. Can you show it? Yeah, please.

I will share with you right now. So, okay, you can see here. So this is... 22.5 buffer from property line to basically age of parking lot. So this is what we planning to plant this high tree. Okay, I got you.

So they're gonna be 24 inch box trees. That's what we're getting? Yeah, so they would be required the 24 inch box, but they would need to be seven feet at planting say that again They would need to be seven feet tall at planting when they plant there'll be seven feet tall yeah, okay, and the difference in elevation between the church Foundation if you will and the neighbors foundation, what's the difference is it is that? Looks like it's about 12 feet Can you help me with that? Let me see. I can't see it. I mean, I see it, but I can't read it.

So you can actually, if you can zoom right there, this is a full 95. If problem is 95.

Nope, that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking, you see where the foundation where the gentleman is standing? You represent the guy sitting. So right there.

Okay, hang on, hang on.

The difference between the land where he's standing and the base of the church. What's the difference in height? Yep, from that, yeah, that's what I'm looking for. Okay, and then, all right.

Yeah, I'm having a hard time with this. I'm too conflicted to support it.

at this time. Not saying I wouldn't change my mind if we made some changes, but right now, I don't think I can support it.

Thank you, Commissioner Kerr. Commissioner Stone?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't want to rehash things. I would just say I would certainly support church use, but the vertical building element term I would use would be the economy of scale seems off with respect to the neighborhood. I don't know how you fix it, but I don't think I can support the building elements that are in front of me tonight.

If you, I'm sorry.

Commissioner Brady, we'll give you an opportunity to speak. Hold that thought for one second.

Now, were you also buying that land across the street? So there's that land across, there's the house, is that Korean?

So yeah, I was there, and take a look, and then I did this scale, in scale, showing basically exactly what, if you put these screens, basically planting, landscaping, Basically, this is in scale and showing here actually that we can screen that. If we have like 95, we not be able to screen. But if we do 80, it's pretty much we have only top of the three feet of the top of the cross if we do 80. 80 is kind of critical, but I think even 80 is better than just to have some kind of dome for the church can do, you know, to look at church, Ethiopian church.

So one thing I look at is if it were to get approved, if it goes down that way, that we would have to have a crosswalk because you're going to use the parking across the street and all of that. I'm thinking of public safety if this were to go and get approved. I'm looking at this is that area is so much smaller and you're about if you were across the street That's the lots in depth is about 30 feet difference, but you have so much more land To where maybe it doesn't have to be so close to the homes And I'm trying to just come up with some ideas here trying to give some solutions is you're gonna have that whole entire strip and And also it would cut the amount of people that would have to walk across that street. Like the other commissioners, I'm really torn on this one. I appreciate religious symbolism.

Big on that I think that we could use more church as always And I'm so I'm I'm a little bit on the fence on this one, but I just wanted a voice If you think that we can do some kind of another reduction or and there's all we can come back again in two weeks and and try to do See what we can do to just to be you know

Go ahead, Commissioner Brady. Go ahead. One thing I do appreciate with what you've done is you've come back this time versus last time. In two weeks, you've accomplished a lot in actually doing what we've asked and giving us more information. So I do appreciate the work that you're putting into that to make sure we understand this better and working with your neighbors.

All right. Before I go to Commissioner Kowalski and then Commissioner Mojica, I do have a question on what's on the screen currently. This is a two-story building?

A two-story building.

Yeah, and so that third row of, let's call it windows, is that in a parapet area or what is that representing there? Do you follow me?

Sorry, Commissioner, can you repeat the question one more time?

So you have in, on the elevation, go back to your elevation. You don't have to keep moving it. The engineer will find it. You have three windows right on top, one on top of each other. And so your top row of windows on the elevation, on the side of the building.

Yeah, these windows you're talking about? Yes, those windows. These are more for light.

So those are a part of the interior of the building, not in the parapet of the roof?

No, they're part of the interior of the building.

They let light in into the church. Okay, all right. I was just trying to figure out a way to reduce the size of the main building, thus reducing the size of the dome. Okay, I'll leave it alone. I'll move on to Commissioner Kolarski.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I saw the neighbor who, when he was asked, when the applicant was asked the difference between the grade from his backyard to the church's, and he said 10 feet. If I can have you come down and then tell us what you think it is.

So we're gonna recognize the gentleman that spoke earlier. I need your name and address for the record so the record is clear, and then go ahead and answer the question.

Thank you.

Mr. Wenger, Ralph Wenger, 2625 Lindell. The drop from Westwind to my wall, my five-foot decorative wall, is between twelve and sixteen feet so when they put the retaining wall the base of the church i only have the original numbers to go on but that would raise that twelve feet up plus the height of the building and mister brady the parking lot that you're talking about is another rs twenty lot that would once again, that lot would go to more commercial or more commercialized. So that's not part of this project and that's not commercial right now. They may have access to it. Any other questions? I'm sorry.

Yep, you're fine. Thank you very much.

Can I ask that if you're going to move on something that we know what it is? I was acting on county's information from two weeks ago. There's been multiple updates right here, and it looks like we're going to vote on maybe something that we know nothing about.

No, we'll be voting on what's presented here tonight.

Thank you so much, I appreciate you all.

Thank you very much, of course. Go ahead, Commissioner Kolarski.

Well, I did, and I've lost it. Yeah, no, I've lost it. I'm sorry, go ahead.

So, can you repeat your question?

No, I was just asking. I wanted to know that, and then there was something else, but unfortunately...

So I just... Okay, I want to just... This gentleman, he's mentioned parking lot, but parking lot is not in the question anymore because we're providing nine parking spots more than what we need. So regarding height, so we're showing this... buffer 22 feet wide that will be basically filled with the tall trees for screening. So his property, because especially it's about 10 foot lower than the finish floor, and then also we're showing a tree close to basically his wall, and we... we are asking if he cannot get approval, a 95 that we prefer, so I'm asking if he can get at least 80 or 85, so if he gets three, he can see only three feet of the top of the cross, nothing else.

Thank you, sir. Before I go to Commissioner, okay, you remember now, Commissioner Kowalski?

Yes. No, I just wanted to say that whatever we do, Commissioner Kirk was talking about the landscaping and stuff. Please, again, I'm gonna just strongly recommend that you talk with the neighbors about whatever kind of tree you're planting, because there are some trees that are messier than others and are more invasive than others. So if you could just do that, or just strongly recommend that you do that, that you work with the neighbor as far as the landscaping goes.

All right, so I'm gonna give I'm gonna come back to you guys I'm gonna give my position. All right, so I Cannot support 90 feet I Cannot support 95 feet. I do recognize that you're going to install trees That are adjacent to the neighbors that will give them some view, I would say, a better view than seeing the church and the entire dome. I'm still not with the 80 feet either, but I'll listen to the rest of my commission and then we'll go from there. I'm sorry, Commissioner Mojica, I know you got some things you want to say, but our lights keep coming on down here, so I'll go to Commissioner Kirk and then Commissioner Stone.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. With the waivers that have been removed and with the height, we're still not sure what height you're asking for. I mean, if we could say a height, we could get 80, but I don't know what 80 looks like. I don't know if 80 is still too big. I mean, it's certainly smaller than 113 or 112, what you asked for before. But without having, and I would consider this, because of the changes that have been made, this is what we have before us here on my, the documentation I have is almost incomplete. And so I feel like I'm voting on something that I don't know what the final result's gonna be, because I don't know what it looks like. And so I'm not comfortable doing that. And so I'm not supporting, I mean, I'm not supporting it. So that's where I'm at.

Commissioner Stone. Commissioner Stone, if I may. Just one second, sir.

commissioner stone uh thank you mr chair i you know it does seem like we're struggling with the height and uh yet we we have the the 95 foot version or the 90 foot version and i i think i would say i'd be much more comfortable something top across at 65 feet and it could be 68 could be a little less a little more but i think that's where I would be more comfortable with the top of the cross. Maybe you get rid of the bell tower element on top of the dome. But I like, the only thing I really like about this line of sight drawing is the line of sight to the two lateral left small domes with the little spires on top. It looks to me like with a mature tree If you could keep your major dome in line with that view corridor, which would be around 65 feet, I'd probably be okay with that, but that's one planning commissioner, and I'm trying to give you some sense of what I would support. Others may not support that, but we certainly would need to see it come back in any event. We don't design at the podium, but I would offer that as information from this planning commissioner.

All right, go ahead. If he can get another two weeks, and so I can talk to church members, and maybe just if that's okay with that height. But again, I'm sure... here if you do 80 feet we completely we don't we can actually downsize it so to be completely screened from from so we can go like uh like here we can go like a small small make this on the top of the dome make this smaller to be completely screened with by this tree So if that is option, that will be probably 75. But if there's something option, give me like two weeks or so, so I can talk to architect who did actually this in Ethiopia, and I can talk to priest who is here before we vote, if something can help.

Thank you for those. Go ahead, sir. Yes, sir.

Also, I think the dome will completely lose its meaning at that height. There will be no window. It really does not resemble anything that we worship in or we would like to worship in. And you have to consider that. We will be working with the neighbors to make sure that the line of sight that he just showed you, at 85, remember, almost 10 foot of it is just the thin cross, not the building. So if you can take that into consideration at least and allow us for the height to be where it is at 85, including the cross 80, including the cross top, we can manage to do something with it to make it look like a church, but it may not be the same.

All right, so go ahead Commissioner Brady.

You know, my I've been thinking and has been listening to the commissioners where I have thoughts on it. It's not necessarily and for me, it's not necessarily the height of the dome in itself. It's in relativity of the size of the lot is because it's hugging the property line more, which means it's towering over the neighbor more because of. how close it is to the property line. So it's the lot size. We're trying to fit in a huge building within such a small footprint on so close to a lot line. What I would like to see, and something for you to think about, is I've seen when another church has been done before where they've raised a balloon. and where it could be seen and to be able to do a drive-by and so we could see what it would feel like from different places. So that's a thought. If we're going to approve it, I think we should actually see something like that so we can know what it's really going to impact the neighbors. So just as a thought, they did probably like a four-foot white balloon is what they did when I saw it done before.

Thank you, Commissioner Brady. All right, so I'm going to turn it over to Commissioner Mojica. So I guess if you have some comments for us and maybe decide what you want to do as far as a motion. Okay, she might be having technical difficulties, so let's just do it this way. I am willing to hold this for two weeks so that the applicant can go back and redesign I would strongly suggest the applicant listen to some of the comments that we've had. And one of the major comments is the height of the dome. I get it. I understand. It's important. But as a body, I think the commission stands a little bit in agreement that 80 feet is too high. And I don't know if you can get to 65. I don't, but you give it your best shot and bring us back something that we can review and vote on, and I think that's all I can offer at this point. So I'm gonna move that we hold. I'm sorry, before I do that. Two weeks is re-notify or no?

We need to re-notify the item because it has been held twice already, so this is gonna be the third time. We are just double checking to make sure two weeks gives us enough time, because technically it's gonna be three weeks. Since it's three weeks, we have enough time to re-notify.

So which planning commission date is that? October 2nd. October 2nd. That's right. We have three weeks in between.

It's going to be October 6th.

All right, so I'll move to hold UC 260365 until the October 6th Planning Commission meeting. There's a motion on the floor. Cast your vote. Without Commissioner Mayega. That motion carries. Thank you, good luck.

All right, our next item is item number 22, UC26-0473, use permit for accessory living quarters, waivers of development standards for the following, one, reduce setbacks, and two, reduce building separations in conjunction with an existing single-family residence on 0.18 acres and an RS 5.2 single-family residential 5.2 zone, generally located south of Sun Vista Drive and west of Lucky Street within Sunrays Manor.

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

Good evening. My name is Francisco Ibarra, 1900 North Jones Boulevard, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89108. And we are here tonight to get approved for our use permit and waivers of development standards for the setbacks on the structure that we built on the rear side of the property. Originally, there used to be a shed in there, so we kind of demolished it and did a bigger structure in there. We were under the impression that there were some plans and permits going on for the builder, but then again he just left when things got dark and we finished the structure. Now the main problem is that we are like four feet from the rear side, two feet and ten, almost three feet from the side, which is a street. And we are in between the structure. We have like 39 inches or three feet in change, and we should be six feet in between. Besides that, we're not on the setbacks for waivers, but the use permit. We're asking for that to be an excess of living quarters, meaning that we're gonna have some kitchen inside. And I'm gonna show you in just a bit what we have inside. Plus, the roof has a different slope from the main roof. We have siding on the new structure on the casita, but we're planning to do the stucco just to match the main house. Plus, we know for sure that the building department, if we get this approved, building department is going to be asking us for those exterior walls to the neighbors and to the street to be one hour fire rated. That is only achievable through stucco. And again, we're gonna have a different slope and different color material for the roof, but color and stucco texture and everything is gonna match the main house, except for those items. Now, we basically have a family room with a kitchen, a bedroom, and a full bathroom on that side. All right, the structure is just about by 21.

Sir, there's a handheld if that makes it easier for you. A handheld microphone.

That's all right. So what we have is the... What we have is a 15 by 21 feet casita on the side of the house. We're planning to bring up our parents and uncle that raises to live in there because even they spend most half of the time in the main house and the thing, but they still have their own privacy and independency. That's why we're trying to get this approved. This is just about the elevations.

that we're gonna have.

Again, colors is gonna match the main house. In the beginning, you guys were asking for some pictures of what we have. In this picture, you might be able to see that we still have siding on the outside. but we're going to prepare that as to be stacked just like the main house. This is just colors. This is the eaves for the structure roof, which we know is going to be cut off as we show in the elevations because that's going to be part of the requirements on the building department. We've done that before and that's one of the first things that they ask. This is the main house. And finally, this is kind of the finishes that we have inside the house, which is a beautiful backsplash in the back of the kitchen counters. We have stone granite counters, and we have the beautiful cabinets. And again, we would like to keep everything the way it is with the condition that you guys approve. And finally, we do have some, well, that we submitted those letters that were backing up from the neighbors. And we have basically The neighbors affected by us will be the ones on the front of Lucky Street. We have just about three signatures, and we have one in the back. Again, those are the surrounding to that side neighbors that might be affected by what we're doing, and we got letters for them supporting us. And we presented all of this to the previous town board meeting. like two weeks ago, we were approved for a year, and we would like just to make sure that we could maybe possibly get the two years that they usually get on these kind of waivers and special use permits, just because it's gonna take a little time for the billing department to approve this, the kind of projects. And then we need to go through all of the process of getting inspections done and approved, so we know for sure that this is up to code and legally approved by the billing department.

All right, thank you very much. Does that conclude your presentation? Yes. Okay. So, sure. Name an address for the record.

Good afternoon. My name is Cristina Quinones. I'm the owner of the house. We make this... My address is 4537 San Vista Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89104. Actually, we're here for... your support to help us for the waiver and the permits. This casita actually was a storage before. Actually, we decided to do it because my dad had the mansion and he passed away last year. So that's the reason I'm trying to make the casita so we can have him with us. He was with us one year, but he passed away last year. So that's the reason Francisco explained everything for our property, and we're here for your support and your answer, and thank you.

Thank you very much. All right, so I'm going to open this application up for a public hearing. Anyone in the audience like to speak on this item, now's the time to come down and do so. All right, seeing no one coming down, we're going to close the public hearing. I'll open it up to commissioners. Commissioner Kirk.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just so I'm clear, this structure was already existing. This was partially existing.

We remodeled it and make it bigger, yes.

And it was built for the intent of Christina's father? Exactly. Is that correct? Mm-hmm. And now you're coming to get an approval Um, is the current structure there, is it constructed according to our building codes in Clark County?

Yes, by the time they built it, they did some sizing on the footings. We have rebars, we have assembled the walls per code.

And it's been inspected?

Not yet after we get the approval for the waiver because of the setbacks and the distances in between the structure slopes on the roof and whatnot After that we're going to go through the process of the building department They're going to be asking for engineering possibly a source reporting and grading plans and whatnot And we're going to prepare all of the documentation according to code after we get the premise approved plans approved the Did you just gonna come over did you not know you had to get a permit I Correct, but when they built it, we were under pressure.

You guys didn't know? You didn't know you needed a permit to build a building?

No, no, we paid somebody, but they just started building it. They kind of finished it, but they didn't get anything. So we need to get it legally built now. Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Kirk. Commissioner Mojica, any comments or questions on this application?

No, no comments or questions.

All right. I can support the application. I get it. You've got to go to the building department. You've got to get your plans. I would just be careful about the time we allow for completion and to commence. And I'll support whatever you do. Commissioner Brady?

Where I come in on this is I'm a big person in trying to keep setbacks. I look down the street and I see that there's some others that I feel like the roof line is hanging past over the sidewalk down the street, which is the reason why I kind of get on this kick where I'm just like, I really don't like to see things go on the property line. This one, there is a setback, I think, on the two feet from the property.

39 inches is more than three feet on the one side, and then four feet in the back. the back is where we have the gables so there's not going to be runoff from the from the roof but just on the side and the side is going to be against the street again the same item that was mentioned to us by the town board meeting before so we're when the building department comes they're going to for sure they're going to be asking for uh uh uh downspouts and uh channels and whatnot to make sure that we don't have that situation that you were mentioning so that was already considered okay i mean overall i know

I APPRECIATE WHY IT'S BEING BUILT. AND I'M GOING TO KIND OF LEAVE THIS OVER TO YOU ON THAT ONE. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER BRADY. COMMISSIONER KOLORSKI.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I'M LOOKING AT THE PICTURES BECAUSE I WANTED TO SEE THOSE BEFORE THE MEETING AND I WASN'T ABLE TO CATCH YOU. MY MAJOR CONCERN is the separation between the house and the structure. Can I get a close-up of that? Do you have a better picture of that?

And when she's asking for a close-up, whatever picture you put there, the engineer in the booth will do the, that's all you got to do. That's all, just, yeah, thank you.

Okay, so staff, make sure I'm correct in this because I keep getting this messed up. The overhang is what you count for the three feet on both structures, right? So it's from the overhang of the casita to the overhang of the main house. Am I correct?

That's correct.

Okay, so if the building itself, sorry, correction, wall to wall, my bad. It's wall-to-wall. Is it wall-to-wall? Wall-to-wall. I just had one that was overhang to overhang. Okay, so now we're talking wall-to-wall.

Sorry, can you ask your question again? Because I think you were correct. Maybe I misheard what you said.

I'm looking at the overhang from the casita. And do we count it from there to the overhang of the house, of the main house, or do we go? from the wall of the casita to the wall of the house.

Oh, yeah, they were, yeah, correct what Hunter was saying. Yes, wall to wall. If it's closer to a setback, then there's the, we measure wall of the building to the setback to the property line, but there's a maximum that the overhang can be. I thought that's what you were asking.

Okay, so we're talking wall to wall. So the wall to wall is a three-foot, 3-inch is what you're saying.

That is correct, and if I may, this is just for the setbacks, so if they are viable, when the time comes for the building department, they are going to request demand from us that those walls, one of those walls that are too close to the other one is going to be one hour fire rated, number one. Number two, the encroachments of the eaves that you were mentioning, they're going to be cut off for sure. That is something that the building department is going to be asking.

Okay. Yeah, I'm not the... The only neighbor that you would really affect is the neighbor that's behind you. Otherwise, your other setback is up against the street. The street, yes. Yeah, so up against Lucky. And still we got approval from support from the people of the street. And you're going to stucco them, you said? Yes, yes. Once everything is done.

Those streets must be one hour fire ready, which is achieved through the stucco. And the stucco in textures and colors is going to be much in the house.

Well, that will all come out with the building department, you know. That is correct, yes. That's not part of the zoning type thing. You have to comply with all of whatever the building department tells you to in order to get your permit and in order to get the... And now this is... As I read the background, I said it was for your parents, and you said your father has passed.

That is correct. The people who raised.

And your mother is living in there now?

Mom died some time ago. There was a dad, and then there's an aunt that is going to be living all together. Okay, so is there going to be somebody living in there? Yes, yes, eventually. A family member? Correct, after they finish the construction and permits.

Okay, I'm looking at that because I don't want this to become a rental.

No, no, no. No, not at all. That's the only purpose.

Okay. All right, I'm gonna move to approve UC 26-0473 with staff conditions, and I'm going to change the one year. I don't know, I'm gonna go to our resident general contractor, because he seems to know more about how long things take. What, 18 months, two years?

Just say make it even two years.

I'm sorry?

Two years.

Okay. Change the block number one to two years to complete the building permit. So that's for completion. So that means you've got to commence very quickly.

Permits and inspections and everything, yes.

Okay. Thank you. There's a motion on the floor. Cast your vote. Commissioner Mojica?

Commissioner Mojica, yes.

Motion carries. Good luck.

Thank you very much. You have a good night.

That is final action unless appealed. Item number 23 is WS26-0455, waivers of development standards for the following, one, reduce setbacks, two, reduce building separation, and three, increase height for existing accessory structures in conjunction with an existing single family residence on 0.38 acres in an RS 5.2 residential single family 5.2 zone, generally located northwest of Muddy Peak Court and west of Lillian Condie Road within Moapa Valley.

Thank you very much staff name and address for the record.

Tell us about your application Here tonight because I need Person setbacks I built a shop I tried to get a hold of the building department out where I live.

Yeah, if you would, there's a handheld mic. It might be a little easier for you. Thank you.

I tried to get information. I called, left messages, couldn't get anything. Was unaware that I should have followed through here in Vegas, you know, to get stuff. But I'm here tonight. I need to get side setbacks for my garage. From right here, this is my neighbor's property. This is the back. I have three feet, eight inches, where I need five feet. And the height of the garage is 15 feet at the peak. And 14 is the maximum. I have a letter from my neighbor stating that my garage is not interfering with her. She has no problems with it. The garage, front of the garage to her house is about 40 feet. There is a six inch thick concrete block wall that separates our property. One of the other things that was listed when I was filing this was that I needed to have separation between my house and the shed that was pre-existing when I bought the house. It's only five feet, and I need to understand six feet is what's required. Also, I have a chicken coop and pen almost right up against the wall. At the front here, it's about 12 inches. In the back, it's about two feet. I only have two chickens left. Once they are no longer, then the coop is getting torn down. Yeah, so what I'm asking for is a height increase from 15 where 14 is required, the setback of three feet eight inches where five feet is required, the building separation of five feet where six is required, and the side setback of one foot where five feet is required with the chicken coop. The detached shop is for storage, holiday decorations, tools, household items. And one of the things they were worried about in the picture here was my hardscape and landscape. So it came out to be in 65% landscape and 35% hardscape, which puts me okay. Yeah, I believe that these minor modifications won't interfere with my neighbors and hopefully with getting this approved.

Thank you very much. All right, so we're going to open this application up for a public hearing. Anyone in the audience want to speak on this item? Now's the time to come down and do so. I'm seeing no one coming down to speak. We're going to close the public hearing. I can support the application. I'll just put that on the record. Commissioner Kolarski?

Yeah, I just have one quick question. Because I too can support the application. But I want to talk about the Hartsgate, because we're talking about the Hartsgate being sites, it's also the side and the front is considered. So when you talk about the side, are you talking about all the way to the back of the house? Or are we talking about to the front gate? I'm trying to figure out.

So when they told me where to measure for my hardscape and landscape, they said it was from the back of the house right here forward. So I took all the measurements from coming right across here and going forward.

OK. So that's our standard then is the back of the house? Yes. To the front of the house? Yes.

From the basically a line drawn from the back of the house to the property lines forward. But that's not one of the requests with this application.

Okay, because he was talking about hardscape, that's why.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. His letter indicates a 35% hardscape, which is under... Which is under, yeah. Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, because I know it's, what is it, 60?

Yeah, it's 60, so he's under that.

Okay, I just wanted to have in my mind where I know where you're going to on site, and you're going to the back of the house.

Drawing the lines outward, yeah. Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Rojica, any questions on this application or comment?

No, no questions on this application.

Sorry, thank you very much. I'll turn it over to Commissioner Stone.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm prepared to make a motion. Are we good? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think it looks great. You live in Moapa. Did this come to us through a CC Pro violation? No, it didn't. Unbelievable. All right, with that, I'll move to approve item 23 WS-26-0455 with staff if approved conditions.

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

Commissioner Mojica, yes.

The motion passes, good luck.

That is final action unless appealed. Item number 24 is WS26-0456, waivers of development standards for the following. Number one, reduce and eliminate setbacks. Two, increase non-decorative wall height. Three, reduce building separation for an existing accessory structure. And four, increase hardscape area in conjunction with an existing single family residence on 0.49 acres and an RS-20 residential single family 20 zone within the neighborhood protection NPO and airport environs AE-60 overlay, generally located south of Capavia Avenue and west of Dean Martin Drive within Enterprise.

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

Tammy Montes, 3225 West Capovilla Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89118. I am the property owner with my husband behind me, Michael. We purchased this property just under three years ago, October, just shy of three years. It's a corner lot. It's a cul-de-sac of four. We were reported, unfortunately, for a container that was on the property, and it's been there for over 20 years, so it was there well before we bought the property. The container's on the backside of the property. It sits there. We have since built a pool, permitted. We have running water. This is my current backyard. When we got cited for the container, we were suggested by Clark County Planning Commission to do all our setbacks and waivers because the container is within inches of the block wall, which is, this is Dean Martin. This is a small street called Capavilla. So we've then asked for waivers for our hardscape, our landscape, and a setback for our garage. We're gonna try to build an RV garage Just to give you guys a heads up. So this is why there's so many waivers. This was all done prior or done. We're going to do a, what is it called, my dear? Pop-up steel. We haven't even purchased this. So this is why we're asking for a waiver on the Capavilla side to the home side, five inches rather than six inches. Sorry, five feet, thank you. This is the front hardscape. The hardscape is only being considered excessive because of the proposed garage that we have yet to build on the other side of the property. These are half acre lots for homeowners, for individual properties. The container is there. If we move the container, it will now be in my pool. It's not a choice to be moved, unfortunately. So I guess we're asking for forgiveness now after the fact because it's been there for over 20 years. I do would like to point out this is a current picture Raiders game set out about three weeks ago on preseason opening. This is a double-decker bus that can see over my container into my block wall. So into the backyard over the block wall that's where they can see so the block we're also asking for the waiver of the block wall height because Dean Martin slopes up. So when Dean Martin got built it was flat two lane 25-30 years ago and when The county took the street and actually the corner of the lot, the street went up in a slope. So the highest, this down here is only about seven feet. All the way down here is about nine feet. So we're asking for the setback waiver or the block wall height. So if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer it. This is just like us after the fact. Unfortunately, we purchased the home. As you can see, the container is straight up against the wall when we bought the house.

Thank you very much. All right, so that concludes your presentation?

I think so.

Okay, sounds good. All right, so we're going to close this application and open it up for a public hearing. Anyone in the audience like to speak on this item? Now's the time to come down. All right, so we're going to close. So seeing no one, we're going to close the public hearing. I'll open it up to commissioners. I don't see any commission stone. No, no. Okay. You're good. All right. I'm actually, I'm actually okay with it. Go ahead. I'm sorry. Commissioner Mojica. Any questions or comments? No questions. All right. Mr. Chair. All right. I'll turn it over to, Oh, this is, you know, yep. So seeing no other questions, I'll move for approval of double S W S 26, 0 4 56. There's a motion on the floor. Catch your vote.

Commissioner Mojica. Yes.

motion carries good luck thank you if i can just say i'm very glad that you're asking for permission on that uh proposed rv garage next time we don't get that very often so thank you thank you we appreciate it that is final action unless appealed the next item is item number 25 ws26-0458

WAIVER OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TO REDUCE THE REAR SETBACK FOR AN ADDITION IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON 0.17 ACRES AND AN RS 5.2 SINGLE FAMILY 5.2 ZONE GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF FORT LARAMIE LANE AND EAST OF WINDOW ROCK LANE WITHIN PARADISE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. TELL US ABOUT YOUR APPLICATION.

MY NAME IS JAMES DUFFY, 1848 FORT LARAMIE LANE. Seeking a setback waiver on the back of the house from the required 20 to 16 feet for an addition of a bedroom this is an aerial old aerial of the house and Show where the addition is going to be it's going to maintain the six and a half foot offset to the neighbor side and 16 to the rear wall This is the current picture as it is right now, and this is a proposed addition to it. And it says, as it says in the description of the application for the waiver, it will be up to but not exceeding 20 feet. I figure it probably is only gonna be around 16, depending on the architect, how much he wants to go back on the roof line to tie it in. This is kind of how it'll look from the side view. And with this design, it's not going to have any visual impact on any of the neighbors, no air movement problems, no drainage, no any problems like that as far as that goes. and i just found out last week when i received the uh... notice by email that staff had a problem with the uh... they recommended denial i didn't know that and uh... the reason they said that was because they said it was a self-imposed impediment that i could have done it made it smaller but i'd like to explain to you why i couldn't and uh... so this right here is how it is existing right now basically But this is a wall as it is. And you come down the hallway and you enter into this room here. This wall is not here yet. And so you walk in here and this is the room you're in. And we have closets on this side. That whole wall is a closet. And then the windows to the outdoor, which I showed you in the other picture. So with this addition, the only way I could do it, it's the only place it'll fit on the property or we would have done it different. And so the way to make this work is we're going to have to make a wall actually into that bedroom that's bedroom number four and put a door there, take the hallway and extend it down into the addition right here. And we'll have the windows that are existing on that. They're going to come out to the back of the house right there. And the problem we have is when we bring this in here, it takes away three and a half feet of the bedroom and make it tiny. So we're taking the closets and putting it in the new addition. and make an opposing closet so half feeds this, half feeds that. So in doing that, I can understand what you're saying. It would seem like a really big addition. But if you look at it, if by these measurements, if with the way it is right now, the room itself, the interior room is going to be 9.9, 9 feet 9 inches from inside wall to inside wall, which isn't excessive. But if we would go with what she was saying, don't do the setback waiver and waive the four feet, then it would only be a room, the depth would be five foot nine, five foot nine feet, so about this much. I don't think that's a big enough room. So with that being said, we've had nothing but the neighbors come around saying they support it, they got the cards. I don't know if you guys received any, but we received no negative feedback on that at all. So, yeah, with that, any questions? That's all I have.

All right. Thank you very much. So we're going to open this application up for a public hearing. And then when the audience like to speak on this item, now's the time to come down and do so. Seeing no one coming down to speak on this item, we're going to close the public hearing. I'll just state for the record, I can support the application. I see a couple of lights. Commissioner Kirk?

You mean you haven't started yet?

No, sir.

That's what we love to hear.

I want to make sure I could do it because it's a lot. Well, you have my support.

You have my support just for not starting already. So thank you very much for that.

Commissioner Mohica? Any questions, comments? All right, well, we'll give her an opportunity. All right. She's probably she probably she's traveling, so she might not be able to speak. So what we're going to say is I'm going to go ahead and make a motion to approve WS260458. And so there's motion on the floor. Cast your vote.

Commissioner Mojica, yes.

Motion carries. Good luck.

That is final action unless appealed. Item number 26 is WS26-0481, waivers of development standards for the following. One, allow accessory structures prior to a principal structure. And two, increase wall height in conjunction with a proposed single family residence on 0.56 acres in an RS20 residential single family 20 zone generally located north of Melody Lane and east of Valley Drive within the Lone Mountain land use plan area.

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

Christine Contini, 4180 Melody Lane, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89108. This has been a long journey.

It's okay. Take your time. Thank you.

It's just hard to explain everything, and I won't go into it. But if you need it, I will give it to you. But we're asking to do this part in order to move forward with the next part. We have the two conics containers that were originally supposed to be

I'm done continuously with the house. And I noticed that that was the objection was that there was starting to look like a storage lot, which again, I'm totally opposed to as well. And what I would like to say is once these two containers go underground, all the other temporary storages can go away because the stuff we've been saving since before COVID started and we delayed everything.

going to go into those and it won't be needed for that anymore. And we've also been trying to get everything together for the house to submit that for the building permit as well. But it's just been one thing after another. And again, I could go into it. But I don't want to take the time if you don't want me to. And so if you would go ahead and improve this section, then we could get those under the ground.

and get the other storage items, the temporary storage off the property and then it won't be considered like the objection was because that was what you thought we were going to be doing is just use it for storage the whole lot, but that's not the plan at all.

Okay, thank you. Sir, speak or no? No? All right. All right, so.

My name is Sergio Diaz, 4180 Melody Lane. Yeah, what she said is true. We've been struggling since this pandemic and all that. I mean, everybody's struggling, but I don't want to give you a whole commotion right now. We understand where we are. But our plan is because we have already the containers in there and we have the drawings. And then if we put them in there, we start doing the house. I already told her, we'll get an architect. We just do the house after the containers and then we'll be done.

All right. Thank you. So what I'm going to do is open this application up for a public hearing.

and i want to speak on this item see no one coming down we're going to close the public hearing to have any photos of your air must have misread instructions instructions said you guys have everything you need and if i needed to present anything i needed to give you that in advance so no i did not bring anything because i was under the impression you had all the pictures is there any way staff to pull up the photos from the files

So I closed the public hearing, and so I'm on the commission now. So go ahead, Commissioner Karski, you have a question? Well, I looked at the overhead.

Google Earth.

I'm sorry, what?

I looked at the overhead from Google Earth maps, and you got a mess in there. You have got, there's no doubt.

We have been working on it already since we've gotten it off.

But what I saw, that's a mess.

Yes.

My question is, I don't understand when you say you're going to put the containers underground.

Yes, they will be underground with a staircase going down for storage and an open area for anything that needs to be lifted down. And it's all the holiday things and other things that you can't let go of that are in those smaller containers on the property. And they will go in there too. All that stuff will no longer be above the ground.

So you're going to have some sort of stairs that go down to where you're digging and the containers are going in?

Yes. And then the top of that will be a deck area with another container. And again, everything will be made to match the current.

Okay. I don't understand. When I read this, it sounded like you were going to use the containers as part of your house, kind of like Container Park. Am I correct in understanding that?

It's not part of the main house, no. That's a separate piece altogether.

So are you putting more conics boxes?

No, these ones there on the ground, there's three that make up the project, two under the ground and then one above. where there will be a bathroom and a cooking area to go with the pool that we'll go in.

Okay, if you look up there, you can see what we're seeing.

Mm-hmm. Actually, I don't have my glasses on, so can you zoom in for me?

Can the guys in the back, can you zoom that up, please?

I don't know that they can.

That's a PowerPoint slide. They can't do that. There's no photos in the file.

There's no photos in the file?

No, I can, if you want, we can pull up the aerial photo and zoom in more.

I'm sorry?

You want us to pull up the aerial photo and zoom in more? We can pull up, on the computer, we can pull up the aerial photo and zoom in, as opposed to what? Well, she says that she can't see, so.

Let me grab my glasses so I can see that.

Okay, the booth was able to do it. Thank you.

So I'm trying to figure out where the, because I think you have more than two containers. And you got a semi-truck there?

Or semi-trailer? No. So there was an RV there, but the RV is now gone. And then we have the work truck. So we're staying with our neighbor.

next door because we couldn't get the house built and we had to move out of the RV because it was taking too long. And so we still use the property and we go back and forth daily. And we have chickens too. I thought it was really cute that you enjoyed that the other guys had chickens. We have chickens.

So there's the old concrete foundation, and there's one of the conics containers on it. And then closer to the front of the property is the other conics container. And then on the whiter colored stuff that's to the inside of the property, those are those temporary containers that will go away as soon as we put the conics underground.

Where are you putting the connexes underground at?

See that, the larger dirt area, the back inside, they go in that area there.

That north, north?

That would be northeast.

You have valley and the opposite of valley and the back.

So the northeast corner. Okay. staff on the initial because you guys say that this is three years yeah that's the long story no hang on a minute i'm talking okay i'm asking the question of staff um we approved i guess the existing garage with the intent that the dwelling would be built we still don't have any permits um Did we give a commence or a completion date on previous? Usually we see previous conditions.

I believe they had a condition to pull the permit on the garage. I would need to check the record again.

I don't know. I don't know if I can support this, because I don't know how long it's going to take. And I do not, I do not, and I have not, including my area, because I've denied a couple of applications, where they want to build accessory structures prior to the primary. Can I just finish, please? With that in mind, I also have plans that You as an applicant will show this board so that we can see what the long-range goal is. I see nothing there. So I'm having a lot of difficulty because I don't know what your plans are. I don't know if this is going to stay. It's going to take you more than a year, which is what I think staff says, a year to complete the building permit. I think it's going to take you way longer than a year. And it's already been going on since, evidently, six years. Because you said it was happening during COVID. So I'm having a lot of difficulty trying to support you on this. I have to be really honest with you, okay? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Commissioner Kolarski. Commissioner Brady?

Commissioner Kolarski, just to answer your question, yeah, the condition on that UC160816 was three years to commence primary residence with any extension of time to be a public hearing.

And was there an extension of time? Or has that expired? No. So then the initial one has since expired. So you did not come in for the extension of time to keep that application going?

Thank you, Commissioner Kowalski. Commissioner Brady?

One thing I want to mention, you said you were going to bury these. I caution you and look into this. Oh, you're not going to bury...

I misspoke. If I could... Okay.

For some reason, I thought you said you were going to bury these containers. And I'll tell you, I've looked into doing that myself before. So be careful with that because they are used to carrying the weight at the corners. They're not necessarily meant to carry weight in the center. So they will collapse. So, all right. That's what I just want to throw out as caution.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Brady. Commissioner Kirk?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The problem I have... uh... primarily is the fence because you're asking uh... for existing walls to eight feet or six feet is the maximum height allowed by code and i'm looking at uh... google earth and An eight foot and I would like it if your wall that you build would match what your neighbors have and that you're on a corner lot and neither of the of the your next door neighbors. I mean one neighbor looks like he has about a four foot wall and the other guy looks like he has maybe a five foot wall so that could be a little problematic in the transition from And we don't want your home to necessarily look like a compound And so Commissioner Klarski is absolutely right in that There's not enough I get the concept what you're trying to do. We want to work with you and we want to make this work for you. We're not here to make your life miserable and to screw you over. We're all citizens. We don't get paid much for doing this. We're just trying to help and we're trying to help you do this in a way that will satisfy the code and satisfy all your neighbors, okay? If you were satisfying all the code, we wouldn't be here because the staff would recommend approval and we wouldn't necessarily need to see it. But you're here because you need some waivers. And until I see a more complete plan of what you're going to do, Where's the principal structure going to be located? I'm still not sure about whether something's going to be buried or not. I do not know that. I see on the overhead, it looks like a semi-trailer that's sticking out in the right of way.

That's already gone.

I'm sorry?

That's already gone. We took that out.

Okay, good. So there's just some things I'm just not 100% sure of. And so I don't know, I don't want to deny it. But until we have more concrete information, I don't know how we move this forward. So I'm looking for some help.

Yes, sir. Commissioner Mohica, Commissioner Mohica, any questions or comments on the application?

No, no questions. I agree with both Commissioner Kirk and Commissioner Kowalski.

All right. Thank you very much. I'm going to try to see if I can get some clarification and get us to a finish line. They're asking for increasing the height of the temporary fence to eight feet where six is the maximum is because the fencing temporary is eight feet. Okay.

All right. And they have some existing walls that are also AP. So it's for the existing walls and for that temporary fencing. Okay. Staff's approval of that was that it's temporary, you know, once they build the home, it'll go away. All right. That would hopefully be the intent.

All right. So now I'm going to come to the applicant just for one quick question. We I would say as a board understand, you know, there are hardships that that everyone fall upon myself included So so when do you believe you will be able to get rid of that temporary fence?

What other question what she needed to know, what he needed to know, and what he needed to know, because I'm not going to be able to hold much more in there. Can I?

For sure. Go ahead.

Okay. So the easiest one is the buried thing. They're not buried. We have engineered calculations. They're six feet under with a portion of it above, and there's a deck on there and steel bracings to support all of the weight that's been calculated and engineered. So we're not doing anything dangerous, I promise. about what yours was, but the wall, the wall is, because we have a German Shepherd, and he's a lovely dog, lovely, lovely dog, but when he gets out and gets excited, he will bite the wheels of bicycles and possibly catch somebody's leg, so the wall height that we've asked to increase is not for the temporary fences, for the existing block wall, bringing it up to six feet, because he can actually probably get over that too, but we're gonna put a little decorative thing on top of that to keep him in, to make sure that the neighborhoods are safe just as well as he is safe, So that's our request for the permanent wall height. The temporary fence has been there for quite some time, but we can take that down sooner than later. Once we can get the conics containers in the ground, we will also have some of those other things moved and we can clear the front of the property completely and take down the temporary fence and then put it up again once the main house is being built. But the reason we put the permanent in before we were completely ready to put the permanent house in, because it's not the plan, it's because we got the citation. and we had to move forward with what we had already finished completing, and we don't have the permanent house information completed yet, and that's, so I'm willing to wait on doing this part. I just needed to get something in so that we could stop the citations so that we could continue moving forward to get the house ready to be built as well.

Okay, I think I got a better understanding. I will say that I recognize that you've been cleaning up the property. So just for the board's edification, the property was a mess. To maybe some standards still looks like a mess, but they have been working on it. So I would like to give the applicant more time I would like to allow the accessory structures to stay before the principal structure is installed. I will make a motion and we'll see where it goes. So I'm gonna make a motion to approve WS260481. And I will do No. Yeah. I just approved as presented. And so there's a motion on the floor. Cash or vote?

Commissioner Mohica, yes. No.

That motion passes. Good luck to you.

Thank you.

Next item.

That is final action unless appealed. Our next item is item number 32, which is companion with items 33, 34, 35, and 36 and can be heard together. Item number 32 is PA26-70032, plan amendment to re-designate the existing land use category from Ranch Estate Neighborhood RN to Mid-Intensity Suburban Neighborhood MN on 5.13 acres Generally located south of Pyle Avenue and west of Valley View Boulevard within Enterprise. Item number 33 is ZC 26-0431. Zone changes for the following. One, reclassify 2.56 acres from an RS 20 residential single family 20 zone to an RS 3.3 residential single family 3.3 zone. And two, remove the neighborhood protection RNP overlay zone. generally located south of Pyle Avenue and west of Valley View Boulevard within Enterprise. Item number 34 is VS 26-0430, Vacate and Abandon Easements of Interest to Clark County, located between Pyle Avenue and Haley Avenue and Valley View Boulevard and Arville Street, and a portion of a right of way being Haley Avenue, located between Valley View Boulevard and Arville Street within Enterprise. Item number 35, is 36 26-0432 waiver of development standards to reduce uh right-of-way width and a design review for a proposed single-family residential development on 5.13 acres and an rs 3.3 residential single-family 3.3 zone generally located south of pile avenue and west of valley view boulevard within enterprise and item number 36 is TM 26-500102, tentative map consisting of 41 single-family residential lots and common lots on 5.13 acres and an RS 3.3 residential single-family zone, generally located south of Pyle Avenue and west of Valley View Boulevard within Enterprise.

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

Good evening, Mr. Chair, Commissioners. My name is Tony Sless, address 1980 Festival Plaza Drive. here on behalf of the applicant, Pulte Homes. As you can see from the aerial, the site is highlighted in yellow.

Let them catch up here.

You can see right here, highlighted in yellow. It's just over five acres. We're on the south side of Pyle and just west of Valley View here. We have two major components to this application, the first being a plan amendment and zone change, and the second being the design review with the related waivers and vacation of various easements. uh first with respect to the plan amendment and zone change you can see right here the site is planned rural neighborhood however i think what is most instructive is the zoning map here you can see the zoning is split on the site it's rs 3.3 on the south and to the north is rs20 we are requesting a plan amendment to go from the rural neighborhood to the medium neighborhood, MN, as well as the corresponding zone change of RS 3.3, or excuse me, just on the northern half from RS 20 to RS 3.3. You can see right here that the entire, everything to the west, to the south, and to the east of us, and basically Pyle is the demarcation line, is zone RS 3.3. So we appreciate staff's favorable recommendation with respect to the plan amendment, as well as the Enterprise Town Board's recommendation. The second component is the design review and related waivers. As you can see here again, this is our five acre, maybe if they zoom out just a tad, you can see the whole site. Thank you. You can see right here again, a little over five acres. Right about here would be where Valley View is located, and to the north is Pyle. We are providing access along Pyle here to this portion of the development, and then we will have approximately eight homes, nine homes that directly front off Halee here. The issue that is really before you tonight is with respect to the design of our cul-de-sacs here. We were asking for basically an alternative design on them. Instead of a bulb, we have a hammerhead. Note it is not a waiver, just an alternative design we're asking for. You can see right here is actually our sister project, Pulte. These are two different property owners right now. Pulte does not own either property yet. We are, hopefully we'll close on them, but these are going through two different entitlement processes, two different purchase and sale agreements, two different timings on closing, and therefore not only are the entitlements on different schedules, but when you go to kind of the backside of the application with civil improvement plans, Everything is off scheduled from each other. So this portion right here is actually approved. We have some minor amendments we are making to the home design on the project, but these entitlements have been issued for this. And what you'll note that it was approved with the hammerhead design here. And we're asking essentially to mirror that design in this location. We only have five homes for a total of 10 that front along the cul-de-sac here. The design meets all the fire requirements. There will not be any issues with respect to trash pickup. So from that perspective, we don't think there's any safety issues with this. With that, we do agree with all the if approved conditions and more than happy to comply with those. And finally, the last portion of this is just the vacate and abandon some easements that are on the property that are no longer needed and we appreciate staff's recommendation of approval on that. I'm more than happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you very much.

So we're going to open this application up for a public hearing. Anyone in the audience like to speak on this item, now's the time to come down and do so. I see no one coming down. We're going to close the public hearing. I'll open it up to my commissioners. I don't see any lights.

I just have one question.

Town Board had some recommendations. Can you tell us if you're agreeable to at least look at them?

Yeah, so Town Board had two recommendations with respect to this application. The first might go out of order, but one of the conditions was with respect to providing a second access point to the site. In the code, it says that two access points are required for a property that is greater than five acres. While this property is greater than five acres, it's about 5.13. as i mentioned eight of our lots or nine of our lots actually front halee which leaves this balance of the property which is a little less than four acres that will have access to pile so it is for that reason we believe there is no waiver associated with this to reduce that required access points so we do meet the code so that one would i don't think we need not amenable to to that condition however there is the condition with respect to um as i mentioned these are sister projects, I'll call them, for right now. Pulte does not own either project. Both of these properties are actually owned by separate property owners and we're under separate contracts with each of those property owners and there's different obligations, each one with different closings. That condition basically was if both of these are approved and if Pulte closes on both of them and becomes the owner, that the street would punch through. And while I think that's a great design understand it our position right now is that we certainly understand that condition and moving forward to the bcc we will continue to review this and see where we are with respect to closing on that it's just hard to tie one to the other right now considering we have different contractual obligations but we understand the condition and certainly we'll review it as we move forward to the board of county commission hearing which is on october 21st

Thank you, Commissioner Brady.

One thing I'm going to notice, if that were to go through, I see these hammerheads aren't perfectly in line. So that might need to be something that could actually be done if we were to actually, and if that's something they're saying they would do, they would need to align.

Thank you, Commissioner Brady. I don't have any, I mean, I have thoughts about the application. I can support it. I would like to see those streets go through, um, hopefully did a very creative way of, you know, putting an additional lot in there by not allowing that street to come all the way through. So, you know, I'll, uh, I will reserve my comments there. I can support the application commissioner. Uh.

So, I guess my question is for legal. I mean, what what's. What do we do about that? Not knowing whether they're going to be approved and putting in a condition that the streets punch through.

I'm sorry, I don't understand the question.

So, so, um, commissioner, I'll try to there's. The applicant explained that those 2 parcels. Are 2 separate owners currently. So we, we, I believe as a commission, we can't. what's the word, could burden the applications with a condition that makes that happen, but we would just have to rely on the applicant that if their second application and second property catches up with the first one, that they would do the right thing and take that street all the way through.

You mean the commercial access between the two properties that we're talking about? I mean, it's not commercial, but usually we do it for commercial. We can do it for commercial, but for residential, it's kind of different. And we don't know when that's going to be developed or how they're going to lay out their tentative map. So I agree with the way you phrased it.

I know that doesn't help you, Commissioner Mojica, but that's the world we're in right now.

Well, I will move then to, I'm ready to make motions, but I will, I guess the only thing I can say is that I would entrust that they would do the right thing in the end. I guess that's all we can do, right?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay. So motion to approve plan amendment PA 2670032. So there's a motion on the floor.

Cast your vote.

Commission Mojica, yes.

That motion passes. Next item.

Then motion to approve items 33 through 36. That would be ZZ260431, VS260430, WS260432, and TM26500102. Motion on the floor. Cast your vote.

commission mojica yes motion passes good luck thank you i appreciate it next item all right those items will be forwarded to the board of county commissioners meeting for final action on october 21st 2026 at 9 00 a.m unless otherwise denounced our next items are items number 37 38 39 and 40 which are companion and can be heard together Item number 37 is PA 26-700034, holdover plan amendment to redesignate the existing land use category from corridor mixed use CM to compact neighborhood CN on a portion of 9.19 acres, generally located east of Moapa Valley Boulevard and north of Lewis Avenue within Moapa Valley. Item number 38 is ZC26-0450, holdover zone change to reclassify 9.19 acres from a CG commercial general zone and an RS20 residential single family 20 zone to an RS2 residential single family 2 zone, generally located east of Moapa Valley Boulevard and north of Lewis Avenue within Moapa Valley. Item number 39. is WS26-0451, holdover waivers of development standards for the following. One, eliminate open space. Two, waive off-site improvements, sidewalk and street lights. And three, allow modified driveway design standards. And a design review for a proposed single-family attached and detached residential development on 9.19 acres in an RS2 residential single-family two zone, generally located east of Moapa Valley Boulevard and north of Lewis Avenue within Moapa Valley. And item number 40 is TM26-500106, a holdover tenanted map consisting of 82 single-family residential lots on 9.19 acres and an RS2 residential single-family two zone, generally located east of Moapa Valley Boulevard and north of Lewis Avenue within Moapa Valley.

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

Good evening again, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Tony Celeste, address 1980 Festival Plaza Drive, here on behalf of the applicant. I am actually substituting tonight for my colleague, Mark Mulhall, who was tied up in not only another jurisdiction, but another county in that hearings that went long. So I'm here subbing in for him. We did submit a hold letter. to the county requesting a 45-day hold. We did send that correspondence. Our office did send that correspondence to the neighbors that we had contact information for this afternoon around 1 p.m. informing them that we'd like to hold this the 45 days until the November 3rd. Per your request, Commissioner Stone, the reason more directly than other just a generic hold to hold it is because we still have to work with the this is out in Moapa and Moapa is under a different water district it's the Moapa water district out there and we must enter into a per their ordinance enter into water agreement to service the property that agreement has not been finalized it's still being worked out with the Moapa district that is one of the criteria for them with respect to mapping. So that is issue number one that we're still working with and having those dialogues. Issue number two was with respect to fire and safety. We know there had some fire questions about access, location of fire hydrants. We have been in correspondence with fire regarding relocating certain fire hydrants. And so that is the two reasons really why we need the 45-day hold. Feel pretty confident that we can get those things worked out within that time frame. and come back to you with those revised plans and hopefully the agreement with the water, with the Moapa Water District in place per their ordinance. So we greatly appreciate your consideration to allow us to hold this 45 days to November 3rd to accomplish those two primary objectives.

Thank you very much. So we're going to open this application up for a public hearing, and I'm going to turn it over to Commissioners Did you want to make a comment before the public hearing?

One more time.

Okay, all right. So we're going to open the application up for public hearing. Anyone in the audience like to speak? Now's the time to come down and do so. And I know there's a lot of people that want to speak, and we have a lot of folks wanting to put their comments on the record. We just ask that. You know, the Board's pretty savvy, so you know, if one person says traffic, we understand traffic is an issue. So try not to repeat, but please don't hesitate to put your comments on the record. Thank you. Go ahead, sir, name and address for the record, and put your comments on.

My name is Mark Jensen. My address is 5409 North Moapa Valley Boulevard in Moapa Valley. I'm going to keep this brief. All I'm going to do is thank Commissioner Stone for making the applicant come forward to share his rationale for the delay. This is the second delay that's been requested. We neighbors have very strong opinions and feelings about the suitability of this site for the proposed development. And we will be back again at the next meeting to further expound on our concerns and objections. But thank you for making this opportunity available.

Thank you, sir. Name and address for the record. Put your comments on.

Hi, thank you. My name is Rebecca Muehlstein, 361 Trace Palomas Street, Overton, Nevada. We are actually located right close to the proposed building site, and what I see here on this tentative map is not good access for fire. There's one road in and out. That's 9.1 acres, 82 houses. No wonder we have, as mentioned from the planning staff at the beginning at the 6 o'clock meeting, no wonder we have almost 800 petitions in opposition to the proposed project. There is a reason. We are rural. Our entire four towns together are about 7,000 or 8,000 people. So to stuff 82 houses here, I'm sorry, and especially there's only one road in and out. Thank you.

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

Yes, Jeff Summers, 335 Cram Avenue, Logandale, Nevada. A lot of concerns with this that have not been addressed. And one of the biggest is today at one o'clock, we find out it's getting bumped again. And I'm sure that if they weren't working things out with water, that would have been apparent a day, two, three, four days ago. They weren't on the cusp of an agreement. We feel like we're being delayed coming here and waiting. The concerns are the burden is on us. on the developer to show why these waivers, why all these things should be done, the rezoning. And we really don't hear that. We're not hearing about fire protection. Now they're looking at it finally, but this has been brought up for several meetings. We're not hearing about open space. We're not hearing about the school district, the other available utilities in the area. And it's just so dense. I mean, we're in the area next to homes that are running quarter acre roughly. Similar lot, similar nine acres just below it or to the other side of it would have roughly 30, 25 to 30 houses. And we're going 82. And it's just not in, It's not in tune with the rural community, and there's just no concern for what really should be there, even with the asking of waivers of open space parking that would really even denigrate the area further than the 82 houses.

Thank you very much. Yes, ma'am. Name and address for the record. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Mary Kay Washburn. My address is 2071 Pinwheel Street, Logandale, Nevada. I'm here just to point out a few things I agree with my other friends from the Valley. But I'm going to just speak a little bit on the fire apparatus access and also the fire protection and access. The requirements are approved fire apparatus roads shall be provided for every facility building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road shall comply with requirements of this section and shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility. ALL PORTIONS OF EXTERIOR WALLS OF THE FIRST STORY OF THE BUILDING AS MEASURED BY APPROVED ROUTE AROUND THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING OR FACILITY. SO FAR AS MANY THINGS HAVE BEEN THE CASE WITH THIS COMPANY IS THAT No plan has been put on record. And the Appendix D Section D102.13 requires civil engineering plans. TO INCLUDE AN EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS PLAN INDICATING FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS AND ON AND OFF THE PROPERTY WITH PROVIDED INCLUDING DETAILS OF ALL STREET SECTIONS. SO THIS PLAN IS THE DOCUMENT THAT WOULD ANSWER THE QUESTIONS And that's absent. Also, regarding the fire protection, fire apparatus access road under the International Fire Code and for the application must show hydrant locations on site and within 750 feet. Just so many things. There's also no assessment yet from the Moapa Valley Fire Protection District confirming that they can serve this site before 82 new homes are approved. We should know the fire crews can actually reach and protect them. So we recommend, or we're asking the Planning Commission to join with our Moapa Valley Town Board to recommend denial of the applications as they are currently written until the applicant returns with complete and compliant answers on all issues. We, the public, have referenced noncompliance discrepancies between these applications from the BR cubed LLC and Title 30 and the Clark County master plan. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Name and address?

Luke Whitney, 293 Piscata Grande Avenue, Overton. Thank you, Commissioners. Commissioner Stone for having the applicant address us. I would hope that maybe going forward we could be bumped a little further forward in the agenda, if that's possible. It is my understanding that the planning staff has recommended approval of the zone change. Is that correct? Yes, that's correct. I think there's pretty overwhelming evidence that the community is in opposition to this. I don't know how often you get the amount of petition signatures that we've acquired at this point, but for a small valley with as few people as there are out there, 800 signatures is pretty significant, I think. RS2 is not something we want to have out there. And I hope that you recognize that. The homes to the north are RS3.3. The homes to the east are RS5.2. And we would like to see something more along the lines of the RS5.2. That is the community's desire there. I also want to just put on the record of note that I received the email at 2.13, not 1 o'clock, so I was already on the road getting headed over this way. I had some errands to run, so I was already headed this direction. I think they could advise us a little sooner than the afternoon the day of.

Thank you very much, sir. Anyone else want to come down and speak? Okay, seeing no one else, I'm going to close the public hearing. I'm opening up to my commissioners. I see Commissioner Stone, I know you got some comments you want to make. Commissioner Mojica, any comments, questions on the application? All right, we're going to give her some grace right now. Go ahead, Commissioner Stone.

Okay, thank you. Tony, if I could have you just move to the left.

I'm sorry, Commissioner Stone. Pardon the interruption.

Commissioner Kowalski. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to say thank you to the residents that it's been a long time. I know you've been here a couple times. But I have to agree with them, Tony. You know, the day of, to me, is not good. even if they're local, that the day of is not a good time. I think that if nothing else, 24 hours is much better. So just down the road for any project, if we can go there. But thank you for coming down and for being a part of this. I appreciate it. Thank you, Commissioner Kolarski. Commissioner Stone?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Tony, just go to the left a little bit. I can do a little analog research here. I know that everybody didn't speak, but for those that are here from Moapa in opposition to the assignment, if you could just raise your hand for a minute. So, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, what is there, 11 or 12 of you? For the record, we have 12 folks show up. I know you didn't all speak, but I wanted to get that on the record. That's number one. Number two, I think, I think collectively there's been a not ideal process by the applicant in keeping the residents informed of what's going on or what's not going on. Let's try to improve that. Let's try to improve the transparency As we continue through this item, I know that you'll do that. Some things I'd like the applicant to consider, you know, as we move through this next several days. If we had an 82 lot subdivision here in local Las Vegas, We, as a planning commission, would be very interested in common element area amenities. That's what local Las Vegans would want to see on an 82-lot subdivision. Just because it's in Moapa Valley, I'd like to know why we don't have those same amenities up there. Think about that. Think about density. Think about some of the comments we've heard. Think about the Moapa Master Plan, which I have in front of me here. July 19th, 2005, let's make sure that we're in conformance to that document. We can defend what we do, because if it's not in that document, In some way shape or form related this project. We may want to reconsider that I know there's some sort of technical items related to water and fire. Let's let's nail those down and lastly And I want you to think about this a bit. We really don't want to have Another hold and so I know you're asking for 45 days Should we maybe consider 60 days of And I know maybe I'm just throwing that out there, but, you know, these folks, if I lived up there, I don't care if you held it or not, I'd be coming just like they were today. I would. And so I'm offering some ideas for you to take back to the owner, the developer. And is there any merit to 60 days? I'm asking. I don't know.

Thank You Commissioner I've been taking notes of everyone's comments including yours here to to bring back and discuss all I can say about I only have four authority to for 45 days however the board votes you know obviously is out of my control but all I have is 45 days to agree to to the November if you see coming up on day 40 that you're in trouble

or day 35, let us know so we can let the residents know because next time there might be 50 people protesting this. I mean, I think that's what I'm trying to get at is proactive courtesy to the residents so they know what's going on. And if it has to extend to 60 days, let's figure that out, not the day of.

Agreed. I will admit that our office communication on this project has not been great and not up to our own standards, so I do agree with that and will certainly emphasize that as we get closer. And if we're a few days out and we know we're not ready, that we inform... Much sooner than later, so I agree with that state commissioner.

Okay, and lastly make sure you're working with the commissioners office on Anything new any ideas with that unless we have yeah Commissioner stone before you make a motion to hold great Commissioner Kirk Thank you for my vote and my support You've got to have significant open space Maybe some kind of a trail system And please do not ask my support for a 3.3 zone because I'm not supporting that. Just for future reference, if it's not 6,000 square foot loss, I'm not supporting it. I'm not. So you can take that back and you can get all the support you need from everybody else, but that's where I'm at.

Thank you, Commissioner Kirk. Commissioner Stone?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right, with that, let's go ahead and do a motion to hold for 45 days. What planning commission would that be, staff?

All right, so it'll be the November 3rd planning commission meeting. November 3rd.

All right, I move to hold.

And I'm sorry, just for the record, that would move it to the December 2nd BCC.

Okay, perfect. So we have a motion I'm gonna make to hold item 37, 38, 39, and 40. Motion to hold for 45 days to date specific November 3rd. We'll see you then.

Thank you, I appreciate your consideration of this. Motion on the floor, cast your vote.

Without, without. That motion carries, good luck.

Mr.

Chair, can I recognize the resident from Overton?

Sure, let's do it, come on. One comment from the resident and then we're gonna move to the next item. So the record's clear, give me your name and address for the record.

Rebecca Muehlstein, 361 Trace Paloma Street, Overton. If this is the second hold, then isn't there a re-notification?

It's re-notified on the third hold or after 85 days have passed since the first scheduled hearing.

Did you catch that? I didn't catch that. Yeah, so it's re-notified after the third hold or 85 days?

It's 85 days. Oh, after the third hold.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, and would that be the white sign that you put up or would that be cards in the mail?

That would be cards.

Cards in the mail.

So they would start over at the neighborhood or they would?

No, so this next meeting that they're gonna have, there's not gonna be a re-notification. Okay.

Okay, so let's do this. If there are any other questions, go to the side and we'll have staff talk to you. Okay, very good. Next item.

All right, the next item is item number 41, which is companion with number 42, 43, and 44, which can all be heard together. Item number 41 is PA26-70035, plan amendment to redesignate the existing land use category from entertainment mixed use, EM, to business employment, BE, on 2.04 acres, generally located west of Windy Street and south of Capavia Avenue within Enterprise. Item number 42 is ZC26-0463, zone change to reclassify 2.04 acres from an RS20 residential single family 20 zone to an IP industrial park zone within the airport environs AE65 overlay, generally located west of Windy Street and south of Capavia Avenue within Enterprise. Item number 43. is VS26-0465, vacate and abandon easements of interest to Clark County located between Capavia Avenue and Warm Springs Road and Windy Street and Interstate 15. A portion of right-of-way being Capavia Avenue located between Windy Street and Interstate 15 and a portion of right-of-way being Windy Street located between Capavia Avenue and Warm Springs Road within Enterprise. Item number 44. is WS26-0464, waivers of development standards for the following. One, eliminate buffering and screening. Two, reduce parking. And three, eliminate pedestrian walkways. Design review for a proposed office warehouse on 2.04 acres in an IP industrial park zone within the airport environment's AE65 overlay, generally located south of Capavia Avenue and west of Windy Street within Enterprise.

Thank you. Just for a record, before you get started, I just want to just disclose that in the company I work for, we do a lot of work for Clark County Department of Aviation. But, you know, we have no interest in this application. So I feel like I can vote and speak on it.

Yes, I agree. You can vote on this.

All right. Thank you very much. So name and address for the record and tell us about your application.

Larry Moncar, 6260 West Pebble Road, 89139. I'm here on behalf of the applicant. Just to reiterate, the location of the project is just west of I-15 off of Warm Springs and Windy Road, and the cross street would be Capavia. the surrounding area has been rezoned industrial into ip the current property subject property is the result of a clark county aviation auction and the owner has closed on that property it's the same owner as this one and it's the same owner as a property just up the road lmg entertainment this building would be built as a speculative building we are hereby requesting a plan amendment to be consistent with the neighborhood, taking it from a entertainment mixed use into a BE business employment to be consistent with the neighbors, which also goes with the zone change to an IP industrial park that are compatible with the plan amendment for the new BE. Town board and staff has recommended approval on both of those items. We also are here to vacate and abandon parts of the right-of-way in Windy and Capavia to enable us to complete the construction of the streets. Staff and Town Board has also, Enterprise Town Board has recommended approval for that as well. The design review and waiver I'm just gonna go through the design review faction. It really is just a mirror image of the building just to the north. This is on, once again, the southwest corner of Windy and Capavia. It is an office warehouse with a storage mezzanine. Two truck docks, sorry, four truck docks and two grade-level doors. The four truck docks are here, two grade-level doors are there. That's our landscape plan. These are elevations. To be consistent, they are identical to the building just to the north that LMG is currently occupying. WAIVER OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE TO ELIMINATE THE BUFFERING AND SCREENING ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. THIS IS NO LONGER REQUIRED. THE RESIDENTIAL IS NO LONGER, THE RS-20 IS NO LONGER VALID. THIS IS A NEIGHBORING INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY STAFF AND TOWN BOARD HAS RECOMMENDED APPROVAL FOR ELIMINATING THE BUFFERING AND THE SCREENING FOR AN 8-FOOT HIGH WALL, 15-FOOT WIDE LANDSCAPE AND A DOUBLE ROW OF 20-FOOT TREES. We've also requested a reduction in parking from 51 to 49. Once again, staff and town board has recommended approval. The other waiver is elimination of a five foot pedestrian walkway through the parking lot that zigzags. We're not entirely sure the planner understood that this is the planner's markup of, these are to be concrete walkways for handicap access to the property or for parking lot access. They're actually going from planner to planner, planner to planner, over here to the sidewalk. that would access the office we do not believe that this is safe nor should be required staff recommended denial however town board did recommend approval we are here in front of you this evening asking for approval for all four items thank you very much so we're going to open this application up for a public hearing anyone in the audience here to speak on this item now it's time to do so seeing no one rushing down we're going to close the public hearing and i'll open up the commissioners for any questions comments

all right seeing none um commissioner mojica just give you an opportunity all right i think she might still be traveling so so what we'll do is um i will go ahead and make a motion to approve the plan amendment pa 2670035 so there's a motion on the floor cast your vote motion care the motion carries and then i'll make a motion to um we'll do all all three of these at the same um approve zz i'm sorry zc26 zero four six three vs twenty six zero four six five and ws twenty six zero four six four um and that's um motion on the floor for approval so motion on the floor catch your vote Yeah, there you go. Motion carries. Thank you. Good luck. Next item.

And those items will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners meeting for final action on October 21st 2026 at 9 a.m. Unless otherwise denounced our next item is item number 5 Which is companion with items number 46 47 and 48 which can be heard together item number 46 I mean, excuse me number 45 is PA 26-7 0 0 0 3 6 plan amendment to re-designate the existing land use category from ranch estate neighborhood are in and to neighborhood commercial on 1.52 acres, generally located east of West Wind Road and north of Eldora Avenue within Spring Valley. Item number 46 is ZC26-0484, zone changes for the following. One, reclassify 1.52 acres from an RS20 residential single family 20 zone to a CG commercial general zone. And two, remove the neighborhood protection RMP overlay generally located east of West Wind Road and north of Eldora Avenue within Spring Valley. Item number 47 is VS 26-0485, vacate and abandon easements of interest to Clark County located between Sahara Avenue and Eldora Avenue and Westwind Road and Lindell Road, and a portion of right-of-way being Westwind Road located between Sahara Avenue and Eldora Avenue within Spring Valley. And item number 48 is UC 26-0486, Use permit to allow outdoor storage and display. Waivers of development standards for the following. One, reduce and eliminate buffering and screening. Two, modify residential adjacency standards. And three, allow modified driveway geometrics. Design review for outdoor storage and display on 1.52 acres in a CG general commercial zone. Generally located east of Westwind Road and north of Eldora Avenue within Spring Valley.

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

Thank you. Commissioners, good evening. Mike Bellon, 1408 Sainsbury Drive, here on behalf of the applicant, Glory Nissan. Initially, when we made this application, we asked for some waivers for some landscaping conditions that we realize now are probably a mistake on our part. We are seeking a plan amendment as well as a... use permit and the zone change for this use because we believed being adjacent to the neighborhood commercial property directly to the north that this was an exceptionally low impact use this is not a public parking lot it is just a vehicle storage lot We asked to reduce the wall from eight feet to six feet because initially we thought it would comply with the neighborhood better and look less institutional than an eight-foot wall. It certainly provides us with more security to have an eight-foot wall, but we thought we would blend it in, upgrade it with two-tone split-face block, incorporate some wrought iron that I have some examples of we also asked to reduce some of the landscaping because again not being Accessible by the public we thought that it was just a waste of landscaping. We now realized that the neighbors had some concerns When we had our initial neighborhood meeting nobody showed up we do understand that those Invitations get lost and sometimes people don't receive them, but it was a surprise when one neighbor did show up for the town board meeting, we immediately went to try and address his concerns that he brought up. The gentleman, Mr. Ralph Wanger, who spoke earlier regarding the church, as this property is directly south of the application for the Ethiopian church. We went back to the drawing board, excuse me, is this, thank you, and where we asked to reduce the landscaping to one row, of trees we've now turned and realized the correct thing to do is to double that two rows of offset trees 24 inch box a minimum seven foot height at planting and the same along the south border these are the two residential adjacency sections the west wind road improvements are completely as per Clark County standards, detached sidewalk, all of the landscaping improvement necessary, and the improvement of the road is where the vacation of the easements come in. The neighbor who came by, Mr. Wanger, to address his concerns, were intelligent and lucid concerns, wanted to know about the lighting. Wanted to let him know and all of you know that typically when we light these parking lots or these auto dealerships we use 18 to 20 foot high parking lots with two to three lights on them. These lights that we propose would only be 12 foot high, and they would have these screening pieces to the rear, which would block the light from being disseminated towards the residences and the neighbors. Being only 12 feet tall, we think this will completely eliminate any light pollution heading in that direction. He also asked us about the concept of the grading because very specifically other applications have looked at 10 foot high retaining walls, possibly six foot high retaining walls. We wanted to show the neighbors where their existing five to six foot wall currently sets that we would not be putting up a retaining wall to raise our property at all because we're simply a storage lot which would have no access to the public. We're just going to use the natural grade that currently exists. You can see there's just these small areas of fill that will be required to get the lot completed. With this six foot high wall, I heard Mr. Wengler mention it might be five foot on his property. We believed it was six foot on our property. Initially, the request was for us to put up an eight foot high wall adjacent to that six foot high wall. From a construction standpoint, you can't put a wall directly adjacent to a wall. There are footings, spread footings that go underneath the wall that need to be 18 to 24 inches, probably the existing wall, and then our wall would require. So to put another wall here, the neighbors would just be looking at the back of a wall, which we thought was obtrusive, as well as the fact that it creates sort of an alleyway here where animals and debris and possibly even vagrants could congregate and we thought that this was just a mistake. So going back to the landscaping, increasing that back to the required landscaping, that we feel would eliminate completely their concerns with regard to their line of sight. These trees being at minimum seven foot height at planting one to two foot higher than the existing wall offset in between each other it should create a complete canopy that would block all of their views. I don't know exactly at that height how far up the road is, but because there are no structures, no buildings, no dwellings on this property, there'll be nothing but cars stored for the Nissan dealership directly around the corner. Along with that, I would have to say that we Sent Mr. Wengler a letter. Again, I don't know if he received it. Sent it by mail, sent it to an additional P.O. box that he has. Sent a copy to the Commissioner Jones' office. And I dropped a copy of that letter into his street mailbox. I didn't want to knock on his door or bother him, but put it in a box. He may not even have received it. But we're very willing to work with the neighbors to try to help them to understand that we want to be good neighbors. It's quiet enjoyment for the most part. The dealership is closed on Sundays. No one would be on this lot on Sundays. The only people who would come on or off the lot would be attendants picking up a car, delivering a car. There is no work being done here. There is no, again, no work at all, just, again, storage of these vehicles. We initially proposed... this wall which we thought was very attractive uh... six feet high two-tone split face block with wrought iron that we thought maybe they didn't like they wanted it to be more like the existing neighborhood we're happy to adjust that we went and looked at the walls around the neighborhood and saw that our neighbor directly to the south uh... has a white block wall horizontal wrought iron permeation. So we thought we're happy to make the wall look anything that we can working with both staff, the commission, the neighbors, to get to a point where everybody's comfortable with it. Mr. Wengler also mentioned that he was concerned about noise. There are no speakers. There are no, again, no activity, no work being done on the property. We did discuss the occasional car alarm that might go off. It's rare. We've been storing cars all over the city, the different auto dealerships that I work with. But it does happen from time to time. We have 24 hour live monitoring uh... guard who drives around between the dealership just around the corner and would drive around to this site there is a monitor on site that if an alarm went off it would notify the guard immediately so he could get to the site and turn that alarm off We felt initially that this was just, again, a very unintrusive, benign use of the property and had no initial feedback from the neighbors. But now that we understand they have some concerns, I'm happy to work with them and address those concerns and see if we can move forward.

All right, thank you very much. So we're going to open this application up for a public hearing. Anyone in the audience like to speak on it? Now it's time to come down. Just to keep the record clear, give me your name and address for the record and put your comments on.

good evening i'm ralph wenger 26 25 lindell and this project also backs up to my property i would like to address a couple things we we saw the elevations here and without any dirt work or leveling of this property i'm very concerned about this number of autos being parked here as an urban farmer and a gardener this is this backs up right to my uh And I'm sure there's some kind of abatement from any of this that could be had or could be arranged, but it concerns me that that's the nature of this project. A couple things that I wanted to say. They want outdoor storage and display, but the... zoning change means they could pretty much put anything in there as time goes by. This could be a detail shop, it could be anything associated with this. They also are asking to reduce, eliminate buffering and screening, modify the residential agency standards, and modify driveway geometrics. It raises a simple question. If this is a commercial project and it's compatible with the residential neighborhood, why must so many neighborhood protections be removed, modified to make it work? Those protections matter. Outdoor commercial activity can bring lighting, vehicle, headlights, noise traffic, The trucks that load and unload these vehicles, they park on our little two-lane streets while they do that. It happens all the time, but it would be much more regular, I think. And that concerns us. We should not convert one residential parcel to commercial and then create pressure to use another residential parcel to support it. And remember, you're not simply approving today's business plan, you're being asked to approve a commercial zoning change. The commercial zoning can remain, excuse me, businesses and owners can change, but the commercial zoning will remain. So let's look at the cumulative effect. Commercial zoning, neighborhood protections removed, outdoor storage, reduced buffering, modified residential protections. Lighting, huge concern. The dealerships on Sahara flood my yard and adding another acre and a half of car lot would continue to do that. When a commercial project requires this many changes simply to fit on one and a half acres, perhaps the problem isn't the standards. This is simply the wrong location for this intensity of commercial development, and please preserve our residential neighborhood and deny these waivers and applications. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

I'll save my last two seconds in case you have any questions.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in the audience that will speak on this? Yes. Thank you. Come on down. Thank you, ma'am. Name and address?

3191 West Wind Road. I just had a question. So adjacent to this, we have the residential, the rural neighborhood there. And so I assume there'll be sidewalks and such for this since it'll be commercial. Is that what's required around that? And how does that stop and how does that start to transition to the rural neighborhood that we have? Are those part of the protections that are going to be done away with? And again, I don't know that we have any guarantee that it will stay, although this is a wonderful, less intrusive than other commercial properties or projects could be. Again, we have no guarantee that it will stay that way, as we've seen. Question is, what's that transition to start from this commercial to rural residential?

Thank you, um staff.

I don't think they're asking for any waiver of their stamps good So I'll let all the public works discuss the sidewalk and the transition, but none of those most of the things that they're requesting in terms of Residential adjacency are mainly related to the fact that it's an outdoor storage isn't for sure so I

They are showing sidewalks. They will detach sidewalks. They will transition from no sidewalk to sidewalks back to no sidewalks. I do believe that the plan for the church to the north will also be providing sidewalks, so that will also attach to their sidewalk. But since it is commercial, the sidewalks will just appear and disappear at this site until everything else is developed.

Thank you very much. All right. So, um, I opened it up for public hearing. I closed the public hearing and I opened up a public hearing and we see someone else coming down. So I didn't close the public hearing yet. Yes, ma'am. Name and address for the record.

Jane Dye, 3220 Westwood Road. So with it going commercial, my concern would be the church as well, that the church would be able to take the zoning for that and do more with it than what we have. So we don't, I personally and my husband don't like to see that lot going commercial at this point.

Thank you very much. Anyone else? Okay, all right, seeing no one else, we're gonna close the public hearing and I'll turn it over to the commissioners. I'll start with Commissioner Kolarski.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, I've been on this board a long time and for a period of time, we were getting a lot of commercial right here south of Sahara, north of Laredo, and it was determined not written in stone but it was uh inferred i guess that we should not bring any commercial type of zoning below laredo that laredo should be the boundary now why the churches lot that they want to build their their church on is zone commercial neighborhood I don't remember that. The church is zoned residential. Is it zoned, the one that's north of this property? Yes. Okay, there it is, it's residential. Then it's the land use then that is CN? I'm sorry? Yes, the land use.

What was the question, I'm sorry?

The land use then is CN. For the church or for this property? For the church.

I'm trying to make a point here. Yeah, the planned land use on the church is ranch estate neighborhood.

Is commercial?

No, the church is residential as well.

It's zoned residential, but the land use is?

We have it as ranch estate.

As what? Ranch estate. Why do I see? Okay. Oh, I'm looking at the other. I'm looking at something different. Okay. But I don't want to see commercial south of Laredo. I'm going to be very honest, any type of zoning south of Laredo or any type of land use south of Laredo. You start going down and then it's going to start taking everything north of Eldorado or Eldora Avenue. And I don't want to see that happen. We just start to pick and pick and pick and pick. So I cannot support this. Well, it's not as intrusive as it could be, but definitely going to a CG zoning is the most intense, and anything that is detrimental to an RNP could go in there. And for that reason, I just cannot support the entire application.

I understand, Madam Commissioner, and I don't believe that there is the reason we requested this zoning is that there wasn't any other zoning that would permit the outside vehicle storage. There is a mention about display. There's also, I believe, a mention of signage, none of which is part of our application or would be part of our program, just simply storing the vehicles, but I understand completely your position.

Just remember, though, you may not keep that forever, and as Mr. Wankler said,

the zoning stays forever yes ma'am thank you commissioner klarski commissioner brady um one thing i want to mention is last time we in our last planning meeting we had the water district here and one thing they talked about is hardscape and asphalt and all these different things which brings heat to the neighborhoods and all of that i i would look at this if this were to be approved i would hope that would be some type of shaded trees or something in this more of the center throughout it to try to cool things down because that would be causing heat to come through the neighborhoods that are just and all the homes surrounding it so that's i'm trying to cool down our our city thank you commissioner brady

I guess I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place for the only reason that I got no problem with a parking lot. I think to your point, This is the best use that you could put in this particular spot against that neighborhood so that it's not intrusive. But I do agree with the residents that changing the zoning is problematic. So I'm still struggling with that for right now, but I'm going to listen to some other commissioners. Commissioner Kirk?

Thank you. So if they go commercial, they're going to be required to put in detached sidewalks?

That is correct.

They are showing that they are putting them in. On the west side and the east side?

Just along West Wind.

Just on the west side? Correct. Okay. Thank you. I guess my question then is for Rob. Is there a legal way that we can change the zoning and yet restrict it to outdoor storage of vehicles as described by the applicant?

No, there really isn't. Once you hard zone it with the zoning ordinance, then they can come back with some other use that's allowed in that zoning district.

if it weren't for that uh i mean i have no problem with it being a parking lot it's great i mean i apologize to interrupt is the and i'll ask the district attorney's representative is it possibly to deed restrict the property for a use that's a good question no we really can't do that

Would that be something that the applicant would have to do on their own?

Well, I don't know who they'd deed restrict it in favor of. Would it be in the county? I don't know if we can really do that. I mean, you know, for certain projects, maybe an affordable housing project or something like that, we can do something like that. But just for your everyday commercial zoning, I would say no, can't do that.

Last question, and I'm sorry, Commissioner Kirk. I know that. Better minds have already asked this question, but can we leave the zoning like it is and allow the vehicle storage?

I believe this is already a residential use, so no, we couldn't leave the zone the way it is.

Thought I'd just ask.

Also, while I have it, Commissioner Kolarski, I was looking at a report for the church, and it actually has the incorrect plan land that you see word correct. It was the church parcel is neighborhood commercial, and it is zoned RS-20.

All right.

Just to clarify, next time it comes, because we held it, next time that we have it in public hearing, we're going to fix that on the staff report for the church parcel. just the planned land use category.

All right. So just, man, this is, I don't know the win-win in this one. And it is very, very difficult. I mean, again, I have no issue with the parking lot, but I do have issue changing the zoning to commercial. So for that reason, I can't support it. But I'll listen to Commissioner Mojica if she's online.

I am, I'm here.

Okay, go ahead.

I hear what everybody's saying, and I am not ready to move for approval on this. So I think I'm ready to make a motion, but it would be for denial on everything.

I think you got to do the PA separate.

Well, yeah, no, I know. I understand that.

Yes, ma'am. We're ready.

Okay. So motion to deny PA 2670036.

Our motion denies on the, on the, okay, yep, cast your vote.

Mujica, yes.

Motion for denial passes.

And then motion to deny 46, 47, and 48. That would be CZ260484, VS26.

Motion on the floor, cast your vote.

Mujica, yes.

That motion passes.

Thank you all so much.

Thank you. All right. And those items will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners meeting for final action on October 21st, 2026 at 9 a.m. unless otherwise denounced. And that will conclude that portion of the agenda.

Thank you, staff. And so I appreciate everyone's hard work and patience and hanging out with us all evening. The last item on our agenda is public comments. So we'll open the floor up for public comments. Anyone in the audience can come down and make a public comment. The board cannot act on it. Seeing no one rushing down, we're going to close the public comment and adjourn the meeting. Thank you.