Clark County Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

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

Yeah, we're deleting both our conditions. We're deleting both our conditions. We're deleting both our conditions.

Yeah, but it's very, it's very small.

Yeah, we'll get started. We'll maybe have to go ahead and carry it around. We've done that before. Again, it's just, it's like, it's not even a rope. It doesn't connect to anything. It's like the word is there. Yeah. Okay.

Good morning everybody. Welcome to the continuation of the meeting of the Clark County Commission. Today is Wednesday, September 16th. I will call this meeting to order and we will begin with the first time set aside for public comment. Anyone wishing to speak on items that are on today's agenda can come forward at this time. State your name for the record. You might speak for up to three minutes. All right, it's gonna be a good meeting. Seeing none, we'll close. You're coming, come on up. And items that are scheduled for routine are four through 18. If you could just use the microphone to your right.

I'm talking about ZC25-0833, which says it's held over.

Is there an item number that you know? We can find it if you know.

It's item numbers 56 through 59.

Those items will be heard separately. So if you have a seat, we'll call that item. There'll be a presentation and you can speak at that time. There is a request to hold those. I'm sorry, excuse me. 56 is going to be held.

So it won't be heard today. That's what I'm talking about is you guys have the option to not hold it and you can go ahead and vote on it. And I'm suggesting that you do that. This is the fourth time they've held it over.

So why don't we do this now that we know what you're here for? Public comments open. You can state your name for the record. We know you're here to speak on item 56 and make your public comment at this time.

Russell Seastrand. I go by Russ. We feel that putting six lots on that property is going to negatively impact the value of the properties in the neighborhood. We're not opposed to development. We think it's a great thing. We are opposed to bending the rules to allow somebody to put high-density housing in an area where the density of the housing is very spread out. Can I show you pictures? The property across the street, these are some of the properties across the street.

Hold that, will you? I'm not sure the proper orientation for this, but... Upside down, so you could see it. Oh, it makes it look good to me. Okay.

this is uh you can see how far how much empty space there is this is across the street from the proposed property this is another lot next door to that one this is across the street from the proposed property very very spread out kinds of property high density housing across the street is not a good idea it's going to affect all the property owners i'm i'm relate i'm I have property close by this that is going to affect my property. This is across the street also. This is also across the street. These are all residential estates. This is next door to the property, big residential estate. It's just too high density to go six lots on that property. And this is next door on the other side. I didn't put anything on the comments for the The other related issues, but there's some issues with those two, but that's our main issues. Do not approve six lots in that. It's an albatross. It doesn't fit in the neighborhood.

My name is Shirley Seastrand. Whatever they make out of this property will reduce our property values. We also have petitions that we've sent out to neighbors. We have over 70 signatures and not one of them want this to be here. They don't want six houses on a lot that is how many acres?

1.62. So the legal according to the zoning is maximum of three lots on that property here's one of our pages another page another page another page we have a 70 people that have said they're opposed everyone we spoke to was opposed to this proposal thank you very much thank you

Anyone else here wishing to speak on items on today's agenda can come forward at this time. Good morning.

I am petitioning for number 33.

Thank you. Can you just state your name for the record?

My name is Andrea Arson.

Commissioner, we do have a request to have that one held as well.

Okay.

Yes, I would like that to be held.

It will be held? Yes. Since you're here, if there's something you want to say about it, you're welcome to at this time, but it'll be held until? October 21st.

21st, okay, perfect. That's just what I needed.

Oh, great, thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else wishing to speak on items on today's agenda, come forward at this time. Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing. Good morning, Mr. Allswing.

Good morning, commissioners. The second item is the approval of the agenda. AFTER CONSIDERING ANY ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS OF ITEMS. COMMISSIONER STAFF HAS RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING REQUESTS WHICH MAY REQUIRE RENOTIFICATION FEES IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 30. AND THERE ARE 31 REQUESTS SO I'LL TRY TO GO SLOWLY AND CLEARLY. SO HOLD TO THE OCTOBER 7, 2026 ZONING MEETING NUMBER 6, ET-26-400-051 UC-23-0586. Item 7 is UC-26-0466. Item 8 is ZC-26-0174. Item 28, UC-26-0467. Item 29, VS-26-0289. Item 30, WS-26-0288. Item 34, WS-26-0488. Item 35, TM-26-500110. Item 37, WS-26-0352. Item 38, WS-26-0354. Item 39, PA-26-700-026. Item 40, ZC-26-0318. Item 41, VS-26-0319. Item 42, WS-26-0321. Item 43, PUD-26-0320. Item 44, TM-26-500-085. Item 45, PA-26-700-028. Item 46, ZC-26-0358. Item 47, UC-26-0359. And then the following, the request is to hold until the October 21st, 2026 zoning meeting. That's item 22, WS-26-0113. Item 24, VS-26-0436. Item 25, UC-26-0437. Item 26, SDR-26-0438. Item 33, WS-26-0482. Item 36, WS-26-0351. And then the following are to be held no date specific. Item 31, VS-26-0398. Item 32, UC-26-0397. Item 56, ZC-25-0833. Item 57, VS-25-0835. Item 58, WS-25-0834. And item 59, TM-25-500200. So these public hearing items are going to be open as a public hearing and immediately recessed. until the dates previously stated or held to no date specific so with these deletions which are items 6 7 8 22 24 25 26 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 56 57 58 and 59 the agenda is ready for your approval excellent thank you uh commissioner segerblum yeah i would move for approval but with mr seastrand i want to just make a comment i am agreeing to hold it but i'm well aware of this issue and so thank you for coming out

There is no new date for it, but I'm well aware of the issue.

Thank you.

There is a motion. Please cast your vote. The motion passes.

The third item is the approval of minutes. The minutes of the August 19th, 2026 zoning meeting are ready for approval.

I move approval to the minutes. Thank you. There's a motion for approval. Please cast your vote. A motion passes.

Next are the routine action items, which consist of items four through 18, except for any items that have been held. These items may be considered together in one motion and are subject to the conditions listed with each agenda item and as amended, as I'm going to read in. The amendment we have is for item number 16, UC-26-0378, add a comprehensive planning condition that reads 15 years to discontinue the use unless an extension of time is granted. and then delete public works condition that says drainage study and compliance in the future if a habitable building with a finished floor is constructed, and add drainage study and compliance to be completed within 18 months. So with those changes, if there's no other objections, the public hearing is open and the routine agenda is ready for approval.

That being the case, Mr. Chair, I move approval of the routine action items.

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

Next item on the agenda is number 19, which is a companion with 20 and 21. I'll go ahead and read them together. 19 is PA-26-700-037, plan amendment to amend the Clark County trails map southwest Las Vegas Valley of the Clark County Master Plan, along with the related text in Appendix A, deleting trail alignments along the Bronco Street alignment between Patrick Lane and Post Road, and along a portion of Saab Avenue alignment between El Camino Road and Jones Boulevard, and adding new trail alignments along a portion of Patrick Lane between Jones Boulevard and El Camino Road and along the western boundary of assessor's parcel number 163-35703007 from Patrick Lane to Saab Avenue on 24.15 acres, generally located between Patrick Lane and Post Road and between El Camino Road and Jones Boulevard within Spring Valley. Number 20 is ZC-26-0498. Zone change to reclassify 24.15 acres from an RS-20 zone to PF zone within the airport environs, AE-60 and 65 overlay. Generally located north of Post Road and west of Jones Boulevard within Spring Valley. And number 21 is WS-26-0499. Waivers of development standards for the following. One, waive full offset improvements. Two, reduce throat depth. And three, modified driveway geometrics. Design review for a proposed public facility, animal resource center, on a portion of 24.15 acres in a PF zone within the airport environs AE-60 and AE-65 overlay. Generally located west of Jones Boulevard and north of Post Road within Spring Valley.

Thank you. Good morning. Good morning, commissioners. My name is Chris Lujan with TSK Architects, 314 South Water Street in Henderson, Nevada. On behalf of Clark County Real Property Management and the Animal Protection Services, we're here today to share with you the vision for a new animal resource center. As previously noted, the multiple variances that we're looking for begin with the current trail alignment reconfiguration, the reconfiguration of the trail. While noted as a proposed trail, we're looking to be able to develop the parcel Only long is noted the southeast corner of the parcel. It's a 24 acre Segment with which we're looking to touch about eight acres At this point the proposed alignment for the trails would have bifurcated the site and in order to maximize its flexible use We suggest proposing the move to the western boundary of that site Again, our proposal does not seek to develop the entire parcel itself. Just the limited southeast corner of this Continuing along This zone currently is zoned as RS20. In order to allow for the accommodations for a public facility, we are seeking the zone change for a public amenity. So that zoning, we believe, would be compatible with this type of use. Lastly, we are aware of multiple configurations, including the airport environs. We are going to go through the process working with the FAA to ensure that there's no encroachments within those zones. Similarly, the asks that we're looking for in development for certain reductions of throat depth of the primary access points, as well as reducing the overall offsite improvements simply because we are not developing the entire parcel. We have focused the development at the main areas along Post and Jones as noted previously.

And looking at the site again,

To look at the overall current configuration, we are relegating this development footprint to the southeast corner of the parcel. Here we have an approximately 38,000 square foot enclosed building for these services as well as a buffer not only of landscape but parking as well. We believe that the configuration of this maintains adequate traffic flow off of Post Road while not overburdening anything along Jones. Architecturally, the facility, again, is serving a critical need in this portion of the valley. As a service, we believe that this is going to be reflective of not only the context and configuration of the surrounding neighborhoods, but as well something that shows a level of dignity and promise in reflection of Clark County standards. from a landscape perspective again we are maintaining uh... adequate landscaping we understand that this is a public community uh... facility and we are looking to maintain adequate landscaping uh... with using of native plants and plants that also are safer animals should they end up being walked with any potential uh... stir service staff in the area that no plants are intended to uh... allow for any sort of sickness from that I'll leave this here. Again, this, we believe, is a welcoming facility, a facility that's going to serve the community for decades to come. And we appreciate your consideration at this time.

Thank you. Thank you very much. This is a public hearing on items 19 through 21. Those wishing to speak, please come forward. Good morning.

My name is Colin Cavanaugh. I'm appearing for Laura and David McKenzie. They own the residential property at 6240 West Patrick Lane, which is directly across the street from the subject parcel. They have filed two objections on this item, but wanted to come in here and make a record as well. While they do object to the development of the Animal Resource Center, their primary objection, however, is to the rezoning of the entire parcel of land, in particular the roughly 15 acres to the north of the Animal Resource Center and the 2.23 acres to the southeast of the Resource Center. The first, I'll address the 15 acres. The site plan shows that the Animal Resource Center project itself is going to be the 8.83 acres in the southeast corner at Jones and Post. The remaining acreage above is 15.36 acres, which is labeled for future development, not in scope. That includes the 13.13 acres on the north and the 2.23 acres on the southeast. We believe that a sweeping rezoning of the entire parcel is unnecessary and unjustified without a land use application specifying the intended design and use of the acreage on the parcel not being developed in connection with the Animal Resource Center. We have not heard any justification for that. We have not been able to find any or received any in the mail either. The second objection, looking specifically at the 2.23 acres on the southwest corner of the parcel, there's already a building drawn on the site plans. And it appears that it's for roughly 16,000 square feet. And you can see that it specifically says future building approximately 16,000 square feet, which indicates that there is a design intention for the land that the county has outside of what appears in the application materials that we've received. So we believe that that future building should either be taken off or continued until we have an opportunity to review all the materials submitted in support of that particular building being proposed as well. The third objection relates to the buffer, the residential buffers and the landscaping in particular. Sheet L1.00 on the landscape plan identifies two buffers, the one along the west side of the property line and one along the north property line. The west buffer is real. That does provide real buffer for the residences to the west of the property. However, The north property line on the landscape plan sheet is not the actual parcel line. It shows that the landscaping buffer is only being applied on the north edge of the portion being devoted to the Animal Resource Center.

You can finish your sentence if you need to.

So we agree that that should be there, but the landscaping buffer should also be applied at the north edge of the parcel line for the benefit of the residents north of the parcel on Patrick Road.

Okay. Thank you for being here. I appreciate it. Go ahead and have a seat. Anyone else wishing to speak during this public hearing, please come forward at this time. Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing. I guess in response to that, the reality with this, go ahead and have a seat. The reality with this site is that it's Department of Aviation owned, which is Clark County. It is restricted because of that against residential. None of this site, including the northern portion, is ever going to be residential. It can't be. And so it is an appropriate site for public facilities and specific to this project this is a project that this entire board has had some great awareness of it's a county priority we've gone through extensive efforts to make sure that we are following all of the um all the things that this board particularly cares about when it comes to protecting that neighborhood and given the location it's i believe incredibly suitable for this um i don't know if you if there's a portion of that that you want to respond to that i didn't cover

No, I appreciate your sentiments on that. Nothing to add.

Okay, and so I am prepared to go ahead and move for approval of items 19, 20, and 21. And while my colleagues are voting, I just want to take a minute to thank RPM, to thank everybody involved, Monica, Janine and Jim are here, our Animal Protection Services team, who has really made this a priority for the county, recognize the need that we have, acknowledges the taxpayer money that this project is going to save when it comes to response and just the the human impact that it's going to have on reunifying animals closer to home is significant so i thank you for that and i think that motion's been voted on And it passes. Thank you.

Next item on the agenda is 23, UC-26-0477, use permit to allow a place of worship, waivers of development standards for the following. One, reduce and eliminate landscaping. Two, reduce and eliminate buffering and screening. Three, modify residential adjacency standards. Four, increase maximum parking. Five, reduce access gate setback. Six, modify driveway geometrics. Seven, waive full off-site improvements. And eight, allow a non-commercial curb return driveway. Design review for a proposed place of worship on 0.56 acres in an RS-20 zone, generally located north of Sunrise Avenue and west of Phila Street within Sunrise Manor.

Is there an applicant here on item 23? This item is in. I think it's me. Commissioner Sagerbloom. All right. Do you want me to, you want to trail this item?

No, I've talked to the applicant. Because it's a place of worship, I would approve the use.

I just have to open the public hearing first. This is a public hearing on item 23. Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward.

Sure.

Sure.

uh you know i respect the i happen to be christian i respect the worship areas but we've had some uh i'm not sure who the applicant is what they're doing i'd like to hear what they have to say but we've had over in the sunrise manor area um some problems with some of these worship areas uh locations and and throughout the uh the county One of them being that we want them to respect the community, not have all kinds of traffic all around, lots of loud music. We want them to hear what they had to say. And over on Meikle and Betty Lane, we have a group that just comes and gives food to the homeless, and there's all kinds of trash all over the place. So we're hoping that this, basically I will support it, We want this group to know that the community is aware of these things and that, you know, we don't want to create a bigger problem, a noise problem or a problem of all kinds of the traffic not being respected in the community where we've seen other churches do that and being a bunch of bringing a bunch of food, feeding people and just leaving the trash all over the place. So hopefully they could be conscious of that. We're trying to clean up our community, Sunrise Manor. We got a new police station up there. Hopefully we'll be bringing a bunch of veterans over. We're moving in the direction of public safety and public consciousness. I just wanted to make sure that the people know that, that are putting that church there. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak, please come forward. We're on item 23. Please state your name for the record. You'll have to speak into the microphone.

Oh, my name is Troy Lang. I live directly across from the proposed church. I just want to say that Being this needs eight different waivers in the middle of a residential area, I respectfully hope that you refuse this request for a place of worship in the middle of a residential neighborhood. It's a dead end street. They quoted that they were 120 members, 12 parking spots, and they want to expand. Who knows how many more members that's going to be, you know, that's going to overflow into the street. It's going to create safety issues with parking, lighting. There's no street lights. We're all on septic system. I don't know how they're going to do it with the septic system. So I'll let the board conclude on that. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else here to speak on item 23? Seeing no one, we'll close the public hearing. Commissioner Sagerblum.

Thank you. I met with the leaders of the church, the applicants, and because of the Constitution, I will approve the use permit for the church, but I am going to deny the waivers. As the gentleman said, I think there's way too much traffic involved here and so if there's no way to put those cars and there is no way in this residential neighborhood then i would move i would oppose the waivers uh commissioner sagerbloom did you uh the denial did you want to do that with or without prejudice we can deny it without prejudice without prejudice thank you there is a motion to approve the use permit and deny the relevant waivers please cast your vote

That motion passes.

Next item on the agenda is 27. It's UC-26-0302, holdover use permit to allow outdoor storage. Waivers of development standards for the following, one, eliminate electric vehicle charging spaces, and two, modified driveway geometrics. Design review for a proposed recreational and entertainment facility ice rink within an existing shopping center on a 7.02 acre portion of 10.85 acres. in a CG zone within the airport in Byron's AE60 overlay, generally located south of Russell Road and west of Decatur Boulevard within Spring Valley. Good morning.

Good morning, Jennifer Lazovich, 1980 Festival Plaza Drive, representing the applicant. The site is located south of Russell Road and just east of Decatur in yellow. It really encompasses the area that is still undeveloped. It is proposed for a hockey facility, which will be open to the community. The hockey facility will have two NHL-sized surfaces, performance training, and complimentary retail. It can be used for youth organizations, adult leagues, hosting of tournaments. With this application, we do have some waivers. Waiver 2A and 2B deal with the driveway throat depths coming off of Russell Road. It is an unusual shaped property in that it's almost a triangle and diagonal. We almost meet the throat depth, but staff is recommending approval of those. With respect to waivers 1A and B, that deals with the EV parking. As you note on your staff report, we are withdrawing waiver 1B, which means that we will install the eight EV provided spaces. I was like, did I say something? We will install the eight EV required spaces to be installed with the project, but we are still asking to waive 1A, which would require us to provide 26 EV-capable spaces. We just felt that that was excessive given the use. And so with that, we would ask for your approval.

Thank you very much. This is a public hearing on Item 27. Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward. Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing. This is really exciting, this project for me. We have a huge shortage of ice time available in the entire county. And so helping to fill that void, particularly in an area where there are no other options, is a wonderful thing. So I move for approval. I'm very comfortable with the waivers and would ask for my colleagues to cast their vote on item 27 for approval. And while they're doing that, Director Allswing, if I could just say, I think we were a little bit heavy-handed on our EV requirements in the Title 30 update, and I think it probably warrants looking at those ratios and probably coming back to the board with some options. Understood. Yeah, we'll take a look at that. Thank you very much. That motion passes.

Okay, next item on the agenda is 48, which is companion with 49, 50, 51, and 52, and I'll read them all in together. 48 is PA-26-700-030, plan amendment to redesignate the existing land use category from neighborhood commercial and corridor mixed use to low intensity suburban neighborhood and compact neighborhood. on a 14.92 acre portion of a 17.72 acre site generally located west of dean martin drive alignment and south of richmar avenue within enterprise number 49 is zc-26-0392 Zone change to reclassify a 14.92-acre portion of a 17.72-acre site from RS-20 zone to RS-10 zone and RS-3.3 zone, generally located west of Dean Martin Drive alignment and south of Richmar Avenue within Enterprise. 50 is VS-26-0393, vacate and abandon easements of interest to Clark County located between Richmar Avenue and Silverado Ranch Boulevard and Polaris Avenue and Dean Martin Drive within Enterprise. 51 is WS-26-0394, waivers of development standards for the following. One, increase retaining wall height. Two, modify residential adjacency standards. And three, increase driveway entrance width for a private street. Designer view for a single family residential detached development on 14.92 acres. in an RS-10 zone and an RS-3.3 zone, generally located west of Dean Martin Drive and south of Richmar Avenue within Enterprise. And 52 is TM-26-500-098, tentative map for 113 single-family residential lots and common lots on 14.92 acres in an RS-10 zone and an RS-3.3 zone, generally located west of Dean Martin Drive and south of Richmar Avenue within Enterprise.

Thank you. Good morning.

Good morning. Mark Mulhall, 1980 Festival Plaza Drive here on behalf of the applicant. As noted, the site is west of Dean Martin Drive and the 15. It's north of Silverado Ranch Boulevard and it's just under 15 acres. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A PLAN AMENDMENT FROM THE EXISTING CORRIDOR MIXED USE AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO COMPACT NEIGHBORHOOD INTO LOW INTENSITY SUBURBAN NEIGHBORHOOD FOR THE TOP PORTION TO CREATE THAT BUFFER TO THE RURAL STATES THAT EXIST NORTH OF RICHMAR. CURRENTLY AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE'S CORRIDOR MIXED USE, THIS BOTTOM PORTION THAT'S NOT A PART OF THIS APPLICATION. is being reserved for future commercial development to maintain some of that commercial designation. The Maverick gas station was approved here just to the east, and then there's designations for business employment, industrial uses, The site is proposing 113 new homes. There's large buffer lots there at the top. So those have a different zoning designation and land use plan to create that buffer area. So there'll be a transition from the future commercial up to more RS 3.3 zone lots. As noted too, there is three, waiver request within this application. The first is for the retaining wall. The retaining wall only exists down here at the southern boundary of the site. It's set off from Silverado Ranch Boulevard. It's necessary for the grading and drainage of this site. With the eventual development of commercial or anything to the south that will require grading that will bring it up to so visually it will not be an issue. Additionally, there's a request related to the buffering to the RNP that's related to these three lots that are adjacent to this portion here. It's undeveloped, it's owned by the federal government. So really kind of in our eyes, the more true RMP exists north of Richmar Avenue where we are providing that buffering. We are also requesting to increase the width of the driveway to allow better flow and queuing into the community and out of the community. Staff is supporting that request, which we appreciate additionally to in the tentative map. It refers to the access points. This was intentional to have the access point on Dean Martin. That's a signalized intersection. Allows full access to be able to get to the highway to make that left hand turn. and then to get on Silverado Ranch Boulevard. So kind of funnel that traffic to Dean Martin and back out to Silverado Ranch where there's a signal. And then we do have some homes that will front onto Polaris and onto Richmar and that traffic should be minimal. So happy to answer any questions on this.

Thank you very much. This is a public hearing on items 48 through 52. Those wishing to speak can come forward at this time. Take your time. Oh my god, I'm so sorry. You're doing fine.

Good morning. Heidi McGee, 30. Oh my gosh, I'm so sorry. Please bear with me. It's my neighbor. Heidi McGee, good morning. Oh, Heidi McGee, 3280 West Richemont Avenue. This project is right across the street from us. We built our forever home, I'm just gonna read. We built our forever home 30 years ago and we have been preserving our RMP for the last 25 years. Four commissioners later and most developers would come in, request the highest land use and density only to sell the land. We've worked very hard on this corridor to preserve the homes that were originally built along that corridor. So I want to thank KB Homes for bringing that dream to reality because they built a whole neighborhood along the Dean Martin corridor across the street from the RNP. So we are happy to work with KB Homes. We started our meetings with them last year and we had meetings with them. They set up, they listened to us. And we went to the town board and then they recommended denial. Staff denied the tentative map and I'm going to read that because for five acres, you have two through accesses and we have one, egress and ingress. And for five acres, you have two and we have 17 acres so we would ask that you deny that the plan amendment and also the planning committee there were three that denied the tentative map and so did the staff and then on the plan amendment in the planning commission there were two that denied the plan amendment and we would ask that you deny the plan amendment because that would negate the zone change to compact neighborhoods. So if another developer comes in, then they were able to get the highest density. We love KB Homes and I want this to come to fruition. The height, we don't feel it's necessary, but it's not gonna be the battle we're gonna die on. We would ask that no off-sites on Richmar because it's right across the street from the RMP. When we brought this up at the Planning Commission on no off-sites, We had a lot of water running down Richmark, going down Dean Martin, and it was a permitted drainage put on by, it was a permitted drainage by the county. And all the water was coming from all the development that comes down from the Beyond Valley View, from all the building. so that's why and so we were told at the planning commission that we should have drainage but the water coming down was from all the building it came down and it went down dean martin and it was undermining the block wall at our neighbor's house and then it ran down by our well and we were given a call to fix our well it was leaking it wasn't it was all the running water off so There's that. I would ask that you kindly listen to the Planning Commission and the recommending board, the town board. I know, I've got to go. I just appreciate you.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Do you need these cards?

Good morning.

James J. Brown, 9450 Polaris Avenue. I live three houses south of this project. I live on nine-tenths of an acre with a 4,200 square foot house. My neighbor towards the project lives on eight-tenths of an acre. in a 3,000-square-foot house. The house directly across the street is on nine-tenths of an acre, and it's a 3,000-square-foot house. They proposed to put one row of medium-sized lots as a buffer and then 99 homes on tiny lots. The town board said it's way too aggressive. I mean, it is way too aggressive. I would like to see, but I have no control, I'd like to see 2,500 to 4,000 square foot homes built four to an acre, which would be compatible with everything south I mean north of this project. There are no small homes north of this project. We're all on quarter acre or more properties. So I'd urge you to follow our Enterprise Town Board recommendation of denial.

Thank you. Anyone else here to speak on 48 through 52? Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing. If you want to come back up, Mark. Mr. Papazian, it looked like you had something you wanted to add.

No, sir. Thank you. This is in my area, so I'm interested.

Fair enough. Is there anything you'd like to respond to?

Yeah, just... briefly add and I know drainage was talked about before and that the off sites would help that because I know it has been an issue at the northeast corner of the site and that that's something that KB has been. working on for with this development to make the drainage issue better in this area i'd just like to point out too on the access issue again is that we have three stub streets and so two on the plan are being shown with the emergency access kb has spoken with fire and can have all of the stub streets be have emergency access to kind of resolve any concerns related to that if there's an emergency people getting out there also is an access easement over the common elements so there's some open space up at the front so every point of the community can be accessed in the event of an emergency and again too i know with the tentative map that that's One of the concerns, but it was more of a thoughtful design to have that so that the traffic comes out onto Dean Martin rather than having folks come out here and then they want to make a left because they live in this portion and they drive back through. And I do think to, you know, we want to have the buffer lots single story up here to keep that character on rich more and to buffer from the rest of the community.

Okay, thank you very much. Commissioner Jones, whose district this is in, is excused absent today. He did express to me that he was comfortable with the buffering that was included here and with the engagement that has happened. And his intention was to move for approval of items 48 through 52. I will follow that recommendation and make that motion. The motion passes.

Thank you. Next item on the agenda is number 53, which is companion with 54 and 55, and I'll read them in together. 53 is PA 26-700-031. Plan an amendment to redesignate the land use category from ranch estate neighborhood to neighborhood commercial on 0.72 acres, generally located south of Russell Road and east of Topaz Street within Paradise. item 54 zc-26-0409 zone change to reclassify 0.72 acres from an rs20 zone to a cp zone generally located south of russell road and east of topaz street within paradise and 55 is ws-26-0410 waivers of development standards for the following one reduce buffering and screening two reduce driveway width three allow attached sidewalks to remain and four modify uniform standard drawings Design review for the conversion of an existing single-family residence to an office use on 0.72 acres in a CP zone within the airport in Byron's AE60 overlay, generally located south of Russell Road and east of Topaz Street within Paradise. Good morning.

Good morning, Commissioners. Lebanee Ohini, 520 South 4th Street, representing the applicant. This... APPLICATION IS A CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING RESIDENCE TO AN OFFICE USE TO ORIENT YOU TO THE SITE, THE PARCEL, WHICH IS AN EXISTING RESIDENCE. IT'S LOCATED ON SOUTH OF RUSSELL ROAD, MIDBLOCK BETWEEN MCCLOUD DRIVE AND TOPAS AVENUE. THE FIRST APPLICATION, NUMBER 53, IS A PLAN AMENDMENT FROM OUR END TO NC to convert as the PA, that's the plan amendment to convert from the residential designation to a commercial designation. It may look like there has not been any amendments to the master plan in this area, But to the north, there's the amendments that are all NC. To the south, although not ordinance yet, this is actually an existing church zoned CP. And I'll show you on the zoning map. This was also done as CRT a few years ago. And then this was done when I was actually still at the county. almost 15 to 20 years ago when this area was in transition, and it is an office complex, but it's still showing as RN. On the zoning map, most of the northern portion of Russell in this segment of Russell has converted to CP zoning or CRT zoning. So to our west. This is already converted to our east, has converted and it's zoned CP. The church is zoned CP and this parcel is zoned CRT. As part of the application, which is number 55, we did request waivers which, in a design review, all the waivers are existing conditions. This segment of Russell Road has been converting to commercial uses for about 20 years. So this is just the next one coming in. The waivers include a waiver for 10 feet adjacent to the house along the west property line. We've met the 15 required buffer along the entire land except for this area where the house is existing. We meet parking requirements. Also along the south property line, we've met the requirement. The next set of waivers are existing conditions as well, which is the walls, which are about a little over five feet. Code requires eight feet. We've asked to maintain that existing condition as well. The additional waivers, which are public works waivers, include the attached sidewalk, the driveway, which is 20 feet. Fire has reviewed the driveway, looked at it, and also looked at the depth for fire access, and they have no issues with the waivers. There's the attached sidewalk issue. For miles on end along Russell, from 95 to or I-11 all the way through to the airport, except for newer development, everything is attached. And in this area, everything is attached in this area. And just to justify why we're asking for that waiver, because no other residential conversions in this area has had attached sidewalks. Our applicant was more than willing to comply if he could, but as you can see, there's this public street light just adjacent to the area, which will be cost prohibitive to a small businessman. This is supposed to be a pool office. Secondly, even if he could do it, he would have to go through Russell Road, and Russell is a no-cut street until 2027, so there's really no way he could afford to relocate the street light. The other issue is there is a water meter, which even if he tried to move, he would have to move this water meter, go through Russell as well, which would be another cost prohibitive item. So with that, we're asking that the existing conditions remain. It is a conversion. It's for a small business owner and staff has recommended approval of the PA and the zone change but recommended denial of all the waivers which are existing conditions and we're asking for your approval on that. Town Board recommended approval because they understood the issues that faces a small business person so did planning commission. They all recommended approval as submitted, and we will graciously request that same approval. Thank you.

This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward. Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing. Commissioner Gibson.

Thank you. Obviously, the entirety of this street eventually will be doing the very same thing that this owner is doing. And we've already had, for decades, people who live on the street changing the uses of those homes. Many of the homes were very nice and very large homes over the years. In fact, it worries me a little bit that some of the stuff that is happening more to the west of the county along roads that we know will be four-lane streets right today have homes nice homes in many cases that have been built that are very large it feels like we're going to be doing this for the next 30 or 40 years in one place or another so i i'm sympathetic and i think that that makes a lot of sense i wanted to comment on the detached sidewalk argument i think that the reason that i'm inclined to grant that waiver because we try very hard to detach the sidewalks. We consider it a true traffic safety issue. In this location though, there's no room. There's no way to do that. And I think the hardship in the context of the ability to do it is a much better argument than we've been letting other people get away with it. So I don't know, Commissioner Knapp may have additional comment he wishes to make.

No, you said that correctly. My whole issue with detached sidewalks is if we let everyone get away with it, we're never going to get there. In this case, there's clearly just not enough room to effectively detach the sidewalk.

Mr. Papazian, Public Works.

Thank you, Commissioner. I actually have a note to speak about the sidewalk. Unless we did Russell Road as a complete project, each one of these parcels that come in individually is going to come in with that same waiver to keep the attached sidewalk. There's just not enough frontage to detach it. Yeah, so I think we'll be seeing more of that in the future. There's just no room to detach it. As for our condition, we did have a condition that I'd like to remove. We did get correspondence from Fire that they were supporting their driveway. We had a condition that read applicant to coordinate with Public Works Development Review for the design of the driveway, and since we have that correspondence with Fire, we would like to delete that condition. We also have a condition to reconstruct any unused driveways with full off-sites. We'd like to delete that as well. They only have one driveway and there's nothing else to construct full off-sites over with one driveway.

So in light of that, I move approval. I'll consider the comments you've just made to extend the if approved conditions that the county department suggested. And so this approval would be subject to those comments that I consider to be if approved. No, he just withdrew those. So you don't have to move a light. You don't have to worry about the water. You don't have to worry about the detached sidewalk, the driveway width. Those are all issues that are now addressed because of the comments that the fire department has made in public works.

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

Okay, next item on the agenda is 60, which is companion with 61. I'll read those in together. Item 60 is ZC dash 26 dash 0459 zone change to reclassify 0.89 acres from an RS 20 zone to an zone within the airport environs at 65 overlay generally located south of Hope Avenue and west of Nellis Boulevard within sunrise manner. Number 61 is WS-26-0460. Waivers of development standards for the following. One, modify residential adjacency standards. Two, buffering and screening. Three, waive full offset improvements. Four, reduce driveway width. And five, reduce throat depth. Design review for an industrial yard and outdoor storage on 0.89 acres in an IL zone within the airport environs, AE65 overlay. Generally located south of Holt Avenue and west of Nellis Boulevard within Sunrise Manor.

My name is Micaiah Magdaleno, address is 4310 Cameron Street. I'm here representing the applicant. This project is located on Holt Avenue, 5017. This proposed project is located in Holt Avenue. The subject parcel is currently zoned residential, RS-20, and we are proposing to rezone it to industrial light. to accommodate for the existing small crane company. It should be noted that the parcel to the east is IP and then the parcel to the south is general commercial. It's supporting the compatibility of the proposed industrial use. All structures, the existing CMU wall, roll gate, man gate, and fence onsite are existing to remain as this is for the business. The site operates strictly as a non-residential use with no onsite residents. This business employs six employees, which typically three employees present onsite during operating hours, which is 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday. We are asking for some waivers. One waiver is for the full offsites. The other waiver is for the standard gate requirement. The existing 22-foot wide gate adequately accommodates both employee vehicles and the boom trucks. Operational procedures to ensure only one boom truck utilizes the gate at a time. efficiently functioning as a controlled one-way access point to minimize potential conflicts. We are waiving the throat depths and then the waiver of standards for the driveway. We have sent these plans to fire and we've communicated with Ed Kaminski and he said he is fine with the driveway that we are proposing for this project. And we are currently just meeting because the client has been running this business for 22 years, and she's now trying to get her business license in Clark County, and it required her to do a rezone to the parcel. That is it.

Thank you very much. That completes your presentation. We'll open the public hearing on items 60 and 61.

Hello, my name is Al Rojas. I'm a resident of Sunrise Manor and very active in the community public safety in this area. I support this project. I think Sunrise Manor is a growing area, as a matter of fact, for the applicant and for the commissioner's knowledge and the community of Clark County. We had a meeting with the Secretary of State. We quoted the governor who said that small businesses are a major contributor to our economy. We asked them what East Las Vegas and Southern Rights Matter was contributing. They're making a significant contribution to our economy. I want to leave these cards here for our neighborhood watch program we have a vigilant group as a matter of fact I also want to bring to the attention of Clark County and our commissioners that we've had a lot of illegal dumping over there and the Hispanic community through the power of social media has stepped up and gotten video of these people that are dumping garbage We got their license plate. We posted it on the internet. We had them come pick it up in two hours. So we are very, very active. We are supporting the community and moving in the direction of public safety, attacking this dumping, and we would love these people to get involved with our Neighborhood Watch program, and we're looking to help them be successful. I request that we approve this project, and we continue moving in that direction for Sunrise Manor. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak on 60 or 61? Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing. Commissioner Sagerblum.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do also support this business. They've been there a long time. They've been longtime residents of Las Vegas, so it's very important. Antonio, can you... speak up as far as working with them as far as making the offsites match the neighbors and also as far as the throat depth.

Thank you, Commissioner. The project to the east came in a few years ago, and they're constructing the off-sites. They have a waiver in off-sites, and from my understanding, they're willing to put in the off-sites. I do want to point out, just like the Russell Road, this parcel, it would be impossible to meet a detached sidewalk requirement. And if they're willing to do the off-sites, we can work with them to see what off-sites we could put in along Holt Road or Avenue, excuse me.

So if I could make a, I'd like to approve with the condition that you work with Public Works to make sure the off-sites match the neighbor.

Sounds good to us.

Is that okay? Thank you, Commissioner. So if they're going to be required to put in the off-sites, the recommendation would be that they would withdraw the waiver of full off-sites. And I think there was also a question about waiver four and whether or not that was still needed.

I don't think, I think waiver four, I mean we could leave waiver four, it is a substandard driveway, but since Friar's okay with it and we have correspondence from Friar that they're okay with that substandard, because it doesn't meet the minimum standards, I think they still need the waiver, but if you'd like to support it, we're okay with that as long as they work with us with the offsites.

All right, everyone get that?

Yeah, so if they want to withdraw waiver three or,

All right, and work with Public Works as far as offsides and withdraw waiver three and four we'll stick with. All right, make sure Antonio's your best friend. All right, I'd make a motion for that, thank you.

There's a motion for approval with waiver of development standard number three being withdrawn. Please cast your vote. That motion passes, thank you.

Items 62 through 65 are ordinances for introduction. 62 ORD 26-900523, introduce an ordinance to consider adoption of a development agreement with all investments LLC and FF series holdings LLC for a single family residential development on 2.99 acres. generally located north of Blue Diamond Road and east of Park Street alignment within Enterprise. 63 is ORD 26-900557, introduce an ordinance to consider adoption of a development agreement with Cactus 7861 Bermuda Investments LLC for a commercial development retail center on 1.69 acres, generally located south of Cactus Avenue and west of Bermuda Road within Enterprise. 64 is ORD-26-900571, introduce an ordinance to consider adoption of a development agreement with Pacific Classic LLC for a commercial development on 4.17 acres, generally located north of Camaro Avenue and east of Hinson Street within Enterprise. and 65 is ORD-26-900683. Introduce an ordinance to amend the official zoning map reclassifying certain properties as approved by the Board of County Commissioners on May 4th, 2022, July 8th, 2026, and July 22nd, 2026. Staff recommends that you introduce these ordinances and set the public hearing for October 7th, 2026.

i'll introduce the ordinance and set the public hearing for october 7th 2026. that concludes our agenda and we're ready for public comment this is the final time set aside for public comment anyone wishing to speak on items under the jurisdiction of this body please come forward at this time

Yes, my name is Al Rojas. I live in Sunrise Manor. We're active in the public safety movement here in Sunrise Manor. And I want to bring a couple of items to the attention of the commissioners, something that might help our community. Number one, a lot of people were, you know, I'm in communication with people that have been here for over 30 years in Sunrise Manor. and they were complaining about these A-frame advertising for our elections, that homeless are going in there and living inside of them, and they become an eyesore. We did have some removed, and we want to thank the candidates who did that, but maybe we ought to have an ordinance somewhere down the road for the next election to stop people have from having a frames because they do create a lot of homeless issues people go in there and living them it's dangerous during the heat and i still saw i still saw a few of them over on pecos and And Lake Mead, I didn't see any homeless in there, but it's something to bring to their attention. That's something that our commissioners could help us so they don't be an eyesore and a danger to people who are unfortunately in a homeless situation. We've had several people die already. As you guys know, over 200 to 300 people die on our streets that are homeless due to the heat every year, according to my research. The other item, very briefly, has to do with Mayfield Mobile Home Parks. A lot of people are complaining that the senior citizens in mobile home parks, their rents are getting raised inexorably. We don't really want to go in the direction of rent control, but it's something that maybe they could be some kind of limits that if they over-raise the money, I did some research that they over-raise the rent, some of that money, they get overtaxed and it goes into a fund to help the seniors that are not in on the street. According to my research, 20% of the homeless people our senior citizens and all we have to offer them from my research is the sidewalk and a shopping cart and having a shopping cart is illegal something to take into consideration Mayfield Park we had a thing with channel five they they complained about it and they would also like to have a gate they say there's some funding for some kind of a gate i'll probably reach out to the commissioner in that area and maybe we can get them a gate that can have more security there's a big security issue there so with all that said i think i'm done thank you

thank you so the record is clear there are more opportunities now than ever before in clark county for individuals facing homelessness particularly extraordinarily vulnerable populations like seniors they can contact anyone up here clark county social services this body since 2022 has allocated more than 360 million dollars towards affordable housing uh including just yesterday where we allocated six million dollars to maintain 120 units of affordable housing We have every opportunity we your times expired every opportunity we have had we have approved particularly age-restricted affordable housing And that's under public comment

and i i have a couple other things that i wanted so one the illegal dumping that is a legislative issue so the health district is only allowed to put in a hundred dollar fine and then we have to find them report them there's a whole legislative process so i know that senator tenante is looking at making illegal dummy dumping more of a criminal uh components because it's getting out of control and We hate it, too, because it costs us thousands upon thousands of dollars to do that. Also, you know, there will be more information on the heat, what's causing the deaths. And quite frankly, the truth is it's people between 50 and 75 that are housed that we're seeing more of that. But in the next six weeks, you will see. see some studies based on what we've seen this summer on what's going on. And then for particular the Sunrise Matter side, I wanna just point out that Clark County invested in the Lake Mead Crisis Stabilization Center, which is right there on Lake Mead in Betty. It is a beautiful brand new facility where people can go and get stabilized and get all those things too. We spend a little less than a billion dollars with several nonprofits that go out in the community all the time to help get those homeless into the spot. And I just, because I want to just point this out. We're not sitting on our laurels. We're doing all of these things all the time. and people like to point out but also on the mobile homes we actually have a one of our bdr requests is to talk about what landlords can't and can't charge and we're hoping that the legislature will give us a hearing last time they did not so the legislature needs to and i can come i come from the legislature for 11 years so i can say this i always gave people fair hearing and in today's environment they just don't hear your bill and that's not okay either so we have some of those bills to address those senior issues and with the century housing bill that congress passed some of those mobile homes can get replaced over time because many they can't go nowhere with them so We in District B have built four brand new mobile home parks in my 10 years of being here. So we always try to ensure that our seniors don't get priced out. And usually if the lot costs $900 a month and their mobile home payment is $200, we try to keep them under the 33%. But we also have senior rental assistance that's been in place for four years. So we... We hear your concerns, but we've been doing a lot for a long time, and someday, before I leave this joint, someone is actually going to come and thank us for the things that we do, instead of pointing out what they don't know what we're doing.

Mr. Chair, just one additional comment. Many of the people who are homeless are homeless because of things that are happening in their lives. And they decline an offer of shelter. And no doubt about it, there are seniors who are homeless. But in most cases, it's a situation where they've chosen to continue that lifestyle. I wanted to make a comment, if I might. On items 56, 7, 8, and 9, Mr. Segerblum's items, Had there been an action taken, I would have abstained. And maybe the record should reflect that even on the vote to hold the item, I abstain. The reason for my abstention is I have a coworker who lives on fog across the street from the project, and I felt that given that relationship, I should abstain. We'll let the record so reflect. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other members of the public here to speak during this public hearing? Seeing none, I will close the public comment period and we will adjourn today's meeting. Thank you very much.