Clark County Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Or sensitive information. When speaking, please talk directly into the microphone clearly and at a steady value. 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.

Good morning. Welcome to the May 20 meeting of the Clark County Commission. We will begin today's meeting with the first time set aside for public comment. Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward at this time. This is an opportunity to speak on items on today's agenda. Items four through 18 are scheduled for routine action and will not be heard separately. Seeing no one, I'll close the first public comment period and turn it over to Ms. Amerman.

Good morning commissioners. The next item on the agenda is the approval of the agenda after considering any additions or deletions of items. Staff has the following request which may require re notification fees in accordance with Title 30. Hold to the 06/03/2026 zoning meeting item 23 UC 26 dash zero one six five. Hold to the 08/05/2026 zoning meeting item 46 UC 20 six-one 165.

Excuse me, I just noticed I do have a correction on that I will read in one second. Item 47 is held to 08/05/2026, Versus 20 five-eight 35. Item 48, WS 20 five-eight 34. Item 49, TM 20 five-five $102,100 Hold to the 09/16/2026 zoning meeting item 17 ZC26-one 174 and delete from the agenda item fifty eight twenty six-nine hundred-three 72. And to clarify sorry, I apologize.

Item 46 should be apologize. Hold on one second. I apologize. Let's just clarify. So, holds to the 06/03/2026, item 23, UC 26 dash zero one six five.

Hold to August 5 zoning meeting, item 46, which is ZC 20 five-eight 33.

That UC number is different than what's appearing on our sheet. Is this inaccurate?

That's what I'm checking right now.

Thank you.

Okay, so item 46 is ZC 25 dash o eight three three. That is what's in our agenda on this highlight sheet that was passed out today has a different number.

It is For clarity the highlight sheet is inaccurate. What's agendized is correct.

Correct, and let me look on the front sheet of the agenda as well. Right, so so the front sheet that was part of the agenda packet that was posted has item 46ZC25-eight 33 and that's part of 46, 47, 48, 49. They're all gonna be held to 08/05/2026.

Thank you. Alright, with those changes, we recommend approval of the agenda. There is a motion for approval with the changes written to the record. Please cast your vote. That motion passes.

Item of the above public, I apologize. Third item on the agenda is the approval of minutes. The minutes of the April twenty second, twenty twenty six zoning meeting are ready for your approval.

I move approval of the meeting minutes.

Thank you. There's a motion for approval. Please cast your vote. That motion passes.

Next are the routine action items, which consist of items four through 18. These items may be considered together in one motion and are subject to the conditions listed with each agenda item. Additionally, staff has the following request. For item five AR 20 five-four hundred-twenty seven for UC 20 two-five 56, They have the following public works conditions: applicant has forty five days after the Board of County Commissioners award approval bid for the Harmon Avenue and Coval Lane improvement projects to remove all nonstandard improvements within the right of way and coordinate with Public Works Design Division Tim Papparo for the removal of said nonstandard improvements. And for Item seven, ET26-four hundred-twenty two for UC seventeen-seven zero five, add the following Public Works condition: install conduit pull boxes along Oravonet Way and Torino Avenue.

If there are no objections, the public hearing is now open and the routine action portion of the agenda stands ready for approval.

I move approval of routine action items. Thank you. Please cast your vote. That motion passes.

Next are items nineteen and twenty, which can be are related and which can be heard together. Item 19 is Versus 20 six-one 169, vacate and abandon a portion of right of way being Durango Drive located between Patrick Lane and Post Road and a portion of right of way being Patrick Lane located between Durango Drive and Jim Rogers Way within Spring Valley. And item 20, UC 20 six-one 170 use permits for the following, one hospital and two heliport. Two waivers of development standards for the following, increase building height, reduce loading spaces and allow modified driveway geometrics with a design review for a proposed hospital in Heliport on 32.19 acres and an IEP industrial park zone generally located East Of Durango Drive and South Of Patrick Lane within Spring Valley.

Thank you. Good morning.

Good morning, Jennifer this on? There we go. Good morning. Jennifer Lasovich. 1980 Festival Plaza Drive here today, for a very exciting project for our community. I'm going to ask for this board's indulgence for a few things. It will depart from my typical presentation as it relates to land use. It will be broken into two parts. I will take what I consider the more boring part and talk about the application a little bit, and then part two of the presentation will involve Mitch Cloward and Russ Williams coming up to talk about the more exciting part, which

is

bringing Nevada's first freestanding children's hospital to this location. So for starters, the site is located in the UNLV Research And Technology Park. It sits just to the East Side of Durango and just South of Patrick. Jim Rogers Way is located here, and this is Post Road. The site itself is master planned business employment and zoned IP.

And when those designations exist, you can do a hospital with a special use permit. So what you see on your agenda today is a use permit for the hospital. You also have a use permit for the heliport, which will be located right in this area. This will be our emergency room, and then the heliport will be located right there. We have received a determination of no objection for use of the airspace from the FAA, which is in compliance with your code as we move forward with this application.

The hospital itself will sit in this location, and the medical office building will wrap around here. In the orange to the north along Patrick is our central utility plant. As you can see, we have a number of driveways which come in on all of our roads that surround us. In particular, this driveway is limited to ambulance only, again, because this is where our emergency room is located, but the rest of the driveways will be available for use by everyone. As you can see on your agenda and part of the staff report, we have a number of waivers that go with this application, all of which are being recommended for approval by staff as well as by town board.

Prior to the town board meeting, we did a voluntary neighborhood meeting. We do have homes that sit to the north of us and homes that sit to the west of this site. And we had about five neighbors who came, and without question, they all spoke about how important it was to bring this hospital to this location, and they had no objections, saving apart for one concern, generally speaking, about the traffic that exists, quite frankly, in all of Las Vegas, but no objections to this use and in location, which was echoed again at the town board. And this is where I'm going to depart for a minute. It is a large team of people, not only standing behind me to the right, that involve architects and engineers and, people who work with Intermountain that bring me here today.

We also had a team of people from the county helping, and that started with all of the commissioners. It starts with your planning department. It starts with your public works department. It started with, building I mean, department has met with us and has worked with us to get here today. And so while I'm standing here alone talking, I wouldn't be standing here without the 50 or 60 people, not only from the county side, but from the Intermountain side and other consultants that have worked so hard on transformative project for the city and for our county.

I have personally been fortunate enough to represent a lot of wonderful projects all over this county. County. And they've ranged from housing to things on the Strip. And I remember when I did a project on The Strip, I talked about how it was iconic and it would change the the way The Strip looked. But this is truly, I think a better word is transformative, and I have heard Intermountain and they will talk about it being a historic moment, and today is a historic moment for us.

So with that, I am going to turn it over to Mitch and Russ, and have them come up and talk about the actual hospital. And I will leave this, which I think is better than the site plan, to show you what it is going to look like. I will leave this up on as they talk.

It's a beautiful hospital. We share a common vision here together. And we've had significant milestones just this week and over the last three years. And so, I know that a lot of the work that you do may feel like that it goes unseen, unnoticed and unheard. But I want you to know that we hear you, we see you and we're grateful for you.

And over the last three years, I've had the opportunity to talk to many children, many mothers, and many families who've been impacted by a complex diagnosis that requires them to travel outside of this state. They see you, they hear champions for you. We're inspired by them and they are our biggest champions. Their eyes are upon all of us to help work together to achieve this dream, this vision we have for them. So, we're all inspired by a common cause, a common goal.

I want to thank all of the physicians, the advanced practice providers, all of the caregivers in this community for many, many years who have been caring for children. They provided a strong foundation. We are honored to stand at their side to further this work to advance health care for our children. I'm grateful for them. I'm grateful for my entire Intermountain team.

And it's not just those who are employed by Intermountain, but we have a whole community that supports us in this effort to achieve this dream for our children. So I'm grateful for them. My role as region president spans the entire state of Nevada and parts of Utah. So I couldn't be happier to have this gentleman standing to my right, Russ Williams, who's our new children's hospital president. This will be his fifth children's hospital across the country. He's been involved in developing and growing over time. So I would like to have a few of Russ' thoughts shared with us here this morning as well.

I'm absolutely thrilled to be here and humbled and honored to be able to be the President of of what will be a beautiful but also a phenomenal children's hospital. I wanna express my gratitude to each one of you for taking the time to meet with me, for welcoming me to the city, and for all the effort and and pain that you have gone through to be get us to this point. I also want to extend my thanks to everyone that has worked so hard to be able to get us to where we are at this point in time. Establishing a stand alone comprehensive children's hospital does not happen without tremendous tremendous support, without a cast of thousands, and without the community that we clearly have here. Today marks a major milestone for us, and we look forward to celebrating many future milestones with this group.

Again, thank you for all that you've done, and we'll turn the time back over.

Russ, your full name for the record, please.

Sorry. Russell Williams, 8335 Caldera Hills Avenue. Thank you.

Well, thank you. I am sure nobody to wants about waivers of throat depth and other things that go with this, but I am happy to answer any questions that you may have relative to the land use side of it. Otherwise, that concludes our presentation, and we're here for questions.

Thank you very much. This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward at this time. Good morning.

Good morning. Zachary Miles, for the records. I'm the Interim Vice President for Economic Development at UNLV and the Executive Director of the UNLV Research Foundation that manages the tech park that the stand alone hospital will be located at. I just want to echo how excited we are at the Research Foundation and the great partnership that we've had with Intermountain in bringing this here. I wanted to echo support for this activity at the park and for, what it stands, or or what it meets the the park's mission to be able to bring these types of activities into the community and and then gauging with them and looking forward to our continued work with Intermountain. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak, please come forward at this time on items nineteen and twenty. Seeing no one, I will close the public comment period. Before I make some comments, I do wanna, for the record, make clear that there are some changes from the Public Works Department. The applicant is advised that if dewatering is needed, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection permits are required, and we're gonna delete and building department from bullet number seven. The applicant understands that?

You and we agree.

Thank you. And that was clear for the record? Excellent. Then if I could just extend my thanks to everybody involved in this project. This body here has been part of some really significant milestones.

Each of us has been part of approving projects in our districts and around this valley that have had enormous consequence on the economic success of this valley, huge employers, huge significant projects. It's hard to imagine another like this one, one that has been discussed for generations in this community, one that we each know will not only so badly and desperately diversify and add to the health care portfolio that we have here, but one that will also diversify our economy in huge ways. So I want to extend my thanks to everybody involved, to the at Intermountain for believing in this project, to the private and public individuals who have made sure that we could get to this exciting milestone in this moment where we, in moments from now, will hopefully approve what will be Nevada's first stand alone hospital changing healthcare in this community for generations. So I thank you for that. If there are any comments from the Board, this would be the opportunity.

Seeing none, I am prepared to move for approval of item nineteen and twenty. That motion passes.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. And at this time, I I would like to invite, for those in the audience, you may you may be I want it not to be lost. That was the first time that that image has ever been displayed. I'd like to invite members of the team to come join us for a brief moment here on the dais so that we can capture the moment. If you could join us, please.

Everybody keep finding a window for me. So find a window. We'll have a couple

I was gonna say in that

if anyone wants to go in

the valley in that back corner right there, right up there.

Yeah. A couple

Let me get in. I organized, dude. I don't get to take it.

So while we're while we're, coming back to order, let me just share an experience I had. The community is supportive. I'm driving down the road and I'm talking with someone. And when the first proposal came forward, we had some ideas about maybe where the hospital might be built. So my wife is seated next to me. We're driving down the road, and I hang up the phone and my wife said, did you just say that unless this children's hospital is built where you want it to be built that they can take a hike? Is that what you just said? No. Constituents don't talk to me that way. I said, well, no.

That's that's not what I said. Well, that's exactly what I heard, and that's exactly what the person you were talking to heard. So you need to take care of that. When are you gonna take care of that? So I made another phone call. Yeah. This is exciting.

And if I may, mister chair, I had the opportunity to tour both of Primary Children's Hospital Intermountain facilities in Salt Lake and Lehi last month. I can tell you that they are going to be beautiful and that the staff is tremendous. Looking forward to a huge investment in our community here in healthcare for our kids. You.

Well thank you and I thank the audience for their indulgence while we discuss that significant project. I'll turn it back to Ms. Amerman.

Okay, next item is item 21, ET26-four hundred-twenty five for NZC 20 one-thirty seven. Zone change second extension of time to reclassify 1.05 acres from RS 20 residential single family 20 zone to CG commercial general zone. Waivers of development standards for the following one reduce landscaping to reduce setback ratio, three, reduce parking and four, alternative driveway geometrics, design review for a commercial complex generally located on South Of Silverado Ranch Boulevard and West Of Arville Street within Enterprise.

Good morning. Robert Cunningham, 6030 South Jones Boulevard with Tanning Engineering. We're asking and requesting for an extension of time on this project. We were recently hired in the past six months to start work on it. I'm not exactly sure what the holdup was before but I know that Silverado Ranch was under construction when this originally was entitled and that the adjacent property was under construction.

Since this was originally titled several years ago, the adjacent commercial development has been built, Silverado Ranch is built and now this project is moving ahead. Just so that there's some clarification, we have submitted and had reviewed a drainage study two times. This is an April 30 comment letter. We've also had our traffic study approved in March of this year. We've also had the geotechnical report reviewed by Public Works and approved in March of this year.

We submitted to the Water District in April of this year and have comments from them. Southwest Gas in April as well. We recently had a tentative map and a vacation approved by the Planning Commission and got the conditions of approval just the other day from the April 30 date. So there's been a lot of activity occurring on this over the past six months. We're on track to gain approval of this project later this year for construction to commence later this year. So we would request this extension be granted. With that I'll conclude my presentation and ask, be glad to answer answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. This is a public hearing on item 21. Anyone wishing to speak please come forward at this time. Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing. Commissioner Sagerbloom. Nope. Nope. Commissioner Jones.

Thank you, mister chair. I understand that there wasn't a lot of work going on on this project. There were some delays, but it certainly appears over the last couple of months, but there's been substantial progress based on that. I'll go ahead and move for approval agenda item number 21.

There's a motion for approval. Please cast your vote.

Thank you.

The motion passes. Thank you.

Next is item 22, UC 20 six-sixty three holdover use permit for outdoor storage. We've reached the development standards for the following one reduce and eliminate street landscaping, two reduce and eliminate landscape buffer and screening, three eliminate access gate setbacks and four alternative driveway geometrics, design review for proposed outdoor storage facility on 0.65 acres in an IP industrial park zone generally located South of Desert Inn and East Of Sand Hill Road within Paradise.

Good morning.

Good morning. Go ahead, please.

Good morning. My name is William Stoddard. Address is 801 South Rancho Drive, Suite D 4 here in Las Vegas. I'm the attorney for the applicant who is Hamid Tejali, who's here with me to my right. His address is 7844 Desert Bell Avenue in Las Vegas.

This is an item I think that's been kicked down the can a time or two. It is a use permit for a vehicle outdoor storage location over off of Desert Inn Road. The location of it here is shown on this map that you have in front of you. We're asking for the use permit, design review, and then a waiver of a few items. Let me tell you what I think we've come to an agreement that we're willing to do.

Desert End Road is located along the north end of the property. The entryway is a gate at the northeast corner. Public works would like that gate moved back 18 feet from the front. We're willing to do that without a waiver. Second item, the sidewalk as it goes along there is not ADA compliant.

We're willing to put additional concrete behind the existing sidewalk to make it ADA compliant. So that takes care of that item. The next item. All along the east side of the property where I'm marking here, where these arrows are, there's no wall or fence. It's next to the US 95 Freeway.

It requires either a wall or an iron fence. We're willing to put up the iron fence without asking for a waiver. So that would be in this location. So we're willing to move the entry gate back to fix the sidewalk so that it's ADA compliant, to put in the steel fence along the east side. Now, with regard to the waiver items that we're requesting. First, along the south side, where I'm pointing here now, there already is a fence. It's six feet tall. It's actually a wall. The requirement is eight. We're asking that that be waived so that six feet is sufficient.

Along the west side, there is no wall or fence. We're asking that that be waived altogether because of like uses on both sides, and there's really no need for that at the at the present time. So two waivers there, height on the south and a fence or a wall altogether on the west side where I'm showing here. Then there's three other waivers we're requesting with regard to landscaping. First, along the north side, which is along Desert Inn Road, the landscaping, frankly, already is there.

If you see this, that's what landscaping is there now, and it's been there for years. And we suggest that we just leave that alone without going to the expense of putting in several additional large trees. So that's the first waiver. The second waiver is for landscaping along the east side, south side, and the west side. So again, just to repeat, we're willing to move the fence back to fix the sidewalk to install the wall.

We're asking the landscaping stay the way it is along Desert Inn, and we're asking that for a waiver of the wall along the west side and the increase in height along the south side, and a waiver of the landscaping on west, south, and east side of the property. And our feeling is that that would be certainly compatible with what exists there now. We point out with regard to the landscaping. You know, my client, he he's begged and had to borrow, you know, steel to get enough water for the existing landscaping along Desert End Road. He has no water at all or access to water without great, great expense to put in the landscaping that would be required on the east and the south and the west sides, the reason for that waiver.

Thank you. You.

You. If that completes your presentation, I'll open up the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak on item 22, please come forward.

Yeah. My name is Al Rojas. I'm very familiar with this area. It's an area that I kind of involved with our neighborhood watch. It's right next to the freeway. I I like the idea that the wall there, I believe, see that these people wanna try to control the homelessness there. And I really think this is a nice project and I wanna thank them for trying to be a solution in the community. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Anyone else wishing to speak, please come forward. Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing. Commissioner Segerbloom.

Thank you. And you you stated correctly what we had agreed to with respect to everything except for the trees. And I'm gonna require the trees or money in lieu of trees on the west side I mean, on the east side along that fence, that new fence. So if you're willing to accept that, I'll move for approval. If you're not, then I'll move for denial.

So just so I understand, are we talking about we're talking about trees on the on which side?

On the on that east side next to 9th

On the east side next to the freeway.

And and under our rules, if you don't have water, you don't wanna plant the trees, you can put you can commit money in lieu of trees.

Money in? Okay. Understood. We'll accept that.

Antonio, is that good?

Perfect. Commissioner, we do have to add that off-site permits will be required so when they rebuild or add that sidewalk behind the driveway that they'll need off-site permits.

Alright, is that clear?

And then you are approving a wrought iron fence along the Yes,

that's okay with code, right?

Well the code does require a block wall.

Require a block wall?

So he still would need a waiver to have the fence, which is okay. And then if you wanna add the Okay.

That's okay. Alright.

If that's how you wanna approve it. Yes. And then they're not putting trees, so we wanna charge the typical tree in Luffy for those trees along the freeway.

Correct.

Okay. Thank you.

Alright. Well, after a long time, I think we're almost there. So, I would move for approval with those conditions.

Oh, sorry. I apologize. Are you gonna withdraw the waiver for the gate setback?

Yes. There

is a motion for approval with additional conditions. Please cast your vote. The motion passes. Thank you.

And thank you Mr. Meade for working with me. Thank you Mr. Stoddard.

Next is item 24 UC 20 six-one 186, use permit to allow outdoor dining, drinking and cooking, waiver development standards to modify parking area design standards, design review for modifications to a previously approved industrial commercial development on a 3.44 acre portion of 8.06 acres in an IP industrial park zone and a CG general commercial zone within the airport environs AE 65 and AE 70 overlay, generally located South Of Sunset Road and West Of Spencer Street within Paradise.

Good morning.

Karen Richardson on behalf of the applicant, 341 Simon Boulevard Drive Henderson Nevada. As this project advanced beyond the original 2024 approval, updated title 30 pedestrian circulation requirements were evaluated much more closely. And that led to the refinement that you see today in this application for a use permit for outdoor dining, the design review, and a waiver. The building is already under construction. The Shell Building Permit was pulled in mid twenty twenty five.

So at that time, our vertical and horizontal control on the site was set. And that leads to the reason that we're requesting a waiver. I do want to clarify that in the staff report relative to the waiver in this area that I'm pointing to on the site plan, it was referenced that the sidewalk reduces from five feet to three feet, and that was corrected with an updated justification letter and the site plan with correct dimensions on it showing five feet, reducing down to four foot six inch. So basically a reduction. The design review is as we understand it in the staff write up is tied entirely to the sidewalk waiver.

And and we would point out that that's not a design. Quality issue and that staff. Said that they wouldn't support the design review because of the waiver for the sidewalk. Separation. So addressing on the east side of the front of the building we believe that the intent of pedestrian safety is addressed.

And on the west side of the building where a sidewalk would have been required or separation would have been required in title 30. We've addressed that by striping this area just like we would stripe or are required to stripe ADA accessibility all the way to the front of the building and we believe that meets the intent of pedestrian safety as well. With that, we accept the, if approved, conditions by staff, and I'm here to answer your questions.

Thank you. At this time, I'll open the public comment period. Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward. Seeing no one, Commissioner Gibson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Papazia, in terms of the layout, is the Public Works Department satisfied with what we're seeing here?

We are, Commissioner. Thank you.

I'm prepared to move approval on this item, and I appreciate the work that you've done that has really brought you to the point where we really don't have any issues with you. So at this point, I would move approval subject to the if approved conditions.

Thank you. There's a motion for approval. Please cast your vote. That motion passes.

Thank you.

Next are items twenty five and twenty six that can be heard together. 25 Versus 20 six-one 176 vacate and abandon a portion of right of way being Tompkins Avenue located between Fort Apache Road and TP Lane and a portion of right of way being Fort Apache Road located between Tompkins Avenue and Tropicana Avenue within Spring Valley. Item 26, UC 20 five-thirty three amended holdover use permit for a vehicle wash. Waivers of development standards for the following: one, reduce buffering and screening two, increase retaining wall height, which no longer needed three, increase maximum parking, which is no longer needed four, modify residential adjacency standards five, allow attached sidewalks, which are no longer needed and six, reduce throat depth and a design review for vehicle wash and restaurants with drive thrus on a 3.14 acre portion of a 4.19 acre site in a CG Commercial General Zone generally located on the Southwest corner of Tompkins Avenue and Fort Apache Road within Spring Valley.

Good morning, Samantha Ryan, 9811 West Charleston Blvd, Suite 2. Here on behalf of the applicant, we do have two applications for this site today. I'll go over the holdover first. We first brought this site forward, went to town board almost a year ago. We actually had some other users showing on the site at that time.

The car wash layout was also significantly different. We got a lot of feedback obviously at the time we needed many waivers to make it work. We worked with Justin and our planner. A lot of those initial tenants didn't really wanna concede at all on their layouts and they went away. Our car wash user was very agreeable into helping us kind of tweak their layout so that we eliminate a bunch of the waivers needed.

And so at this time we're only moving forward with the design review for that structure and the use permit for the car wash. As you heard a lot of the original waivers needed we've been able to get rid of because of our changes to the site plan. I'll go over the ones that we still need. The first one is buffering and screening. That's along this Western property line.

We are electing not to construct eight foot CMU wall because there's actually already a wall that runs the entire length of the property in that area. I have some pictures of it here. You can see that we have a significant grade difference between this property and the multifamily to the west. This wall is a combination in areas of CMU and some screen fencing. What we are electing to do, we've pulled the permit drawings for the original wall, We've confirmed that we can just fill in the areas of view fencing with CMU so that it'll end up being a solid CMU wall.

That owner to the west is very agreeable to this. He's very happy for the site to be developed. Obviously you can see kind of some signs of some vagrancy there on that western line. So at the minimum near the car wash structure you will have a solid wall of 10 foot nine inches, so greater than an eight foot wall would be. We're also doing an intense landscaping buffer all along that border doing a double row of trees.

And again we also have that pretty steep grade difference. So you have properties, their six foot wall, the footing for that wall which is going to create a taller wall for us and then we have an additional landscape drop there. So we sit, our buildings sit considerably lower than the other site. The second waiver is related to residential adjacency. We have a 51 foot separation from our property line to the start anything of that sort.

This is just where the cars can be queuing before they go into the car wash on the south side. We also have a trash enclosure that matches an existing trash enclosure on the property to the south which is eight feet from the property line. The last waiver that we still need on egress at the Fort Apache driveway, we have 24 feet where 25 is required, so we're short one foot. That's about it. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. At this time, I'll open up the public comment period on items twenty five and twenty six. Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward. Seeing no one, I'll close that comment period and turn it to Commissioner Jones.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, I wanted to clarify, you're also withdrawing waivers five a and five b with regards to detached sidewalks?

Correct. Yeah, we're providing detached. There's existing sidewalk now. We were gonna try and keep it if we could but detached sidewalk is definitely important so we're putting it in every area that we can. That's why we need the vacation actually is because now we have to vacate a little bit of right of way to provide that.

Great. Miss Brazian, know you had a question with regards to the driveway in Fort Apache and sort of preparing for future development.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner. Although the throat depth today, especially on the ingress side, may be sufficient for what they're constructing and the application for today. Any future applications, you can see they have multiple acres not being used, the throat depth will not be sufficient in the future and we have a condition for them to reconstruct the driveways on Tompkins and Fort Apache to meet the standard.

Alright, just wanna make sure you understand for the record that if a future application comes in may require some reconstruction of driveways?

Yeah. We're actually we're fairly confident that we can give also 25 feet here. We're waiting on the spec for this vacuum equipment just to make sure that we can do that. I don't wanna commit to it now but we're really gonna try before we go in for permit. And then yes, we're very aware that anything else that happens on the site is completely separate. It's gonna be reviewed on its own. They no longer have any intent to try and cram three other drive through pads on the site.

Thank

you. Everybody has agreed that that's not ever gonna work. So it'll either be one other kind of anchor style tenant or maybe two other users at most.

Great, Ms. Amarin?

I just wanna clarify the wall on the West property line will go up to almost 11 feet to the upper, Correct, I can

10 feet nine inches I think, is that

it's So that'll just be part of the approval then? Correct.

Alright, with that I'll go ahead and move for approval of agenda items twenty five and twenty six with withdrawals of waivers two, three, five A, and five B, and the additional conditions as stated here today.

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

Thank you.

Next are items twenty seven and twenty eight which could be heard together. Item 27, Versus 26 dash zero two zero four, vacate an abandoned portion of right away being Russell Road located between Stephanie Street and Boulder Highway within Whitney. And item 28 WS26-two zero three waivers the development standards for the following one reduce parking lot landscaping, two increase retaining wall height and three reduce driveway throat depth. With a design review for proposed multi family residential development on 6.12 acres in an RM 32 residential multi family 32 zone generally located North Of Russell Road and West Of Boulder Highway within Whitney.

Good morning.

Good morning, Rebecca Miltonberger, 100 North City Parkway. I'm here this morning on behalf of the applicant. We are discussing a, pardon me, a affordable multi family project on Russell And Boulder Highway. The project proposes 162 units comprised of a mix of one, two, three and four bedroom residences. The property will include five three story buildings along with a variety of amenities for the residents including gated entry, a furnished clubhouse with fitness center and study rooms, as well as on the exterior, a dog park, a children's play area, about 40,000 square feet of open space and a swimming pool.

And we are also including a vacation for detached sidewalks along Russell Road as well as three other waivers. The landscaping waiver relates to the Finger Islands code requires one Finger Island per six parking spaces or an alternative for facing parking aisles of one finger island every 12 spaces with an intense landscape buffer. Here we have a mix of covered as well as uncovered parking spaces. On the uncovered parking spaces, which you can see shown in orange, the applicant is proposing one finger island every 10 parking spaces. Along the north side on the back of the property, which is where you have the longest collection of uncovered parking spaces, they are proposing an intense landscape buffer of eight to nine feet in front of those parking spaces which we think satisfies the intent of the code of not having large areas of unshaded concrete.

And then for the parking area near the entrance, this is adjacent to the dog park which has additional trees to shade not only the parking area but also the dog park. And overall the property is providing 42% more trees than what is required. So they tried to thoughtfully spread the trees out throughout the project to allow for sufficient shading. The applicant is also seeking a waiver for increased retaining wall height on the eastern side due to the grade changes with the flood channel. They're seeking a waiver up to five feet.

And then they're also seeking a waiver to reduce the throat depth for the primary driveway to 80 feet. And staff is recommending approval on both the retaining wall as well as the reduced throw depth. And I'm happy to answer any questions that you have.

Thank you. I'll open the public hearing at this time. Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward. Seeing no one, I will turn it over

to me. My name is Elros, I own property close to this area. I'm also part of an HOA. I like this project, I support it. I wanna bring out some points that hopefully it'll help maintain the homeless. There's a lot of homeless in this area. What we're doing with a lot of the HOAs that we're working with, we're also part of a neighborhood watch program. We have a security company that drives around the peripheral because you might be open to having the homeless stay. I have to go look at it closer, they may be trying to stay in your landscaping area. And not only do they patrol the area, they also work with a junk removal service.

So they're a one service stop. They go in there, they charge the HOA a fee and then they also go and take care of the ordinance part of the HOA. So it's something that you may want to consider or the commissioner who is in charge of this area may take into consideration. But we have found that in several HOA's that type of a service is working very well tied in with a security company. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak? Seeing none, I'll close the public comment period and turn items twenty seven and twenty eight to commissioner Gibson.

Thank you, mister chair. When this item, was when this property was before

we'll

do to

that. That.

Homeless problem over there. That never happened. To But I I want to impose a condition. I'm imagining that you would do it anyway, but my condition would be that sixty days from today that there be erected a fence around the entirety of the parcel you're developing. That fence be that it remain there throughout construction, and that if there are any cuts or damage at all done prior to the completion of the project, it'll be immediately repaired. Is that an agreeable condition?

Yes, the applicant is gonna work with the owner and the applicant is agreeable to that condition.

As it turns out, the speaker was correct. This is a wonderful development for this site. And we struggle with the homeless in the area. Some changes have have been made as to ownership of much of the area around it, and I think that we are going to get it in control, but it's critical that your client do his part. We're grateful. We're really excited about this project. It really needed to come forward. The throat depth issue is not an issue as I understand it. And so, at this because of all of that, with that additional condition, I move approval.

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

Next is item 29, WS26-one 184, Waiver Development Standards for Modified Driveway Geometrics, a design review for proposed aircraft hangars in conjunction with an existing office warehouse and aircraft hangar complex on 12.7 acres in a public facility zone within the airport of Irons AE 60, AE 65, AE 70 overlay, generally located South Arena Avenue and East Of Haven Street within Paradise.

Good morning. Lucy Stewart, 1930 Village Center Circle representing the item. And this is along this is Reno here. This is on Reed Airport Reed International Airport property. And what we're doing I have the excess there so that it's not confusing where we are.

So we're at the western edge of the airport, west of the runways. And right now we're taking 14 small hangars that are range in size about 3,200 square feet to 4,900 square feet. And we're removing them, and we're gonna put three larger, slightly smaller than 25,000 square foot hangars. And this basically comports what Reed Airport would like. As of today, Reed Airport is the fifth busiest airport in the country.

And with that, because of general aviation, they would like as much as possible to get some of the smaller planes out to North Las Vegas or to the Henderson Executive Airport. This would allow for larger jets to come into the area and clear up some space on the runways, the taxiways for our guests that come to town. We appreciate staffs basically planning staffs recommending approval of the design review, but because of the waivers, the recommendation is for denial. When we first submitted, we eliminated these parking spaces along the north and pushed the buildings closer and had just a driveway. After getting the staff report, we realized that by doing that, we eliminated the throat depth in this driveway.

And so we went back, designed it, and moved the buildings further south and are retaining these parking spaces along here. With that, that makes our our throat depth better. And in essence, we're not touching any of the driveways. We're not touching this one and the one that's outside our scope of development. So, we're asking to keep the driveways and that's that's why we have all these waivers is just because the current driveways do not, comply with the title '20 title, thirtieth as of this date.

But I know one of the concerns was that this driveway that's gonna service our site might be of concern because it's a little bit smaller in the radius. It's sort of like a foot off, for safety. So we actually went and met with the fire department to make sure that they would be alright with this. And then we have a an email from them saying that that meets their standards or they'll they can live with that driveway. At town board, we did withdraw waiver one b, which is the throat and depth one, but we still need the other ones because we're not really touching any of the driveways.

We're not touching the landscaping, the driveways, or anything. We appreciate town board's recommendation for approval. And with that, we respectfully request your approval and happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. This is a public hearing on item 29. Anyone wishing to speak, come forward. Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing. Commissioner Gibson.

Mr. Papazian, you've heard the discussion about driveway width and the throat depths.

Thank you commissioner, as long as fire is okay with it, we're okay with it.

Okay, good. This is a project that is driven largely by the demand, right? The reality is that the general aviation airplanes are bigger than they used to be. This enables handling of those. We carry a lot about what happens at and around Reed International Airport. This is helpful, and they're excited to have this occur. I therefore move approval subject to the town board recommendation.

There's a motion for approval. Please cast your vote. The motion passes.

Thank Thank you

very much.

Next is item 31 WS26F0191, waiver development standards to waive full off-site improvements in conjunction with the proposed minor subdivision map. I

think we missed item 30.

That's what I was reading in, sorry.

You were probably reading the right one. I think you said 31.

Oh, I apologize, was reading 30. WS260191. Good,

thank you.

I apologize. So item 30, WS26-one 191 waiver development standards to waive full off-site improvements in conjunction with the proposed minor subdivision map on 15.06 acres in a CG commercial general zone and an RS 80 residential single family 80 zone, generally located South Of Barlow Avenue and East Of Rocks Road within Mowapa.

Morning. I'm Lane Levitt, 1585 East Bartow Avenue, Wapaw, Nevada. I'm here in regards of a couple waivers. I'm trying to divide I bought this property four or five years ago, four years ago in lieu of maybe dividing it and helping with the mortgage costs. It's a 15.6 acres.

I'm trying to split off the general commercial from the residential. I'm here in waiver of the first one of the landscaping along 168 and landscape that the planning along 168 Rocks Road and in front of my house on Bardo, which is R S 80. And then also a waiver. All I'm doing is breaking it up. Just breaking the land up.

I'm not developing it. I'm just looking for a waiver of the off-site improvements at this time. And and when it does maybe go to development, then we'd proceed with the off-site developments. And all I'm looking do is just break it up into three parcels, a minor subdivision.

Thank you. That completes your presentation. This is a public hearing. I'll open the public comment period. Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward. Seeing no one, Commissioner Kirkpatrick.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I believe the only thing that we have before us today is the waiver of the off-site. So there is no waiver for landscaping or any of that, just so you're aware. So if you're not planning to develop it, you don't have to put landscaping in today, right? Is that correct, Jen? Great.

Once the development comes in, they'll do it. So you don't need

the waiver today until you move forward. And really, for us, we recently just paved the Rocks Road and Barlow area. So we support no off sites because there is nothing else out there. And then the partial paving you don't need because it's already paved. Correct, Antonio?

Commissioner, it's been paved. However, it's not been accepted, so we're not sure if the paving is permitted. And when I look at his waivers, it's full off

County that did it, to be honest.

Works paved it.

Yep. Listen, they've called me every day for two years.

Well, we'll make sure. However, the the waivers are for partial paving. So he's not even waiving all of the paving. It's partial paving. It says waive full off sites and partial paving. So he would still be required to do the minimum requirement of paving if it's not accepted by public works. Does that make sense?

No? Yeah, but, well it does make sense, but I just am like, wouldn't that come back into play when he actually developed it?

Because he's doing a parcel map, when you look at the code and the definitions of a parcel map, it's considered development. Requirements of off sites and all the requirements hit when you do a parcel map because you're subdividing and it's technically development.

Okay, well I know we paved it. We, Clark County paved it, so it should be accepted. I'll work on that later today.

I just know it's on

our list that we have out there. I'm going to go on a limb here, and I'm going to waive the waiver number A and waiver number B, and then I'm going to address the partial paving because I believe that Clark County paved it, that it was on their list. Right? We just did it this last year. And then the other piece of it is that you will have to do a drainage study when you come in to build it, but it won't be required at this time. But we can't waive them, as many complaints as we get is flood out there. But once you start developing it, you will have to do that. What's that look, Antonio?

Sorry, he's conditioned to a drainage study because when you do a parcel map, there may be easements on the other parcels that he's subdividing that I would take easements today that's conveying flows. I may never see that again in the future.

So then, we're trying to be consistent out there because the drainage study is holding people up

will have to for lot of do drainage study with the subdivision of his land.

Right.

So he'll have to do that, and at that time you may have to give up easements. So before you plan something, it's best to come to Clark County because we wouldn't waive those easements. So if I could give you an example, somebody bought some property along the river out there, and then they were mad and went above me on top of it, commissioner, you'll remember, because they didn't wanna give up the easements along the river, and that's what happens to us. And they said, we'll sell them to you, and I'm not interested in buying them, but it impacts the entire flooding system out there. So I just wanna be clear that if I defer the drainage study today, you will be subject to ments.

Commissioner, if we defer the drainage study today, I will the not easements that's required on each one of these parcels for the future. The drainage study is gonna show where the flows are conveyed, and I will take easements at that time. So the drainage study needs to happen now with the mapping of the parcel.

If I could, Commissioner.

Can I trail this just so I could work with Antonio on this?

Yeah. Do you need a motion to trail it? We're just gonna trail item 30 towards the end of the meeting. If you wanna have a seat and maybe step over to the side, we'll bring you back up shortly.

Next are items 31 through 35 that can be heard together. Item 31 is p a 26 dash seven hundred zero zero six. Plan amendment to redesignate the existing land use category from low intensity suburban neighborhood to neighborhood commercial on 1.25 acres generally located North Of Pyle Avenue and East Of Arville Street within Enterprise. Item 32 ZC26-eighty one, zone change to reclassify 1.25 acres from an RS20 residential single family 20 zone to a CG commercial general zone generally located North Of Pyle Avenue and East Of Arville Street within Enterprise. Item 33 Versus 20 six-eighty two vacant and abandoned easements of interest to Clark County located between Pyle Avenue and LaBaron Avenue and Arville Street and Hinson Street alignment within Enterprise.

Item 34 WS 26 dash zero zero eight three. We reverse the development standards for the following, one, reduce throat depth and two, reduce departure distance, design review for a proposed restaurant on 1.25 acres in a CG Commercial General Zone generally located North Of Pyle Avenue and East Of Arville Street within Enterprise, and 35TM26 Dash50022, tend to map consisting of one commercial lot on 1.25 acres in a CG Commercial General Zone generally located North Of Pyle Avenue and East Of Arville Street within Enterprise. Thank you. Good morning.

Robert Cunningham, 6030 South Jones Boulevard with Tanning Engineering representing the applicant. First, I'd like to give a little bit about history about this. We had prior to this about a year ago, maybe a little less than a year ago, brought before the board application to develop this with a conforming zoning, six residential lots on the property. Through the course of process of that, many neighbors did not want that to be developed there. There were various different reasons, so it was decided at that time to bring back a commercial proposal, which is what we have before you today.

So kind of a little unusual, but we had withdrawn the previous application and filed what you see here today. Our site is located right at the intersection of 280 Foot Streets. Running north south is Arville, running east west is Pyle. It's approximately 1.25 acres. It's currently master planned up to believe it's five units per acre.

And we're asking for a zone change for CG. There's no CG zoning in this entire middle of the area. There is some pockets of CG along the external portion of it, but we're asking for a commercial development to be proposed on the site. This is a proposed restaurant tavern to be located on the site. The site is an 80 foot intersection.

It will be signalized. The other quadrants of the intersection have some of the infrastructure in for the future signal. The building is located as close to the intersection as possible. With that, we were able to buffer and put in all required buffering that's required for adjacent residential. Because of the grades and the difference in the way this works, we're able to work better with the grades and the elevation of the property so that it led to having less differential in heights from the adjacent property, not asking for any waivers of wall heights or anything with this application.

Here's the proposed landscape plan showing all of the required trees and the intense landscape buffering along the north and along the east boundary. We also will be putting in a eight foot code required solid CME wall along this property line. So that's something also that helps buffer the adjacent property. We've strategically located our driveway here to line up with, and I'll show you in another exhibit, the cul de sac head here. Even though we have an eight foot high wall, this way if there is any accidental light spill over that wall, it aligns with the street, which already has lights going on it and not into residential homes.

We also lined up the trash enclosure to be located in that area. The proposed building has the main entrance located as far away from the residential property as possible in this corner. There are no doors along the side of the building. This is a single story building with various heights. It starts out at just under 20 feet in height along the adjacent residential property line and then steps up about 15 feet into it to a height of about 24 feet.

The adjacent single story residential homes vary in heights from 19 to about 22 feet in height. So we find this to be very compatible in nature and height to them. Here's the proposed floor plan of the building. As I indicated, the front door is located here. Along the side where the residential is located, there are no wall or no windows, no doors, and the closest door is located right here right around the corner for emergency exit only.

The edge of the building that will face the residential is broken up into various different colored schemes. This is a black and white exhibit, but you can see the different shading patterns representing different textures and stone and different materials. Also the roof height, as I had indicated, will elevate once it gets past this point. And you can see that on the north elevation as it jumps up like that in height. This is just the trash enclosure showing you it's a typical trash enclosure proposed.

With this, we're proposing to vacate patent easements that go along the north and the east side of the property. Here's the one lot tended map. This exhibit shows the cul de sac and the driveway alignment. As you can see, they align even though there would be an eight foot high wall between the two properties. I just wanted to point that out as I think it's an important design characteristic. And then this is the cross section showing that we're not needing any height fill waivers at all and we're able to comply with the code. The town board recommended approval of most of the application. The planning commission approved most of the application. I would respectfully ask for this board to approve it as well and be happy to answer any questions you have. Thank you.

Thank you very much. At this time, I'll open the public comment period on items 31 through 35. Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward. Seeing no one, Commissioner Jones.

Thank you, mister chair. Oh, sorry.

Sorry, excuse me. Good morning.

Good morning, Tanora Gonzalez. Do I need to state my address?

No, your name is Okay.

Just a quick question for you. Do we

know the tenant or the hours yet?

He can't respond to you, but perhaps we'll bring him back up.

Alright. That was just a neighboring question is we're curious on hours. Our biggest concern is something like a PT's where we're looking at a twenty four hour drinking We're very much open to a restaurant with a bar like Nudo, it's Italian restaurant down the street. But that's the only kind of big concern the neighborhood has right now.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak, please come forward. Seeing no one, Commissioner Jones.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So this has a long, long history. I met on-site with many of the neighbors along with Mr. Cunningham back last year. And this the culmination of the request by the neighbors. They would prefer a commercial facility there and something like a tavern. Can you answer the question from the neighbor about hours of operation?

Sure, right now there's no tenant proposed. It's proposed to be a restaurant with the option for a tavern. Currently they're trying to, if this does get approved, will try to pursue moving forward finding someone to lease the property.

Okay, with regards to agenda item number 32, can you clarify whether CG is necessary for a tavern or whether CN would be sufficient?

Can I ask staff to clarify that? Yes.

Commissioner, we no longer list tavern or any alcohol related uses, so we just treat as an eating and drinking establishment. So that's allowed in CN or CG.

Okay, alright, then I'm gonna propose, I know the town board has suggested that, I'm gonna propose to change the request from CG to CN because CG obviously allows a lot of uses that I think would be incompatible with that area, if that's okay.

That's acceptable, thank you.

Okay. Alright, then with that I would go ahead and move for approval agenda items 31 through 35 with the modification of item 32 to CN rather than CG.

You've heard the motion. Go ahead and cast your vote. The motion passes. Thank you.

Thank you.

And then Commissioner, you wanna go back to item 30?

Commissioner Patrick will let you take it from here.

Okay, with that Mr. Chairman, I'm gonna make a motion to approve item number 30, allowing waivers 1A and 1B, and just clarifying that Public Works and I will verify that the partial paving has already been met, and if not, the applicant is aware that it will be required in the future. And then we'll leave the drainage study where it is. Okay?

Very good. There's a motion. Please cast your vote. The motion passes, thank you.

Next are items 36 through 40 which can be heard together. Item 36 is PA 20 six -seven hundred-eight plan amendment to redesignate the existing land use category from neighborhood commercial to business employment on 2.91 acres generally located North Of Patrick Lane and West Of Topaz Street within Paradise. Item 37, ZC 26 dash zero one two six, zone change to reclassify 2.91 acres from an RS 20 residential single family 20 zone to a CP commercial professional zone to an IP industrial zone, Generally located North Of Patrick Lane and West of Topaz Street within Paradise. Item 38, v s 26 dash zero one two five, vacate and abandon a portion of right of way being Patrick Lane located between Newclood Street and Topaz Street and a portion of right of way being Topaz Street located between Patrick Lane and Okendo Road within Paradise. Item 39 WS26S0127 waivers the development standards for the following one eliminate and reduce buffering and screening two, modify residential adjacency standards three, reduce throat depth and four, reduce departure distance with a design review for a proposed industrial development with outdoor storage on 2.91 acres in an IEP industrial park zone within the airport environments AE65 and AE70 overlay generally located North Of Patrick Lane and West Of Topaz Street within Paradise and item 40 TM26-five hundred-thirty one, tend to map consisting of one industrial lot on 2.91 acres in an IEP industrial park zone within the airport of Irons AE 65 and AE 70 Overlay, generally located North Of Patrick Lane and West Of Topaz Street within Paradise.

Thank you. Good morning.

Good morning. How are you?

We're great. Thank you.

I'm Dustin Schwei with Chosen Development. I'm here to present a commercial industrial project. I'm looking at building approximately four ten thousand square foot buildings with a key component of outside storage behind enclosed secured gates. Not exactly sure of who's going to occupy yet, but I imagine I'm a contractor myself and there's a huge need in the valley here for the yard component as nobody's building them. They're always trying to maximize site square footage.

So I wanna make sure that that's the main reason I'm going for this. I have some colored renderings here of what the project's gonna look for look like. I'm making sure that the height and the and the parapet is fully hide everything from all angles. All of my waivers that I submitted are basically to help facilitate this outside storage component to this. I've been in contact with the neighbor here who's mainly affected.

The other two majority are vacant parcels currently owned by the county, Eyclard County Aviation that came up for auction and they were marketing that as industrial land even though it's owned for residential. They marketed it as best used to be industrial. So more than likely future development will be industrial there based on the area and the overlays there. I do have a letter of support from the main impacted neighbor. I've been working with them consistently, going over design and explaining what I'm doing. They've been great to work with and are in full support of my project. I'd be glad to answer any questions you guys have. Other than that, I just respectfully ask for approval on my project.

Thank you. This time I'll open the public hearing on items 36 through 40. Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward. Seeing no one, Commissioner Gibson.

Thank supplied us a letter from one of the neighboring landowners, is that right?

Yes, sir. The main one that's affected on the back corner here. They have my number. We've been in communication constantly through this process. And it's right here on the front, I can submit that to record so you guys have that, that they're in full support of everything.

Yeah, thank you. So the Planning Commission understood a little better, and I move approval subject to Planning Commission conditions.

There is a motion for approval. Please cast your vote.

Thank you.

Thank you. Appreciate it.

The motion passes.

Next items 41 through 45 that can be heard together. 41 is PA 20 six-seven hundred-eleven. Plan amendment to redesignate the existing land use category from Ranch Estate neighborhood to low intensity suburban neighborhood on 2.43 acres generally located South Of Shelbourne Avenue and West Of Miller Lane within Enterprise. Item 42CC26-one 139 zone changes for the following one, we classify 2.43 acres from an RS20 residential single family 20 zone to an RS5.2 residential single family 5.2 zone and two, remove the neighborhood protection RMP overlay. Generally located South Of Shelbourne Avenue and West of Miller Lane within Enterprise.

Item 43, Versus 20 six-one 140, vacate and abandon easements of interest to Clark County located between Shelbourne Avenue and Camaro Avenue and between Orbonnet Way and Miller Lane and a portion of right of way being Miller Lane located between Shelbourne Avenue and Camaro Avenue within Enterprise. Item 44 WS26-one 141 waivers of development standards for the following one modify residential adjacency standards and two reduce street width design review for proposed single family residential subdivision and 2.43 acres in an RS 5.2 residential single family 5.2 zone generally located South Of Shelbourne Avenue and Weston Miller Lane with an enterprise and Item 45 TM26-five hundred-thirty four, tenant a map consisting of 12 single family residential lots and common lots and 2.43 acres in an RS5.2 residential single family 5.2 zone, located South Of Shelbourne Avenue and West Of Miller Lane within Enterprise.

Good morning.

Good morning. Robert Cunningham, 6030 South Jones Boulevard with Tanning Engineering representing applicant. Our site is approximately two and a half acres located off of Miller And Shelbourne on the Southwest Corner. We're in an area where there is RS 33 zoning, smaller lots developed directly across the street from us, vacant property to the North, vacant property to the South, and then developed RNP half acre lots all the way to the west and to the south of this. This is the site location right here.

As you can see the RS33 is right here. This is the RMP area here. We're right on the edge of the RMP in the RMP. What we're requesting is similar to what this site has over here which is RS5.2, just surrounded by RMP as well. This is the site location.

We're asking to be able to develop this at the same density that adjacent properties to the RMP have developed at going from and transitioning from eight units per acre down to five down to two. This is a elevation or a street image of what is directly across the street to us that our subdivision would be sharing the same entry street with. This is another picture of that same street. As you can see, this is where the site is located right here in this area. Adjacent to it on the other side, as you can see, is the RMP area behind here.

Just another view of the street. Here's the proposed development. It consists of one private cul de sac dead end street with access off of Miller. Full off sites are being proposed all the way around the development. As I indicated to the south and the north, the sites are not developed yet. To the west is an RNP horse property currently. It's believed that at some point in time this probably would develop at two units per acre. We've buffered this with only two lots. We have the 10 foot minimum setback requirement on these two lots as well. We have street or taking access off of Miller where the adjacent subdivision has homes fronting it.

There's currently cars that park up and down Miller. We're not going to be impeding the ability for them to park on the street. Parking on the street would be enhanced because there would even be additional pavement where they could come in and complete the street improvements and park along the street as well. We have proposed single family residential lots with all two car driveways, two car garages that are proposed, full off sites with curb gutter sidewalk matching what's adjacent to us here. And we're proposing curb gutter sidewalk on Shelbourne as well.

Full landscaping would be put in adjacent to Shelbourne and adjacent to Miller meeting all code requirements. We're requesting to vacate a portion of Miller Street, and that's what this is showing. Working with Public Works, there's a transitional taper taking Miller from a 48 foot wide right of way to a 60 foot right of way. We're not asking for any fills, retaining wall height waivers or anything. The site sections are showing that we're working with the land and working to make this the best elevations tied to the land as best we can.

There's two current proposed plans. They're both single story. Toll Brothers is the proposed builder for it. The first plan is twenty twenty nine square feet. As I indicated, two car garage. They have three bedrooms in both plans. They also have included within the footprint of the buildings as standard, the outdoor living area which is approximately 10 by 12 on both of the units. Here's some elevations. They come in four different elevations for each home. Here's the other plan that's approximately 2,300 square feet in size.

And again, three bedrooms with the built in living outdoor area built within, a two car driveway, two car garage for each of the homes. All single story in nature, the homes in height range from 17 feet to about 20 feet in height. I'm gonna conclude my presentation and be happy to answer additional questions. Thank you.

Thank you. This is a public hearing on items 41 through 45. If you're wishing to speak, please come forward.

Steve Small.

You. 8565

South Ward

I'm 100 just going to note that there are two microphones. If you're looking to speak on this item, please come all the way forward. Go ahead, sir.

Okay. I'm against this mainly because it what's not explained is that this is directly against Gymkhana Horse property with boarded. That's just to the west of this property. And if you do put in these houses in the RNP, you know what's gonna happen? They're gonna start screaming about horses.

I thank you much.

Thank

you. Also if he does want to reduce that street to 48, back in 1963 in the Blue Book when we coordinated between Henderson, North Vegas, Las Vegas and County to straighten out all the streets, make them all the same size. You don't need to reduce it to 48. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next speaker.

Hi, my name is Darryl Victorian. The fact to going going group is is extremely opposed to this. This fundamentally changes what was promised us when we moved in this area that this would be preserved for a coarse grain use, low density, low lighting, lighting, low low traffic. This is is in direct contradiction to that. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning.

8460 Warbonnet Way. Today, I'm here as a homeowner. I live about 600 property. I'm not sure.

Yep. This property is in the RMP. The request zone Right. In the middle of the RMP, it's not considered.

Into the R and D. Seven point question. We're I

the Could you just bring that microphone closer to you?

Sorry, this is all RNP area in the green. The 5.2 category again, this is Buffalo major arterial. There is the higher density along windmill and major arterials. I don't think it's appropriate right in the middle of the RMP area. Oh, I do have some opposition cards from other neighbors that live in North and to the South that weren't able to attend.

I'll go ahead and give those to staff. Those are from three other neighbors including my protest cards. And I think when I looked online, there was an additional 13 other protest cards different from the other people.

Thank you.

Jason Erickson echoing what Andrew said, also representing five other community residents there opposing the RPN change, RNP change. So not opposing the development of that but obviously the two houses per acre is what we like to maintain there. And maintaining that RS 20 rather than the RS 5.2 I believe it is, is pretty essential along with the RNP. So appreciate. You.

Vincent here as a homeowner, an attorney here in town, worked with Spencer Fain. I live just across from this development. First property there, it's got a two acre parcel. And the development directly affects everyone in this community. The issue with build out for high density in the area is the traffic and the cars and the effect it has on the kids that are in the area, including my own. And as you increase the density, obviously, we have on street parking. And the problem that we often see is that serve as what we purchased, and that area has been designated as RMP for years and we want to maintain that integrity.

Thank you.

Steve King, 8022 Hamilton Mountain Court. I'm Kitty Cornered to the Horse property there. This has been promised to us as RNP area. It is RNP. And as a matter of fact, that area there is really considered a buffer zone at minimum for the RNP.

This property, I've owned my property for a little over eight years, and this is, I believe, the third or possibly the fourth time that I've come before through the process to see if we can fight getting any of this high density or higher density stuff placed in that particular area in general. So that seems like it's an ongoing issue. We do feel that this should remain RNP, and I appreciate your time. You.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak on items 41 through 45? Seeing no one, Commissioner Jones.

Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you to the applicant for the presentation. I met with you quite some time ago and thought that there might be opportunity for a transition area over there. Unfortunately, as a result of the substantial opposition, the denial by both Planning Commission and Town Board. I'm not comfortable with approving the density as requested, and so my recommendation would be for denial of agenda items 41 through 45.

Commissioner, can I ask a question? Is there any way I could hold it for thirty days to see if we could revise any of the application and come back in thirty days and either withdraw it then or have it move ahead with a different plan?

Yes, that's fine. I'll I'll make a motion to hold this item for thirty days then.

Thank you.

There's a motion, please cast your vote. The motion motion passes. Passes.

Thank you.

And that's for until June 17 for thirty days.

Thank you.

Next are items fifty and fifty one which can be heard together. Item 50 is ZC26-one 157. Holdover zone change to reclassify 2.82 acres from a CP commercial professional zone to a CG commercial general zone, generally located North Of Palmyra Avenue and West Of Rainbow Boulevard within Spring Valley. And item 51, UC twenty six-one hundred fifty eight, holdover use permits for the following: one, a banquet facility and two, outdoor dining, drinking and cooking waivers of development standards for the following: one, attached sidewalks and two, alternative driveway geometrics Excuse me, on a design review for a commercial building on 2.82 acres in a CG commercial general zone generally located North Of Palmyra Avenue and West Of Rainbow Boulevard within Spring Valley.

Good morning.

Good morning. My name is Nancy Amundson, 520 South 4th Street in Las Vegas. I am here to represent items fifty and fifty one which is for the Elks Lodge of Las Vegas. The Elks Lodge had been at on Charleston for decades and their membership dropped substantially. They used to have 2,800 members.

They are down to around 300 members. So of course in 2022, they sold their old lodge and they purchased this facility in hopes of building a smaller facility. The reason for the rezoning again is because an Elk's Lodge under today's code is considered facility. Under the last code, and I will take my blame for that, under the last code, it was code, it was considered a club. However, they've been put together, and Elks, lodges are specifically called out in the definition of banquet facilities.

So that's why it's here before you for a zone change to commercial general and for the Elk's Lodge itself. North of this site is a imaging center. On the other side of Palmyra is a Baptist church. The site, and you'll hear from the neighbors, the site to the west and across, Rainbow is RNP. We're not asking for a nonconforming zone change.

It was always anticipated that there would be commercial along this, but the reason that we need the rezoning to CG is because this is a request for a banquet facility, which is what the Elks Club today is defined at. There there are two waivers that are requested. One is for alternative design which is for this entrance and actually it's an exit. They would not having any anyone coming in off of Rainbow. Their Rainbow, would be exit only.

There's a median. They would have an entrance off of Palmyra, and they would want the circulation to be entering off of Palmyra, leaving off of Rainbow. But, of course, there is an exit onto Palmyra to make it a full intersection. There had been discussion about making it left turn only so that it would send people back to Rainbow. We would be willing to work with Public Works to figure out a way to make it that way, but signage, everything, people have a tendency to go the way they wanna go.

So I just we would encourage the Elk members to come in off of Palmyra and leave off of Rainbow, but to guarantee that because of human nature, it does not make sense. The other, waiver that we're requesting is for attached sidewalks. I know that this board, and I see commissioner Neff looking at me. I know that this board likes, prefers, wants to have detached sidewalks. We proposed attached along Palmyra and we would be willing to change it because we have the right amount of landscaping.

The issue is Rainbow. Rainbow is a state road. It is right now under reconstruction. They're doing all of these upgrades along Rainbow and to try to get the state to allow us to vacate would be nearly impossible. Public works can step in on that. But the Palmyra, if the board so chooses, we would come back in for the vacation and we would be willing to make it detached. The one point I'd like to make is at the end of this property, there are no sidewalks. You're right into the RMP. So it is there's no drains, gutters, sidewalks, street lights, or anything past this property. So just just to let you know.

We, propose an eight foot wall, which is code on the west side of the property because we have residential here. We're proposing not only the, required landscaping, but more landscaping along this site. Because the Elks is a five zero one c eight and because it's under NRS six fifty one, it is not subject to a lot of the, requirements that you would find for other banquet facilities, shall we say. In discussions with staff and looking at the site, the Elks would like to have the opportunity to allow their members only to have RVs coming into the site. So that's why you see it also accessory RV parking.

It is not an RV park because it is for members only. So those are, a couple of the things, but I know one of the concerns of the neighbors is the RV parking. The other concerns the neighbors had was with the building itself. The original plans just showed open area. They had not honed what the inside would look like, So the neighbors were concerned that you had 10,000 square feet.

It would be a banquet facility, and there would not be enough parking. The as of last Thursday, this is the concept that they are looking at where the banquet area would be here. The rest of it would be just for ELX members. So it would be twenty twenty eight hundred and seventy square feet for the banquet. The rest is for the Elks club, which used to be defined in the code.

In addition, when the neighbors saw the the renderings, they were a little, they weren't as bright and glossy as they should be, but we wanted to show you what the concept would be. It It would be more of a rustic type facility. The this would be the banquet area. The original renderings did show the stone facade, but, again, it wasn't as clear. And so this is what is being proposed for the site.

I do have ELCS members here. I have some, we also have someone that would talk about how North Las Vegas runs their RV parking. I also have, some, I guess, you could say requested conditions that would be put on this if it was approved. We would like to, add a two year review for the accessory RV use. We would like to have a condition there would be no use of generators by the RVs.

That was a concern because generators can be noisy. We would like to place a limitation of eight RVs on-site for any night until there is a review and then the board can either make it go up or go down. But we would like to limit it to eight RVs on-site for any one night. Limit of seven night maximum stay for any RV. The scheduled law lodge hall hours will be 9AM to 9PM.

All parking for events must be accommodated on-site with no parking for the lodge to spill on adjacent roadways. And although we did not ask for it, there was a question as to whether we would have amplified sound. We would not, so we would request you make a condition. There'd be no amplified outside sound or outside live entertainment. I will come back and we will address any questions that we have, but I'd like to let the neighbors have their opportunity to speak.

Thank you. This is a public comment period. Anyone wishing to speak, come forward. There are two microphones if you'd like to line up at each. When you come to the microphone, state your name for the record, and you may speak for up to three minutes.

Easy. Yeah. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Siskorow. 6245 Edna Avenue, Las Vegas 89146. I live in the neighboring R And P Section 11. I'd like to remind the commissioners that this was opposed unanimously in the town board and also by planning.

I would like to thank the neighbors for coming together at the town board meeting. We had a standing room only crowd. And I think there were 41 opposed and three from the Elks Lodge that would approve of this project. There are neighbors directly behind this property that are RNP that may have horses that have been established in that neighborhood, and to have eight or one or however many RVs they want to have to allow Elks members to come and camp at their lodge for however long with as many people in an RV that it will handle is just absurd. And hopefully, you'll understand that.

I just want to thank the neighbors for all coming out to the town board, and I oppose this. Thank you. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Good morning.

Morning. Diane Henry, h e n r y. I strongly oppose an unprecedented zone change in this office professional corridor. CG zoning would set a dangerous standard for future commercial development directly adjacent to homes all along this section of Rainbow and likewise Jones. Even CN zoning would be inappropriate by regulation as this will not serve the neighborhood.

Both staff analysis and town board recommended denial due to direct adjacency to residential neighborhoods without an effective buffer as well as concerns about traffic, noise, and impacts to nearby homes on both sides of Rainbow. The applicant claims this banquet facility will have minimal impact because it's members only, but it won't truly be limited to members. Nonmembers can rent it and access the property through member referrals. And it is still a 10,000 square foot facility no matter how they divide it up and capable of hosting hundreds for weddings, parties, and large events. Even if county minimums are technically met, overflow parking and RVs will unavoidably spill onto neighborhood streets.

The applicant also argues they are a private fraternal organization so exempt from certain zoning requirements, requirements, but nowhere in statute are private clubs exempt from local zoning laws. The cited statute, NRS 651.06, relates only to nondiscrimination requirements for public accommodations. It does not override zoning regulations nor permit overnight RV stays or living with electrical hookups in this zone. Palmyra. In 2023, for a previous application on this parcel, access from Palmyra was denied.

So what's changed to make this suddenly safe and acceptable? There are no meaningful traffic calming measures, sign, whatever, that would protect Section 10 residents from increased traffic and fear of DUIs on this neighborhood street. The prior applicant was instead allowed up to two driveways on Rainbow, which was considered safer and less impactful than Palmyra. This commercial enterprise would impact two well established neighborhoods with more than 1,500 homes, long standing communities where we've invested years and decades into our homes and our quality of life. Staff has acknowledged, this area deserves the protections intended by rural preservation designation.

There are no conditions or restrictions that will adequately prevent serious neighborhood impacts impacts here. The Elks are fine, but these plans are not appropriate here, and I respectfully ask that this application be denied. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Good morning.

Jennifer Hardman, 7325 Palmyra Avenue. I'm speaking on my behalf and 93 neighbors that signed the petition that you have copies of. We oppose the requested zone change, special use permits, and waivers of development standards for the Elk's Lodge. I would like to focus on three key issues, public safety, compatibility, and enforceability. My primary concern is the impact to traffic and safety along Palmyra.

This corridor has already heavily used as a high speed cut through between Buffalo, Rainbow, and Monaco Estates. Over the past several years, there have been at least seven serious accidents, including a high speed hit and run that caused significant damage to property. Under Clark County Unified Development Code Title 30, developments must demonstrate that they will not create unsafe traffic conditions or negatively impact the surrounding roadways. This proposal introduces an RV park, banquet facility, outdoor dining, and alcohol service, increasing traffic, late night activity, and impaired driving risk. The subject property is located within section 10 residential community intended to preserve low density rural culture character.

Clark County Code requires that new uses be compatible with surrounding development and not detrimental to public welfare. This project introduces transient occupancy events, late night activity, which are incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Even with conditions, enforcement over time is uncertain. The Henderson Oaks RV Park experienced issues including inoperable vehicles, debris and code violations causing them to shut down in 2024. There are also nationwide examples of compliance and safety issues involving similar Elk facilities, including liquor law violations and even violence.

Clark County code requires denial if a use cannot operate consistent with public health, safety, and welfare. This decision comes down to risk versus responsibility. This project requires zone change, special use permits, waivers indicating it does not naturally fit in the location. If there is doubt about safety, compatibility, or enforceability, the responsible decision is to deny. I respectfully ask that you recommend denial. Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you. Next speaker.

Thank you. My name is Julie Wignall, 7265 Coley Avenue. I'm a resident of Section 10, and I appreciate being able to speak to you today. Unfortunately, this is the third time that I've come as have the neighbors to stand up, to request that something be denied denied for this parcel. I, as a citizen, have been part of that whole transform Clark County title 30 sessions.

I have given up work. I have committed myself to do what I can to make sure that we have a stronger community. And part of this, and I thought that it stood for something, but part of what the new title 30 was standing for is to no longer do these these spot zoning changes, to change the zoning of one piece of property in an area in a neighborhood where it doesn't belong. I'm looking at your agenda today and how many zoning waivers. You've got nine zone change requests, and that's just for this morning's meeting.

And there's a time when that becomes important, but there's a time when it's not necessary. This community is fine with anything that comes in on a commercial professional zone, but not under a commercial general zoning. It's not compatible with the neighborhood. This has nothing to do with the elk's lodge, who they are, how they work. We've gotten a lot of fancy footwork of what they do and don't do.

A really quick research just done on the Internet says, oh, this wonderful fraternal organization, anybody can belong if you wanna camp there. You get your RV in or we've got copies of signs. They were in a place on West Charleston which was more conducive to what they were trying to do. So this has nothing to do with taking a stand on these guys. This is commercial professional.

This is what our community has asked for. This is what our community is here standing for, and we ask you to respect that. We also feel that your time and ours is more important than to be dealing with zone change requests when they're not necessary. So I do ask that you respectfully oppose this. And I do have photographs and things just to do copies. Can I give this? Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning.

Good morning. My name is Carol Reynolds. I live at 2740 Mann Street. That is in Section 11. I am not opposed to the Elks. I'm opposed to these plans because I do not consider this an appropriate land use in this specific location. I am concerned that this zone change and use permit will set a precedent and have a cascading effect. If one parcel in a residential neighborhood is rezoned to allow commercial use, it becomes more difficult to deny similar requests in the future, and over time, the neighborhood can be fundamentally altered by incremental decisions inconsistent with ir own I question. Question. Business.

The scale and intensity of the surrounding area encouraged by

that's policy one point four point four. I doubt adding stone veneer around the bottom of a 10,000 square foot building with a metal roof and composite siding gives it a residential feel, especially when it is surrounded by 73 parking spaces and 16 RVs in the same parking lot. You are being asked to introduce a transient commercial use into what is an established residential area. An RV park is not simply an extension of a lodge. It brings a very different pattern of activity, frequent arrival and departures, large vehicles navigating local streets, outdoor lighting, and nighttime noise.

Traffic and safety are another practical concern. RVs are not typical passenger vehicles. They require wider turning radii, create visibility challenges, and increase wear on local streets not designed for that kind of use. This affects not just convenience but safety for pedestrians, children, and emergency response. Finally, there are ongoing operational and enforcement questions that deserve serious consideration.

Who ensures compliance with the concessions that are being promised? These are not theoretical concerns. These are day to day realities that should not fall on surrounding residents. These issues are about land use compatibility, long term planning, and the protection of established neighborhoods. For these reasons, I respectfully ask that you deny the requested zone and use applications. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Hi. Rebecca Chabot. 2660 Montessori Street. I'm here to formally oppose the application. Section 10, it's a unique low density residential community as you've heard. It's a half acre minimum half acre estate's custom homes. It's fundamentally incompatible with the character and intent of our neighborhood. What's concerning is the lack of transparency regarding the RV component. As the representative said early earlier, initially, it was 16 spots. Now they're trying to get eight and then a wait and see.

Well, that's just a way to get their foot in the door. At the town board meeting, the representative ex that the intent was for 16 spots, and the reason why they don't require generators is because they wanted RV hookups, which would then take the place of generators because it's water and electric, which is all signs of people staying long term in those RVs. This is the submitted site plans, they clearly show 16 spots. And regardless of how it's labeled, this is effectively a commercial RV park and banquets events hall being introduced in the middle of a residential estate neighborhood. I also reviewed Metro Police call logs associated with their location on Charleston and Decatur, which you have a copy of in front of you.

And it's over 30 pages of more than a 170 calls for police services, which includes disturbances, assaults, burglary calls, thefts, fights, grand larceny, and even one deceased person investigation. This document history establishes a pattern of activity that is incompatible. It's quiet in our neighborhood. It raises some serious concerns with public safety, neighborhood nuisance impacts, and declining property values. Las Vegas master plan explicitly states that new development must be compatible with scale and character.

And by any objective measure, there's no compatibility between half acre residential estates and high intensity commercial assembly use combined with transient RV lodging. The MP also identifies Section 10 as a stable neighborhood and is protected under the rural neighborhood preservation area. Under the RMP rules, new developments adjacent or within Section 10 must be compatible with this low density character. It strongly discourages zoning changes that intensify past. Pleased made progress progress

areas, this project

we would potentially generate in hundreds of vehicles, Lyfts, Ubers. There is no way she is going to you or they are going to be able to control it down to say we are limiting it to 52 cars. It is literally impossible to police. I also believe this request constitutes spa zoning.

Thank thank you very much.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Good morning.

Morning. My name's Kathleen Reed. Address, 7430 Palmyra Avenue. And just to echo all of what you've heard before, I am absolutely opposed to this. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning.

My name is Patricia Anderson. I come from 751 14th Avenue South Saint Cloud, Minnesota. I do visit this area on a regular basis, my daughter, her family, and my grandchildren. So I witness firsthand on a regular basis the calmness of this neighborhood, and it's truly a neighborhood. There are no sidewalks.

When we go walking, we have to walk on the streets. And when you start to put alcohol and people into cars, it's never a functional thing, and, of course, it all puts us all in danger. This is nothing against the elks. I myself work for the moose lodge back where I come from. I work in the kitchen area, and I do see firsthand exactly what bigger events do, produce, and that's how they make the the money to be able to keep functioning.

It's not so much on a regular day to day basis with the regular 200 plus patrons. It is from the events that bring in a couple 100 to a thousand people, and that's the thing that does keep an event place such as this going financially. And I ultimately respect that, but not in this location. This is a neighborhood. The in and out of the traffic is right on Palomera.

That is residential area. And it's just like the Elk, representative said that for human nature, people do do what they want. And if you have an event hall where you have 10 cars lined up to go to a left hand turn back onto Rainbow, they're gonna be taking the right hand turn around the block and onto Palomarra and the neighborhoods just to simply keep moving their own traffic. And so I definitely oppose it. I can see where something like this would definitely impact the value of the homes that are there.

They've been there for many, many years, and the impact is, very substantial. So I appreciate you looking at this. I wish the elks the best luck in in their new adventure, and I do support wherever they go, but not into a residential neighborhood such as Liz. I do see that as a a dangerous situation, not only with the drinking and the driving, but also the high flux of people that come and go. And when you get events, you get them coming from out of town.

You get them from coming out of state. You have a lot of people, and it's not going to fit their fit their 52 stall parking area that it will spill onto the street. Like I said, I do see this firsthand, back where I come from, and that's just how it works. You can't fit 52 people into a 10,000 person event hall. So, appreciate. Again, thank you. I do oppose it.

Thank you very much.

My name is Laura Vassar. I'm 7065 Palmyra Avenue. I'm about a block away from this proposed site. I, amongst myself, so many neighbors have young children. I strongly oppose this.

I don't think this is the correct space for this. This is a residential place. We have all purchased our homes to raise our family, live our lives, not having to worry with drunk driving, speeding, strangers in masses coming into community. I heard her say that the hours are from nine but if you have 16 RVs parked there, they're not gonna close down at nine. They're gonna continue to have fun and talk and play music and do whatever it is that they want to do after hours.

This is nothing against Elks but this is not the right location for this. This needs to be put in a place where we don't have section 10, section 11, and thousands of properties of residents living there trying to live our lives. I appreciate you looking at this. Thank you.

Thank you. Hi.

Good morning. My name is Jim Labelle. My address is 6970 Palmyra Avenue. To put it pretty bluntly, I'm four feet away from this project. I've been in my home for a number of years, years. And I've enjoyed my home. And, again, to be blunt, it's the only home I have. I want to protect my home. I want protect my neighbor's home. There is an amazing character to our neighborhood.

We look out for each other. We keep an eye on next door neighbors. Are they doing okay? Do they need help? And if they do, we step out and help them.

I think the the foundation of our valley are solid neighborhoods. You want to protect neighborhoods. You wanna see them thrive. As I look at the track record of this application, every time it's been analyzed by people who know what they're talking about and what they should be looking at, it's been rejected because it causes harm to our neighborhood. One of my operating principles is, do anything you want, but never cause harm to someone.

The other thing I'd like to bring out is I listen to the comments of the representative for the applicant. And they almost make it sound like this is gonna be only open and used as Sunday morning banquet facility. That is, in my opinion, far from the truth. I almost feel like we're getting a bully into our neighborhood we're who emphasizes this is a private club. We make the rules in our club.

We'll operate it when we want to. We'll operate it how we want to. And everybody else move out of the way. I still can't get my head around the concentration of RVs they want to put there. But that's another discussion.

It has been objectively, factually established that the placement of this facility in this location causes harm. We cannot, in my opinion, allow a long standing neighborhood to be harmed. Finally, I know I got a couple seconds. Our last the last voice for our neighborhood will be our commissioner. He has heard

Thank you. Finish your sentence.

I'm sorry?

You can finish your sentence.

Thank you. He has overwhelmingly heard objections from the neighborhood and the and the people living He will speak. I hope you support that he opposes this project and vote unanimously

to Thank you. Object Thank you. Next speaker.

Good to see you all this afternoon. This morning. My name is Yvette Williams and I live in Section 11 right across the street, Rainbow Side. We are a very tight knit neighborhood, Section 10 And 11. As the previous speaker spoke, we look out for each other, we do a lot of organizing in our community, we support each other, we're very concerned about our quality of life.

And feel we have done a pretty good job of working with code enforcement around short term rentals, party houses, septic tanks, excessive water fees. I mean, our communities are being hit left and right. We feel under attack by our government. This application doesn't help that feeling. My husband was a former worshipful master of his Masonic Lodge, so I have no issue with the Elks or any other organization such as this.

However, I want to speak a little bit more about this RV park issue. We worked very hard with our commissioner to change this zoning of this partial to a commercial professional. And that's what we expect to be put there, professional, something that will serve our community and also not disrupt or become intrusive in our community. The presenter at the April 28 meeting, town board representing the Elks Lodge inaccurately stated that the Nevada revised statute grants fraternal organizations exemption. In my research, there is no provision in the Nevada revised statute that grants fraternal, non profit, or benevolent organizations any exemption from local zoning, land use, or municipal regulations.

While statutes such as NRS 361.135 provide limited property exemptions, they do not authorize deviations from zoning requirements or permit residential or lodging uses otherwise prohibited by local ordinance. And further, regulation identifies where two or more RVs on a property, whether it's residential or any zoning, is considered an RV parking business. So we are totally opposed to that. Under Title 30 of the Clark County Code, which I also served on that committee, land use regulations apply uniformly to all property owners regardless of ownership type, including private clubs, fraternities, lodges, and nonprofit entities specifically. The accommodation of two or more recreational vehicles for overnight use constitutes a quote recreational vehicle park or campground use.

As defined in title 30, such uses are not permitted by Wright and Commercial General's Office.

Thank you

very much.

Ran out of time.

Thank you. Very well.

Thank you.

I'm Good morning.

Good morning. Name is Michael Imperia. I own a house at 2830 Rosanna Street, which goes behind this project. I don't wanna go on and on and just say I agree with everything my neighbors have said. There's two points that I wanted to bring up.

Traffic, if there's ever an accident on Rainbow, that small Street Rosanna ends up becoming Rainbow 2. And if they have a big enough event going on, I feel that a lot of that would travel over into our neighborhood as they're trying to find ways of getting out of the neighborhood or in the neighborhood. The second point is they said no external amplified music or sound. It doesn't take much to get an additional use permit temporarily or to have somebody bring in outside amplified systems. So I'm concerned with that because noise travels in that neighborhood. But, thank you for your time. I appreciate it.

Thank you. Next speaker please.

Good morning. My name is William Bonnet and I represent the North Las Vegas Oaks Lodge on behalf of the Las Vegas Oaks Lodge. I've been a member at that lodge since 2005 and involved in the leadership and currently a lodge trustee managing help managing the assets of the lodge. I've been involved in the Elks for thirty six years. And in those thirty six years, I've I've been involved in always been involved in a lodge that had RV parking.

And just mentioning the fact that some of the things that you heard today, I would like to refute a couple of them or at least respond. One of the concerns being loud noise and music and the like. Without profiling, the average organization is over 60 years old. While profiling, the average RVer is around 65 years old. Reason they became elks and became because they want to utilize their RVs on the property is to avoid the noise.

They stay at our lodge in North Las Vegas. There are 12 spaces. That is their intent is to just go there, relax, and co mingle with their fellow elks. Just for the record, I am also the official adviser for Henderson Green Valley Lodge. And the event you heard in regards to the RV situation in that lodge, it was a was a one one off only and they are not zoned and they had no intention to have RV parks at that launch.

Parking radius. A lot of people were mentioning that that's difficult to get in and out of. Having been around RVers long enough to know if the radius doesn't work, they won't park there. It's just as simple as that. They know how to maneuver well but if they can't they'll go somewhere else. And that's just the unwritten rule of RVers. We've had large vehicles come into our lodge and were not able to maneuver. And unfortunately, they had to leave, but they understand the situation. We're not commercial in respect to long term. We simply have rules that says you can only be here for so long.

They sign they sign off on that when they register. We've never had issues where we had concerns about them being residents, and we seriously try to avoid anybody staying longer than fourteen days. Our direct neighbors, like to the north of us, love us. We have a we have a have a homeless problem. We work symbiotic. RVers will call the police if there's an issue as well the neighbors. We've never had any complaints from our neighbors. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Hello.

Good after good morning. Jack Eslinger, I live at 10200 Cascading Falls Street. You guys did a presentation for 1.25 acre parcel earlier that's literally a nine iron from my home. But it was 1.25 acres and they're talking about putting a building on their bigger or about the same size as our building that's going to be a restaurant bar, restaurant tavern. And here we're talking about putting pretty much the same size facility on 2.85 acres.

So there's a lot more space, there's a lot more area. But I've been an elk for fifteen years. I'm a past exalted ruler of Las Vegas elk's lodge. I'm currently the district vice president south for the Nevada State Elks Association and as long as nothing funny happens, I'll be the state president for the Nevada State Elks Association in about two years. And just to refute some of the things that you heard, a lot of people when they Google Las Vegas, Elks Elks Lodge will pull up the Perrin Elks Lodge that was in North Las Vegas that had some outrageous crime statistics.

I have been a member of Las Vegas Elks Lodge for fifteen years. None of the incidents that were referred to by that person occurred at Las Vegas Oaks Lodge that I'm aware of. So they were not frequent visitors if ever to our property. As a matter of fact, many of our members are retired or current law enforcement officers. The other thing I want to say is we existed for more than twenty years at the corner of Henson And Charleston with neighbors directly to our east with a fire station and a school, a middle school directly to our north and never had issues.

So if we can exist next to a middle school and we had neighbors before, I believe we will continue in that fashion. I thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you for yours. This is the final opportunity to speak on these items. Anyone wishing to speak?

And can I just chime in? We've heard a lot, so a me too is sufficient if you don't have something new to say.

Well to bring up the crime report which was not

Just state your name for the record.

Amelia Wignol, Section 10. So, yeah, I do not want this in my neighborhood. And guys, if this were to be put in your backyard, I don't think you'd want it either. Thank you, Bob.

Alright. I'm sorry guys. You can't telephone tag this. Anyone else wishing to speak who hasn't already? This is your last opportunity. Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing. Commissioner Jones.

Thank you, mister chair. I appreciate all the comments that have been provided here today. I met with the Elks Lodge folks. They certainly seem like very nice folks who have a great organization. And I am certain that some of the concerns that have been raised here today are not reflective of the Elks lodges here in Las Vegas or across the country.

That said, I have concerns, as I have expressed before. I do think that given that the facilities would be rentable to other parties in order to conduct banquet operations, that there are substantial concerns when it comes to potential parking or traffic through the existing RMPs. Also, I've asked questions with regards to the RV parking, and again, I'm sure that generally speaking, the operators of the RVs comport themselves very, very well across the valley here and across the country, I don't think that it's the right location for RV parking. But honestly, at the end of the day, my biggest concern with this proposed project is definitely not the Elks. Again, seem like a wonderful organization that does a lot of goods here in this valley and across the country.

The challenge that I think we face is that under our code, in order to do this, you have to have a CG designation, and changing this particular parcel to CG and again, I'm sure the ELCs fully intend to move forward with the facility as proposed. However, we all know circumstance change. And in the event that circumstance changed for the Elk's Lodge in the future, the buyer of that parcel would have Commercial General and might not want to build an elk's lodge there. What they could build are motel, car wash, vehicle repair facility, craft brewery, gunsmith, and with a special use permit, an escort bureau, nightclub, mini ware or gravel pit. And so at the end of the day, I appreciate all the neighbors that came out here today, I appreciate the Elks Club members, but I can't support the application given the need to change from commercial professional, which again was something that was negotiated with the neighbors previously to go to a commercial general.

And so Ms. Hammonson I'm happy to hear from you, but my inclination is to move to deny the application on that basis.

The one thing I wanted to state was actually two things. One is it kept being brought up that this is in the middle of an RMP. This is not the RMP. We're not asking for a non conforming zone change or a land use plan amendment. This was always anticipated to be commercial of some sort.

And I understand your concerns I with the would love it to not be the required, but that's how the code reads. The other thing I wanted to say about the RV is it's similar to the RV parking you find at most military bases where the retired military go from place to place to place. It's not like they're trying to go there to live. They just are traveling all over the country and so that is also a different thing. So those were the two points. I understand your concerns. I would request if you recommend denial it would be without prejudice so we could work with staff on how to make something work.

Sure. With that I'll go ahead and move for approval, or sorry, move for denial of agenda items fifty and fifty one. And wish the elks the best of luck in finding a different location.

Thank you. There's a motion for denial without prejudice of item fifty and fifty one. Please cast your vote. That motion passes. Thank you.

Next items 52 through 54 which can be heard together. Item 52 ZC 20 six-one 193 zone change to reclassify 9.03 acres from an RS80 residential single family 80 zone to an IL industrial light zone generally located North Of Rock Avenue west of Hinson Street within the South County Planning Area. Item 53 Versus 20 six-one 195 vacate and abandon easements of interest to Clark County located between Arvell Street alignment and Hinson Street and between Work Avenue alignment and via Inspirada alignment within the South County Planning Area. And item 54 UC 20 six-one 194 use permit for truck parking with waivers of development standards for the following one reduce street landscaping two modify buffering and alternative screening three, allow an on decorative fence four, increase fence site five, allow attached sidewalk and six, street dedication with a design review for proposed truck parking and outdoor storage facility a 9.06 acres in an IL industrial light zone, generally located North Of O'Rourke Avenue and West Of Hinson Street within the South County Planning Area.

Hi. Hello again. Good morning. Jennifer Laszovich, 1980 Festival Plaza Drive. We are

Miss Lasovich, can I just interrupt you? If those folks who are done with their business wanna head out, otherwise, have a seat. Thank you.

Okay. Jennifer Lasovich, 1980 Festival Plaza Drive here in the Sloan area. The site is located just North of Roark Avenue and in between Arville and Henson. The area to the north of it is the Armory. The application in front of you is for a truck parking and outdoor outdoor storage facility with access that comes off of Rourke.

There is no access or any any kind of access onto Arville. So all traffic would come up Hinson and onto Rourke Avenue for this use. We have a number of waivers associated with this development. I know that commissioner Jones and his team are working on somewhat of a master plan and a standard development for this area. So part of those waivers are actually, all of those waivers are in line with where he would like to see development go in terms of the amount of landscaping and the attached sidewalk.

So those waivers reflect an attached sidewalk and reflect five feet of landscaping behind the attached sidewalk. In addition, we are asking for waivers three a, b, and I believe four, which would have allowed a nondecorative chain link with fabric mesh. But we are going to ask we still need that waiver, but we are going to ask for a condition to be added that would read nondecorative fencing with mesh screening allowed, but chain link fencing is not permitted. So, what we're trying to get at is we do need that waiver to allow for some other type of nondecorative fencing, but we understand that commissioner Jones does not wanna allow chain link fencing in this area, which is fine. We will just look to do a different type of nondecorative fence around this site.

And with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. This is a public hearing on items 52 through 54. If you're wishing to speak, please come forward. Seeing no one, Commissioner Jones.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Ms. Lazovich, for the modifications and trying to we're in process on the Sloan Master Plan and for trying to work with your client to get there ahead of time. Ms. Rapazian, can you chime in? I know there was a question that popped up yesterday as to access to the parcel that is to the west of this and whether the dead end there on Arville And Roark would allow for access to it.

Commissioner. You are correct. The axe the parcel to the west will be landlocked or I guess kinda is landlocked the way it sits today. Arville doesn't go through. We we can work with them, to push that cul de sac that miss Lasovich was showing. We can push that cul de sac further west a little bit to provide access. Maybe we can get creative to have a nonstandard cul de sac to make sure that they do have access.

Okay. You understand that Ms. Lazovich?

Yes.

So until yesterday, so I don't

Yeah. So I yeah. That's okay. So I'll just ask mister Popazzian. So for this parcel, don't they don't have the ability to come up. Cameron is either.

That is correct. Because the subdivision just to the north, the streets are private on Cambridge. Or sorry Cameron.

On Cameron.

So that the street that exists through that subdivision is private. So we've lost Cameron.

I see.

As we have lost Roark and Arville in that same area So due to the

we will just work with Public Works to modify the proposed cul de sac to allow this parcel right here

to house? Correct, maybe we'll just push it straight through and then that'll give them at least 30 feet of work to give them access to at least a drive.

Ideally Auerville would have gone through but it's a whole jumbled mess out there of private streets and all of the above, so we're trying to make sure we don't cut off access inadvertently to a parcel out there.

Okay.

Alright, with that understanding, I'll go ahead and move for approval agenda items 52 through 54 with the modification of conditions as read in by Ms. Lasiewicz on 34.

Thank you. Please cast your vote.

Commissioners, just for clarification, sorry. And to include working with Public for the extension of work?

Correct. That motion passes. Thank you.

Thank you. Have a nice day.

Next items 55 through 57 which can be heard together. Item 55, ZC26-one 198, zone change to reclassify 2.52 acres from an RS-eighty residential single family 80 zone to an IL industrial light zone generally located North of Huckleberry Lane and East of Arville Street within the South County Planning Area. Item 56, Versus 20 six-two 100 vacate and abandon easements of interest to Clark County located between Arville Street alignment and Hinson Street alignment and Rayway alignment in Huckleberry Lane and a portion of right of way being Arville Street alignment located between Rayway Alignment and Huckleberry Lane within the South County Planning Area and Item 57 WS26-one 199 waivers of development standards for the following: one, increase wall height two, eliminate street landscaping three, eliminate buffering and screening four, modify residential adjacency standards and five, waive full offset improvements and a design review for proposed outdoor storage facility on 2.52 acres in an IL industrial light zone generally located East Of Arville Street and North Of Huckleberry Lane within the South County Planning Area.

Good morning.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Tony Sless. Address, 1980 Festival Plaza Drive here on behalf of applicant. As you can see our site is located on the Southeast Corner of Arville and Huckleberry. It is just south of the previous site you reviewed and approved. We are coming in with a very similar application. Couple of companion items with it though. First, we do have a conforming zone change request. It is planned BE.

We are asking to go to the light industrial zoning. So we appreciate staff's recommendation of approval on that. We do have proposed a construction yard outside storage. You can see located here on the two and a half acres. Access will be from Huckleberry into the site.

We do have right here an existing natural drainage channel that's taken up about 7,000 square feet of the site. We do have a condition to comply with the drainage. We are hopeful though that we can leave that in a natural condition and we'll work with public works and drainage with respect to that. Also we would like to modify a couple of the waivers with respect to this. It will make it more consistent with the application you just heard.

First with respect to waiver number two, we were requesting to have no landscaping along the Huckleberry Street there frontage. Like the prior application, we'd like to provide five feet, a five foot wide buffer along Huckleberry. And we will provide the number of required trees within that five foot landscape buffer. The second one is waiver number five. We were requesting a waiver of full off-site improvements.

We'd like to amend that to provide the off sites however with an attached sidewalk similar to what was done on work immediately to the north. Finally, we do have vacation and abandonment for Arville. As indicated just a few minutes ago, Arville does basically turn into private or terminate immediately to the north here. So this portion is no longer needed as we are taking access from Huckleberry. However, we will provide and develop out the required elbow there. With that we appreciate your consideration. Thank you.

Thank you. This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward. Seeing none, Commissioner Jones.

Thank you. I appreciate the applicant's consideration. Again, like the last application, and go ahead and move for approval. But I'm gonna listen to Mr. Fawcian first.

Thank you, commissioner. I apologize. Because they are doing full offsites, I need to delete a condition which reads execute a restrictive covenant agreement, is the deed restriction that goes with those offsites.

Very good. With that, I'll go ahead and move for approval of agenda items 55 through 57 with modifications as read in today and the additional condition withdrawn or the additional bullet point withdrawn by Mr. Pazian.

Thank you. Please cast your votes. Motion passes. Thank you.

Next item is, item 59 which is an ordinance for introduction. ORD 20 six-nine hundred-three 44 introduced an ordinance to amend the official zoning map to reclassify certain properties as approved by the Board of County Commissioners on 08/18/2021, 09/22/2021, and 03/18/2026. And staff recommends, we set the public hearing for 06/03/2026.

Thank you. I'll introduce the ordinance and set the public hearing for I'm sorry.

June 3.

06/03/2026. This is the final time set aside for public comment. Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward at this time.

Hello. My name is Al Ross. I'll be very brief. I just wanted to, submit a petition from the community. This is behind the, Home Depot over on Charleston oh, and, Lamb. I'll read it. It says we the citizens near Brattlebin Drive behind the Home Depot located at 1401 South Lamb. Petition Clark County, Nevada to remove the vehicles illegally parked on Brattlebin Drive. There is no parking signs on both sides of the street and it's illegal to both park or do business on that street. The community is being harassed by the people parking and doing business there as well as the RVs and parking there and living in those RVs.

The illegal parking and activity there is an obstruction to the free flow of traffic and a nuisance to the community. In conclusion, any parking on Broadlebin Drive is illegal and any business activity while parked at Broadlebin Drive is also illegal. We petitioned Clark County to enforce the law and remove all vehicles there and patrol Broadlebin Drive on a regular basis to keep future vehicles from illegally parking there and doing business there. So this is sorry, Tick. But thank you for all the help that you guys have been doing.

Oh, by the way, they are the police is coming by, and now these guys are paying the ticket and still washing cars there. So we may request a towing zone in the future. Thank you.

Thank you. Hello.

Yvette Williams in the beautiful district f, commissioner Jones. And we just on behalf of our section 10 and section 11, we wanted to thank you Justin Jones for your service. I'm gonna get emotional, think. For your service over the last eight years, you have been a public servant and you have served our community well. We presented your staff with a plaque at our neighborhood block party that you that you cohost with us, and we hope that you receive that with the heartfelt gratitude for your service and wish you and your family well.

That's it. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak? Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing and adjourn the meeting of the Clark County Commission, and I'll note that our scheduled ten a. M. Redevelopment agency meeting will begin in about ten minutes from now. Thank you.