[1:36] [music]

[2:49] Hey.

[3:54] Hey, hey, hey.

[4:33] Hey,

[4:52] hey, hey.

[5:12] Heat. Heat.

[5:37] Hey,

[5:39] hey, hey.

[5:59] Down.

[6:03] Wow.

[6:08] Wow.

[6:33] Heat.

[6:58] » [music]

[7:05] [music]

[7:16] [music]

[7:24] [music]

[7:39] [music]

[7:56] » Sorry, I'm sorry.

[8:15] Good evening. We're written to begin.

[8:16] This plan commission meeting is called

[8:18] to order. This meeting has been promptly

[8:21] noticed and posted in compliance with

[8:22] the open meeting law. These proceedings

[8:24] are being video recorded and can be

[8:26] viewed live on City of Las Vegas TV on

[8:30] Cox C uh CoxCable channel 2. You can

[8:33] also watch the meeting live online and

[8:36] access other city content by visiting

[8:38] Las Vegas.gov/connect.

[8:42] The proceedings will be rebroadcast on

[8:44] the city of Las Vegas TV the Saturday

[8:46] after the meeting at 10:00 a.m. Monday

[8:49] at midnight and the following Tuesday at

[8:50] 6 p.m. Would everybody please stand for

[8:53] the pledge

[9:01] to the stands one nationice

[9:08] for all?

[9:13] » City clerk, would you please call the

[9:14] role?

[9:17] » Vice Chair Schlottman,

[9:18] » Present. Commissioner Casama is excused.

[9:22] Commissioner Taylor,

[9:24] » Present.

[9:24] » Commissioner Rogan,

[9:25] » Present.

[9:26] » Commissioner Davio,

[9:27] » Present.

[9:28] » Commissioner Labau,

[9:29] » Present.

[9:29] » Commissioner Walters,

[9:31] » Present.

[9:31] » Thank you, Vice Chair. You have a

[9:32] quorum.

[9:33] » Thank you. I call your attention to the

[9:35] information printed in our agenda

[9:37] concerning our actions and the appeal

[9:38] and review process if appropriate.

[9:40] Please read this carefully and if you

[9:42] have any questions, staff is available.

[9:44] Also, the second page of the agenda

[9:46] contains our rules of contact conduct.

[9:48] We appreciate you adhering to these

[9:49] rules so we could have a smooth meeting.

[9:52] Uh public comment during this portion

[9:54] agenda must be limited to matters on the

[9:56] agenda for action. If you wish to be

[9:58] heard, come to the podium, give your

[10:00] name and address for the record. The

[10:02] amount of discussion as well as amount

[10:04] time any speaker uh is allowed may be

[10:07] limited.

[10:09] Seeing none, I'm going to go ahead and

[10:11] close the public uh discussion. Uh

[10:16] Mr. Floyd, do you have a announcement to

[10:18] make?

[10:18] » Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, we've

[10:20] Seth Floyd for the record. We've made

[10:21] this announcement, unfortunately, a

[10:23] couple of times in the past uh where we

[10:25] have learned that someone has tried to

[10:29] scam some of the applicants who have

[10:31] applied uh for planning applications.

[10:33] And uh one of the ways they do that is

[10:35] they'll send an email that if you look

[10:36] carefully, it doesn't have our actual

[10:38] city email addresses. So, this is just a

[10:39] public service announcement that please

[10:41] be careful uh checking your emails. to

[10:44] make sure it's actually a city email

[10:46] address. If you have any questions, you

[10:48] can always reach out to us. So, thank

[10:50] you.

[10:51] » Thank you. We also have uh agendas up

[10:53] here on the pony wall if anybody would

[10:55] like to grab one and follow along with

[10:58] us. All right. Uh moving on to item five

[11:02] uh for possible action to approve the

[11:03] final minutes for the planning

[11:05] commission meeting of July 14, 2026.

[11:08] Commissioner Taylor. Um, I'd like to

[11:10] make a motion to approve the minutes of

[11:11] the planning commission meeting of July

[11:14] 14th, 2026.

[11:15] » Motion's on the floor. Please cast your

[11:17] vote.

[11:28] And that motion carries.

[11:30] Are there any items from the plan

[11:32] commission staff or the applicant that

[11:34] wish to be stricken or held in advance

[11:35] to a future meeting may be brought

[11:37] forward and acted upon at this time?

[11:40] » Mr. Chair, uh Jonathan Bole, senior

[11:42] planner with the Department of Community

[11:44] Development for the record. Staff has a

[11:46] few housekeeping items. Um the applicant

[11:48] is requesting to hold item 15 to the

[11:50] November 10th planning commission

[11:52] meeting. The applicant is requesting to

[11:54] table item 18. The applicant is

[11:57] requesting to hold item 32 to the

[12:00] September 8th planning commission

[12:02] meeting. Uh the applicant is requesting

[12:04] to hold item 33 to the September 8th

[12:07] planning commission meeting. The the

[12:09] applicant is requesting to hold item 35

[12:12] to the September 8th planning commission

[12:14] meeting. Staff is requesting to table

[12:17] item 44. And staff is requesting to

[12:20] table item 47 to the September 8th

[12:22] planning commission meeting. Thank you.

[12:24] » Thank you. Good evening. Good evening,

[12:26] Mr. Chairman, commissioners. Oh, sorry.

[12:28] All right.

[12:28] » Good evening, Mr. Chairman,

[12:29] commissioners. Stephanie Gronower, 1980

[12:31] Festival Plaza Drive. Here on behalf of

[12:34] the applicant for item 26, we'd ask that

[12:36] it be held until the September 8th

[12:38] planning commission hearing, please.

[12:41] » Okay. Thank you.

[12:42] » Thank you.

[12:45] » Good evening.

[12:47] » Good evening. Lucy Stewart, 1930 Village

[12:49] Center Circle, and we're requesting item

[12:51] 41 be held until the September 8th

[12:53] planning commission meeting.

[12:55] » All right. Thank you very much.

[12:56] » Thank you.

[12:58] » Anybody else?

[13:02] » Hello, my name is Andrea Carroll, 1980

[13:05] Festival Plaza Drive. We are requesting

[13:08] item 32 to be held in obeyance till the

[13:11] September 8th U planning commission.

[13:14] » Okay, thank you very much.

[13:16] » Anybody else?

[13:18] » All right. Uh, seeing none, I'm going

[13:21] close this and ask Commissioner Taylor

[13:24] if she would uh make a motion on these

[13:27] housekeeping items.

[13:28] » Thank you, Chair. I'd like to make a

[13:30] motion um on item number 15 to hold that

[13:34] in oayance to the November 10th, 2026

[13:36] planning commission meeting. On item 18,

[13:39] uh to have that item be tabled. on item

[13:42] 26 to have that item held in abance to

[13:46] the September 8th, 2026 planning

[13:48] commission meeting. On item 32, to have

[13:52] that item held to the September um held

[13:55] in advance to the September 8th, 2026

[13:57] planning meeting. Item 33 to be held in

[14:00] abance to the September 8th, 2026

[14:02] planning commission meeting. Item 35 to

[14:05] be held in advance to the September 8th,

[14:06] 2026 planning commission meeting. Item

[14:09] 41 be held in obeyance to the September

[14:11] 8th, 2026 planning commission meeting.

[14:13] Item 44, staff is requesting this item

[14:16] be tabled. Um and then a motion on item

[14:19] 47 to have it held in obeyance to the

[14:22] September 8th, 2026 planning commission

[14:24] meeting.

[14:25] » Thank you. There's a motion on the

[14:26] floor. Please cast your vote.

[14:35] Yay.

[14:42] And that motion carries.

[14:45] Moving on to

[14:50] uh consent agenda items. Um consent

[14:53] items are considered routine by the

[14:55] planning commission and may be enacted

[14:57] by one motion. However, any item may be

[14:59] discussed if a commission member or

[15:01] applicant so desires.

[15:04] And this is item number seven. Um,

[15:09] can we have a motion, Commissioner

[15:12] Taylor?

[15:13] » Um,

[15:15] » Yes. I would like to make a motion. Um,

[15:17] » One one second staff.

[15:19] » Sorry, Omar. Omar with public works. Um,

[15:23] uh, through you uh, uh, Commissioner or

[15:26] through you, chair, I want to read in

[15:28] changes to the condition items number

[15:31] five and seven. Number

[15:34] five

[15:37] is there. So number seven number five

[15:40] was housekeeping.

[15:41] » That's for it is for item number

[15:42] » It is for uh item number seven. Sorry.

[15:45] Um um conditions five and seven.

[15:48] » Oh okay. Go ahead.

[15:51] » Condition five [clears throat] to read

[15:52] dedication of public streets shown on

[15:54] the tenative map. Date stamped 7:30 2026

[15:58] is subject to review and approval of

[16:00] civil improvement plans associated with

[16:01] this tenative map. Dedicate a bus

[16:04] turnout on Oro Street just north of

[16:06] street A on the final map for the site.

[16:08] Additionally, grant a bus shelter pad

[16:10] easement on Oro Street in conformance

[16:13] with standard drawing number 234.2 and

[16:16] 234.5 to the regional transportation

[16:18] commission prior to the recordation of

[16:22] the final map for this site. The

[16:24] required bus turnout may be combined

[16:26] with a dedicated right turn lane for

[16:28] access into the northern portion of lot

[16:30] one or another location acceptable to

[16:32] the RTC. And [clears throat] for

[16:35] condition number seven to read as the

[16:37] Orox Street dedication shall allow for

[16:39] the construction of two northbound

[16:41] lanes. Additionally, construction of

[16:42] traffic signals at both the Orox Street

[16:45] and Street A intersection and the Desert

[16:47] Foothills Drive and Street A

[16:49] intersection will be determined by the

[16:51] city traffic engineer based on future

[16:53] development of the site. An alternative

[16:55] solution to provide for an off- street

[16:57] bike path and appropriate easements may

[16:59] be approved by the city traffic

[17:00] engineer. The geometry of such

[17:02] easements, if any, shall be determined

[17:04] prior to the recordation of a final map

[17:06] for the site. The final map for the site

[17:08] shall grant all easements required by

[17:10] public works. Thank you.

[17:12] » Thank you. Is the applicant here?

[17:16] [clears throat]

[17:16] » Hello. Do you agree to those addit

[17:19] conditions and change modified

[17:20] conditions?

[17:21] » Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the

[17:23] record, Stephanie Groour, 1980 Festival

[17:25] Plaza Drive here on behalf of the

[17:26] applicant. We are in agreement with the

[17:29] conditions read into the record.

[17:30] » Okay. Thank you very much. Uh,

[17:32] Commissioner Taylor, can I get a a

[17:33] motion on the item number seven? One

[17:36] motion, one vote.

[17:37] » Um

[17:38] » I mean I'm sorry, the consent agenda.

[17:40] » Yes. Yes, chair. I'd like to make a

[17:42] motion to approve item seven, obeyance

[17:44] 26-199

[17:46] TMP1,

[17:47] um with the revisions to conditions five

[17:50] and 7.

[17:52] » Thank you. Motion's on the floor. Please

[17:54] cast your vote.

[18:05] I

[18:08] » Thank you. That'll um and that motion

[18:10] carries.

[18:11] » And that is final action tonight. And

[18:12] let's appeal to the city clerk in seven

[18:14] days.

[18:15] » And Commissioner Rogan, if you press

[18:17] your refresh button in the top lefthand

[18:19] corner, it might might uh go ahead and

[18:21] allow your voting to come back up.

[18:23] Moving on to the one motion, one vote.

[18:24] The following items are items that may

[18:27] be considered in one motion, one vote.

[18:28] They are considered routine non-public

[18:30] and public hearing items with a staff

[18:32] recommendation of approval. All public

[18:33] hearing non-public hearings will be

[18:35] opened at one time. Any person

[18:37] representing an application or a member

[18:39] of the public or a member of the

[18:40] planning commission not in agreement

[18:42] with the conditions and all standard

[18:43] conditions for the application

[18:44] recommended by staff should request to

[18:46] have those items removed from this part

[18:48] of the agenda. Item number 826-0196

[18:51] SUP1 applicant Shakes Shack Nevada LLC

[18:54] owner KRG Las Vegas Centennial Center

[18:57] LLC for possible action on land use

[18:59] entitlement project request for a

[19:01] proposed 3558T

[19:03] beer wine cooler on sale establishment

[19:06] uh with uh use with a 60qt outdoor patio

[19:11] area with a waiver of a distance

[19:12] separation requirements from a school at

[19:15] 6181 Centennial Center Boulevard. Number

[19:19] nine 26-269

[19:21] applicant kite realy group owner KRG Las

[19:23] Vegas Centennial Center for possible

[19:25] action on the following land use

[19:26] entitlement project request at northwest

[19:28] corner of Tropical Parkway in Centennial

[19:31] Center Boulevard. 8 9 is uh 26-0269

[19:36] SGP1 for proposed restaurant with a

[19:38] drive-through use. 9B 26269 SDR1 for a

[19:43] proposed one-story 828 square foot

[19:45] drive-thru only restaurant with a waiver

[19:48] of the town center development standards

[19:49] manual

[19:51] number 10 26-273

[19:54] SUP1 applicant Southern Nevada Art

[19:56] Museum owner 1025 Main Street LLC for

[19:59] possible action on a land use

[20:00] entitlement project request for proposed

[20:03] 7,194T

[20:05] alcohol on premise full use with a 500t

[20:08] outdoor patio area at 1027 South Main

[20:11] Street, Sweet 110 and 1029 South Main

[20:14] Street, Ward 3.

[20:18] Uh number 11 is 26-0274

[20:22] SUP1. Applicant owner Los Corelli's

[20:25] restaurant for possible action on a land

[20:27] use entitlement project requests for a

[20:29] proposed 3,500 foot alcohol on premise

[20:32] full use with a waiver of a distance

[20:34] separation from a church house of

[20:35] worship at 1515 Northeastern Avenue

[20:39] number 1126-0276

[20:42] applicant owner the Howard Uses Company

[20:44] for possible action on the following

[20:45] land use entitlement project request on

[20:47] a property located west of the

[20:49] intersection of Alta Drive and Park Drip

[20:51] Trail.

[20:53] 12 A 26-276 MDR1 for proposed Summerland

[20:57] West Village 32A

[20:59] 20 or 12B is 26-0276

[21:02] TP TMP1 village 32A for proposed 13 lot

[21:06] parent tenative map 13 is 26-0301

[21:11] SGP1 applicant Shang Centennial owner

[21:14] copper cart 2 for possible action on the

[21:16] land use entitlement project request for

[21:18] a proposed 1547T beer Beer wine cooler

[21:22] on sale establishment. Alcohol on sale

[21:25] or on premise beer wine use at 6491

[21:28] North Dangle Drive Sweet 140. Number 14

[21:32] is 26-302

[21:34] SDR1. applicant Las Vegas Billboards

[21:37] owner uh Paliflax Creative Iron Works

[21:41] for possible action on land use

[21:42] entitlement project request for the

[21:44] proposed structural modification and

[21:46] addition of a digital LED electronic

[21:48] message illumination to the north and

[21:49] south faces of an existing off- premise

[21:52] sign at 30 52 South Valley View

[21:55] Boulevard.

[21:57] Um are there any members of the public

[22:00] that would like to be heard on any of

[22:02] these items?

[22:04] Seeing none, I'm going close the public

[22:05] hearing. Is is the applicant for number

[22:08] 14 here, Las Vegas Billboards, uh,

[22:11] Poliflax Creative Iron Works, uh, for

[22:14] their billboard, please come forward.

[22:21] Can we get your name and address for the

[22:24] record?

[22:26] I I apologize. I'm still My shoe broke

[22:29] on the way coming up [laughter] the

[22:30] stairs, so I have to kind of drag it. So

[22:32] Lucy Stewart, 1930 Village Center

[22:34] Circle, representing the applicant.

[22:36] » Thank you. I'd like to ask if it's okay

[22:38] with you to do a one-year review on your

[22:40] sign.

[22:42] » Sure.

[22:42] » Okay. All right.

[22:44] » Okay. Thank you.

[22:44] » Uh that's it. Thank you. Um

[22:48] and that'll be a one-year administrative

[22:51] review,

[22:53] » Mr. Chairman. Nicole Edetos for the

[22:55] record. that would read, "An

[22:57] administrative review shall be performed

[23:00] one year from the date of of the final

[23:02] inspection." Thank you.

[23:04] » Yes. Okay. Thank you. All right. And

[23:07] then,

[23:08] » Um, Mr. Chair,

[23:10] » Omar Kasani with public works.

[23:12] » Yes.

[23:12] » For the record, um, I would like to, uh,

[23:15] propose, uh,

[23:17] » Read in a modification to the conditions

[23:20] for item 9B.

[23:22] » Please do. uh for a change in condition

[23:25] number 11 uh to read as connect to the

[23:28] public sewer system at a size, depth,

[23:30] and location acceptable to the sanitary

[23:32] sewer engineering section of the

[23:33] Department of Public Works. Thank you.

[23:35] » And that was item which

[23:38] 9B.

[23:39] » Item 9B.

[23:40] » Okay.

[23:44] And then I will make a disclosure on

[23:47] item number 10, the Southern Nevada Art

[23:50] Museum. Uh I work with the landlord um

[23:54] for this uh property and quite a few

[23:56] different properties. So I'll be

[23:58] abstaining on that matter.

[24:01] Madam Chair, no other comments. Uh can I

[24:03] get a motion?

[24:05] » Um yes. Uh chair, I would like to make a

[24:08] motion on our one motion, one vote

[24:10] items. Um 8 um to approve item 8, nine

[24:17] with 9B's modified conditions. Item 10,

[24:21] [clears throat] 11, 12, 13, and 14,

[24:25] including the revised condition of a

[24:27] one-year administrative review.

[24:29] » Thank you. Motion's on the floor. Please

[24:31] cast your vote.

[24:36] That motion carries.

[24:37] » And Mr. Chairman, items 8 and 12 will

[24:40] move on to city council on September

[24:42] 16th. Items 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14 are

[24:46] final action tonight, unless appealed to

[24:47] the city clerk in 10 days. Thank you,

[24:49] sir. Moving on to the public hearing

[24:51] items. Uh, starting with item number 16,

[24:54] advance 26-0167

[24:56] V1. Applicant owner Cory Anthony Nation

[25:00] for possible action on land use

[25:01] entitlement project requests to allow an

[25:03] existing residential accessory structure

[25:06] storage structure that does not conform

[25:08] to title 19.06 development standards for

[25:10] setbacks, separation or aesthetic

[25:13] compatibility in size at 650 Echorrest

[25:16] Avenue, Ward 6. staff recommends. Now,

[25:19] can we get the staff report, please?

[25:21] » Yes. Um, Madame Chair, Josh for the with

[25:25] the Department of Community Development

[25:27] for the record for the variance request

[25:28] for an existing residential accessory

[25:30] structure at 6505 Echorest Avenue. Staff

[25:34] finds no evidence of a unique or

[25:35] extraordinary circumstance related to

[25:38] the physical characteristics of the

[25:39] property

[25:41] have and um have been presented uh to

[25:44] warrant the requested variances. As

[25:46] such, the hardship is self-imposed and

[25:48] therefore staff recommends denial. Thank

[25:50] you.

[25:51] » Thank you, sir. Good evening. Can I get

[25:53] your name and address for the record?

[25:54] » Good evening, vice chair, members of the

[25:56] commission. Denise Gordio, 204, Bell

[25:58] Isle, Port, Henderson, Nevada 89012 here

[26:01] representing the applicant on this

[26:02] matter. Um, you have the exact same

[26:05] exhibit that I was going to show.

[26:06] Basically, this is the fourth property

[26:08] along this culde-sac that is in for the

[26:11] exact same thing. We appreciate staffs

[26:13] and and understand the recommendation.

[26:15] However, this structure has been here

[26:17] for years, has not shown to be have any

[26:20] kind of negative impact on the on the

[26:22] community and in fact has really

[26:24] integrated as part of the part of the

[26:26] culde-sac both this neighborhood and the

[26:28] neighborhoods to the north and to the

[26:29] south. We do have letters of support

[26:31] from all the adjacent property owners

[26:33] and from the culde-sac as well. Uh we

[26:36] did and we held this because we weren't

[26:38] sure if we were going to be able to get

[26:39] it permitted. We've been working with

[26:41] the building official. We did verify

[26:43] that it can be permitted and so at this

[26:45] point in time we would respectfully

[26:47] request your approval on this item and

[26:49] we are in agreement with all conditions

[26:51] of of if approved.

[26:53] » All right. Thank you sir. This was not

[26:54] as public hearing. Anyone want to be

[26:56] heard, please come forward, give your

[26:57] name and address for the record. Seeing

[26:59] none, I'm going close public hearing.

[27:00] Turn this over to Commissioner Taylor.

[27:02] » Um thank you chair. Good evening sir.

[27:04] Thanks for bringing another one of these

[27:06] down. Um, so can you The only issue I

[27:11] have with this one, um, is that it is a

[27:13] little different because it's enclosed.

[27:16] Um, and so you do, are there any other

[27:18] ones that have been enclosed on the

[27:20] streets as you've been talking to the

[27:22] neighbors and looking at these

[27:24] structures that really, you know, the

[27:26] structure themselves are really

[27:28] harmonious and compatible with this

[27:29] neighborhood and really part of the

[27:31] condition of the neighborhood now. But

[27:33] does anyone else have theirs enclosed?

[27:35] » Yes. So it's it's not fully enclosed.

[27:37] It's okay. The the the orientation of

[27:39] the lot is such to where he put these.

[27:42] So it started out as a carport as all of

[27:44] these did because they were all

[27:45] constructed by the same company. And

[27:47] then he added some lattice to the side

[27:50] just because of the the the sun, you

[27:52] know, the orientation of the of the

[27:54] sunlight. So it's not fully enclosed,

[27:56] but if you look at it, it does look like

[27:58] it's enclosed. But an answer to your

[28:00] simple answer, yes, there are others.

[28:03] And within a quarter mile of I I I

[28:05] won't, you know, put anything on the

[28:07] record, but within a quarter of a mile

[28:08] of this property, there are pro probably

[28:11] 30 other accessory structures that are

[28:13] very similar.

[28:14] » Okay. Um and then did you have any of

[28:18] the adjoining neighbors um

[28:22] oppose this?

[28:24] » No. And in fact, we were out I was

[28:26] actually out to the site here a couple

[28:27] days ago. We spoke with the neighbor to

[28:32] the south and to the east and if they

[28:35] had not submitted their letters of

[28:37] support, we do have those as well. We

[28:39] can but I believe they were already

[28:41] submitted for the record.

[28:43] » Okay. Okay. Um I if anybody has any

[28:48] other comments otherwise I'm ready to

[28:49] make a motion on this.

[28:50] » Please do.

[28:51] » Okay. On item 16, obeyance 26-0167

[28:55] VA1. I'd like to make a motion to

[28:56] approve.

[28:58] » Motion's on the floor. Please cast your

[29:00] vote.

[29:02] » Subject.

[29:02] » Oh, subject to all. He did say he was.

[29:04] Yes. But you agree to all conditions.

[29:06] » We're in agreement with all.

[29:07] » Okay. Thank you.

[29:11] » That motion carries.

[29:12] » And that is appreciated.

[29:15] » And that is final action tonight. Must

[29:16] appeal to the city clerk in 10 days.

[29:19] » All right. Thank you. Moving on to item

[29:21] 17, advanced 26-0173

[29:23] V1. Applicant owner uh Constasio Beltron

[29:29] for possible action on land use and

[29:30] entitlement project request to allow an

[29:32] existing home addition that does not

[29:34] conform to Title 19.06 development

[29:36] standards for setbacks at 2620 Los Verde

[29:40] Street W 3. Staff recommends now. Can we

[29:42] get the staff report, please?

[29:43] » Mr. Chair, this this request is the

[29:46] result of an open code enforcement case.

[29:48] The applicant is requesting a variance

[29:50] to allow an existing home addition

[29:51] within the rear yard that does not

[29:53] comply with minimum rear yard setbacks.

[29:55] The submitted floor plan indicates the

[29:57] additional space is utilized as a master

[29:59] bedroom for the home. Staff finds no

[30:01] unique or extraordinary evidence has

[30:03] been presented to warrant the requested

[30:05] variance to allow a 6ft rear yard

[30:07] setback where 15 ft is required for the

[30:09] addition in the rear yard. As such, the

[30:12] hardship is self-imposed and therefore

[30:13] staff recommends denial of this request.

[30:16] Thank you.

[30:17] » Thank you. Good evening, sir. Can we get

[30:18] your name and address for the record?

[30:20] » Yes. Uh, good evening. My name is Haime

[30:21] Dega. Address is 6944 Erin Circle, Las

[30:26] Vegas, Nevada, 89145.

[30:28] And I I represent the owner. The the

[30:31] owner, he tried to be here, but he's

[30:34] really sick at this time. And um this is

[30:38] the problem. The whole addition is 646

[30:42] square ft. But the problem is right here

[30:45] on this area uh on this part we have a

[30:49] 15 ft setback but just right here in

[30:52] this section is just 6 ft. So we kindly

[30:55] ask you to consider approval you know

[30:58] for this

[31:00] setback. There's no complaint with the

[31:02] rest. Now the architectural design will

[31:06] be compatible with the rest of the

[31:08] house.

[31:09] » Okay. Thank you.

[31:10] » Thank you.

[31:11] » This was not as a public hearing. Anyone

[31:13] want to be heard, please come forward.

[31:14] Seeing none, I'm close the public

[31:16] hearing and turn this over to plan

[31:17] commission.

[31:19] Let me ask you, is this already

[31:21] constructed?

[31:22] » Partially. Partially. And

[31:25] » Okay. And let me ask staff a question.

[31:27] Were was this a property that y'all were

[31:29] not able to get in the backyard to take

[31:31] photos of?

[31:33] » Um, no. This we were not um given access

[31:36] to go to the back of this house to get

[31:38] photos of this particular structure.

[31:40] This particular uh project was

[31:43] misnotified on the June meeting and the

[31:46] sign was placed across the street and

[31:47] that's why it was pushed to this

[31:49] meeting.

[31:50] » Okay. I'm looking at this and unless if

[31:53] I'm looking at it wrong, it looks like a

[31:55] 100% of the backyard is built out on

[31:57] Google Maps, not just what he's showing.

[31:59] Is that correct, sir?

[32:00] » Yeah, that's correct. But there's a lot

[32:02] of construction that was built here is

[32:05] already demolished because uh we told

[32:07] them that there's no way you know that

[32:09] get approved like like was before

[32:13] » But we we are always in touch with the

[32:15] code enforcement officer.

[32:16] » Let let me let me let me continue sir.

[32:19] So if if it truly is what you're talking

[32:21] about and it's only that one little

[32:23] section I could get behind that. But if

[32:28] staff goes out and finds that the whole

[32:30] yard's built and it's not demolished,

[32:32] then um this is I'm going to have a

[32:35] bigger issue with that. No, as today um

[32:38] most of the area that was built like all

[32:41] this is already gone and they also have

[32:44] an structure here is already gone and um

[32:47] so these plans are uh if we get the

[32:50] approval these plans are going to be

[32:52] ready to submit to to building

[32:54] department and it's going to be just

[32:55] like this exactly like this. I have I

[32:57] have no problem with that and when when

[33:00] it goes through permit and we'll have

[33:02] building inspectors come out and take a

[33:04] look to make sure that's the way it's

[33:05] built. But I have no other comments on

[33:07] that and considering that's the case.

[33:09] I'm I'm fine with this application. Does

[33:11] anybody have any comments on this?

[33:15] Okay, then I'll make a motion on this.

[33:17] On item number 17, uh bands 26-0173 V1

[33:22] move to approve subject to stats

[33:23] conditions. Do you agree to all staff

[33:25] conditions, sir? Yes, we agree.

[33:27] » Thank you. Motion's on the floor. Please

[33:29] cast your vote.

[33:37] » That motion carries.

[33:39] » And that is final action tonight unless

[33:40] appealed to the city clerk in 10 days.

[33:43] » Thank you.

[33:43] » Thank you, sir.

[33:44] » Moving on to item number 19. Advance

[33:47] 26-0236

[33:49] applicant KB Homes Las Vegas

[33:51] Incorporated owner SDE 600015

[33:54] for possible action on a following land

[33:57] use entitlement project request on north

[33:59] side of Iron Mountain Road approximately

[34:00] 970 ft west of Pulley Road W 6. Staff

[34:04] recommends approval. 19A is a 26-0236

[34:07] GPA1 from PCD planned community

[34:10] development and PF public facility to ML

[34:13] medium lowdensity residential. 19B

[34:15] advance 26-236

[34:18] ZON1 from UU uh undeveloped PCD plan

[34:22] community development PF public facility

[34:24] general plan destinations to RSL

[34:26] residential small lot. Can we get the

[34:28] staff report please?

[34:31] » Mr. Chairman, if you like u 19 20 and 21

[34:34] are all related. If you wanted to open

[34:36] them all up and then we could discuss

[34:38] them and and vote.

[34:46] Okay. 19, 20, and 21. Okay. Uh, let me

[34:50] read the other two into a record. 20 is

[34:52] 26-0280,

[34:54] applicant KB Home, Las Vegas, uh, owner,

[34:57] United States of America, for possible

[34:58] action on the following land use

[35:00] entitlement project request for the

[35:01] south side of Rodley Avenue

[35:04] approximately 970 ft west of Pulley

[35:07] Road, W 6. Staff recommends now. 20A is

[35:10] 26-0280

[35:13] VR1 to allow private gated streets do

[35:16] not conform to title 1904 complete

[35:18] street standards. 20B is 26-0280

[35:21] TMP1 Montero unit one for a proposed 62

[35:25] single uh 62 lot single family

[35:28] residential subdivision 21's 26- 0292

[35:31] applicant KB homes Las Vegas owner SD

[35:35] 600015

[35:36] for possible action on following land

[35:38] use entitlement project request on north

[35:39] side of Bradley Avenue approximately 970

[35:42] ft west of Pulley Road W 6 staff

[35:45] recommends now 21A 26-0292 to V1 to

[35:50] allow private gated streets do not

[35:51] conform to Title 19.04 complete street

[35:54] standards. 21B is 26-0292

[35:57] TMP1 Ontario unit 2 for proposed 60 unit

[36:01] single family residential subdivision.

[36:03] May we get the staff reports?

[36:06] » Mr. Chairman, the proposed general plan

[36:08] amendment and resoning are compatible

[36:10] with the designations and densities of

[36:12] the adjacent parcels and conform with

[36:15] the Kyle Canyon area plan and Las Vegas

[36:18] 2050 master plan. Parcels to the east

[36:21] were recently approved for low density

[36:23] residential general plan designation and

[36:25] reszoned RSL

[36:28] uh residential small lot with similar

[36:30] density range as the proposed request.

[36:33] Therefore, staff recommends approval of

[36:35] the general plan amendment and resoning.

[36:37] While both proposed tenative maps are

[36:40] consistent with the land use vision of

[36:42] the Kyle Canyon special area plan, the

[36:44] subdivisions failed to comply with the

[36:47] title 19 complete street standards. No

[36:50] unique or extraordinary circumstance

[36:52] related to the physical characteristics

[36:54] of the sites have been presented and the

[36:56] hardships are self-imposed. Therefore,

[36:58] staff recommends denial of both tenative

[37:00] maps and variance requests. Please note,

[37:03] additional documentation of support and

[37:06] protest was received after publication

[37:08] for items 20 and 21. Thank you.

[37:11] » Thank you. Good evening, sir.

[37:13] » Good evening, Mr. Chairman,

[37:15] commissioners. My name is Bob Gronower

[37:17] in 1980 Festival Plaza Drive. I'm here

[37:19] representing Katie Home on these matters

[37:22] that are before you. Um, as I can get

[37:24] your attention to the overhead, I'd like

[37:26] to just give you a little bit of

[37:27] background of this area and then we'll

[37:29] zero in on the uh property that you see

[37:32] highlighted here in yellow. Uh, the

[37:34] first thing I want to mention to you in

[37:36] this area here, this is known as the

[37:37] Kyle Canyon Gateway. Over the last sever

[37:40] several years, you have seen us come in

[37:43] with applications

[37:45] uh coming in with single family

[37:46] residential development. Uh, this is a

[37:49] US 95. This is the off-ramp here which

[37:52] takes you up to Kyle Canyon going up to

[37:54] Mount Charleston in this area. Um so as

[37:57] you can see here some of the development

[37:58] that's already existing in the area. Uh

[38:01] you've also approved other projects just

[38:03] recently down in this area here. These

[38:06] are all mainly single family detached

[38:08] homes. Um typically around uh 3,3500t

[38:13] lots. Uh you have another uh lot um

[38:16] subdivision in this area that's slightly

[38:17] a little bit larger up adjacent which we

[38:19] call the sheet mountain parkway as I

[38:21] show you here. This runs north and south

[38:24] in this area. This is that major

[38:26] arterial uh parkway that connects all

[38:28] the way down through Sky Canyon, Sky

[38:30] Hills and um um Sky Summit down in that

[38:34] area and down to 215. So this is a major

[38:37] arterial in this area. Then as you go

[38:40] west of Sheet Mountain Parkway um you

[38:42] see this right here. This is already

[38:44] under construction. This was just recent

[38:46] rec recently approved by you. It's a

[38:48] similar application that actually we are

[38:50] proposing tonight. This application here

[38:53] came in with medium low uh master

[38:55] planning which we're asking for tonight.

[38:57] Uh it's also got approved for RSL zoning

[39:00] which is um allows [clears throat]

[39:02] minimum 400 foot lots and they came in

[39:06] with the same variances that we're

[39:07] asking for for the variances for

[39:09] complete uh street standards. The reason

[39:12] why I point that out is is because you

[39:13] see in this area here, what has been

[39:15] trending is to be more 4,500 foot lot

[39:18] sizes um instead of the product that you

[39:21] see over here, which is more of the

[39:22] 3,3500

[39:24] foot lot product. So, we [clears throat]

[39:26] believe in this area here and as you go

[39:28] further west that you're getting a lower

[39:30] density and a bigger bigger lot product

[39:32] of what's being proposed. So, we do

[39:34] appreciate um staff's recommendation.

[39:37] These are actually two separate parcels.

[39:39] Uh the southern parcel is a parcel that

[39:42] KB home has picked up in the uh BLM

[39:44] auction which is a 10 acres down here

[39:47] and then this 10 acres which is located

[39:48] here approximately is in private hands.

[39:51] So total of the two uh properties comes

[39:54] out to about 21 acres total plus or

[39:56] minus in that area. So staff is

[39:58] recommending approval for the medium low

[40:02] land use plan and they're also

[40:03] recommending approval for the

[40:05] residential small lot zoning designation

[40:07] in this area. um because of everything I

[40:10] just mentioned to you as you see here.

[40:12] Um in addition [clears throat] to the

[40:15] master plan and the zone change, this is

[40:17] a zoning map in this area. As I said

[40:20] earlier, this is the off-ramp coming up

[40:22] off of US 95 along Kyle Canyon in this

[40:26] area. You can see the zonings that have

[40:28] been approved in this area. And then our

[40:31] property we're asking to be that same

[40:32] color in this area here. So, uh, that

[40:35] gives you a better perspective from the

[40:36] zoning of what you've se what you, uh,

[40:38] seen in the past.

[40:41] Next is, um, we have our two projects,

[40:44] which is I'm going to start with the one

[40:46] on the south, uh, south side of what we

[40:48] call Radley in this area here that I'm

[40:50] showing you. Uh, this is 62 homes. Uh,

[40:53] these 62 homes are going to be minimum

[40:56] 4,500 square uh, square foot lots. uh

[40:59] the density comes out to just up to

[41:01] about 5.7 units to the acre which is

[41:04] definitely compatible to about the 5.37

[41:07] 5.4 units an acre that is currently

[41:09] under construction in this area. As you

[41:12] can see here, parts of that project. Um,

[41:15] actually I I'll show you exactly what

[41:18] we're

[41:20] This is the adjacent project here. And

[41:22] the only reason why I'm showing you the

[41:23] adjacent project because what you'll see

[41:26] here, although it's been approved, it

[41:28] had does have a little bit less of open

[41:30] space of what we're proposing and it has

[41:32] the same type of street private street

[41:34] standards that that we're asking to to

[41:36] be approved. Also, uh that being said,

[41:39] you can see here we have a large green

[41:42] space area here for open space. This is

[41:44] more for usable open space, although

[41:46] we're not required to do so with with

[41:48] the RSL. Uh what we're asking to do is

[41:51] uh come in with some amenity plan. We do

[41:54] have a temporary uh amenity plan right

[41:57] now that we're putting together. Uh what

[41:59] I'd like to do is as we go through this

[42:01] process for the record is that we'll

[42:03] continue to work on the amenities within

[42:05] the area here as we go up through city

[42:08] council. Um and it's one of the

[42:11] [clears throat] things my client has

[42:12] asked to do as we try to figure out to

[42:14] finalize some of the amenities that we

[42:16] are proposing in this area. Um so that

[42:18] is um the south southern portion to the

[42:22] north of us um in this area. So if I

[42:25] could show on this map here

[42:32] and this is essentially what you would

[42:35] see uh for the development which as I

[42:38] said the road is rot radly located in

[42:40] here and the irony is this is all going

[42:42] to be one HOA um so we're going to have

[42:46] to have you're going to have access from

[42:48] one subdivision to the next since it's

[42:49] all under one HOA ownership. Um, and

[42:52] [clears throat] then in this area here

[42:54] on this plan to the north, uh, we have

[42:56] approximately 60 homes that we're

[42:58] proposing in here. And, uh, what we have

[43:01] though is for open space because in the

[43:05] area, which

[43:08] I should have shown you in the beginning

[43:10] is we have a fairly large wash that goes

[43:13] through the properties in this area. So,

[43:15] we we have to pipe this area here. As

[43:18] you can see, the wash that's going

[43:19] through for drainage. And when you take

[43:21] a look here is this is where we're going

[43:23] to have to put our pipe. And as you know

[43:25] where we put our pipe, we're going to

[43:26] have to have our open space in that

[43:27] area. So again, [clears throat] we're

[43:30] looking to program this area here as we

[43:32] go between planning commission, city

[43:34] council. Um we'd ask you to approve the

[43:37] applications that are before you for the

[43:40] uh general plan amendment, the zone

[43:42] change, tenative maps, and the variances

[43:45] that are before you today. So I'm here

[43:47] to answer any questions.

[43:48] » Thank you.

[43:50] This was noted as a public hearing.

[43:52] Anyone wanting to be heard, please come

[43:53] forward. Seeing none, I'm going to close

[43:55] the public hearing and turn this over to

[43:56] plan commission for discussion, possible

[43:58] action. Starting with Commissioner

[43:59] Taylor.

[44:00] » Uh, thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr.

[44:02] Gronower. Um, as always, for your and

[44:05] your clients um diligent work on trying

[44:09] to bring projects up that fit with what

[44:12] um the vision for W six is, and we

[44:14] really appreciate the work that you

[44:15] always put into it. Um, couple of

[44:18] questions and I know you just sent over

[44:21] um some of the the working plans for

[44:23] your open space and that that is uh

[44:26] going to be, you know, part of the

[44:27] ongoing um iteration as you get to city

[44:30] council. But on the south side, um if

[44:34] you can flip to your open space plan, um

[44:39] I understand there's a general rule KB,

[44:41] one of your market segments is um our

[44:44] families, right? amilies.

[44:50] And I do hope that that's a permanent

[44:52] piece of it. But my question is for you,

[44:54] uh, does this include a shade structure

[44:57] over the play structure? And can we put

[44:59] a condition on there to be sure that it

[45:01] does?

[45:02] » Yeah, I was presuming there was a shade

[45:05] structure on that, but if you want to

[45:06] put a condition on that, you can. I I

[45:08] don't want to say yes for sure, but

[45:11] » But you don't have you don't have a

[45:13] problem with putting a condition on it

[45:14] to require shade structure. Okay. So, if

[45:15] staff can

[45:17] » Vet that up and then um

[45:21] » Uh what was the other thing I was going

[45:22] to ask? If you can go back to your

[45:23] walking trail because we I think we

[45:25] talked about this um on the north side.

[45:28] » On the north side. Yes.

[45:33] And then I have

[45:38] Do how long is that do you think? Like

[45:42] how long is the whole walking trail? And

[45:43] the only reason I ask is we didn't talk

[45:45] about this but I was think or maybe we

[45:47] did talk a little bit about it but um

[45:50] lighting even if it was sort of like

[45:52] footer lighting so it doesn't go into

[45:54] the houses but some kind of pathway

[45:55] lighting. Have we discussed

[45:57] » I thought we discussed that. Um there

[45:59] will be some lighting in that area. I I

[46:02] want I want to say we did discuss in

[46:04] this application. Um it's it's probably

[46:07] approximately 400 feet in in length

[46:10] there. Okay. I'm just doing some quick

[46:12] math with the 45 minimum square foot

[46:14] lots that we're backing up against. Um

[46:17] it it should be about 400 plus uh linear

[46:20] feet.

[46:22] » Okay. Um yeah. So just I don't know if

[46:24] again we need to put a condition on

[46:26] there that there be some type of low

[46:27] lighting.

[46:28] » We'll work with you through that, but I

[46:29] I'm almost sure we we discussed that at

[46:32] least I believe it was on this project.

[46:34] » All right. Thanks, Mr. grown hour. And

[46:35] then just the other thing I just want to

[46:36] point out, um, at the beginning of your

[46:39] presentation, you were talking about

[46:41] surrounding zoning and you know, we

[46:43] spent a lot of time uh, at the beginning

[46:46] of Councilwoman Brun's first term

[46:49] talking about what Kyle Canyon should

[46:51] look like. And I

[46:56] I don't know. I think the only thing

[46:59] that has been approved that are these

[47:01] smaller lots that you referenced, the

[47:03] 3500 would have been that prior council

[47:07] offic's approvals of Kyle Gateway and

[47:11] possibly the Summit Home Town Homes, but

[47:13] I don't think that we've approved

[47:15] anything that small. And I'm I'm double

[47:17] checking that, but and I only want to

[47:19] put that on the record again because we

[47:22] have talked extensively with with

[47:25] everybody developing up there that we

[47:27] want to make sure that the character

[47:30] quality, you know, the sort of like

[47:33] space of Kyle Canyon is got is

[47:36] maintained in a way that protects it.

[47:40] And we've we have in discussions about

[47:43] the overall holistic development talked

[47:45] about making sure that we are having

[47:48] larger lots as we go west and where the

[47:50] density is that it makes sense closer to

[47:52] the freeway where the summit town homes

[47:55] were. And so I just want to to make it

[47:57] clear that it is not my recollection

[47:59] that this um office has approved 3500

[48:03] lots square foot lots other than the

[48:06] town homes. And I I just want to make

[48:09] sure that we're kind of clear on the

[48:10] record. I believe also that some of the

[48:12] projects that we've approved that are to

[48:15] the east have been substantially larger

[48:18] lots. And so really if you're thinking

[48:20] about the trajectory, you know, we're

[48:23] kind of a little bit going backwards,

[48:25] but I know that you your client is

[48:27] trying to provide product to allow

[48:30] different ownership and like allow lots

[48:33] of different um folks to be able to come

[48:35] and live in this incredible area. But I

[48:37] just want to make sure that we're we're

[48:38] very clear for the record that

[48:40] continuing to bring forward smaller and

[48:42] smaller lots as we move west is not

[48:44] something that um I'm comfortable with.

[48:48] » Yep. Got it.

[48:49] » Okay. Um but otherwise again thank you

[48:53] for the great work and if anybody else

[48:54] has anything.

[48:55] » Yes.

[48:57] » Yes. Um on item number 20, do you mind

[48:59] pulling up the um amenity plan again for

[49:03] me? I have actually have a question um

[49:06] relating to the site section. It looks

[49:09] like there's a significant um slope that

[49:14] runs east to west on that um portion of

[49:17] the parcel. And so I just wanted to know

[49:21] on that amenity plan, how much do you

[49:23] know how much of that is actual usable

[49:25] space? Are they planning to

[49:27] » What we're when you say usable this area

[49:30] would be turf area in here

[49:32] » And right and so is this is that other

[49:36] portion with the landscaping is that

[49:38] graded up

[49:40] » I don't know what the I don't know what

[49:41] the crosssections are on that. I do know

[49:44] that we do have a walking path in this

[49:47] area that's being planned. And actually,

[49:49] I just received as I was sitting here a

[49:53] more updated plan of moving the play

[49:56] equipment up in this area here. So,

[49:59] we're still moving some stuff around,

[50:00] working with our uh landscape and our

[50:03] planners for the open space here. I'm

[50:05] just concerned that it looks like a lot

[50:08] of space on the site plan, but when you

[50:11] actually look at the slope of it, I just

[50:13] want to make sure that they're taking

[50:15] full advantage of that of that area.

[50:18] » Okay,

[50:18] » That's all I have.

[50:19] » Thank you, Commissioner Leo. Anybody

[50:22] else? Seeing none, Commissioner Taylor,

[50:24] can I get a motion starting with item

[50:26] number 19?

[50:27] » Um, yes. On item number 19,

[50:32] um, and I guess quick question before I

[50:33] make motions. Um, Miss Edetos, for the

[50:36] condition of the shade structure um over

[50:39] the the playground area, which item

[50:43] would that attach to?

[50:45] » That would attach to item number 20. So,

[50:48] you can go ahead and read 19 and vote.

[50:51] » Okay, great. I'd like to make a motion

[50:53] on item 19. That's obeyance 26-236

[50:58] um sub A and sub B to approve.

[51:01] » Motion's on the floor. Please cast your

[51:03] vote. subject to conditions and agree

[51:06] Mr. Groenhower with all conditions.

[51:08] » Uh yes, Mr. Chairman. All right,

[51:11] » That motion carries

[51:12] » And that item will move on to city

[51:14] council on September 16.

[51:16] » Thank you, Commissioner Taylor.

[51:17] » Thank you, um Mr. Chair, on item

[51:19] 2026-280

[51:22] um and subp parts 20A and 20B. I would

[51:26] like to make a motion to approve subject

[51:29] to all conditions including an amended

[51:32] condition added condition for a shade

[51:34] structure over the tot lot and do you

[51:37] need to read that condition into the

[51:38] record?

[51:39] » Uh yes through you Mr. Chairman that

[51:42] condition will read um areas dedicated

[51:45] for play structures shall include a

[51:48] shade structure over the play equipment.

[51:50] Thank you.

[51:51] » Thank you. Um so that is my motion to

[51:54] approve on those two items and you again

[51:56] agree Mr. Grin to all conditions in the

[51:58] added condition.

[51:59] » Yes ma'am.

[52:00] » Thanks.

[52:00] » Thank you. Motion is on the floor.

[52:02] Please cast your vote

[52:03] » Through your chair. Which uh child item

[52:05] was that uh adequation going on to? Is

[52:07] it 20 A or 20B?

[52:09] » That would be 20B the T the TMP.

[52:15] » Please cast your vote.

[52:19] That motion carries

[52:21] » And that will move on to city council on

[52:22] September 16th. [snorts]

[52:24] » Thank you, Commissioner Taylor.

[52:25] » Okay. And then on item 2126-292,

[52:31] 21A, and 21B, I would like to make a

[52:34] motion um to approve subject to all

[52:37] conditions, and you agree to all

[52:39] conditions and and I will look forward

[52:41] to continuing to speak with you as this

[52:43] moves to city council about these

[52:45] projects as always. Thank you, Mr.

[52:47] Gernau. Mo motion's on the floor. Please

[52:50] cast your vote. That motion [snorts]

[52:51] carries.

[52:52] » And that will also move on to city

[52:53] council on September 19th or September

[52:55] 16th.

[52:56] » September. [snorts]

[52:57] » Thank you very much and have a good

[52:58] night.

[52:58] » All right. Thank you.

[52:59] » Moving on to 22 26-0153 SGP1 applicant

[53:04] Thai active massage and spa. Spa owner

[53:07] is GWHC of Nevada for possible action on

[53:10] land use entitlement project request for

[53:12] a proposed massage establishment use

[53:14] with a waiver of distance separation

[53:16] requirements from residentially zoned

[53:18] property at 8450 West Sahara Avenue

[53:21] sweet 108 W 2. Can we get the staff

[53:23] report please?

[53:25] » Mr. Chair, the subject suite is located

[53:27] within an existing commercial shopping

[53:29] center which includes various commercial

[53:31] uses. The applicant is proposing to

[53:33] operate a Thai spa that includes spa

[53:35] massage and other wellness services.

[53:37] While the proposed massage establishment

[53:39] use requires waiver of distance

[53:40] separation from a parcel zoned for

[53:42] residential use, there is no direct

[53:44] access to the residentially zoned

[53:46] property. Staff finds that this use will

[53:48] not negatively impact surrounding

[53:50] development and can be conducted in a

[53:52] manner that is harmonious and compatible

[53:54] with the existing surrounding land uses.

[53:56] Therefore, staff recommends approval of

[53:58] the special use permit subject to

[54:00] conditions. Please note additional

[54:02] documents for protest were received

[54:04] after publication. Thank you.

[54:06] » Thank you. Good evening, ma'am. Can we

[54:07] get your name and address for the

[54:08] record?

[54:09] » Good evening. My name is Kitty Lepice.

[54:11] I'm a representative for Thai Massage

[54:14] and Spa and the uh the units at the

[54:17] address is 8450 West Sahara, Las Vegas,

[54:21] Nevada, 89117260153.

[54:25] » Would you mind spelling your name?

[54:27] » My name is Kitty Ki Ty. Last name leis l

[54:31] e p n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n

[54:31] n n i s.

[54:32] » Thank you. All right.

[54:35] Continue on with your project.

[54:37] » Okay. Uh uh

[54:40] the owner is right here. Her name is

[54:42] Subawi Wang. Okay. And she completed

[54:46] four year of the study in Thai

[54:47] traditional massage program in Thailand.

[54:50] And currently she attend the AMO study,

[54:54] you know, to become a Thai therapist. Uh

[54:57] the Tacti Massage and Spa will operate

[55:00] at professional massage establishment

[55:03] providing uh therapeutic massage only.

[55:06] We do not offer or permit any sexual

[55:09] services. We maintain a zero terror

[55:12] policy for inappropriate requests or

[55:15] behavior. Inappropriate behavior occurs,

[55:19] the session will be terminated

[55:21] immediately. Our goal to provide a safe,

[55:25] respectful and professional environment

[55:27] for both clients and our therapists. In

[55:31] addition to provide providing

[55:33] professional therapeutic

[55:37] uh massage services, our business will

[55:39] also benefit the community by creating a

[55:43] new employment opportunities. As the

[55:46] business grow, we hope to create jobs

[55:49] and contribute positively to the local

[55:52] economy. So there are three licenses,

[55:56] okay, for this paralo. And then also the

[55:59] hour operation it going to be will be on

[56:03] Monday to s to uh Sunday. So, it going

[56:06] to be from 7 uh 8, you know, 7 7 Okay,

[56:11] sorry. 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Last

[56:14] appointment will be at 700 p.m. And the

[56:18] location, the business is located

[56:20] between the Sahara and Durango. Is this

[56:25] uh Kaya, you know, heavy, you know,

[56:27] traffic in area? Um, sorry, I'm little

[56:31] bit nervous.

[56:32] » All right. [laughter] The surrounding

[56:34] area including resident development,

[56:37] local business, restaurant and shopping

[56:39] center. The establishment is located

[56:42] with active commercial area surrounded

[56:45] by numerous other businesses. The

[56:47] parking we have plenty of parking that

[56:50] is amble parking available for customer

[56:52] including handicap accessibility parking

[56:55] exit. We when there are approximately 82

[57:01] tow homes in Lake Pacific subdivision is

[57:05] that behind or behind the uh the

[57:08] establishment many of which are rental

[57:10] properties on August 8th we went door to

[57:15] door to introduce our sale and discuss

[57:18] the proposed the business with the

[57:20] resident the majority were tenants

[57:23] they're not owner of the property They

[57:26] respond but the respond was overwhelming

[57:30] positively. Resident were welcoming and

[57:33] positive of our becoming part of their

[57:36] community. And I also have the signature

[57:39] some of the owner sign for us. I like to

[57:42] show this one here. This as you can see

[57:44] » You can turn that in to the city clerk

[57:46] if you'd like.

[57:47] » Yes, I will do that. Yeah.

[57:50] » And the other thing. Okay. The different

[57:52] between times. Okay.

[57:55] Thank you.

[58:10] Thank you.

[58:12] So, okay. They are different. Okay.

[58:15] Between Thai massage and the other

[58:17] massage,

[58:19] um they are fully closed on the floor

[58:22] mat. Number one. Number two, no oils or

[58:25] lotions. And number three is active

[58:28] movement and stretching. Number four,

[58:30] focus on energy lies. So we hope that

[58:33] you get us approved on this business.

[58:37] » Okay. Thank you.

[58:39] » Thank you.

[58:39] » All right. This was not as a public

[58:41] hearing. Anyone want to be heard, please

[58:42] come forward. Seeing none, I'm going

[58:44] close a public hear and turn this over

[58:47] to Commissioner Labau.

[58:49] » Thank you so much for your presentation.

[58:51] Um, I just um I appreciate that you were

[58:54] being a good neighbor and reaching out

[58:56] to the neighborhood just to make sure

[58:58] that they were okay with your request. U

[59:00] my office is right across the street

[59:01] from this location and I I think it is a

[59:05] very busy um business corridor. I don't

[59:07] really see any issues um opening up this

[59:10] establishment in that location. I think

[59:12] it's an appropriate use for it. Um, so

[59:14] with that, I'd like to motion to approve

[59:16] item 260153,

[59:20] SUP1.

[59:22] » Motion's on the floor. Please cast your

[59:23] vote.

[59:26] » Subject to conditions. And you agree to

[59:28] all conditions, ma'am.

[59:29] » Yes.

[59:30] » Thank you.

[59:30] » Yes, sir.

[59:34] » The motion carries.

[59:35] » Thank you so much.

[59:36] » And that is final action tonight. Unless

[59:37] appeal to the city clerk in 10 days.

[59:40] » Thank you. Item number 2326-0211

[59:43] applicant 300 Stewart Avenue Corporation

[59:45] owner city of Las Vegas for possible

[59:48] action on the following land use

[59:49] entitlement project request at 30350

[59:52] Stewart Avenue Ward 5. staff that

[59:54] recommends approval. 23A26

[59:57] 0211 SGP1 for major amendment to improve

[1:00:00] special use permit SGP69331

[1:00:03] for proposed 20,000t addition to an

[1:00:05] existing 2,600T

[1:00:08] alcohol on premise full use. 23B is

[1:00:12] 26211 SDR1 for a major amendment to

[1:00:15] improve site development plan review for

[1:00:17] a proposed two-story 20,000 foot

[1:00:19] addition to an existing 36,91qt

[1:00:23] museum, the Mob Museum and the proposed

[1:00:25] permanent parking lot with waiverss of

[1:00:27] appendix F interim downtown Las Vegas

[1:00:29] development standards area one. Can we

[1:00:31] get the staff report please?

[1:00:33] » Mr. Vice Chair staff finds that the

[1:00:35] proposed expansion of the Mob Museum is

[1:00:37] consistent with the objectives of the

[1:00:39] 2045 downtown master plan and the

[1:00:41] expansion of this cultural asset will

[1:00:43] contribute to the vitality of downtown.

[1:00:46] Similarly, staff supports the expansion

[1:00:48] of the alcohol on full premise use

[1:00:50] associated with that expansion.

[1:00:52] Uh the proposed addition has received

[1:00:54] support from both the state historic

[1:00:56] preservation office and the city's

[1:00:57] historic preservation committee and

[1:00:59] staff recommends approval subject to uh

[1:01:03] conditions. Please note additional

[1:01:05] documentation of support were received

[1:01:07] after publication for these

[1:01:08] applications. Also, please note there is

[1:01:10] a corrected staff report provided in

[1:01:12] your supplemental items for tonight's

[1:01:14] meeting. Thank you.

[1:01:15] » Thank you. Good evening

[1:01:19] » Members of the commission. Uh my name is

[1:01:21] Jonathan [clears throat] Alman. and I am

[1:01:22] president and CEO of the Mom Museum uh

[1:01:24] address 300 Stewart Avenue uh Las Vegas

[1:01:28] 89101.

[1:01:31] Uh I'm here with Alexia Chen uh with LGA

[1:01:35] Architects uh our architect of record.

[1:01:39] Um we're very excited about this project

[1:01:42] uh our uh expansion uh to the east and

[1:01:45] the and the north. Um you know as noted

[1:01:48] by uh staff um the uh the additional

[1:01:52] facility is on the parcel that we lease

[1:01:56] from the city. So it is uh it is city

[1:01:59] land. It is um a somewhat challenging

[1:02:02] site but we are uh excited with what

[1:02:04] we've been able to um conceive uh to

[1:02:08] work within that parcel. Um and uh we're

[1:02:13] very grateful for the uh the support of

[1:02:16] city staff as we've uh come to this this

[1:02:19] juncture. Uh we've gone through the

[1:02:21] process with historic preservation uh

[1:02:24] review uh at the local uh state and

[1:02:27] national level. So, we've gotten uh the

[1:02:29] approvals from the National Park

[1:02:31] Service, uh State Historic Preservation

[1:02:33] Office, as well as the historic

[1:02:35] preservation uh commission um to make

[1:02:38] certain that this uh what we're doing is

[1:02:40] respectful of uh the historic building

[1:02:43] that we um hold very dear uh that uh is

[1:02:47] what houses the current museum. Um, so

[1:02:51] we are uh uh happy to discuss or answer

[1:02:55] any questions that uh members of the

[1:02:57] commission might have for us.

[1:02:58] » Okay. Thank you very much. This was not

[1:03:01] as a public hearing. Anyone want to be

[1:03:02] heard, please come forward. Seeing none,

[1:03:04] I'm close public hearing and turn this

[1:03:07] over to Commissioner Walters.

[1:03:10] » Hi. Hello. Um we're ex excited about

[1:03:14] this expansion to the Mom Museum and

[1:03:16] some of the work that you're doing

[1:03:18] there. um and to see this development. I

[1:03:22] know that you've been in talks uh for a

[1:03:24] little while about uh uh making these

[1:03:27] changes. So, um on your landscape plan,

[1:03:32] I just want to ask if um your trees are

[1:03:36] 24inch box trees. A couple I'm not

[1:03:38] really familiar with. So, uh, I'd like

[1:03:41] to ask for condition for

[1:03:44] those trees to be large, fast going

[1:03:48] growing trees, um, identified in the

[1:03:50] Southern Nevada Water Authorities tree

[1:03:53] list with 3-in caliber at 6 in above

[1:03:57] grade.

[1:03:58] Is that is that something that you think

[1:04:01] can that you're willing to

[1:04:06] » Yes, absolutely. Is that within the

[1:04:07] parking lot or within the perimeter

[1:04:09] landscape buffer area?

[1:04:11] » Uh parking lot for sure. Um both.

[1:04:15] » Both.

[1:04:16] » Is that okay?

[1:04:17] » Yes.

[1:04:18] » Are you accepting?

[1:04:19] » Yes, we are.

[1:04:20] » Um otherwise, uh I think it's a

[1:04:23] beautiful layout and we're excited to

[1:04:25] see it move forward.

[1:04:27] » Thank you.

[1:04:28] » Is there anyone else who has other Yes.

[1:04:31] » Um good a good good evening. Um, I just

[1:04:35] had a it's a little outside the purview

[1:04:38] of what we do, but I I did just have a

[1:04:40] question about the actual design and how

[1:04:43] it links into the museum.

[1:04:45] » And um I only ask um because I am sort

[1:04:49] of familiar with the CCCHP and the Shipo

[1:04:52] at the state level and

[1:04:54] » I just don't well two things. Um, I

[1:04:58] would be really curious to hear Miss

[1:05:00] Chen or you talk about how you

[1:05:03] integrated this sort of much more modern

[1:05:05] expansion like and how it's intended to

[1:05:08] reflect the existing architecture of the

[1:05:10] building and then what's the connection

[1:05:13] point and how did you limit any sort of

[1:05:17] intrusion into the existing building at

[1:05:19] that connection point for the expansion?

[1:05:22] So, I uh I I will uh answer some of that

[1:05:27] and then uh I'm sure Alexia will have a

[1:05:29] few things to add. Um we've talked about

[1:05:32] this extensively. Um uh both with the

[1:05:36] Historic Preservation Commission as well

[1:05:38] as the State Historic Preservation

[1:05:40] Office. um very careful selection of um

[1:05:45] material types and colors uh that would

[1:05:49] be on the new building to make certain

[1:05:51] you know I think at at the kind of the

[1:05:53] highest level what we're aspiring to do

[1:05:56] here is to make certain that the

[1:05:57] building addition is complementaryary of

[1:05:59] the historic structure without creating

[1:06:03] any confusion about what is historic and

[1:06:07] what is a contemporary building. So

[1:06:10] that's really what we're trying to

[1:06:12] thread is to make certain that it's

[1:06:13] aesthetically complimentary but not uh

[1:06:16] you know if if if someone were to that

[1:06:19] doesn't know any better is not familiar

[1:06:21] with uh our building and was standing on

[1:06:23] the street uh they would not conclude

[1:06:25] that the new building is actually uh the

[1:06:28] historic building that's on the national

[1:06:30] register of historic places. Um so

[1:06:34] that's kind of the the aesthetic

[1:06:35] approach in terms of the connection been

[1:06:38] really trying to identify how we can

[1:06:40] minimize um any impact on the historic

[1:06:43] structure. So what we uh what you know

[1:06:46] the the two penetrations

[1:06:49] uh are on the east um side of the

[1:06:53] existing historic building to the north.

[1:06:57] uh it's in a corner that's already been

[1:06:58] altered um kind of you know considerably

[1:07:02] certainly relative to other portions of

[1:07:05] of the building. There is uh on the

[1:07:08] north side in of that corner uh there

[1:07:11] was already a uh window that was turned

[1:07:14] into an emergency exit. Uh and there's

[1:07:17] um uh a uh ADA accessible ramp that's

[1:07:21] out out there as well. Uh so we need to

[1:07:25] have some physical opening that goes

[1:07:27] through. We thought that that was the

[1:07:29] you know would have the least impact. Um

[1:07:31] it's towards the rear of the uh of the

[1:07:34] building. Um and then additionally the

[1:07:38] uh the hyphen that connects the historic

[1:07:41] building to the new building. you know,

[1:07:43] we've we've minimized uh the height of

[1:07:46] that hyphen and uh and really tried to

[1:07:49] maximize the setback from the street so

[1:07:51] that it would have uh as little impact

[1:07:54] as possible um on the exterior view of

[1:07:59] the east facade of the building.

[1:08:03] » Okay. Thank you. And then I I just had

[1:08:05] one other follow-up question trying to

[1:08:07] look at the pictures is so what you've

[1:08:09] got shown here this the bottom

[1:08:13] elevation. Does

[1:08:16] does it wrap behind the building so that

[1:08:18] it's like blocking the view of the

[1:08:19] building?

[1:08:21] » It it wraps um to an extent. So what we

[1:08:27] So So this is really what you know what

[1:08:30] we're trying to to kind of weave here is

[1:08:33] the addition to the east that does not

[1:08:36] entirely block the east facade. Um on

[1:08:40] the north side we also you know we

[1:08:42] consider the the perspective uh from the

[1:08:45] north to be uh important as well because

[1:08:49] that's where you can see the uh the

[1:08:52] extension of the courtroom you know

[1:08:53] which is the most historic portion of

[1:08:55] the building uh that's right up here as

[1:08:59] well as uh the historic uh former post

[1:09:03] office loading bays. So you can see the

[1:09:05] bit of the green awning over here as

[1:09:08] well. So um so if [clears throat] you're

[1:09:10] looking at uh from uh the north side um

[1:09:15] yes there is some wrap around the corner

[1:09:19] uh but it does not fully obstruct the uh

[1:09:22] the north facade of the building

[1:09:25] » And the south side of the building is

[1:09:27] completely unobstructed to see the

[1:09:29] entrance.

[1:09:29] » Yes. Yes.

[1:09:30] » Okay. And then on the bottom rendering,

[1:09:33] what what is I'm just

[1:09:36] exactly where you had your index finger.

[1:09:38] Is that also that's the east side,

[1:09:41] right?

[1:09:42] » Yes,

[1:09:43] » I got it. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thanks

[1:09:45] for the walk through.

[1:09:46] » Sure.

[1:09:48] » Question.

[1:09:48] » All right, Mr. Boils.

[1:09:51] Um through you, chair. On item 23B,

[1:09:54] condition number 17, a new bullet point

[1:09:57] shall be added that states, "All fast

[1:10:00] all trees within the parking lot and

[1:10:02] landscape buffer areas shall be fast

[1:10:04] growing large shade trees with a minimum

[1:10:07] 3-in trunk caliber measured 6 in from

[1:10:10] the base of the trunk in accordance with

[1:10:13] the Southern Nevada regional plant list.

[1:10:15] Thank you.

[1:10:16] » Thank you." And you agree to that

[1:10:18] condition?

[1:10:19] » We do. And if I may, um, we agree to all

[1:10:23] of the conditions. We do have just one

[1:10:26] question of on one of the conditions.

[1:10:29] » Go ahead.

[1:10:30] » Uh, under public works number 21.

[1:10:33] » Right. So, our question is on the

[1:10:35] description of constructing a bus

[1:10:37] turnout in alignment with the rightway

[1:10:40] and the description of bus shelter. Um,

[1:10:42] it's unclear in this condition as

[1:10:44] written where this is happening. if

[1:10:47] there is a bus stop for for RTC in front

[1:10:49] of the MA museum

[1:10:58] um through the chair uh Omar Kasani in

[1:11:01] public works. The the bus stop is going

[1:11:04] to be in by the right turn lane uh the

[1:11:08] turnout that is just south of this

[1:11:12] proposed parking lot.

[1:11:19] You're saying over here?

[1:11:22] » Correct. It's right there.

[1:11:24] » It's in the rightway.

[1:11:25] » In the rightway.

[1:11:28] » So, is the request to construct a bus

[1:11:30] shelter in this in the rightway there?

[1:11:34] » Uh

[1:11:40] uh yes, that is that is a request.

[1:11:47] And that's [clears throat]

[1:11:50] we need to make certain that we're

[1:11:51] accommodating a bus shelter or we are

[1:11:53] constructing a bus shelter.

[1:11:58] » So they're accommodating.

[1:12:00] » Okay. Um usually the RTC will be

[1:12:02] constructing the bus shelter. You will

[1:12:04] be uh accommodating for that bus shelter

[1:12:06] space.

[1:12:06] » Okay. So just the alignment of the um

[1:12:08] driveway connection.

[1:12:10] » That is correct.

[1:12:12] » Thank you. Okay. So, you agree to all

[1:12:14] the conditions?

[1:12:15] » Yes, we do.

[1:12:16] » And the added condition?

[1:12:18] » Yes.

[1:12:18] » Okay. Thank you. Uh, seeing no other

[1:12:20] comments, Commissioner Walters, can we

[1:12:22] get a motion?

[1:12:23] » Yes. I'd like to make a motion item 23,

[1:12:26] that's 26-211,

[1:12:29] uh, to approve with staff conditions. Do

[1:12:33] you accept all staff conditions?

[1:12:35] » Yes, we do. And that's on 23A and 23B.

[1:12:38] » 23A and 23B. Yes. Thank you.

[1:12:41] » Okay. Thank you.

[1:12:44] And that uh added condition will go on

[1:12:46] to 23B for clarification.

[1:12:50] All right. Uh please cast your votes.

[1:12:54] The motion carries.

[1:12:56] » Thank you very much.

[1:12:57] » And that is final action tonight and

[1:12:58] let's appeal to the city clerk in 10

[1:13:00] days.

[1:13:01] » Okay. Thank you. Item number 2426-0213

[1:13:05] B1. Applicant Guadalupe Fus. Uh owner is

[1:13:09] Kas de Lupe. uh for possible action on a

[1:13:12] land use entitlement project request to

[1:13:14] allow an existing front yard wall fence.

[1:13:16] It does not conform to title 1906

[1:13:19] development standards for heightened

[1:13:20] visibility at 3436 Venice Drive W five.

[1:13:24] Stack rep recommends denial. Can we get

[1:13:26] the staff report please?

[1:13:29] » Mr. Chair, uh this request is the result

[1:13:31] of an open code enforcement case. The

[1:13:33] applicant is requesting a variance to

[1:13:35] maintain an existing front yard wall and

[1:13:37] fence that was constructed without

[1:13:39] obtaining required building permits that

[1:13:41] does not meet Title 19 development

[1:13:43] standards for heightened visibility.

[1:13:44] Staff finds no unique or extraordinary

[1:13:46] evidence has been presented. The

[1:13:48] applicant has created a self-imposed

[1:13:50] hardship by constructing a front yard

[1:13:52] wall that does not meet Title 19

[1:13:54] development standards. Modifying the top

[1:13:56] two feet of the wall to have 50%

[1:13:58] visibility and lowering the gate to a

[1:14:00] maximum of five feet would allow

[1:14:02] conformance to title 19 requirements.

[1:14:04] Therefore, staff recommends denial of

[1:14:06] this request. Please note, additional

[1:14:08] documents for protest were received

[1:14:10] after publication. Thank you.

[1:14:12] » Thank you, sir. Good evening.

[1:14:13] » Hello, I'm Angel. This is Wal Lupe

[1:14:15] Frosto and uh we live at uh 3436 Venice

[1:14:19] Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada, 1089 108.

[1:14:23] » Angel, what's your last name? Hernandez.

[1:14:25] » Okay, thank you.

[1:14:27] » Um, ever since we moved into that house,

[1:14:28] we bought it. Um, they have been

[1:14:31] stealing from the front yard. Um, we go

[1:14:33] out, we come back, we have people

[1:14:35] swimming in our swimming pool without us

[1:14:38] being in the house. So, um, in 2021, we

[1:14:42] decided to put two more feet

[1:14:45] um to our front yard. Um, there's

[1:14:48] people, homeless people um with shopping

[1:14:51] carts stealing stuff from the front

[1:14:52] yards.

[1:14:54] Um, it's a lady walking with a dead cat.

[1:15:00] Um, I'm just I'm I'm not I didn't do it

[1:15:02] for cosmetic reasons. We did it for our

[1:15:04] own safety. And ever since um 2021, we

[1:15:08] haven't had nothing stolen from. We had

[1:15:10] nothing um people swimming in a swimming

[1:15:13] pool no more. Um

[1:15:16] but it's been there for four years or

[1:15:18] five. Five already.

[1:15:20] » Okay. All right. and we're just doing it

[1:15:23] for our own safety.

[1:15:25] » Okay. Thank you. Uh this was noted as a

[1:15:28] public hearing. Anyone want to be heard,

[1:15:30] please come forward. Seeing none, I'm

[1:15:32] going close the public hear and turn

[1:15:33] this one over to Commissioner Walters.

[1:15:37] » Hi.

[1:15:38] » Hello.

[1:15:38] » Um

[1:15:40] so I I understand your safety concern

[1:15:44] and I understand uh the reason why you

[1:15:48] have the solid wall fence. Um, I did

[1:15:51] come drive through the neighborhood and

[1:15:53] I did not find any other uh front yards

[1:15:57] that were of similar aesthetic. Uh,

[1:16:00] which is one of my concerns in that

[1:16:02] neighborhood. And I also see that that

[1:16:06] several of your neighbors in including

[1:16:08] on one side and across the street have

[1:16:11] um have not similar walls but ones that

[1:16:15] conform with the two foot foot and then

[1:16:17] the metal uh in between. Do you know

[1:16:20] what I'm talking about? The fence block

[1:16:22] with with metal in between. And so it

[1:16:26] does appear like your fence is very out

[1:16:29] of the ordinary for the entirety of that

[1:16:32] neighborhood. Um, and so, you know,

[1:16:37] » I I wish I wish you'd come.

[1:16:39] » Yeah. I'm just not trying to make it

[1:16:41] easier for them to jump in, you know,

[1:16:43] like

[1:16:44] » It's it's very um I mean we come back to

[1:16:49] the house and there's strangers swimming

[1:16:51] in our swimming pool, you know, it's

[1:16:55] it's very

[1:16:57] » And

[1:16:59] I think there are ways to build a fence

[1:17:02] that would deter that without it being

[1:17:05] um so unlike the rest of the

[1:17:06] neighborhood. So,

[1:17:08] » And actually like the four feet, it's

[1:17:10] like like right here like up to that

[1:17:12] like right here. Four feet.

[1:17:14] » I I

[1:17:14] » If I go back to the two feet, um they're

[1:17:16] just going to jump over it.

[1:17:18] » I did I did come and see it. So,

[1:17:20] » And there's also like uh three houses to

[1:17:24] the left that has like the same kind of

[1:17:26] a fence, a wall.

[1:17:28] » Mhm.

[1:17:29] » Like a wooden wall

[1:17:31] » And it's even higher than mine.

[1:17:33] » Yes. Thank you.

[1:17:34] » Hi. So, um, Commissioner Walters, I'll

[1:17:36] I'll add just a few things. So, uh,

[1:17:38] basically our code says that you can

[1:17:40] have a maximum of two feet solid, but

[1:17:43] then you could put three foot of metal

[1:17:45] on top of that. So, kind of like your

[1:17:48] your main entry gate. And so, you would

[1:17:51] uh it would it [clears throat] would

[1:17:53] probably be higher than what you're what

[1:17:55] you actually have right here, which

[1:17:57] would give you more security than what

[1:17:59] you currently have. So, maybe you

[1:18:01] consider going back to what our code

[1:18:02] allows. just chop off the top two feet

[1:18:05] and then put the metal come going all

[1:18:06] the way up to five feet and then you

[1:18:08] have more protection.

[1:18:10] » Well, all right. I mean, we could do

[1:18:14] that.

[1:18:15] » Would um I mean, and did you have any

[1:18:19] thoughts on the gate?

[1:18:21] » Um

[1:18:23] » Sorry. Uh the gate the gate is taller

[1:18:27] than expected, but it is it is visible

[1:18:29] through and so I do not have concerns

[1:18:33] with the gate. Uh I do have concerns

[1:18:35] with the wall. So

[1:18:38] » That's where I'm at. Are there any other

[1:18:40] comments?

[1:18:41] » No.

[1:18:42] » Okay. Um

[1:18:47] » It is that something what what was the

[1:18:49] total height of the fence? I mean the

[1:18:51] gate

[1:18:51] » The gate went went up to seven feet in

[1:18:54] the center only.

[1:18:55] » Okay.

[1:18:56] » It's just for the cars and then the the

[1:18:58] wall is 4 feet.

[1:19:01] » Yes. So

[1:19:05] » Do we ask?

[1:19:06] » And I do have entrance.

[1:19:08] » One one second sir. Sir.

[1:19:10] » So did you were you in

[1:19:13] Okay. Um

[1:19:19] yes. So, I guess we should ask staff if

[1:19:21] if Commissioner Walters is inclined to

[1:19:23] allow them to have a taller gate, but

[1:19:26] then they need to be in conformance with

[1:19:28] the uh with the standard fence.

[1:19:32] Um maybe you can help us figure out how

[1:19:35] to craft that.

[1:19:36] » Mr. Chairman, uh the conditions of

[1:19:38] approval address each um situation. So

[1:19:42] you could deny for the 4ft solid wall

[1:19:47] and then approve for the 7 foot tall

[1:19:50] gate.

[1:19:52] So we do have that option

[1:19:58] which if that's the motion means you

[1:19:59] could keep the gates and then you would

[1:20:02] cut down half of your wall and then put

[1:20:05] the metal up and then you would be in

[1:20:07] conformance with code.

[1:20:08] » Okay.

[1:20:10] motion.

[1:20:11] » One motion.

[1:20:13] » Um, I'd like to make a motion, item 24,

[1:20:16] that's 26-0213

[1:20:19] Vier 1, uh, to deny the 4ft solid wall

[1:20:24] and approve your 7 foot gate.

[1:20:27] » Okay, Mr. Chairman, through you. Then

[1:20:29] that would be condition of approval for

[1:20:32] the variance. Uh condition of approval

[1:20:34] number one would read, "A variance is

[1:20:36] hereby denied to allow an existing 4-ft

[1:20:40] tall solid block wall where 5T

[1:20:44] consisting of a twoft solid wall base is

[1:20:47] the maximum height allowed and condition

[1:20:50] of approval number two will remain as is

[1:20:53] stating a variance is hereby approved to

[1:20:56] allow an existing 7 foot tall gate where

[1:20:59] 5T is the maximum height allowed. Thank

[1:21:01] you. You [clears throat] agree with

[1:21:03] those conditions?

[1:21:04] » Yes.

[1:21:06] » Okay.

[1:21:07] » Complaining. Please confirm that the

[1:21:08] twoft wall with three-foot metal meets

[1:21:11] code. So the applicant could come in for

[1:21:13] a permit for the 3-ft additional metal

[1:21:15] after they cut the wall down. Just for

[1:21:16] clarity,

[1:21:18] » Mr. Chairman, through you. Yes. Our code

[1:21:20] allows for 2 feet of solid block wall on

[1:21:23] the bottom and then you can put three

[1:21:25] feet of rot iron on top for a total of

[1:21:29] five feet in height. And then they could

[1:21:31] keep the seven foot tall gate.

[1:21:35] » All right, Commissioner Walters, is that

[1:21:37] your motion for approval?

[1:21:42] » Um, I think it's on the floor. Motion's

[1:21:44] on the floor. Let's uh

[1:21:45] » My motion uh I motion for approval

[1:21:47] subject to staff conditions. Do you

[1:21:49] accept staff conditions?

[1:21:52] » Yes.

[1:21:53] » Okay. Motion motion's on the floor.

[1:21:56] Please cast your vote. Motion carries.

[1:21:59] And that will move on to city council on

[1:22:01] September 16th.

[1:22:04] » Okay. Moving on. 2526-219

[1:22:07] V1. Applicant owner Andrew Schmidt and

[1:22:11] Anna Vleti for possible action on land

[1:22:14] use entitlement project request to allow

[1:22:15] an existing residential accessory

[1:22:17] structure carport that does not conform

[1:22:19] to title 19.06 106 development standards

[1:22:22] for location, separation, and aesthetic

[1:22:25] compatibility at 21109 Verdenial Drive,

[1:22:29] Ward One. Staff recommends now. Can we

[1:22:31] get the staff report, please?

[1:22:33] » Mr. Vice Chair, staff finds no evidence

[1:22:35] of a unique or extraordinary

[1:22:37] circumstance related to the physical

[1:22:39] characteristics of the property. As

[1:22:41] such, the hardship is self-imposed and

[1:22:44] therefore staff recommends denial.

[1:22:46] Please note additional documentation of

[1:22:48] support and protest was received after

[1:22:50] publication. Thank you.

[1:22:52] » Thank you, sir. Is the applicant here

[1:22:54] tonight on this item?

[1:22:56] » Seeing none, uh I'm going open this up

[1:22:58] for a public dis uh public hearing.

[1:23:01] Anyone from the public want to hear this

[1:23:04] uh speak on this matter? Seeing none,

[1:23:06] I'm close this uh the public hearing.

[1:23:08] Turn this over to uh Commissioner Rogan.

[1:23:14] Well, I was inclined to deny this, but I

[1:23:16] I do want the I've never spoken to the

[1:23:18] applicants, so I want them at least to

[1:23:20] be able to come here and uh express

[1:23:23] their request. So, I would ask for an

[1:23:25] obeyance for 60 days since I won't be

[1:23:27] here next month for them to have that

[1:23:29] opportunity to come. Staff, we haven't

[1:23:30] heard from this applicant, have we? No.

[1:23:34] Okay. My request is for I would move for

[1:23:37] an obeyance of agenda item 25 project

[1:23:39] 26-0219

[1:23:41] VAR1 to the October whatever planning

[1:23:46] commission meeting October 13th planning

[1:23:48] commission meeting motion's on the floor

[1:23:51] for advance please cast your vote

[1:24:02] that motion carries.

[1:24:06] Moving on

[1:24:11] to item number 27 26-0229.

[1:24:14] Applicant Alan Al Nefali, owner Katana

[1:24:18] Holdens for possible action on the

[1:24:20] following land use entitlement project

[1:24:21] request at 2921 West Sahara Avenue, Ward

[1:24:24] 3D Diaz. Staff recommends approval for

[1:24:26] the land use project. 27A 27A is 26-0229

[1:24:31] SUP1 for proposed 353T alcohol off-

[1:24:35] premise uh full use. 27B 26-0229 SUP2

[1:24:40] for proposed gaming establishment

[1:24:42] restricted one to five machine use. Can

[1:24:44] we get the staff report please?

[1:24:47] » Mr. Chair, the proposed uses are

[1:24:49] consistent with the uses allowed in the

[1:24:51] C1 limited commercial zoning district

[1:24:53] and the subject site meets the distance

[1:24:55] separation requirements for both uses.

[1:24:57] As such, staff recommends approval of

[1:24:59] the requested special use permits

[1:25:01] subject to conditions if approved.

[1:25:04] Please note, additional documentation of

[1:25:06] support and protests were received after

[1:25:08] publication. Thank you.

[1:25:10] » Thank you. Good evening, sir.

[1:25:11] » Good evening. My name is George Ross. My

[1:25:15] address is 7582 Las Vegas Boulevard

[1:25:18] South, sweet 518 in Las Vegas, Nevada

[1:25:22] 89123.

[1:25:24] On behalf of the applicant,

[1:25:26] uh my client uh would like to open and

[1:25:28] operate a market and liquor store for

[1:25:32] off- premises full alcohol sales along

[1:25:35] with a uh restricted gaming license for

[1:25:38] one to five machines.

[1:25:41] Currently, as you can see by uh the

[1:25:44] picture, the current building is being

[1:25:47] completely uh rehabilitated and rebuilt

[1:25:51] and my client would uh take over the

[1:25:54] brand new built 353

[1:25:57] ft uh building. It is adjacent to a

[1:26:00] current and existing doies.

[1:26:04] Uh the

[1:26:06] um

[1:26:10] I guess as as stated earlier, it

[1:26:12] conforms with the uh C1 zoning and uh

[1:26:16] we're not asking for any type of

[1:26:17] variances. Uh typical products are going

[1:26:20] to be similar to those that are uh

[1:26:22] contained in a 7-Eleven or Circle K or a

[1:26:25] Rebel convenience store.

[1:26:28] There are 46 parking spaces provided and

[1:26:31] uh there are only 21 that are required.

[1:26:33] So, we're not asking for any type of

[1:26:35] parking variance.

[1:26:37] Uh there's no problem in terms of the

[1:26:40] distance separation and uh staff has

[1:26:43] recommended approval. Uh we're willing

[1:26:47] and able to abide by all the conditions

[1:26:49] if approved and I'm here to answer any

[1:26:51] questions you might have.

[1:26:53] » All right. Uh this was noted as a public

[1:26:55] hearing. Anyone want to be heard, please

[1:26:57] come forward. Seeing none, I'm going

[1:26:59] close the public hearing. Turn this over

[1:27:00] to plan commission for discussion,

[1:27:02] possible action.

[1:27:04] Uh does anyone have any comments on

[1:27:06] this?

[1:27:08] Um seeing none, uh this is my word staff

[1:27:11] recommend approval read through the the

[1:27:14] agenda item. Um so I feel comfortable

[1:27:16] moving forward with this. So on item

[1:27:19] number 27 A and B, move to approve

[1:27:22] subject to staff's conditions and the

[1:27:24] applicants already agreed to all

[1:27:26] conditions. So please cast your vote.

[1:27:34] That motion carries.

[1:27:36] » And Mr. Chairman, that item will move

[1:27:38] forward to city council on September

[1:27:40] 16th, 2026. Thank you.

[1:27:43] » Thank you.

[1:27:44] » Thank you.

[1:27:45] » Moving on to item number 2826-3231.

[1:27:49] Applicant Beaser Homes Holden LLC owner

[1:27:51] Northwest Development Inc. and 215 Plaza

[1:27:54] LLC for possible action on a following

[1:27:56] land use entitlement project request

[1:27:58] generally located at the southwest

[1:27:59] corner of Deer Springs Way and Osablanca

[1:28:01] Road 4. Staff recommends approval on the

[1:28:03] following land use entitlement project.

[1:28:05] 28A26-0231

[1:28:07] Z1 from U undeveloped to TC town center

[1:28:11] general plan destination C1 limited

[1:28:12] commercial to TC town center 26B26-231

[1:28:16] MOD1 from MSTC Main Street Mixeduse Town

[1:28:19] Center to MLTC medium low density

[1:28:23] residential town center 28C 28 C is

[1:28:26] 26-231 SGP1 for proposed gated community

[1:28:29] with private streets 28D is 26-0231

[1:28:33] VAC1 for petition to vacate A portion of

[1:28:35] the rideway Osablanca Road generally

[1:28:37] located 700 ft south of Deer Springs Way

[1:28:40] 280 26-231 SDR1 for proposed 57 lot

[1:28:45] single family residential subdivision

[1:28:47] and 28F 26-231 TMP1 Osablanca and

[1:28:51] Centennial for proposed 57 lot single

[1:28:54] family residential subdivision. Can we

[1:28:56] get the staff report please?

[1:28:58] » Mr. Chair, the applicant is proposing to

[1:29:00] construct a 57 lot single family

[1:29:02] residential subdivision with private

[1:29:04] gated streets that has primary vehicular

[1:29:06] access from Osablanca Road. As proposed,

[1:29:09] the 57 lot residential subdivision will

[1:29:11] have a density of 7.91 units per acre,

[1:29:14] which conforms to the proposed medium

[1:29:16] low density residential town center

[1:29:18] special land use designation. The

[1:29:20] submitted building elevations indicate

[1:29:22] the proposed single family residential

[1:29:24] subdivision will provide two-story

[1:29:26] products throughout the development

[1:29:28] consisting of three product types which

[1:29:31] include Spanish traditional and desert

[1:29:33] contemporary. This is also consistent

[1:29:35] with the adjacent existing single family

[1:29:37] residential subdivision located to the

[1:29:39] west of the subject site. staff finds

[1:29:41] that the proposed single family

[1:29:43] development is in alignment with the

[1:29:44] goals and policies outlined within the

[1:29:46] town center development standards manual

[1:29:48] and is harmonious with the existing

[1:29:50] surrounding development. Therefore,

[1:29:52] staff recommends approval of the project

[1:29:54] and all associated entitlements. Please

[1:29:57] note additional documents for protest

[1:29:59] and support were received after

[1:30:01] publication. Thank you.

[1:30:05] » Thank you. Good evening.

[1:30:07] » Good evening. Jennifer Lazovich, 1980

[1:30:09] Festival Plaza Drive here tonight on

[1:30:11] behalf of Beaser Homes. The site is

[1:30:14] shown on your uh there you go. You can

[1:30:16] see it on mine now. So, it sits right

[1:30:18] here uh next to Oso Blanca Road. Uh the

[1:30:23] piece is in triangle and the uh vacant

[1:30:26] land to the south of us is owned by the

[1:30:28] uh Clark County Public Works Division.

[1:30:31] So, this is not privately owned down

[1:30:32] here. Uh this piece of property, as

[1:30:35] staff indicated, uh we're asking for a

[1:30:38] major modification uh to go from

[1:30:42] um Main Street mixed use to basically

[1:30:47] town center and then corresponding zone

[1:30:50] changes that would take us from the site

[1:30:52] is presently zone C1 except for a little

[1:30:55] tiny corner in green which is zoned

[1:30:58] undeveloped. And so we would take both

[1:31:00] of those to a residential designation.

[1:31:03] Um, for just a minute, I do want to note

[1:31:05] that in the town center standards, the

[1:31:09] purpose of main street mixed use is to

[1:31:12] encourage some type of mixed use with

[1:31:14] either office or shopping on the main

[1:31:17] floor and then medium to high density

[1:31:20] residential on the upper floors. uh you

[1:31:23] will hear from some representatives from

[1:31:24] the Timberlake Homeowners Association um

[1:31:27] which is adjacent to us to the west and

[1:31:30] they will tell you about their history

[1:31:32] of various projects that have been

[1:31:34] proposed on this site. So, we want to

[1:31:37] take uh the commercial zoning that sits

[1:31:39] on the site and the master plan that

[1:31:42] would encourage mid to high density

[1:31:45] residential with some mixture of uses

[1:31:47] and instead we want to do a uh single

[1:31:51] family detached

[1:31:53] housing project. All of the homes are

[1:31:56] twotory. I can show you those elevations

[1:31:58] in a little bit. Uh, and we do

[1:32:00] appreciate staff recommending approval.

[1:32:02] And I would be that brief except that in

[1:32:06] our years representing applications in

[1:32:08] this area, we know just how uh involved

[1:32:12] and active the Timberlake

[1:32:15] Homeowners Association is, which sits

[1:32:17] immediately to our west is our neighbor.

[1:32:20] So, we did a voluntary neighborhood

[1:32:22] meeting last Monday night and we had

[1:32:24] about 55 people come. That shows you how

[1:32:27] involved their neighborhood is. um how

[1:32:30] well they've ca taken care of their

[1:32:32] association, their homes, their

[1:32:34] community stays incredibly active and

[1:32:36] involved. And so I want to take a minute

[1:32:39] and go through some of the issues that

[1:32:42] came up at that meeting um and walk

[1:32:45] through them. So if anybody's listening

[1:32:46] in the audience or if anybody's

[1:32:48] listening and watching at home, uh I

[1:32:50] will try to address some of the things

[1:32:51] that came up from that. I would say the

[1:32:54] majority of the people who spoke, not

[1:32:57] all, but the majority of the people who

[1:32:58] spoke were in support of changing it

[1:33:02] from commercial or this main street

[1:33:04] mixed juice over to a single family

[1:33:07] detached, that's a key word, a single

[1:33:09] family detached product. It really kind

[1:33:12] of came down a little bit more to this

[1:33:15] edge condition where our project backs

[1:33:18] up or um our our project backs up to the

[1:33:21] sideyards of some of the existing homers

[1:33:24] homeowners in the Timberlake area. Some

[1:33:26] of the discussion surrounded the

[1:33:28] existing wall. There is a boundary wall

[1:33:30] on Timberlake. It's pretty tall here. Um

[1:33:33] I I didn't measure it exactly, but I

[1:33:35] estimated to be somewhere between 8 to

[1:33:38] 10 feet in height. And with this layout,

[1:33:41] these homes would use that existing

[1:33:43] property line boundary wall as the rear

[1:33:46] yard for us. Oftent times I'm in front

[1:33:48] of you and we get asked, could we do a

[1:33:50] secondary wall? Well, you usually get

[1:33:52] asked to do that and a builder will do

[1:33:53] that when one side of the wall, if we

[1:33:56] were higher and therefore the wall was

[1:33:58] basically three feet on our side, it

[1:34:00] would make sense for us to put in a

[1:34:02] secondary wall so that you could have

[1:34:05] that true five or six foot tall wall on

[1:34:08] the back of our side. In this case, it's

[1:34:10] the reverse. The wall that's already

[1:34:12] there now is really tall. And the way

[1:34:14] the drainage works is it drains from the

[1:34:16] west slightly to the south and really

[1:34:19] comes out on the east side where

[1:34:20] Oablanca is. So our site has to sit a

[1:34:24] little bit lower and then we have to

[1:34:26] take that drainage um through our site.

[1:34:29] And I just want to point that out. At

[1:34:31] the end of each of these culde-sacs,

[1:34:33] you'll see some gray areas on our site

[1:34:35] plan. In this case, it's partially it's

[1:34:37] green, but it also includes a gray area.

[1:34:40] That will be where we take the flows

[1:34:41] that come from their site onto our site.

[1:34:44] We will take them in our private streets

[1:34:46] and then work them this way out to

[1:34:49] Osablanca. Uh lot of discussion was

[1:34:52] about that drainage that existing

[1:34:55] drainage condition because if you go out

[1:34:57] there and you look their wall literally

[1:34:59] has um gaps if you will intentional gaps

[1:35:03] where that water would flow through onto

[1:35:05] this site. So we have to capture it. We

[1:35:07] know that. we've accounted for it and

[1:35:09] then we will take it into the flows and

[1:35:11] take it out. Uh the other thing that

[1:35:14] came up there was a lot of discussion

[1:35:16] about um the the elevations that are

[1:35:20] here versus the elevations that are next

[1:35:22] to us. Uh I can go through that in some

[1:35:25] detail. Uh but suffice to say with this

[1:35:29] layout right now, I had my engineer look

[1:35:31] at what the finished floor elevation

[1:35:33] would be for these proposed lots and

[1:35:35] what the finished floor elevation is of

[1:35:37] the existing lots. If you go to this

[1:35:39] north area, uh these lots right here,

[1:35:43] lots one, two, and roughly three would

[1:35:45] sit about 7 ft. The finished floor of

[1:35:47] that lot would sit about 7 feet lower

[1:35:49] than the finished floor of the homeowner

[1:35:51] who lives here. That's not necessarily

[1:35:53] true as you move this way. It kind of

[1:35:56] varies and it varies from about 2 feet

[1:35:58] to 5t. Again, this side is lower, the

[1:36:02] side that I'm I'm proposing this project

[1:36:04] on, but it the lowest point is on this

[1:36:08] uh upper north corner for us. And then

[1:36:10] the range sits somewhere between 2 to 5t

[1:36:13] again lower on the homes that sit on

[1:36:15] this side. So, we had a a good amount of

[1:36:18] conversations about that. They also were

[1:36:20] concerned that this could turn into a

[1:36:23] three-story development. We are not

[1:36:25] proposing three-story homes. We would

[1:36:27] agree to a condition uh that states all

[1:36:30] homes within the subdivision shall not

[1:36:32] be more than two stories. We're only

[1:36:34] proposing two stories. We're not

[1:36:35] proposing three stories, but I think

[1:36:37] that condition would be important so

[1:36:39] that the neighbors know there won't be

[1:36:40] some kind of change down the road. Um

[1:36:43] the other things that we talked about is

[1:36:45] would this community have

[1:36:47] uh an homeowners association? Would

[1:36:50] there be CCNRs that go with it? You can

[1:36:52] see that we have open space throughout.

[1:36:54] Um we also have private streets. So yes,

[1:36:58] there would be a homeowners association

[1:37:00] that goes with this development. And

[1:37:02] along with that came some additional

[1:37:04] questions about short-term rentals um

[1:37:07] and some other things which I will talk

[1:37:09] through. But as it relates specifically

[1:37:12] to short-term rentals, uh, Beaser would

[1:37:14] agree to put in their CCNRs a condition

[1:37:18] that prohibited short-term rentals

[1:37:19] within this community as a homeowner

[1:37:22] association

[1:37:24] um, restriction. Uh, in addition, I want

[1:37:27] to just make it very clear for the

[1:37:28] record, which I did at the neighborhood

[1:37:30] meeting, this is a for sale market rate

[1:37:33] project. They are not seeking any type

[1:37:35] of federal funds or state funds or local

[1:37:38] funds to do some type of um lowering the

[1:37:42] price of the homes for certain

[1:37:44] individuals who have qualified income

[1:37:46] levels. It's completely market rate.

[1:37:48] It's not designed to be anything else uh

[1:37:51] besides that. And then uh just talking

[1:37:54] through there's been some rentals of

[1:37:58] homes within the Timberlake and they've

[1:38:01] the they've shared the challenges but

[1:38:03] they've also shared the lessons learned

[1:38:04] which has been really nice in talking

[1:38:06] with them. And so one of the other

[1:38:08] things that they asked for is what our

[1:38:10] CCNRs um you know not make it

[1:38:15] if you want to rent a house in this

[1:38:17] neighborhood you know it can't be for a

[1:38:19] month or two. it needs to be for a

[1:38:21] longer term so that probably you're

[1:38:23] getting uh somebody in there that

[1:38:24] hopefully might care a little bit more

[1:38:26] about uh the house and how they're

[1:38:28] acting as a neighbor. So Beaser has also

[1:38:31] agreed that their CCNRs could contain a

[1:38:33] condition that if you want to rent your

[1:38:35] home, they can't restrict that, but if

[1:38:37] you want to rent your home, it would

[1:38:38] have to be for a minimum of a year. Um,

[1:38:41] I think the final thing that I just want

[1:38:43] to say, I did want to show you these the

[1:38:46] homes. They showed them uh as staff was

[1:38:49] reading the um the staff report, but I I

[1:38:53] do want to say that there's still

[1:38:57] some concern about how these two

[1:39:01] projects come together on that edge. Um,

[1:39:04] these are all of our rear yards. All of

[1:39:06] these rear yards would be a minimum of

[1:39:08] 10 feet in the back. But these homes

[1:39:11] that sit on the Timberlake side, that's

[1:39:13] the sideyard for their homes. And so the

[1:39:16] some of the individuals who were at the

[1:39:17] neighborhood meeting live in those

[1:39:19] homes. And they expressed just some

[1:39:22] concern about the number of backyards

[1:39:24] that we have on our side um backing up,

[1:39:28] if you will, to their sideyards or their

[1:39:30] lots. And so we have committed to keep

[1:39:33] working on something that might soften

[1:39:36] this edge. Uh and and I'm saying it to

[1:39:40] the planning commission, this has to go

[1:39:41] on to city council. And so we will keep

[1:39:44] working on that. But I did tell everyone

[1:39:45] at the neighborhood meeting last Monday

[1:39:47] night that I would be presenting this

[1:39:48] plan for consideration and I would just

[1:39:51] talk through what the issues um were

[1:39:54] that were raised and that they had my

[1:39:56] word. Um, I give you my word that we

[1:39:58] will continue working on this this edge,

[1:40:00] what that's what I call it, this edge

[1:40:02] condition next to Timberlake as this

[1:40:05] application moves on to city council.

[1:40:07] So, I will conclude my presentation.

[1:40:09] » Thank you. This was not as a public

[1:40:11] hearing. Anyone want to be heard, please

[1:40:12] come forward. Miss Lassovich, if you

[1:40:15] could step to the side. We have a couple

[1:40:16] mics. Please step up to each of the

[1:40:18] mics. Be prepared to speak.

[1:40:21] If there's anybody else in the audience

[1:40:23] that wants to be heard, come, please

[1:40:24] come to the podium.

[1:40:26] Good evening, sir. Can we get your name

[1:40:28] and address for the record?

[1:40:29] » Ron Calderon, 8320 Frook Court,

[1:40:32] president of Timberlake Association.

[1:40:34] » Okay. Thank you. Go ahead, sir.

[1:40:37] » Uh, as Jennifer stated, we had that

[1:40:39] meeting on August 3rd. We had 55

[1:40:41] residents that attended the neighborhood

[1:40:43] meeting on August 3rd. There were a lot

[1:40:46] of questions and concerns that we had,

[1:40:48] and the builder's representative

[1:40:50] answered the best she could at the time

[1:40:52] with the information that was available.

[1:40:55] Um again, our concerns that we had were

[1:40:58] taken into consideration and that's what

[1:41:00] she's working on now uh for our

[1:41:02] community. Out of all the options that

[1:41:06] there are and have been in the past,

[1:41:07] which were many, uh this we feel is the

[1:41:10] best option uh that's present at this

[1:41:13] time. Of course, um most of the

[1:41:16] residents would prefer uh one-story

[1:41:18] buildings, but it's not going to happen.

[1:41:20] Okay? It's going to be twotory. So,

[1:41:22] that's one thing that, you know, we're

[1:41:23] all going to have to live with. Um,

[1:41:27] the builder proposed on August 3rd that

[1:41:29] they were going to place in 57 two-story

[1:41:32] detached homes, no three-story homes. It

[1:41:36] would be a gated community. The base

[1:41:38] price of the homes would range from 525

[1:41:41] to 568.

[1:41:43] We were also told that HOA fees would

[1:41:46] run anywhere from 100 to 125 a month. Uh

[1:41:50] also the lot size would be from 2,00 to

[1:41:53] 2500 square f feet. They would be two

[1:41:56] and threebedroom homes.

[1:41:58] Uh we are still dealing with the

[1:42:00] representative on a possible new

[1:42:02] rendering of the format of the placement

[1:42:05] of the homes and that's what she was

[1:42:07] discussing a little bit earlier along

[1:42:08] that common wall area which is 10 ft

[1:42:11] high. And what might end up being is

[1:42:14] that where those homes are based up

[1:42:16] against that wall, instead of them being

[1:42:18] there, there may be a street there

[1:42:20] instead. A 37 foot wide street would run

[1:42:23] across where that wall is at. And the

[1:42:25] homes would begin on the other side of

[1:42:27] that street there, which I think at that

[1:42:30] point most of the residents would be

[1:42:32] more in favor of because it gives a a

[1:42:34] bigger distance. So, the sidey yards

[1:42:36] that are there, uh, on that original

[1:42:39] plan, they would be looking right into

[1:42:41] that yard. I mean, it' be right there.

[1:42:43] But with the street there, we're talking

[1:42:45] 37 ft further to the east of that lot.

[1:42:49] So, uh, if that's doable, that would be

[1:42:51] great. I know the builder's application

[1:42:54] is asking for reszoning from a U

[1:42:56] undeveloped to a C from a C1 limited

[1:42:59] commercial to a town center residential.

[1:43:02] And with that, we are in full agreement

[1:43:04] uh for that reasonzoning to take place.

[1:43:07] All the other issues that we have, we'll

[1:43:09] deal with as time goes on before uh the

[1:43:12] city hall meeting sometime in September.

[1:43:15] Um but they've been willing to work with

[1:43:18] us on this and this is important. Um

[1:43:22] there's been other things that wanted to

[1:43:23] be placed there such as gas stations,

[1:43:26] storage units, and you know, and and

[1:43:29] that wouldn't help us at all. And at

[1:43:31] least with these homes here, it would

[1:43:32] preserve our property values in the

[1:43:35] Timberlake Association area, which we

[1:43:37] would be in favor of, of course. Um, and

[1:43:41] the other thing that helps is now that

[1:43:43] that's just a vacant lot there. We've

[1:43:45] had numerous problems with that vacant

[1:43:47] lot as far as uh encampments being set

[1:43:50] up there on that lot. We've had uh fires

[1:43:53] started on that lot and so forth. So, at

[1:43:56] least with this property being

[1:43:58] developed, that will eliminate all those

[1:44:00] problems that we have.

[1:44:02] » Thank you. I appreciate you coming out

[1:44:03] and expressing all those uh all those uh

[1:44:06] comments and concerns and uh appreciate

[1:44:09] your time.

[1:44:09] » Yeah. Any negative uh responses that

[1:44:12] were uh directed into um maybe our ward

[1:44:17] council woman's office. I spoke with

[1:44:18] some of those people on the phone last

[1:44:20] night uh for well over an hour and after

[1:44:24] we talked they felt more resolved. They

[1:44:27] didn't know a lot of the issues and what

[1:44:29] the answers were to them because they

[1:44:30] weren't able to attend the meeting. Um

[1:44:33] but they're, you know, more than happy

[1:44:34] with to see this go forward.

[1:44:36] » Well, thank you for doing that.

[1:44:38] » And this is

[1:44:38] » Good evening, sir.

[1:44:39] » If I may, my name is William Rohack.

[1:44:41] Spellings R O H A C. My address is 8213

[1:44:45] Dear Springs Way, Las Vegas, Nevada

[1:44:48] 89149. I'm the vice president of the

[1:44:51] HOA. Uh the only comment I have is just

[1:44:53] I don't want to be uh too redundant, but

[1:44:56] I was very pleased in how Jennifer has

[1:44:58] conducted ourselves. Uh Beaser Homes is

[1:45:01] uh I'm just pleased really pleased with

[1:45:03] how they've done stuff. Not everybody in

[1:45:05] our community is going to be in

[1:45:06] agreement, but uh uh like uh Ron had

[1:45:09] said, um you know, having uh high

[1:45:12] density housing or having a bar or a gas

[1:45:15] station there would certainly have a

[1:45:17] negative impact and higher crime in our

[1:45:19] in our area. And that's obviously our

[1:45:20] main focus is the safety of our our

[1:45:22] community and then also um uh just

[1:45:25] making sure that our property values

[1:45:28] maintain or increase. But uh I I think

[1:45:30] the process has gone well. So,

[1:45:32] » Okay. Thank you. Thank you for coming

[1:45:34] out tonight.

[1:45:35] » No.

[1:45:35] » Thank you, commissioners.

[1:45:36] » Thank you.

[1:45:36] » Okay,

[1:45:39] » M. Lasitch, I don't Do you have anything

[1:45:42] to add on that

[1:45:43] » I think just I just do want to say thank

[1:45:45] you. It you know, you walk into a room

[1:45:48] with 55 people and um that can go one of

[1:45:51] two ways. And I have to hand it to both

[1:45:54] uh Ron and um William. They uh listened

[1:46:00] to all of the their own homeowners. they

[1:46:02] gave their thoughts. It was a very very

[1:46:04] nice, respectful meeting going both ways

[1:46:06] and I very much appreciate their

[1:46:08] comments and the involvement of the

[1:46:10] neighborhood.

[1:46:11] » Okay. Thank you. Well, I'm going to

[1:46:12] close the public hear and turn this over

[1:46:14] to planning commission for discussion,

[1:46:15] possible action. I'm going go ahead and

[1:46:18] start. I I appreciate you working uh

[1:46:20] with with these gentlemen here and with

[1:46:22] the rest of the residents. Um figured

[1:46:25] we'd have uh a few other people here

[1:46:27] tonight. We don't, which is a good

[1:46:29] thing. But it it sounds like you still

[1:46:30] have a little bit of work and uh maybe

[1:46:32] work with the council person and and um

[1:46:35] and then see if there's any other uh

[1:46:37] modifications that you want to make

[1:46:38] prior to city council and then get with

[1:46:41] these gentlemen because they seem like

[1:46:42] they reach out to the uh to the rest of

[1:46:45] the HOA and spread the word. So, uh

[1:46:48] that's my thoughts, but overall I'm in

[1:46:51] support of the project. I I like I like

[1:46:53] the project as an project. We've seen

[1:46:56] other stuff come forward here that

[1:46:58] hasn't been as a pill in. So hopefully

[1:47:01] this will be the best u project that we

[1:47:03] can put in in there. Commissioner

[1:47:05] Taylor.

[1:47:06] » Uh thank you, Chair. Um Miss Lazovich.

[1:47:09] Um I am very familiar with that dirt and

[1:47:12] with your subdivision. I love your

[1:47:14] subdivision at Christmas time because as

[1:47:16] I drive to and from where I live up by

[1:47:18] Tuli Springs, I can see all of the like

[1:47:19] amazing decorations that you have in

[1:47:22] your subdivision. So, um I I have a lot

[1:47:26] of respect for the activity that um

[1:47:28] that's that you guys have been um

[1:47:31] engaged in to make sure that your

[1:47:32] neighborhood is protected. And so I

[1:47:35] think with that, while I recognize and

[1:47:39] um truly respect and know that Miss

[1:47:41] Lazovich when she says uh she will

[1:47:44] continue to work on this, she will. My

[1:47:46] inclination though is to make a motion

[1:47:50] that would be in approval of A through D

[1:47:52] because we know that that's something

[1:47:54] that you guys support as well. And this

[1:47:56] is part of um a lot of work and a lot of

[1:48:00] discussion over the years to try to get

[1:48:02] to the type of neighbors that you would

[1:48:05] want generally. Um but I am concerned

[1:48:09] about ENF and I want to make sure that

[1:48:11] you do that work between now and city

[1:48:13] council. And so, um, without, uh, Chair

[1:48:17] Kasama here, um, my inclination would be

[1:48:20] to make a motion to approve A through D

[1:48:23] and then deny E, E and F. And then that

[1:48:26] will, you know, make sure that you do

[1:48:28] the work you need to do between now and

[1:48:30] city council.

[1:48:31] » Mr. Chairman, may staff please um, read

[1:48:34] in the condition about the no

[1:48:36] three-story homes.

[1:48:37] » I was going to ask about that next. Yes.

[1:48:39] And then we have a we have a date stamp

[1:48:41] correction to make too as well for the

[1:48:43] landscape plan.

[1:48:46] » Which item will the will that [snorts]

[1:48:49] go on?

[1:48:52] » F.

[1:48:55] » Um, so a condition of approval will be

[1:48:58] added to item 28E, which states all

[1:49:01] homes within the subdivision shall not

[1:49:03] be more than two stories.

[1:49:06] And then for item 28F,

[1:49:12] condition number five, um the revised

[1:49:15] date stamp condition will state all

[1:49:18] landscaping shall be in conformance with

[1:49:20] the landscape plan dates stamped 71526

[1:49:24] except as amended by conditions herein.

[1:49:28] I mean, I think the answer is we agree

[1:49:30] to those conditions, but I understand

[1:49:32] your motion is

[1:49:35] not to approve. So, but we would agree

[1:49:38] with those conditions. Can you do the

[1:49:41] conditions if there's a denial? That

[1:49:43] seems counterintuitive. Miss Lazovich is

[1:49:45] right to point that out. So, maybe I

[1:49:47] will change my mind to make sure that

[1:49:49] those conditions are integrated.

[1:49:54] Mr. Mr. Chairman, through you this

[1:49:55] because there is a reasonzoning, this

[1:49:57] will move forward to city council. So,

[1:50:00] we can add those conditions between now

[1:50:03] and then if they're stated on the

[1:50:04] record.

[1:50:05] » Okay. Well, then [sighs and gasps] let

[1:50:09] me let me revise that then. Let me just

[1:50:12] go ahead and make a motion to approve

[1:50:13] everything because I do want to make

[1:50:15] sure that those conditions are on and go

[1:50:18] through. But again, Miss Lazovich, you

[1:50:21] know, I I have tremendous concerns about

[1:50:25] anywhere from two and a half to five

[1:50:27] lots backing up to those houses. And so

[1:50:31] I really like I'm cons I'm concerned

[1:50:34] because my inclination was to deny ENF.

[1:50:38] Um

[1:50:41] » Mr. chairman through you. If this will

[1:50:42] help this will move forward to the city

[1:50:45] council with your recommendation

[1:50:47] with of either approval or denial and

[1:50:50] you can add those

[1:50:52] » Uh conditions.

[1:50:54] The the staff report will state you know

[1:50:57] planning commission is recommending

[1:50:58] denial if approved subject to these

[1:51:01] conditions and then the added conditions

[1:51:03] will be in there to address the date

[1:51:06] stamp and the no three-story homes.

[1:51:10] Okay. All right. Um,

[1:51:16] so gentlemen, you are good with

[1:51:20] continuing to work with Miss Lazovich to

[1:51:22] get to something that you're all in

[1:51:25] agreement with, knowing that you're

[1:51:26] getting the best possible option in

[1:51:29] terms of your neighbors being a

[1:51:31] subdivision rather than any of the other

[1:51:33] commercial uses that have been proposed.

[1:51:35] I just I don't necessarily need you to

[1:51:36] come up. I'm just I guess I'm sort of

[1:51:38] rhetorically throwing that out there as

[1:51:40] opposed to asking for a response because

[1:51:42] again I I I really want to make sure

[1:51:45] that Miss Lazovich works with you

[1:51:46] because I am not comfortable with that

[1:51:50] number of lots abudding your lots. Um

[1:51:53] and so while again my inclination is to

[1:51:56] do a motion for denial on ENF, I would

[1:51:59] also very much like to have those

[1:52:00] conditions put in to move forward to

[1:52:03] city council. So, Miss Lazovich, you

[1:52:05] understand that that that is too intense

[1:52:07] and too dense for at least my comfort

[1:52:11] level, but I am going to change my mind

[1:52:14] and make a motion to approve all of it

[1:52:16] knowing your commitment and your stated

[1:52:19] commitment to continue to work with

[1:52:20] these folks.

[1:52:22] » Yes, thank you. Bezer will continue

[1:52:23] working. We've been actively, it's been

[1:52:26] about a week since we had the

[1:52:27] neighborhood meeting and we've been

[1:52:28] actively trying to work on what that

[1:52:30] edge looks like to address the concerns

[1:52:33] that we've had. Ron and I had

[1:52:35] conversation for I don't know when he

[1:52:37] has all time for all of his hourlong

[1:52:38] conversations because we had an hourlong

[1:52:40] conversation last night too. Uh and I

[1:52:43] expect that to continue before city

[1:52:45] council. So yes, we will keep working on

[1:52:46] it.

[1:52:47] » Okay. And then if you're going to do a

[1:52:48] street perhaps then one of the things

[1:52:50] you could consider that's what they

[1:52:52] mentioned was sort of a street between

[1:52:54] perhaps one of the things you consider

[1:52:55] is like a good landscape buffer which

[1:52:57] you probably already thinking about. So,

[1:53:01] um, okay. With that, then I'll make a

[1:53:03] motion to approve item 28 with subp

[1:53:07] parts A through F subject to all

[1:53:10] conditions and the two added conditions

[1:53:14] from staff related to three stories and

[1:53:18] what was the second one, Jonathan?

[1:53:20] Landscaping. Yep. Okay.

[1:53:22] » All right. Motion's on the floor. Please

[1:53:24] cast your vote.

[1:53:28] » [snorts]

[1:53:35] » Okay, it's not coming up for some of us.

[1:53:38] So for Commissioner Slotman, that's an

[1:53:40] I. Commissioner Taylor.

[1:53:42] » Hi.

[1:53:44] » Do you need from anyone else?

[1:53:47] » Chair, if I could just interrupt, do we

[1:53:49] want to have that condition revised to

[1:53:50] say no taller than two stories?

[1:53:55] I had it. Um, all homes within the

[1:53:58] subdivision shall not be more than two

[1:54:00] stories.

[1:54:00] » Okay.

[1:54:01] » You want to revise it to

[1:54:02] » No, that that's the condition, but I

[1:54:04] think on the condition on the record was

[1:54:05] no three stories.

[1:54:06] » Yes, that's correct. So then the

[1:54:08] condition the added condition should be

[1:54:10] no taller than two stories.

[1:54:13] » Yes.

[1:54:14] » Okay. Thanks. Um, the condition was read

[1:54:17] as Miss Lazovich indicated for item 28E

[1:54:20] that all homes within the subdivision

[1:54:22] shall not be more than two stories.

[1:54:25] » Thank you. And that motion carries.

[1:54:27] » Thank you.

[1:54:28] » And that will move on to city council on

[1:54:30] September 16th.

[1:54:31] » Thank you.

[1:54:32] » Thank you. Moving on to item 2926 251

[1:54:36] VA1. Applicant Sant Diego uh Santiago

[1:54:40] Espinosa owner Tress Hermanos live in

[1:54:43] trust for possible action on a land use

[1:54:44] entitlement project request to allow an

[1:54:46] existing residential accessory structure

[1:54:48] carport and patio covered that does not

[1:54:51] conform title 1906 standards for

[1:54:53] location separation setbacks and

[1:54:55] aesthetic compatibility at 1070 Griffith

[1:54:59] Avenue Ward 3. Uh staff recommends now.

[1:55:02] Can we get the staff report please?

[1:55:04] » Mr. Chair staff finds no evidence of a

[1:55:06] unique or extraordinary circumstance

[1:55:08] related to the physical characteristics

[1:55:09] of the property. As such, the hardship

[1:55:12] is self-imposed and therefore staff

[1:55:14] recommends denial. Please note,

[1:55:15] additional documentation of support was

[1:55:17] received after publication. Thank you.

[1:55:20] » Thank you. Good evening, sir. Name and

[1:55:22] address.

[1:55:23] » Santiago Spinosa, 1070 Griffith Avenue,

[1:55:27] Las Vegas, Nevada 89 104.

[1:55:29] » Okay.

[1:55:30] » Yeah. The reason I'm here, I want to see

[1:55:32] it's possible to prove to keep it the

[1:55:35] car for woman cars. You know those house

[1:55:37] doesn't have a garage. I want to see

[1:55:39] they keep it. And I live in this house

[1:55:42] for 34 years

[1:55:44] and the shade I have a around eight

[1:55:47] years already and

[1:55:52] and that's what I can say. I just want

[1:55:53] to see this possible to keep.

[1:55:55] » Thank you. This was noted as a public

[1:55:57] hearing. Anyone want to be heard, please

[1:55:59] come forward. Seeing none, I'm going to

[1:56:00] close the public hearing, turn this over

[1:56:01] to plan commission for discussion,

[1:56:03] possible action. Start with myself. U

[1:56:06] look, I I I've had a couple of requests

[1:56:09] on Griffith Avenue and recently have

[1:56:12] walked or driven down Griffith Avenue

[1:56:15] last month to look at another fence that

[1:56:17] was going up in the front yard that

[1:56:19] wasn't aesthetically compatible with

[1:56:21] anything else. And I told him that I

[1:56:23] just wouldn't be able to support it. Um,

[1:56:26] and it's, you know, Griffith Avenue, the

[1:56:29] street that you live on's really nice

[1:56:31] street. Like, everybody takes care of

[1:56:33] their houses and they they look nice.

[1:56:35] It's one of the nicest little streets in

[1:56:37] in the neighborhood. So, you should be

[1:56:39] proud of the the street that you're on.

[1:56:41] » Uh, and in saying that, I I mean, I

[1:56:45] don't want to start having carports pop

[1:56:48] up in the front of all the houses and

[1:56:50] and things of the sort. So it it it's

[1:56:53] not compatible with the house. I I have

[1:56:56] a history of like following uh staff's

[1:56:59] recommendations on these. Uh the state

[1:57:01] law says we have to show prove that

[1:57:03] there's some sort of hardship. There's

[1:57:05] no hardship that is proven here. So I do

[1:57:09] understand trying to trying to, you

[1:57:12] know, keep keep the heat off your cars.

[1:57:14] I just I can't approve it and especially

[1:57:16] here because you live on a a pretty

[1:57:19] amazing street and it it wouldn't match

[1:57:21] anything else up and down that street.

[1:57:23] So, um anyways, for those reasons,

[1:57:27] nobody else has any comments. Um I'm on

[1:57:31] item number 29. I'm going to have to

[1:57:34] follow staff's recommendation for

[1:57:36] denial. So,

[1:57:38] » Okay.

[1:57:39] » Motions on the floor.

[1:57:43] And let me reset mine.

[1:57:50] Um, just go ahead and mark me down as a

[1:57:53] denial.

[1:57:57] » And that motion carries.

[1:57:58] » And that will move on to city council on

[1:58:00] September 16th.

[1:58:01] » All right. Thank you.

[1:58:02] » Okay. Thank you. All right. Uh, moving

[1:58:06] on to item number 3026-0252

[1:58:10] V1. Applicant owner Daniel Aguar for

[1:58:12] possible action on land use entitlement

[1:58:14] project request to allow existing

[1:58:16] residential accessory structure card

[1:58:18] that does not

[1:58:21] conform to title 1906 development

[1:58:23] standards for location separation

[1:58:25] separation and aesthetic compatibility

[1:58:28] at 36 or 3525 Struts Avenue Ward 3.

[1:58:33] Staff recommends no. Can we get the

[1:58:34] staff report, please?

[1:58:36] » Mr. Chair, this request is the result of

[1:58:38] an open code enforcement case. This is a

[1:58:40] request for a variance to allow an

[1:58:42] existing carport that does not conform

[1:58:44] to Title 1906 development standards.

[1:58:46] Staff finds no evidence of a unique or

[1:58:48] extraordinary circumstance has been

[1:58:50] presented and that the applicant has

[1:58:52] created a self-imposed hardship by

[1:58:53] constructing a structure that does not

[1:58:55] conform to Title 19 development

[1:58:57] standards. Therefore, our staff

[1:58:59] recommends denial of the requested

[1:59:00] variance. staff notes that a blue

[1:59:03] sheetated staff report has been added to

[1:59:04] your supplemental packets. Also, please

[1:59:07] note additional documents for protest

[1:59:09] were received after publication. Thank

[1:59:11] you.

[1:59:11] » Thank you. Is the applicant here on this

[1:59:14] particular item? Seeing no applicant, uh

[1:59:17] I'm going to open this up for a public

[1:59:18] hearing. Anyone from the public want to

[1:59:20] be heard on this item? Seeing none, I'm

[1:59:22] going to close the public hearing, turn

[1:59:24] it over to plan commission for

[1:59:26] discussion, possible action, starting

[1:59:28] with myself. Uh historically, I do not

[1:59:31] like carports in the front yard,

[1:59:33] especially if they're not aesthetically

[1:59:35] compatible with uh the house or the

[1:59:37] neighborhood. Um there's not a ton of

[1:59:41] carports in the neighborhood, which

[1:59:43] would make this compatible with that

[1:59:45] neighborhood. Um, and so therefore, uh,

[1:59:50] if there's no other comments, I'm going

[1:59:52] to go ahead and make a motion on item

[1:59:55] number 36 or 30 26-0252

[1:59:58] VR1. Move to follow staff's

[2:00:01] recommendation for denial. Please cast

[2:00:03] your vote.

[2:00:10] That motion carries

[2:00:11] » And that will move on to city council on

[2:00:13] September 16th.

[2:00:15] » Thank you. Moving on to item 3126-0256

[2:00:19] EO1 applicant owner AFL CIO uh Southern

[2:00:24] Nevada Building and Construction Trade

[2:00:26] Council for possible action on land use

[2:00:28] entitlement project request from R1

[2:00:30] single family residential to PO

[2:00:31] professional office at 360 Shadow Lane

[2:00:34] Ward 1. Staff recommends approval.

[2:00:37] Mr. Davio.

[2:00:40] Yeah, I just want to disclose that I am

[2:00:42] an executive board member on but it

[2:00:44] really has no effect on my me voting

[2:00:48] either way. So I'm going to vote.

[2:00:50] » Thank you, sir. Can we get the staff

[2:00:52] report?

[2:00:53] » Mr. Chairman, the proposed reszoning

[2:00:55] from R1 single family residential to PO

[2:00:59] professional office will allow for the

[2:01:01] subject site to be in conformance with

[2:01:03] its current use of office other than

[2:01:05] listed as well as its current general

[2:01:08] plan designation of office. Therefore,

[2:01:11] staff recommends approval of the

[2:01:13] resoning request. Please note additional

[2:01:15] documentation of support was received

[2:01:18] after publication. Thank you.

[2:01:20] » Thank you. Good evening. Hello, my name

[2:01:22] is Estraa Matlage and I am here

[2:01:25] representing the applicant, the Southern

[2:01:27] Nevada Building Trades. My address is

[2:01:31] 2810 West Charleston Boulevard, number

[2:01:33] 75, Las Vegas, Nevada. Uh, I am the

[2:01:37] broker of Wealth Realy. I'm here just in

[2:01:39] case you guys have any questions. Um, a

[2:01:42] long time ago, I was a member of

[2:01:44] Teamster Local 995, which operates on

[2:01:46] shadow. That area has had these union

[2:01:50] places forever. I don't know why it was

[2:01:52] never changed earlier. It conforms. So

[2:01:57] if you have any questions.

[2:01:58] » Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. Uh this

[2:02:01] was noted as a public hearing. Anyone

[2:02:03] want to be heard? Please come forward.

[2:02:04] Seeing none, I'm close to public

[2:02:05] hearing. Turn it over to plan commission

[2:02:07] for discussion uh uh and action.

[2:02:10] Commissioner Rogan. I make a motion to

[2:02:13] approve agenda item 31, project 26-0256

[2:02:16] Z1.

[2:02:18] » Thank you. Motion's on the floor. Please

[2:02:19] cast your vote.

[2:02:28] That motion carries

[2:02:29] » And that will will move on to city

[2:02:31] council on September 16th.

[2:02:33] » Thank you.

[2:02:34] » Thank you. Moving on. Item 3426-266

[2:02:37] V1 applicant owner Nevada donor network

[2:02:41] incorporated for possible action land

[2:02:42] use entitlement project request to allow

[2:02:44] a front yard fence that does not conform

[2:02:47] to title 19.08 development standards for

[2:02:49] height at 1050 East Sahara Avenue Ward

[2:02:52] 3. Staff recommends no. Can we get the

[2:02:54] staff report please?

[2:02:56] » Mr. Chairman, no evidence of a unique or

[2:02:58] extraordinary circumstance related to

[2:03:00] the physical characteristics of the

[2:03:02] property has been presented to warrant

[2:03:04] the requested variance. As such, the

[2:03:06] hardship is self-imposed and therefore

[2:03:09] staff recommends denial. Thank you.

[2:03:11] » Thank you. Good evening, sir.

[2:03:13] » Good evening. My name is Jose Chavez

[2:03:15] with SCA Design,

[2:03:17] 2140 East Pebble Road, sweet 140 Las

[2:03:22] Vegas, Nevada 89123.

[2:03:25] I'm here on behalf of the applicant who

[2:03:27] is proposing an 8 foot tall fence. I

[2:03:30] have no other presentation and uh what

[2:03:34] answer any questions you have.

[2:03:35] » Thank you. This was noted as a public

[2:03:38] hearing. Anyone want to be heard, please

[2:03:39] come forward. Seeing none, I'm going to

[2:03:40] close the public here and turn it over

[2:03:42] to plan commission for discussion and

[2:03:43] possible action. Um I I know this area

[2:03:46] it's in the uh around Sahara near

[2:03:50] Maryland Parkway where they're all

[2:03:51] private streets. uh the lots are just

[2:03:55] scattered all over and it it it doesn't

[2:03:58] really make a whole lot of sense. It

[2:04:00] does create like an area for a lot of

[2:04:02] lot of um uh transient people to uh post

[2:04:06] up and so I I do understand the need for

[2:04:09] this fence. Uh I think it's uh

[2:04:11] appropriate and I can uh support it.

[2:04:13] There's no other comments. Ready to make

[2:04:15] a motion.

[2:04:17] » Go ahead.

[2:04:18] » Um you're on your landscape plan. You

[2:04:21] have Sorry. Excuse me. On your landscape

[2:04:24] plan, you have

[2:04:27] a palm. Would you be willing to um

[2:04:30] switch your trees to those from the

[2:04:34] SNWA, Southern Nevada Water Authority,

[2:04:37] the fast growing trees that are

[2:04:40] identified on their tree list?

[2:04:42] » Yes, we would.

[2:04:44] » Is there actually enough room on the

[2:04:46] front of this property to be able to

[2:04:47] grow a a large tree?

[2:04:50] » I believe so. Okay. Because I know a lot

[2:04:53] of those properties in this area are up

[2:04:56] against the uh or there's not that much

[2:04:58] room.

[2:05:01] » Yeah, we're willing to change the plants

[2:05:03] as necessary in the conditions. It does

[2:05:06] look to be about a 15 foot by 30 foot

[2:05:10] area that uh the palm is in the middle

[2:05:12] of. So that would be a

[2:05:17] » Mr. Mr. Chairman, through you with this

[2:05:19] particular variance application, we

[2:05:21] would not be able to condition for the

[2:05:23] trees. It would just have to be a

[2:05:25] » Okay. I wouldn't here at the meeting.

[2:05:27] » I wouldn't be inclined to change a tree

[2:05:29] anyways. So, thank you.

[2:05:31] Um on this particular project, I'm ready

[2:05:34] to make a motion. Item number 3426-266

[2:05:38] V1. Uh move to approve subject to

[2:05:41] staff's conditions. And you're uh agree

[2:05:44] with all staff's conditions.

[2:05:46] » We agree.

[2:05:46] » Thank you.

[2:05:49] Thank you.

[2:05:50] » Please cast your vote.

[2:05:53] That motion carries.

[2:05:56] Mr. Floyd

[2:05:59] and that is final action tonight unless

[2:06:00] appeal to city clerk in 10 days.

[2:06:02] » Thank you.

[2:06:05] 30 36 26-0272

[2:06:08] applicant owner corner of Main Street

[2:06:11] LLC for possible action on the following

[2:06:13] land use entitlement project request at

[2:06:14] the southeast corner of Utah Avenue and

[2:06:16] Main Street Ward 3 Diaz. Staff

[2:06:19] recommends approval. Um and staff

[2:06:21] recommends now on the SDR 36A is 26-0272

[2:06:26] Z1 from CM commercial industrial to C2

[2:06:30] general commercial. Uh 36B is 26-0272

[2:06:34] SDR1

[2:06:36] for a proposed one-story 26 uh 26,248

[2:06:40] ft commercial development with 333

[2:06:43] ft of outdoor patio space with waiverss

[2:06:45] of appendix F interim downtown Las Vegas

[2:06:48] uh development standards area one. Can

[2:06:50] we get the staff report, please?

[2:06:53] » Mr. chair. Uh although the proposed

[2:06:56] infill development would further

[2:06:57] revitalization efforts in the gateway

[2:06:59] district, staff finds the proposed

[2:07:01] development will negatively impact

[2:07:02] parking in the immediate area. The

[2:07:05] commercial site provides no on-site

[2:07:06] parking spaces where 119 parking spaces

[2:07:10] would be required in another area of the

[2:07:12] city. Uh as the applicant has indicated,

[2:07:15] several food and beverage tenants. Uh

[2:07:17] staff finds that providing zero parking

[2:07:19] spaces places an undue burden on the

[2:07:21] surrounding properties to provide

[2:07:23] parking for future tenants, employees,

[2:07:25] and patrons. As such, the proposed

[2:07:27] development is not compatible with

[2:07:29] adjacent development and development in

[2:07:31] the area. Staff recommends approval of

[2:07:33] the resoning and denial of the site

[2:07:35] development plan review. If approved,

[2:07:37] the site development plan review will be

[2:07:38] subject to conditions. Thank you.

[2:07:42] » Thank you. Good evening, sir.

[2:07:45] » Good evening. It's me again, Jose

[2:07:46] Chavez, uh, with sea design 2140 East

[2:07:51] Pebble Road, sweet 140 Las Vegas, Nevada

[2:07:54] 89123.

[2:07:56] On behalf of the applicant, we feel that

[2:07:58] the proposed project is designed to

[2:08:00] enhance visual interest in the area. The

[2:08:03] building will reinforce active

[2:08:05] pedestrian environment and it is

[2:08:07] compatible with the surrounding arts

[2:08:09] district context. With these items in

[2:08:11] mind, I respectfully ask for your

[2:08:13] approval and I'm open to any questions.

[2:08:16] » Thank you. This was noted as a public

[2:08:18] hearing. Anyone want to be heard, please

[2:08:20] come forward. Seeing none, I'm close

[2:08:21] public hearing. Turn it over to plan

[2:08:23] commission. Uh starting with myself. Um

[2:08:27] thank you for giving me a call talking

[2:08:28] about your project. It's a beautiful

[2:08:30] project. It's uh right near that that

[2:08:33] old 7-Eleven. the old wise guys uh were

[2:08:36] there at one point and uh that

[2:08:38] building's been torn down. Um I I do

[2:08:42] understand uh staff's uh report about uh

[2:08:46] you know, no parking for this building.

[2:08:49] Uh but I'm hoping that uh I'm hoping

[2:08:51] that all those patrons will go over to

[2:08:53] the parking garage and help make a

[2:08:55] couple of payments on that big bond that

[2:08:57] we have to pay off. Uh so I'm I'm I'm

[2:09:00] happy we're can get more more parking in

[2:09:02] that parking garage. and you're you're

[2:09:04] literally on the same block or one block

[2:09:06] over um from that parking garage. So,

[2:09:10] [snorts] um anyways, I like the like the

[2:09:12] project. I think uh with having a large

[2:09:14] tenant mix, it's kind of what we're

[2:09:16] looking for over there. So, um uh good

[2:09:20] luck with your project. Does anybody

[2:09:21] else have any questions on this one?

[2:09:24] » Go ahead, M. Uh Commissioner Taylor.

[2:09:26] » Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um it's a really

[2:09:29] neat looking project. I love the murals.

[2:09:31] So, um, looking forward to seeing it,

[2:09:33] but I just wanted to just in to be

[2:09:36] consistent with what we've said with

[2:09:37] landscaping for other projects. I really

[2:09:41] appreciate that you were going to put in

[2:09:42] 36-inch box trees, but are you willing

[2:09:44] to accept the condition that instead of

[2:09:46] 36-inch box that it be it's a standard

[2:09:49] condition we're cooking in now? So,

[2:09:51] large, fast growing trees on the SNWA

[2:09:54] plant list. Uh, with a 3-in caliber,

[2:09:56] it's above. Great.

[2:09:58] » Let me interject. Uh where where are

[2:10:00] these trees that you're asking them to

[2:10:02] put in?

[2:10:03] » I thought that am I looking at the wrong

[2:10:04] project? I must be

[2:10:05] » Because there's already street trees.

[2:10:07] » There are street trees

[2:10:08] » Going around this project and I'm not

[2:10:10] inclined to make them put in uh

[2:10:13] » I'm looking at I'm looking at the

[2:10:14] landscaping plan under the supporting

[2:10:16] documentation. Am I looking at the wrong

[2:10:18] one? No, I'm not. 0272. If you look at

[2:10:20] page two of seven for his supporting

[2:10:23] documentation, he has in here seven

[2:10:28] Mexican ebony that are the 36 in box.

[2:10:32] So, were those to be installed or are

[2:10:33] those the existing street trees that

[2:10:35] you're just identifying?

[2:10:36] » There were existing street trees that we

[2:10:39] were identifying. We actually added a

[2:10:40] few more in this iteration in this view.

[2:10:43] » You are adding in a couple is what

[2:10:45] you're saying.

[2:10:46] » A couple. Yes.

[2:10:47] » Yeah. Okay. So then, yeah, just instead

[2:10:49] of them being 36inch box, the ones that

[2:10:51] you are adding, not the ones that are

[2:10:53] existing street trees, if we can just

[2:10:56] have it be that language that we've been

[2:10:58] using as a condition.

[2:11:00] » I I'm I'm not willing to put that

[2:11:03] language on this property. So, if you'd

[2:11:06] like to do it in your word, that's fine.

[2:11:08] I'm fine with my 36inch box trees uh on

[2:11:11] this particular property.

[2:11:13] » Okay. Thank you. Thanks for putting in

[2:11:15] 36inch boxes, though.

[2:11:17] » [snorts]

[2:11:19] » All right. Any other comments?

[2:11:23] All right. Seeing none, I'm going go

[2:11:25] ahead and make a motion on 36A and B. Uh

[2:11:29] motion for approval subject staff's

[2:11:31] conditions. And you agree to the

[2:11:33] conditions?

[2:11:34] » Yes.

[2:11:34] » Thank you.

[2:11:35] » Thank you very much.

[2:11:42] » And that motion carries. And that will

[2:11:44] move on to city council on September

[2:11:46] 16th.

[2:11:47] » Thank you. Item number 3726-0288

[2:11:50] SDR1, the learning experience owner EHI

[2:11:53] investment for LLC for possible action

[2:11:56] on land use entitlement project request

[2:11:58] for a proposed one-story 10,000 foot

[2:12:00] childc care facility with a waiver of

[2:12:02] title 19.08 building orientation

[2:12:05] standards at the northeast corner of

[2:12:06] Horse Drive and Fort Apache Road, W 6

[2:12:08] Bruny. Staff recommends approval. May we

[2:12:10] get the staff report, please?

[2:12:13] Mr. Chairman, staff finds the proposed

[2:12:15] development to be harmonious and

[2:12:16] compatible with the surrounding area and

[2:12:18] recommends approval of the requested

[2:12:20] site development plan review. Please

[2:12:22] note additional documentation of support

[2:12:25] and protest was received after

[2:12:27] publication. Thank you.

[2:12:28] » Thank you. Is the applicant here on this

[2:12:31] particular pro property?

[2:12:34] » Are you going to want to hear this?

[2:12:44] Okay. Uh, this was noted as a public

[2:12:46] hearing. Anyone want to be heard, please

[2:12:48] come forward. Seeing none, I'm going

[2:12:50] close the public hearing and turn this

[2:12:52] over to plan commission. Commissioner

[2:12:54] Taylor. [cough]

[2:12:56] » Um, thank you, chair. I I don't see

[2:13:03] um Sorry, I just want to make sure I'm

[2:13:04] on the right one. I I'm I don't see the

[2:13:07] applicant here, but I have had

[2:13:09] a conversation with the applicant and I

[2:13:11] know the applicant has also talked to

[2:13:13] the ward office um and any of the sort

[2:13:18] of concerns that were raised were either

[2:13:21] addressed or added. So, I don't have any

[2:13:24] problem moving forward and u making um a

[2:13:27] motion on this. If there's any other

[2:13:29] questions from anybody else on the

[2:13:31] commission,

[2:13:32] » Seeing none, please do.

[2:13:34] » Okay. Yep. A motion to approve item

[2:13:36] 3726-0288

[2:13:38] SDR1.

[2:13:41] Motion to approve on that. Subject to

[2:13:43] all conditions.

[2:13:45] » Thank you. Motion's on the floor. Please

[2:13:47] cast your vote.

[2:13:51] » All right. Uh that motion carries.

[2:13:54] » And that is final action. Let's appeal

[2:13:56] to the city clerk in 10 days.

[2:13:57] » Thank you. Moving on to item 3826-0295

[2:14:00] B1. applicant Epic Development owner and

[2:14:03] at 215 LLC for possible action on land

[2:14:06] use entitlement project request to allow

[2:14:08] a proposed perimeter and uh retaining

[2:14:10] walls that do not conform to title 1908

[2:14:12] development standards for height located

[2:14:14] on the north side of Hammer Lane

[2:14:15] approximately 700 ft east of Shamberg

[2:14:18] Road Ward 4. Staff recommends denial.

[2:14:20] Can we get the staff report please?

[2:14:22] » Mr. Chair, staff finds no evidence of a

[2:14:24] unique or extraordinary circumstance

[2:14:26] related to the physical characteristics

[2:14:28] of the property. Uh, as such, the

[2:14:30] hardship is self-imposed and therefore

[2:14:32] staff recommends denial. Thank you.

[2:14:35] » Thank you. Uh, good evening, sir.

[2:14:37] » Hi, my name is Jason Thompson. I'm with

[2:14:39] the owner, Anna 215 LLC. Uh, the address

[2:14:42] is 3227 East Warm Springs Road, Sweet

[2:14:45] 200, Las Vegas, Nevada 89120.

[2:14:48] » Jeff Thompson, Tanny Engineering, 6030

[2:14:51] South Jones Boulevard, the with Tanny

[2:14:54] Engineering, the civil on the project.

[2:14:56] » Okay. Would you like to talk about the

[2:14:58] project a little bit?

[2:14:59] » Yes. Can I get the camera on?

[2:15:02] » Yes. We can go to the overhead. Perfect.

[2:15:04] » There we go. So, this is our site plan.

[2:15:07] Basically, we already have an existing

[2:15:09] uh self- storage facility here to the

[2:15:11] west of it that we built uh I think 5

[2:15:14] years ago. Uh we're at what we're

[2:15:17] looking to do now is just add this

[2:15:18] additional piece. It's going to be

[2:15:20] covered RV parking and some RV storage

[2:15:22] here. And this is basically a leftover

[2:15:25] piece from when they created the 215

[2:15:26] rideway.

[2:15:28] Uh what we're asking for is some

[2:15:30] retaining walls because of the slope of

[2:15:32] the project. So this is the current

[2:15:34] site. These are the total lines. If you

[2:15:36] look at it, if you calculate this out,

[2:15:38] it's about 6.7% slope across here, 6.3.

[2:15:42] Um and then the fact that the walls are

[2:15:44] kind of necessary, I think is attested

[2:15:46] to by the fact that if you look at all

[2:15:48] the neighboring projects, they all have

[2:15:49] walls that exceed the standard. This is

[2:15:51] our project when we built it. There's

[2:15:53] like a 10-ft retaining wall over here.

[2:15:55] These guys have another 5ft retaining

[2:15:56] wall here. This is a busy yard that's to

[2:15:59] the south of us. And there is some

[2:16:02] residential houses over here to the

[2:16:04] southeast. On this busy yard, this is

[2:16:07] what the wall looks like directly across

[2:16:08] from our project. This is the retaining

[2:16:11] wall. This is a screen wall. So, it's

[2:16:13] about a um 9 ft retaining wall right

[2:16:17] here. And there's a 6ft screen wall on

[2:16:20] top. And then there's another like 4

[2:16:21] foot retaining wall down here. This is

[2:16:22] directly across the street from us. And

[2:16:25] then additionally, like I said, to the

[2:16:26] southeast, those are the houses. Once

[2:16:28] again, a sixoot screen wall, a 6ft

[2:16:30] retainer, and then another 8ft wall

[2:16:31] below it. So the topography here, as you

[2:16:35] can see, everything is sloping down to

[2:16:38] the 215 rightway.

[2:16:42] And because of that, and because it's a

[2:16:43] weird infill piece, and then we have a

[2:16:45] sewer easement over here that we have to

[2:16:47] get down to grade for so we can maintain

[2:16:49] access to the sewer. Because of this, we

[2:16:51] believe we need to have a variance for

[2:16:54] the wall height so we're able to put in

[2:16:55] the walls around the piece and make it

[2:16:57] usable for the RV stoages.

[2:16:59] » Okay. Thank you. Um, did you have

[2:17:02] anything?

[2:17:03] » No, that's good. I'm we're here to

[2:17:04] answer any questions.

[2:17:05] » Perfect. All right. This was not as a

[2:17:07] public hearing. Anyone want to be heard,

[2:17:09] please come down. Seeing none, I'm close

[2:17:11] public hearing. turned it over to

[2:17:12] planning commission for discussion,

[2:17:13] possible action. I looked at this, I

[2:17:15] spoke to you gentlemen. It seems like uh

[2:17:18] at the beginning I was uh a little

[2:17:20] shocked, but then I start getting on

[2:17:21] Google Maps and looking at the

[2:17:22] residential neighborhood across the

[2:17:24] street had just as tall of a wall. The

[2:17:26] one directly across the street has the

[2:17:28] same thing. You you it there's just a

[2:17:31] lot of lot of terrain topography around

[2:17:33] that general area. So, um it is

[2:17:37] compatible with uh other projects in

[2:17:39] that neighborhood. Does anybody else

[2:17:41] have any comments on this?

[2:17:44] » No, but I'm happy to make a motion on

[2:17:46] it.

[2:17:46] » Okay, please do.

[2:17:47] » Um,

[2:17:49] on item 3826-0295

[2:17:53] BR1, uh, would like to go ahead and make

[2:17:55] a motion to approve subject to all

[2:17:57] conditions. And you agree to all

[2:17:58] conditions?

[2:17:59] » Absolutely.

[2:18:01] » Thank you. Motion's on the floor. Please

[2:18:03] cast your vote.

[2:18:11] And that motion carries. Thank you,

[2:18:13] commissioner.

[2:18:14] » Thank you.

[2:18:16] » And that will move on to city council on

[2:18:17] September 16th.

[2:18:19] » Thank you. On item number 3926-0297

[2:18:22] STR1 applicant Las Vegas bill bill bill

[2:18:24] billboards owner Twisted Willow

[2:18:26] Investments LLC for possible action on a

[2:18:28] land use entitlement project request for

[2:18:30] the proposed structural modification

[2:18:32] addition of a digital LED electronic

[2:18:35] message illumination to the east and

[2:18:36] west faces of a existing non-conforming

[2:18:39] off- premise sign at 2401 West Bonanza

[2:18:41] Road W 5. Uh staff recommends now. Can

[2:18:44] we get the staff report please?

[2:18:45] » And I apologize Mr. Chairman Seth Floyd.

[2:18:47] So the last item was final action. Let's

[2:18:49] build the city clerk in 10day. So item

[2:18:51] 38 is final action.

[2:18:52] » Okay. Thank you,

[2:18:55] » Mr. Chair. The applicant is requesting a

[2:18:57] site development plan review for the

[2:18:58] proposed structural modification in

[2:19:00] digital conversion of the east and west

[2:19:02] static faces of an existing

[2:19:04] non-conforming off- premise sign. Staff

[2:19:06] finds that the digitally illuminated

[2:19:08] panels on this location may negatively

[2:19:10] affect uh have negative visual impacts

[2:19:14] on the condominium units located

[2:19:16] directly to the northeast of the

[2:19:18] existing off-remise sign. The sign is

[2:19:21] located approximately 100 ft from the

[2:19:24] southern building and approximately 75

[2:19:26] ft from the western building which has

[2:19:28] the most window and patio exposure to

[2:19:31] the sign. Pursuant to title 19,

[2:19:33] electronic message units uh must be

[2:19:36] located or located within 200 feet of

[2:19:39] property zone for residential use are

[2:19:41] prohibited for on-remise signs and

[2:19:43] discouraged for off- premise signs

[2:19:45] unless they are not visible from the

[2:19:47] protected property. For this reason,

[2:19:50] conversion of the illuminated panels at

[2:19:52] this location is not recommended at this

[2:19:55] existing off- premise sign use may be

[2:19:57] rendered incompatible with the adjacent

[2:19:59] development. Staff therefore recommends

[2:20:01] denial of the site development plan

[2:20:03] review. Thank you.

[2:20:04] » Thank you. Good evening.

[2:20:05] » Good evening. Lucy Stewart, 1930 Village

[2:20:08] Center Circle. Your name.

[2:20:10] » Uh Greg Espazito, 1442 White Drive. And

[2:20:14] and while we do appreciate staff's um

[2:20:17] comments that this is a little bit

[2:20:19] different because if we can go to the

[2:20:20] overhead please the the north edge of

[2:20:24] our

[2:20:26] sign is at the south edge of the

[2:20:29] building that faces um US 95.

[2:20:37] I'm showing you but you can't see.

[2:20:38] Sorry. Thank you. Um so as you can see

[2:20:41] the north edge of the sign is equal to

[2:20:44] the um south edge of the building which

[2:20:47] really faces and is oriented towards

[2:20:49] US95. But what's interesting is that the

[2:20:54] south the the bottom of the of the um

[2:20:57] billboard is actually above the top of

[2:20:59] the um above the top of the the uh

[2:21:04] balconies there. And as you can see,

[2:21:06] this item that's facing to the to the

[2:21:09] residences is the back end. So there's

[2:21:12] no lighting there. But what's I think e

[2:21:14] even more interesting is that this

[2:21:16] building that is facing the billboard,

[2:21:20] this is what the wall is. That's every

[2:21:22] wall on every floor. It's a solid wall

[2:21:24] there. The building the places are

[2:21:26] oriented towards the street or the um

[2:21:29] other the other buildings oriented

[2:21:31] towards the shopping center, but this is

[2:21:32] the closest building and it's solid.

[2:21:34] There's no windows, there's no doors,

[2:21:36] there's no openings. It's just a

[2:21:38] passageway. Um, but Mr. Espazito is

[2:21:40] going to talk about the um light and any

[2:21:43] impacts on the residences.

[2:21:48] » Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and

[2:21:50] members of the commission.

[2:21:54] So, as it was read into the record by

[2:21:56] staff, um you know, their concern is

[2:21:58] that this if this gets converted to a

[2:22:01] digital uh billboard, it may have a

[2:22:04] negative v visual impact on the

[2:22:06] condominium units and that the western

[2:22:10] building is 75 ft uh and in the Stafford

[2:22:14] 40 degrees, which has the most window

[2:22:15] and patio exposure.

[2:22:18] I'll get back to that part in a second.

[2:22:20] Um, back in 2008,

[2:22:24] uh, the Outdoor Advertising Association

[2:22:26] of America, uh, commissioned a Dr. Ian

[2:22:29] Leuen, uh, to conduct a study on this

[2:22:32] exact subject, uh, the impact of

[2:22:35] converting digital billboards,

[2:22:38] conventional billboards to digital

[2:22:41] billboards. And, uh, a whole bunch of

[2:22:44] math went into that uh, study, and I'll

[2:22:46] go over that in a second. First, um it

[2:22:49] needs to be said that each one of uh the

[2:22:53] billboards that Las Vegas Billboards

[2:22:55] puts up all have this photo cell. This

[2:22:58] photo cell goes right alongside the LEDs

[2:23:02] that are on the billboard. And uh that

[2:23:06] photo cell uh is set to where the

[2:23:09] brightness will always be will will be

[2:23:13] no more than.3

[2:23:16] foot candles above ambient light. Uh so

[2:23:19] that that photo cell constantly measures

[2:23:22] the ambient light. uh it's not on a

[2:23:24] timer and uh it'll never and obviously a

[2:23:29] foot candle uh is the amount of light

[2:23:32] one candle puts out at one foot in a

[2:23:36] completely blackened room. Um so uh the

[2:23:40] sign the brightness will never be more

[2:23:42] than.3 foot candles. Uh and

[2:23:47] the sign will be limited to 7500 knits

[2:23:52] nits. uh during daytime hours and 250

[2:23:56] nits uh at nighttime and I'll get into

[2:24:01] uh what that means uh in a minute. The

[2:24:04] uh.3 foot candle maximum illuminance

[2:24:07] level uh was derived from a report

[2:24:10] completed by a former president of uh

[2:24:14] SNA which uh governs billboards or

[2:24:18] regulates billboards.

[2:24:20] um it is the recommended level, maximum

[2:24:22] level to prevent light trespass uh which

[2:24:25] is what staff's concern is um right now.

[2:24:31] So, getting back to knits and foot

[2:24:34] candles and all that such, I want to

[2:24:36] point out that currently on the current

[2:24:38] billboard, there are three

[2:24:42] um metal hali lights that illuminate

[2:24:46] that billboard from underneath.

[2:24:51] I do not have the exact number on what

[2:24:52] those are, but industry standard, I did

[2:24:55] some research and industry standard uh

[2:24:57] those are 400 watt metal halid uh lights

[2:25:01] currently on there. Each one of those

[2:25:04] puts out 43,000 lumens. And so that side

[2:25:09] of the billboard that currently faces

[2:25:11] those condos,

[2:25:13] if those are 400 watt lights, uh

[2:25:16] currently emits 129,000

[2:25:19] uh lumens

[2:25:21] that gets projected up to the billboard

[2:25:23] and then reflected out. Uh there is a

[2:25:26] lot of light trespass um with those

[2:25:28] numbers.

[2:25:30] By way of comparison, uh the maximum

[2:25:34] nighttime that uh is agreed to in this

[2:25:36] application, which is 250 nits, which is

[2:25:39] what I said earlier, is only 49,000

[2:25:42] lumens. So, converting this to digital

[2:25:47] uh will already cause, I believe, like a

[2:25:49] 68% reduction in the amount of lumens

[2:25:53] that those neighbors are going to be

[2:25:55] exposed to.

[2:26:03] speaking to uh what Lucy was talking

[2:26:06] about a few minutes ago.

[2:26:09] This is the So, first of all, if you'll

[2:26:11] remember what staff said in their uh

[2:26:13] recommendation, it was talking about how

[2:26:16] the building the the the western

[2:26:18] building was 75 ft.

[2:26:23] First of all, so this is what they're

[2:26:24] calling the the the uh southern

[2:26:27] building. As she pointed out, there are

[2:26:29] no balconies and no uh windows on the

[2:26:34] two uh um facades uh that would be most

[2:26:40] effective [laughter] affected.

[2:26:43] This is the facade that

[2:26:48] doesn't quite face the billboard. It

[2:26:51] actually runs perpendicular to the

[2:26:52] billboard. You'll notice that this is a

[2:26:55] walkway.

[2:26:56] These are the doors and these are the

[2:26:58] windows to the apartments. They're all

[2:27:00] recessed. Uh they're all recessed with a

[2:27:04] slight uh sound, light barrier, whatever

[2:27:07] you want to call it. And the walkway

[2:27:09] itself has barriers that would prevent

[2:27:13] um extra uh light trespass from this

[2:27:17] billboard.

[2:27:18] I'll also point out that um

[2:27:23] the 15 obviously right there, a very

[2:27:25] busy intersection, has a lot of of

[2:27:29] lights and ambient light coming in from

[2:27:33] um from the lights that that you know

[2:27:35] traffic needs. And uh drawing from the

[2:27:39] same study I quoted before,

[2:27:41] street lights on major roads emit one to

[2:27:44] three foot candles on their own. So, the

[2:27:48] people who live here are already staring

[2:27:51] straight into multiple

[2:27:54] freeway um lights that emit at least

[2:27:59] three times as much light as this

[2:28:01] billboard will. Um,

[2:28:05] and then finally, the most important

[2:28:07] thing I can show you here,

[2:28:09] this is this is the diagram of what the

[2:28:13] light will look like from the billboard.

[2:28:15] And so this is this is what we're

[2:28:17] worried about. This is the western

[2:28:20] building that staff is most worried

[2:28:22] about, the 75 ft one. That blue line is

[2:28:25] the extent of where the light will

[2:28:28] shine. Uh you'll not it's a 90° angle

[2:28:31] that comes off the face of the uh

[2:28:34] billboard. And so the limit of what will

[2:28:39] shine towards that uh uh housing

[2:28:42] development hits the wall. it hits the

[2:28:45] blank wall where there are no uh

[2:28:47] balconies,

[2:28:49] no doors, no windows.

[2:28:52] And furthermore, as I said, uh it's

[2:28:56] never going to go above.3.

[2:28:58] Uh

[2:29:00] as you get further out, as you get to

[2:29:02] the 200T mark, it actually drops down to

[2:29:05] 0.25.

[2:29:07] So,

[2:29:10] not only will switching it to digital

[2:29:14] generate less lumens,

[2:29:18] but as it goes out further, it'll have

[2:29:21] less and less of an effect. And the

[2:29:24] building is oriented in such a way,

[2:29:25] it'll never shine under their windows

[2:29:27] anyway because they're facing

[2:29:29] perpendicular the way the light is

[2:29:30] facing. So, I appreciate what staff has

[2:29:34] pointed out. Um, oh, one thing I did

[2:29:36] forget to say, all of these security

[2:29:38] lights, all these exterior lights are on

[2:29:40] all night. I drove by there the other

[2:29:43] night. That back area is lit up like a

[2:29:44] Christmas tree. It's a It's a secure

[2:29:46] location. All these lights are on all

[2:29:48] night anyway. So, area back there is

[2:29:51] already pretty well lit up. This is

[2:29:52] actually going to reduce how much lights

[2:29:54] back there.

[2:29:56] » We agree to do the um

[2:29:59] to put the things on that side.

[2:30:02] » Yeah. Delivers.

[2:30:06] Did you want to say that?

[2:30:09] » What's going to limit I'm my apologies.

[2:30:12] I was just scolded by my boss. What

[2:30:15] what's going to limit uh the light to

[2:30:18] that 90° angle are louvers. If you'll

[2:30:21] remember about a month or so ago, um we

[2:30:24] were talking about louvers that would

[2:30:25] prevent it from going down and and

[2:30:27] affecting people directly underneath it.

[2:30:29] Uh the technology here is going to limit

[2:30:32] to this 90 degree angle to where it

[2:30:35] doesn't affect the residents

[2:30:37] as much as if it was a regular

[2:30:40] billboard.

[2:30:42] » So that would be a condition that we um

[2:30:44] agree to that there would be louvers on

[2:30:45] the east side of the billboard.

[2:30:47] » Okay. Thank you. Uh this was not as

[2:30:50] public hearing. Anyone want to be heard?

[2:30:51] Please come down. See none. I'm going

[2:30:54] close public hearing. Turn this over to

[2:30:55] Commissioner Walters.

[2:30:58] Hi. Yes, thank you for calling. Um, I

[2:31:01] just want to make sure we're we're um

[2:31:03] working on the louver uh wording for for

[2:31:06] that. But thank you for the analysis of

[2:31:09] the lighting and for letting uh you sent

[2:31:11] me a study. It was very interesting. Uh

[2:31:13] I appreciate that. Um it does seem I did

[2:31:17] go by there. It does seem like this

[2:31:18] development was was built with the um

[2:31:22] with the knowledge and recognition that

[2:31:24] there are a lot of lit billboards,

[2:31:26] namely the giant lit cowboy also uh at

[2:31:30] the other side of your property. So, it

[2:31:32] does look like they they took that into

[2:31:34] account for the residents of that

[2:31:36] particular complex.

[2:31:38] » Thank you. And uh Commissioner Walters,

[2:31:40] I I I have a few comments.

[2:31:42] » Yes. So,

[2:31:44] you know, I I'm I'm not necessarily

[2:31:46] against uh LED billboards, but I I am

[2:31:49] against um you know, the constant

[2:31:52] changing and blinding of people as

[2:31:54] they're going down the road because you

[2:31:56] go from a dark image to a lighter image.

[2:31:57] And look, I I know I worked with y'all

[2:32:00] and y'all been in my office and y'all

[2:32:01] showed me a book and y'all it was pretty

[2:32:04] impressive on how y'all go about doing

[2:32:06] that. Um and and and being on a highway,

[2:32:11] um you know, I'm I'm not as opposed, but

[2:32:16] you know, you have those louvers. Can

[2:32:18] you can you have those louvers set up? I

[2:32:21] mean, because one of the biggest

[2:32:23] problems with this is the the changing.

[2:32:25] I mean, I can sit in in in my room

[2:32:30] on Fremont and there's lights and it's

[2:32:34] bright and it's bright in my bedroom

[2:32:36] with the with the blinds closed. But if

[2:32:40] if it's a constant light, then it

[2:32:43] doesn't bother me. I can I can go to

[2:32:44] sleep. But if one of the light bulbs is

[2:32:47] going out and it's flickering, I can see

[2:32:49] this through my eyelids as as my eyes

[2:32:51] are closed. If I have my TV on and it's

[2:32:55] changing, I can see this and it keeps me

[2:32:58] up. So, that's my concern with the LED

[2:33:00] and residential is when it changes. It

[2:33:04] doesn't really matter to me how bright

[2:33:05] it is because you can you can adjust to

[2:33:08] that. You can't adjust to this constant

[2:33:10] changing even when your eyes are closed.

[2:33:12] So, is there a way to

[2:33:15] potentially look at a louver that kind

[2:33:18] of restricts it even a little bit more

[2:33:21] so it's not hitting those apartments?

[2:33:24] » So, to make it instead of just going

[2:33:26] down to also go like on the north side

[2:33:29] to so it would keep it from going back

[2:33:33] because we're like if

[2:33:35] » You can see the board is here and the

[2:33:37] the buildings are there. sort of to

[2:33:39] something to sort of block it from

[2:33:41] there. That

[2:33:42] » No, I'm I'm You You see the first couple

[2:33:44] of slices, you know, that come off of

[2:33:47] there. The You're going through that

[2:33:49] building. So, you're you're still Yeah.

[2:33:52] Uh right there where your pen was.

[2:33:55] You're you're still hitting the edge of

[2:33:58] well uh yeah the edge of the uh the

[2:34:00] buildings on the south side of those

[2:34:02] buildings and that north side of that

[2:34:05] that one building but going all the way

[2:34:07] down that south side of the building

[2:34:09] you're you're you're blocking it. So is

[2:34:11] there a way to put the louvers on that

[2:34:13] would help block that

[2:34:15] » Coming? Okay, good. If we can get your

[2:34:17] name and address.

[2:34:20] » Hi, I'm Jared Andrews. I'm with Jones

[2:34:22] Media. Um C6 contractor for uh Las Vegas

[2:34:26] Billboards. Address is 4145 West Tico

[2:34:29] Avenue.

[2:34:30] Um to answer your question, uh we've had

[2:34:33] I've been doing this since 2005 since

[2:34:35] digital was uh just kind of came into

[2:34:37] the picture. Um this particular we have

[2:34:40] a few different options here. This

[2:34:42] particular sign would have to be

[2:34:43] replaced with a a new um kind of a up to

[2:34:48] building code sign, right? So, uh, the

[2:34:50] option to orientate this sign just a

[2:34:52] touch, um, to kind of direct that light

[2:34:55] and kind of control the light that

[2:34:57] you're talking about is also an option.

[2:34:59] Um, that there's also what you can do, a

[2:35:02] light shield to the, uh, right side of

[2:35:05] the digital itself. Um, that would also

[2:35:08] block out some of that light that you're

[2:35:10] talking about. Um there is a billboard

[2:35:12] that we did um over off of I-15 and Blue

[2:35:17] Diamond that um was above a bunch of um

[2:35:20] actually there's three billboards there

[2:35:22] on that property, Oasis RV. Um and one

[2:35:24] of the requirements was that we put um

[2:35:26] we we essentially put decking out uh

[2:35:29] beyond the digital um at the bottom just

[2:35:32] to help block that light. uh most of the

[2:35:35] light dispersement is is what you see um

[2:35:38] that that that five feet out from the

[2:35:41] digital itself. Uh beyond that, it's not

[2:35:44] there's not a lot of which what you're

[2:35:46] catching is that brightness, you know,

[2:35:48] shock factor um could actually be

[2:35:51] reduced um by putting that decking out

[2:35:53] there. Um especially at 75 ft, which

[2:35:56] this sign is currently um was given a

[2:35:59] variance a couple years ago from 65 to

[2:36:02] 75. So, um that would there there's

[2:36:04] options there. Um especially being new

[2:36:07] construction. But

[2:36:08] » Well, I I would think the the west

[2:36:09] facing side is not a big deal because

[2:36:12] that's facing commercial. It's just

[2:36:14] those first three red roofs that I would

[2:36:16] be concerned with and you know the light

[2:36:19] hitting their their bedrooms. But I this

[2:36:23] is your warden if you have any if you'd

[2:36:26] like to look at you know trying to put

[2:36:28] the I know you talked to me about the

[2:36:30] louvers and if you'd like to maybe talk

[2:36:32] to them about conditioning to have that

[2:36:34] shield and that platform underneath to

[2:36:36] kind of help protect that apartment

[2:36:37] building that might be something to look

[2:36:39] at

[2:36:39] » And we'd agree to that condition too to

[2:36:41] both the louvers and the shield the

[2:36:43] light shield.

[2:36:44] » Okay. The to be clear, the platform and

[2:36:47] the light shield. That's what you're

[2:36:50] saying you would agree to.

[2:36:51] » Correct.

[2:36:52] » And that would be in addition to the

[2:36:54] louvers.

[2:36:55] » Yes.

[2:36:55] » Okay. What does staff understand that

[2:36:59] good enough to [laughter]

[2:37:00] » Yeah, that was my

[2:37:01] » Help craft a motion.

[2:37:03] » Uh yes. Uh through you, chair. Um, an

[2:37:06] added condition would be uh added which

[2:37:09] states louvers and a light shield shall

[2:37:11] be installed on the east face on the

[2:37:14] east side face to control the viewing

[2:37:16] angle and direct light towards intended

[2:37:18] viewers.

[2:37:20] » Can we also add the word platform

[2:37:25] » Light shield to the platform?

[2:37:27] » A light shield and a

[2:37:28] » And a platform. Okay. Uh, let me reread

[2:37:31] that. Uh, louvers. A light shield and a

[2:37:34] platform shall be installed on the east

[2:37:37] sign face to control the viewing angle

[2:37:40] and direct light towards intended

[2:37:41] viewers.

[2:37:42] » Thank you.

[2:37:45] » All right.

[2:37:46] » And we agree to that.

[2:37:47] » Thank you.

[2:37:49] » All right. I'm ready to make motion.

[2:37:51] » Please do. Well, oh,

[2:37:52] » Sorry. Thanks.

[2:37:54] » Go ahead.

[2:37:54] » Yes, Commissioner Rogan. I'm I'm not I

[2:37:56] really didn't understand any of that

[2:37:57] last bit. What is a platform? What does

[2:37:59] it look like and how does it work?

[2:38:01] » Yeah. So underneath the current

[2:38:03] catwalks, um it would just be B- decking

[2:38:06] uh material that would be installed

[2:38:08] underneath in order to kind of uh reduce

[2:38:12] the amount of visual impact that you get

[2:38:15] from the digital itself at 5T out. So it

[2:38:19] would essentially shade the ground.

[2:38:22] » Okay. So it's it's it's preventing light

[2:38:25] from going down. And since the the

[2:38:27] billboard is taller than the

[2:38:30] residential, you're you're allowing the

[2:38:32] billboard to be seen by the highway but

[2:38:34] not

[2:38:35] » Exactly

[2:38:35] » By the sir.

[2:38:38] » Okay, great. Um, did you have any

[2:38:40] conversations? I know that when we mail

[2:38:42] out these special use permit

[2:38:43] applications, we mail them to the

[2:38:45] property owners, which in this case

[2:38:46] would be the would be the owner of that

[2:38:50] apartment complex, but was there any

[2:38:51] effort made to have any discussions with

[2:38:54] the tenants that live there? No,

[2:38:56] actually I think it's a condominium

[2:38:58] project.

[2:38:58] » Is it a condominium project? So were do

[2:39:00] we know whether all those were mailed to

[2:39:03] » Mr. Chairman through you? Yes. Each

[2:39:05] condominium owner was mailed a postcard

[2:39:08] » And we got nothing back from any of

[2:39:10] them.

[2:39:11] Okay. Thank you,

[2:39:16] Commissioner Walters.

[2:39:17] » Okay. Um on item 39, that's 26-297-

[2:39:23] SDR1. Uh, I motion for approval with

[2:39:27] staff conditions. Do you agree to staff

[2:39:29] conditions?

[2:39:30] » Yes. And the additional ones we added.

[2:39:32] Thank you.

[2:39:33] » And the added condition is read into the

[2:39:35] record by staff. Okay. Thank you.

[2:39:37] Motion's on the floor. Please cast your

[2:39:39] vote. And my vote is a yes.

[2:39:45] And that motion carries.

[2:39:47] » Thank you very much.

[2:39:48] » And that item will move on to city

[2:39:49] council on September 16th.

[2:39:52] » Thank you. on item 426-0298

[2:39:55] SGP1 of K uh Las Vegas billboard's owner

[2:39:59] 16

[2:40:01] 1615

[2:40:03] uh North Decator for possible action on

[2:40:05] land use entitlement project request for

[2:40:07] a proposed 40ft tall 14T by 48 foot off-

[2:40:11] premise sign not qualifying the city

[2:40:13] communication sign use at 1615 North

[2:40:15] Decar Boulevard Ward 5. Staff recommends

[2:40:18] approval. Can we get the staff report

[2:40:19] please?

[2:40:20] » Mr. Chairman staff finds the proposed

[2:40:22] off-remise sign is compatible with the

[2:40:25] existing land uses and zoning districts

[2:40:27] that surround the subject site. In

[2:40:29] addition, the proposed off-remise sign

[2:40:32] is compliant with title 1912 and staff

[2:40:35] is recommending approval. Thank you.

[2:40:37] » Thank you. Good evening.

[2:40:38] » Yeah. Hi. Hi, Jared Andrews again with

[2:40:41] uh Jones Media. Address is 4145 West

[2:40:44] Tico Avenue. Uh again here I'm just

[2:40:47] appearing uh on behalf of Las Vegas

[2:40:49] Billboards. um for this proposed 40 foot

[2:40:52] tall, 14x 48 uh foot off- premise uh

[2:40:55] digital. I I don't know if it was

[2:40:57] mentioned before, but this was uh also

[2:41:00] requested for backto-back digital.

[2:41:02] » Okay. Thank you. This was noticed as a

[2:41:04] public hearing. Anyone want to be heard,

[2:41:05] please come forward. Seeing none, I'm

[2:41:07] close public hearing. Turn it over to

[2:41:09] Commissioner Walters.

[2:41:11] » Hi. Yes, I did go by this u property.

[2:41:14] It's pretty commercial and residences

[2:41:16] are fairly far away. So, uh, if anyone

[2:41:20] has any other comments,

[2:41:21] » Please, uh, make a motion.

[2:41:22] » Okay. I make a motion on item 40, that's

[2:41:25] 26-298

[2:41:26] SUP1, uh, for approval.

[2:41:31] » Subject to staff's conditions. And you

[2:41:33] agree with all those?

[2:41:34] » Yes, sir.

[2:41:35] » Thank you. Motion's on the floor. Please

[2:41:37] cast your vote. That motion carries.

[2:41:40] » And that will move on to city council on

[2:41:42] September 16th.

[2:41:43] » Thank you.

[2:41:44] Item 42 26-0304

[2:41:47] VR1 applicant owner Evart's family trust

[2:41:51] for possible action land use entitlement

[2:41:53] project request to allow a increase in

[2:41:55] sign area for a legal non-conforming

[2:41:56] freestanding sign does not conform to

[2:42:00] title 19 requirements for sign area at

[2:42:02] 607 South Las Vegas Boulevard Ward three

[2:42:05] staff recommends denial. Can we get the

[2:42:07] staff report please?

[2:42:10] » Mr. Chairman, no evidence of a unique or

[2:42:12] extraordinary circumstance related to

[2:42:14] the physical characteristics of the

[2:42:16] property has been presented to warrant

[2:42:18] the requested variance. As such, the

[2:42:20] hardship is self-imposed and therefore

[2:42:22] staff recommends denial of this variance

[2:42:25] request. Please note, additional

[2:42:27] documentation of support and protest was

[2:42:29] received since publication. Thank you.

[2:42:32] » Thank you. Good evening, sir.

[2:42:33] » Good evening. Taylor Lamb, 5119 Cameron

[2:42:36] Street on behalf [snorts] of the owner.

[2:42:38] » Okay. Uh the owner's requesting a

[2:42:40] variance to increase the square footage

[2:42:41] of the sign from 114 to 162. We're not

[2:42:45] making any changes to the height or the

[2:42:47] width of the sign, just reusing the

[2:42:48] existing square footage, moving it down

[2:42:50] a little bit onto the pole cover. Uh the

[2:42:53] project has already gone before the

[2:42:54] DDRC. They've reviewed it. They're ready

[2:42:56] to approve pending your approval and the

[2:42:59] city council approval. And the reason

[2:43:01] behind the project, obviously, they're

[2:43:02] changing the name back to the original

[2:43:04] name of the wedding chapel and want to

[2:43:06] restore the original

[2:43:09] style of the sign. And I'm here for any

[2:43:12] Oh, we also agreed to all conditions if

[2:43:15] approved. And I'm here to answer any

[2:43:17] questions.

[2:43:17] » Okay. Thank you. This was noticed as a

[2:43:19] public hearing. Anyone want to be heard,

[2:43:21] please come down. Seeing none, I'm close

[2:43:23] the public hearing. Uh start with

[2:43:25] myself. Um on this particular item, I I

[2:43:29] reviewed it. it it's pretty close to

[2:43:30] what what you have. Um, and you know,

[2:43:34] you meet all the requirements of the Las

[2:43:36] Vegas Scenic Byway, which is what we're

[2:43:39] trying to achieve down there. And uh,

[2:43:41] it's a great looking sign. So, I have no

[2:43:43] problems. I'm ready to go ahead and make

[2:43:45] a motion for approval on item 4226-304

[2:43:49] V1. Move to approve subject to staff's

[2:43:52] conditions and the applicants already

[2:43:54] agreed to the conditions. Please cast

[2:43:56] your vote.

[2:43:59] That motion carries

[2:44:00] » And that will move on to city council on

[2:44:02] September 16th.

[2:44:03] » All right. Thank you.

[2:44:03] » Thank you for your time.

[2:44:04] » Item 4326-0305

[2:44:07] V1 applicant Rhythm Rose Incorporated

[2:44:10] owner BJH property LLC for prop possible

[2:44:13] action land use entitlement project

[2:44:15] request to allow 37 parking spaces where

[2:44:17] 70 are required for a previously

[2:44:19] approved restaurant coffee shop at 2747

[2:44:22] North Rainbow Boulevard Ward 1. Can we

[2:44:24] get the staff report please?

[2:44:26] » Mr. chair. Uh on March 18th of this

[2:44:29] year, the city council approved a

[2:44:31] variance to allow 39 parking stalls

[2:44:33] where 76 were required on this site. Uh

[2:44:36] a new variance is requested as the

[2:44:38] subject site provides only se 37 of the

[2:44:41] parking spaces where 39 were previously

[2:44:44] identified. However, staff finds no

[2:44:46] evidence of a unique or extraordinary

[2:44:48] circumstance related to the physical

[2:44:50] characteristics of the property. As

[2:44:52] such, the hardship is self-imposed and

[2:44:54] therefore staff recommends denial. Thank

[2:44:56] you.

[2:44:56] » Thank you. Good evening, sir.

[2:44:58] » Good evening. George Ross, 7582 Las

[2:45:01] Vegas Boulevard South, number 518 in Las

[2:45:05] Vegas, 89123.

[2:45:08] Uh, as previously just stated, uh, this

[2:45:11] item was previously approved back in

[2:45:14] March. The site plan that the architect

[2:45:16] originally drew showed 39 spaces. In

[2:45:20] actuality, there were only 37. And

[2:45:22] that's why I'm standing in front of you

[2:45:24] uh today to uh redo this.

[2:45:27] » Okay. Thank you. This was noticed as a

[2:45:29] public hearing. Anyone want to be heard,

[2:45:31] please come forward. Seeing none, close

[2:45:32] public hearing, turned over to plan

[2:45:34] commission for discussion, possible

[2:45:35] action. Commissioner Rogan,

[2:45:37] » Just so I'm clear, we initially approved

[2:45:39] it was 39 where 76 were required and

[2:45:42] this has now been changed to 37 where 70

[2:45:45] are required.

[2:45:48] » Mr. Chairman, through you. That is

[2:45:49] correct. From what I understand, they've

[2:45:52] rec recalculate the parking when it's

[2:45:54] not a shopping center.

[2:45:55] » Okay.

[2:45:56] » Um the difference between your hightra

[2:45:59] areas and then your back of house. So

[2:46:01] there was a little change in the floor

[2:46:03] plan and then in the site plan itself

[2:46:06] once they actually got into the building

[2:46:08] permit with you know real hard numbers

[2:46:12] there was a difference between the two.

[2:46:14] » So their deficiency actually got

[2:46:16] improved.

[2:46:17] » Yes. Slightly. Yes.

[2:46:18] » All right. Make a motion for approval

[2:46:21] for agenda item unless anyone has any

[2:46:23] thoughts. Motion for approval agenda

[2:46:24] item 43 project 26-0305

[2:46:27] VA1.

[2:46:28] » Motion's on the floor. Please cast your

[2:46:30] vote.

[2:46:31] » And that's subject to conditions which

[2:46:33] you agree with.

[2:46:34] » Yes, we agree to all conditions.

[2:46:39] » I'm I'm a yay.

[2:46:42] And that motion carries.

[2:46:44] » Thank you.

[2:46:46] » Thanks.

[2:46:47] » And Mr. Chairman, that item will move on

[2:46:49] to city council on September 16th. Thank

[2:46:52] you.

[2:46:55] » All right. Uh, moving on to director's

[2:46:58] business. Item 45 obeyance

[2:46:59] renotification 26-281 DR1 applicant

[2:47:03] owner city of Las Vegas for prospect

[2:47:04] action to appoint a member to the plan

[2:47:06] of the planning commission downtown

[2:47:08] design review committee for the

[2:47:10] following list of planning commissioners

[2:47:11] Jeffrey Rogan, Trendy Haven Schlotman,

[2:47:14] Serena Kasama, Stacy Walters, Lindsay

[2:47:16] Lee Labau and Jennifer Taylor. Steph has

[2:47:20] no recommendation. Um, y'all sure you

[2:47:23] don't have a recommendation?

[2:47:26] [laughter]

[2:47:28] » Nope. Nope. No. No. No report needed.

[2:47:31] Um, can we get a nomination?

[2:47:34] » Sure. I uh Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would

[2:47:36] like to go ahead and uh nominate

[2:47:38] Commissioner Schlottman to serve on the

[2:47:40] committee.

[2:47:40] » Okay. But when you say chair, that's

[2:47:42] really Serena.

[2:47:44] » Fair. No, I am not nominating Serena. I

[2:47:47] am nominating

[2:47:48] » Vice chair

[2:47:48] » Vice chair Trinity Haven Schlottman

[2:47:51] currently serving in his ad interim

[2:47:53] position as chair just to make the

[2:47:55] record clear. That's why I said chair.

[2:47:57] » Any other nominations?

[2:48:00] No other nominations.

[2:48:05] » Can we get a vote uh a u a vote for

[2:48:11] uh Vice Chair Slotman to be on the

[2:48:14] downtown design review committee?

[2:48:18] I'm an I.

[2:48:21] » That motion carries

[2:48:22] » And that is final action unless the uh

[2:48:24] commissioner wants to appeal his own

[2:48:26] nomination in 10 days. [laughter]

[2:48:29] » Maybe expect that appeal

[2:48:33] uh 46 oceans 26-0294

[2:48:36] TXT1 applicant owner city of Las Vegas

[2:48:39] for possible action on a request amend

[2:48:41] LVMC 19.0 19.08 108 19.12 19.18 relating

[2:48:47] to contractor and outdoor storage uses

[2:48:49] and to provide for other related

[2:48:50] matters. Staffer recommends approval. Do

[2:48:52] we have a staff report? Mr.

[2:48:53] » Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Fred Solis

[2:48:55] for the record. Uh the request is to

[2:48:57] remove and replace the building service

[2:48:59] maintenance use with the new

[2:49:00] contractor's office category and

[2:49:02] contractor's plant shop and storage yard

[2:49:05] use with a new contractor's yard

[2:49:07] category. The amendment will clarify

[2:49:09] between low impact contractor offices

[2:49:11] that typically serve customers at

[2:49:13] off-site locations and the more intense

[2:49:15] contractor yards that are that include

[2:49:18] on-site storage of uh raw materials or

[2:49:21] heavy equipment. The amendment will also

[2:49:23] clarify limits for out accessory outdoor

[2:49:26] storage uh where such is allowed. Staff

[2:49:28] recommends approval of the request.

[2:49:30] Thank you.

[2:49:31] » Thank you. This was noted as a public

[2:49:33] hearing. Anyone want to be heard, please

[2:49:34] come forward.

[2:49:36] Give us your name and address for the

[2:49:38] record.

[2:49:40] » Hi. Hey. My name is Sunonny Westbrook. S

[2:49:43] U N I W S T B R O K. My address is 8109

[2:49:48] Via Delero Court and I'm here just

[2:49:50] because I'm a huge fan of the city

[2:49:52] planning commission and I didn't know

[2:49:55] this was going to be on the agenda. And

[2:49:58] my question is, you know, will this

[2:50:00] change how cargo containers can be

[2:50:03] stored on residential property or how

[2:50:06] cargo containers could possibly be used

[2:50:08] as storage on residential property?

[2:50:12] Uh, Mr. Chair, through you. Uh, no, it

[2:50:15] does not. This is strictly for in

[2:50:17] commercial and industrial um locations

[2:50:20] that have uh contracting businesses that

[2:50:23] either serve folks offsite like a

[2:50:26] plumber or a landscape that has like

[2:50:29] heavy machinery and rock and mulch. Um

[2:50:33] we're making distingua that we're

[2:50:34] distinguishing between the two uh to

[2:50:37] ensure that these higher more industrial

[2:50:41] type locations are constrained to the

[2:50:45] industrial zoning districts as opposed

[2:50:46] to the just a general contractor or a

[2:50:49] something less intense. But no, it does

[2:50:51] have doesn't have any effect on the uh

[2:50:54] the storage of containers in residential

[2:50:57] districts.

[2:50:58] » Okay. So

[2:51:01] making two different distinctions

[2:51:02] between like a home builder contractor

[2:51:05] and a plumbing contractor, a landscaping

[2:51:08] contractor, someone with a smaller

[2:51:10] business.

[2:51:11] » U Mr. Chair, three. Yes, that is

[2:51:13] correct. Um we are distinguishing

[2:51:16] between heavy machinery, raw materials,

[2:51:20] um

[2:51:22] dis dispatch of of commercial vehicles

[2:51:25] from a location versus yes, a landscaper

[2:51:28] plumber who has a truck and stores a few

[2:51:31] pipes indoors in a facility.

[2:51:34] » Okay,

[2:51:36] this is kind of a silly question, but

[2:51:37] what's the definition of a commercial

[2:51:38] vehicle? Is it a pickup truck with a

[2:51:41] sign on it or is it

[2:51:44] » What's a commercial vehicle?

[2:51:45] » It it it's funny you ask, Mr. Chair,

[2:51:47] through you. So, this text amendment

[2:51:49] does actually um define what we consider

[2:51:52] a commercial vehicle. So, if you give me

[2:51:54] a second, I can pull it up and

[2:51:56] » Well, thank you.

[2:51:58] That'd be great.

[2:51:58] » Yeah. Um

[2:52:15] It's wrong.

[2:52:22] I just I have a particular interest in

[2:52:24] cargo containers because my neighbor

[2:52:27] that I share a property border with has

[2:52:28] five in their backyard.

[2:52:40] All right. So, um almost there. One

[2:52:44] second.

[2:52:44] » You do you. I'll just keep

[2:52:46] » All right. So, um, our contractor's

[2:52:49] office now defines, uh, commercial, uh,

[2:52:53] vehicle as one that exceeds£10,000

[2:52:57] and is considered a commercial vehicle

[2:52:59] by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety

[2:53:01] Administration.

[2:53:03] » Okay. And I can look up the contractor's

[2:53:06] office rules and regulations online and

[2:53:09] find all that stuff.

[2:53:10] » Yes. So, so as a this will need to go

[2:53:13] through council as an ordinance. Um, but

[2:53:16] you can look at what we have as backup

[2:53:18] on the planning commission agenda for

[2:53:20] tonight.

[2:53:21] » Um, although it won't become um um and

[2:53:25] it won't become official until it go it

[2:53:27] goes through city council through

[2:53:28] ordinance.

[2:53:29] » Okay. And then where can I find

[2:53:31] information about the use and storage of

[2:53:34] cargo containers on residential

[2:53:35] property?

[2:53:38] I think at that point I think what we

[2:53:41] would do is we would just have you go

[2:53:43] over and grab one of staff here in a

[2:53:46] second. Then they can look at you. I

[2:53:48] mean they can they can help you find

[2:53:50] that information because

[2:53:51] » Okay.

[2:53:52] » Uh that's

[2:53:53] » So it sounds like the change keeps

[2:53:55] everything the same but drills it down

[2:53:58] into different silos.

[2:54:00] » Does that sound about right?

[2:54:01] » Yeah. Through through you Mr. Chair that

[2:54:03] that's generally correct.

[2:54:05] We the interpretation of these two uses

[2:54:08] were were ambiguous at best depending on

[2:54:10] what you were trying to do. So the

[2:54:12] purpose of this um this amendment is to

[2:54:15] dial that down and to make it a little

[2:54:17] bit more clear to to individuals using

[2:54:20] either one of these uses and easier for

[2:54:22] staff and the commission to um to be

[2:54:24] able to judge what exactly is going on

[2:54:27] on a property when they they come in

[2:54:29] with one of these uses.

[2:54:31] » Okay, cool. Thank you very much.

[2:54:32] Appreciate the time.

[2:54:33] » If you want to step over to the side,

[2:54:34] they can uh tell you about the the

[2:54:36] containers on a residential property.

[2:54:39] » Fabulous. Thank you.

[2:54:40] » Okay. Thank you for coming out today.

[2:54:42] All right. Uh moving on to citizens

[2:54:44] participation.

[2:54:48] » Oh, that was still open. Okay, let's go

[2:54:51] back. Number number uh 46.

[2:54:56] Uh can I get a motion?

[2:54:59] Motion to approve. All right. Motion for

[2:55:01] approval. Please cast your vote.

[2:55:07] That motion carries

[2:55:08] » And that will move on to city council in

[2:55:10] ordinance form.

[2:55:11] » All right. Thank you. Moving on.

[2:55:13] Citizens participation. Public comment

[2:55:15] during this portion agenda must be

[2:55:17] limited to matters within the

[2:55:18] jurisdiction of the plan commission. No

[2:55:20] subject may be acted upon by the plan

[2:55:22] commission less as subjects on the

[2:55:23] agenda and scheduled for action. If you

[2:55:26] wish to be heard, come to the podium.

[2:55:27] Give your name for the record. The

[2:55:29] amount of discussion of any single

[2:55:30] subject as well as the amount of time in

[2:55:33] single speaker is allowed may be

[2:55:35] limited. Anyone want to come down and

[2:55:37] talk? No. Any plan commissioners? All

[2:55:40] right. Well, this meeting's adjourned.

Planning Commission - 8/12/2026 1:00:00 AM

Transcript