Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. We're ready to begin. This planning commission meeting is called to order. This meeting has been properly noticed and posted in compliance with the open meeting law. These proceedings are being video recorded and can be viewed live on City of Las Vegas TV on Cox Cable channel 2. You can also watch the meeting live online and access other city content by visiting Las VegasNE.gov/connect. The proceedings will be rebroadcast on City of Las Vegas TV the Saturday after the meeting at 10 a.m. Monday at midnight and the following Tuesday at 6 p.m. Please stand for the pledge of allegiance of America and to the for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

City clerk, would you please call roll? Chair Casama, present. Vice Chair Schlottman, present. Commissioner Rogan, present. Commissioner Taylor, present. Commissioner Davio, present. Commissioner Labau, present. Commissioner Walters, present. Thank you, chair. You have a quorum.

Thank you. I call to your attention the information printed in your agenda concerning our actions in the appeal and review process if appropriate. Please read this carefully and if you have any questions, staff is available. Also, the second page of the agenda contains our rules of conduct. We appreciate your adering to these rules so we can have a smooth meeting. Thank you. Public comment during this portion of the agenda must be limited to matters on the agenda for action. If you wish to be heard, come to the podium and give your name for the record. The amount of discussion as well as the amount of time any single speaker is allowed may be limited. All comments made under this item for specific action items will be cross- referenced to those items. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak under this portion of the agenda? I see one. Please come down and state your name for the record. Good, good evening. My name is Eric King. I hope you all can hear me. Okay, great. Um, and did I get it right? Is it two or three? You're you're allowing for three minutes.

Two minutes. Two minutes. Okay. All right. So, quite a while since I've been to one of these fine meetings. Thank you all for your leadership. Um, I did ask him out front if you did they didn't have any copies. I kind of stumbled over here last minute to get to the meeting and I don't know whether there is an item or not for senior housing or veterans on the agenda because I would like to talk about that if there is one. Does anybody know if there is? I I don't believe so. I believe last meeting there was one on the agenda but unfortunately on this meeting there is it's not on the agenda. Okay. Say again. Okay. Okay, there's a holistic uh

Okay. Well, I don't know if that's totally pertinent. I come from wellness background actually, but um I did want to make a a plea um for more senior and veteran housing. Uh it's an endless conversation, I know, here in town about what do we do with all these wonderful veterans that are struggling and we're losing some of them. Um way too many. So, I just wanted to make a plea. Um, please can we have more of that? Uh, with all these wonderful infill projects that are happening. Um, and it'd be really exciting to possibly talk to staff here that is more in the know than not. If possible, one of your support staff could point me to the right person to talk to before I leave about who might field those kind of questions. I very much appreciate it.

No, absolutely. if you want to go off to the side. Um, I can have one of the city staff uh give you their card or take your information and then we can follow up after the meeting. Okay. Would would there be any staff here that is indeed on point with with that kind of work that you guys are doing? Uh, we can we'll send a follow-up email after this with the more appropriate sources. Well, I'd like to talk to him anyway. So, thank you all for your time and your leadership. Have a good evening. Perfect. Thank you. And seeing no other coming down for public comment, I will close it at this time. And then we are moving on to approving the final minutes for planning commission meeting of April 14th. Vice chair, may I have a motion?

Yes, chair. On I I move to approve the April 14, 2026 meet uh meeting minutes. Motion carries. And then moving on to item six to our housekeeping items. Are there any items that commissioners, staff, applicants, or members of the public would like to pull forward for action?

Uh madam chair, staff has some housekeeping items for you. This is Fred Ciz for the record. Uh item nine, uh the applicant requests to hold this item in obeyance until the June 9 or June 16th, 2026 planning commission meeting. Item number 25, the applicant requests this item to be held in obeyance to the July 14th, 2026 planning commission meeting. Um item 26, the applicant with requests this item to be be withdrawn without prejudice. Uh item 27, the applicant requests this item to be withdrawn without prejudice. Item 30, staff requests this item to be stricken. Uh item 42, the applicant requests this item to be held in obeyance to the June 16th, 2026 planning commission meeting. Item 44, the applicant requests this item to be held in abance to the August 11th, 2026 planning commission meeting. And item 51, staff requests this item to be held in obeyance to the June 16th, 2026 planning commission meeting. Thank you. through you chair senior clerk for the record. Was that item 30 or 30B you're trying to strike by staff?

Um give me one second here. It would be so yes that would be 30B.

Thank you. And also real quick before vice chair makes a motion, I do just want to highlight in particular for those in the audience, if anyone is here for item 44, the one in ward 6, that is being obeyed until the August meeting. And so I just want to make sure if anyone's in the audience for that, you're not staying for the entire evening. Um, but it is obeyed till the August meeting. So with that, vice chair, I'm happy to have a motion. Yes, Madam Chair, I'd make a motion to hold items 9, 25, 42, and 51 until the July 14th. I'm Let me Let me start over. I'd like to make a motion on item number nine to hold it till the June 16th uh 2026 planning commission hearing. 25 holding the bans till the July 14th, 2026 planning commission hearing to withdraw without prejudice item number 26 to withdraw without prejudice item number 27 to strike item 30B to hold item number 42 and uh item number 51 to the June 16th, 2026 planning commission hearing and item number 44 to the August 11th, 2026 planning commission hearing.

Madam Chair, through you did we catch capture 51 in that motion? Yes, that was sent in there. All right. Thanks. Motion carries. This brings us to our consent items. Consent items are considered routine by the planning commission and may be enacted by one motion. However, any item may be discussed if a commission member or applicant so desires. So with that, vice chair may have a motion for approval on consent item number seven. Yes, madam chair, I make a motion to approve consent item number seven. Motion carries.

And that is final action tonight unless appealed to the city clerk in seven days.

Thank you. That brings us to our one motion, one vote. The following are items that may be considered in one motion, one vote. They are considered routine non-public and public hearing items with a staff recommendation of approval. All public hearings and non-public hearings will be open at one time. Any person representing an application or a member of the public or a member of the planning commission not in agreement with the conditions and all standard conditions for the application recommended by staff should request to have that item removed from this part of the agenda. So with that we have item number 826-00961 applicant owner Silver Building LLC for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for proposed secondhand dealer use at 1703 East Charleston Boulevard. Item 9 26 sorry that has been mistaken. Item 10 26-0101 sup1 applicant Verizon owner Centennial 215 Plaza LLC for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for proposed 80oot tall wireless communication facility stealth design use at 6450 Centennial Center Boulevard. Item 1126-0106 SUP1 applicant owner Sticky 6 LLC for possible action on land use entitlement project request for proposed gaming establishment restricted 1 to5 machines use at 1508 South Main Street. Item 1226-0111 mod applicant owner the Howard Hughes Company LLC for possible action on land use entitlement project request to amend the Summerland development standards regarding permissible uses and regulations within specialty park districts. Item 1326-0112 SUP1 applicant Forland Cono owner Eddie R. Fisher Revocable Trust for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for proposed transit passenger facility use at 350 East Bonanza Road, Sweden 190. Item 1426-0118 SUP1. Applicant Erica Padilla, owner Wagama LLC for possible action on land

use entitlement project request for proposed massage establishment use with waiverss of distance separation requirements from a city park residentially zoned property and a massage establishment at 7240 Westlake meet 1. Item 15 26-0119 SOP1 applicant Josephina Ramos Chavez owner of the Joseph's family limited partnership for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for proposed financial institution specified you specified use with a waiver of distance separation requirements from residentially zoned property at 1550 East Sahara Avenue. Item 1626-0124 SUP1 applicant Olala French Beastro owner Rampart PhD LLC for possible for possible action on land use entitlement project request for proposed pubs, bars and lounges, alcohol on premise full use with an outdoor patio at 2120 North Rampart Boulevard, Sweet 150. Item 17 26-0145 SP1 applicant owner Downs Syndrome Organization of Southern Nevada for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for proposed social service provider use at 6960 Oannon Drive. Item 1826-0146 SNC1 applicant owner city of Las Vegas for possible action on land use entitlement project request from Shamber Road north of Iron Mountain Road to Sheep Mountain Parkway. Item 1926-0152 SUP1 applicant Grapevine Cafe owner Summer Hill Shops LLC for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for proposed alcohol on premise full use with a waiver of distance separation requirements from City Park at 7501 West Lake me Boulevard Sweet 120. And that is the end of our one motion, one vote. I don't vice chair. May I have a motion?

You want to open it up for public hearing? this uh these these this portion of the agenda is open for public comment at this time. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak on any of the agenda items I just read out? Seeing none, I will close the public comment. Vice Chair, may I have a motion? Yes. Uh and Madam Chair, on item number 11, uh owner Sticky uh 6 LLC, we've recently done work on that property and the the adjacent property and I've had an ongoing business relationship with them. So, I'll be abstaining on that matter. Other than that, uh, Madam Chair, I'm making I'll make a motion for approval, uh, subject to staff's conditions on, uh, item number eight and 10 through item number 19.

Motion carries. And, Madam Chair, items 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, and 16 are final action tonight unless appealed to the city clerk in 10 days. in items 12, 14, 17, 18, and 19. We'll move on to city council u on June 17th. Thank you so much. That brings us to our public hearing items. Starting with agenda item 20, 25-0520, V1, applicant owner Jonathan G. Bellow for possible action on the following land use entitlement project request to allow an existing front yard wall fence that does not conform with title 19 development standards for height and visibility at 410 South Rancho Drive. Staff may please get the report.

Madame Chair, Jonathan Bole, senior planner with the Department of Community Development for the record. This request is a result of open code enforcement case. On February 10th of 2026, the planning commission denied the requested variance. The applicant appealed the denial to the March 18th, 2006 city council meeting, at which time the city council remanded the project back to city council for review. On May 6th of 2026, the applicant submitted a revised site plan and wall elevations drawing drawings for the proposed wall and fence. The revised site plan depicts that the entry gate will be recessed an additional 10 ft to provide space for a vehicle to enter the property without blocking traffic on Rancho Drive. Also, the new wall elevation depicts a new material at the top at the top two feet of the wall that replaces the cable wiring that previously was proposed. These amendments have been added to the blue sheet revisions for tonight's meeting. Since no evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance has been presented to warrant the construction of the existing wall without obtaining building permits, staff maintains its recommendation of denial for the requested variance. Thank you.

Thank you. Is the applicant in the audience? If so, please come down at this time. Thank you.

Thank you. Please state your name for the record.

Good evening, uh, council members and staff. Thank you for hearing my appeal. Um, my name is Jonathan Bellow and, uh, I'm the owner of 410 South Rancho Drive. I'm here with my general contractor, Gilbert Vasquez. Um, we're looking to appeal uh the case 25-0520-p1. I'm appealing the February 10th, 2026 planning commission denial of my variance for a 6 foot front wall and 8 foot uh sidewall. Uh, pursuant to LVMC section 19.16.140, I respectfully request a denovo review by the city council. The primary basis for this appeal is the clear procedural entitlement under LVMC 1916140 uh to have the council independently review the planning commission's decision. While I continue to maintain that the evidence shows exceptional and undue hardship due to unique conditions on my parcel, the DNOVA review is warranted regardless of any single hardship argument. First hardship, my property faces direct exposure to Rancho Drive, a hightraic sixlane arterial. In 2019, Wells Fargo nearly denied my mortgage because mapping data flagged it as highway adjacent. I had to submit a letter attesting to its residential exhibit H. I also learned that the city is planning to expand Rancho Drive even wider in front of my house. Documented burdens include city signs, equipment in the Parkway Strip for up to 255 days in front of my property in 2025. That's in exhibit A. Encampments spilling from neglected oleanders in the city owned right ofway. Code case CE24-03508 exhibits B and C.

Also, Metro Police using my driveway for arrests. Exhibit D. These are sight specific and cumulative. A compliant twoft solid base plus three-foot open topper provides inadequate screening. A sixoot wall is the minimal relief needed for reasonable use and security. Second, neighborhood character. LVMC19.16.140E requires no detriment to character. No homes on Rancho Drive use the compliant lowprofile design. Exhibit F. Taller six plus foot wall tall solid walls are the norm. Recent precedents. On November 18th, 2025, the commission approved a 10- foot solid front wall at 2315 Alta Drive, just three doors down from our property. Based on similar 10-ft walls nearby exhibit G. On May 23rd, 2024, a 6-ft solid front wall was approved at 7-Eleven Campbell Drive, just two blocks away from our property. That's an exhibit I. My six-foot request is modest compared to these approvals and preserves the established pattern. Sidewalls also align. The norm is 6 to 14 ft, including my immediate neighbors 14t wall with an 8ft solid and sixoot topper. And my backyard's neighbor to 9 ft wall with a 5-ft solid and 4ft topper. I'm willing to replace the wire cable topper with a more aesthetic black metal open topper. and any other changes that the council deems appropriate. I'm willing to plant more tall trees, shrubs as a landscape buffer with my immediate neighbors. Thank you. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. This item has been noticed for public comment. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak at

this time? Seeing none, I will turn it over to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Rogan.

Thank you, Chair. Um, if you recall, this was was on our agenda back a couple months ago and as is pattern for me when we get these wall height variances that are in excess of six feet. I I move for denial without actually having visited with Mr. Blue or seeing the property and subsequently asked me to come out and meet with him and his wife and I did and I met with him and his wife and his the contractor um and they took me for a little walk down the street where there are other similar walls that I was not aware also were 8t tall along Rancho Drive that um I did not take into consideration at the time. Um he agreed to change one of the concerns I had was that wire at the top that made it look like it was barbed wire rather than um um even though it's not. Um he agreed to change that. He also agreed to remove the or move the gate back so that his car would not be blocking the right of way when um when turning into the driveway. Um I also spoke with his immediate neighbor who came and testified or spoke against the um wall height and speaking with him. he didn't realize that he was actually speaking against a wall height and is actually going to be coming before us with the same request for an 8 foot wall height on his property right next door. So, taking into all those consideration, I um I am reconsidering my decision and I believe that this is an appropriate um accommodation given the location of this property on Rancho Drive where there's excessive traffic and the neighboring properties that all have wall heights of 8 feet um that are very similar to this. though I would say that this is a much better looking wall than those um given the design. So with that all being said, I'm I'm ready to make a motion for approval unless there's other comments. Nope. Okay. With that, with regard to agenda item 20, project 25-0520 VR1, I make a motion for approval subject to all of staff's conditions. And you agree to all the conditions, doctor?

Yes, I do. Thank you so much. Motion carries. And that is final action tonight unless appealed to the city clerk in 10 days. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Thank you. Thank you. That brings us to agenda item 21 of AN's 26-0015 V1 applicant owner George Murphy and Grace Wong for possible action on a land use entitlement project request to allow proposed residential accessory structure garage that does not conform to Title 19.06 06 development standards for size and coverage at 1513 Binmar Avenue. Staff may please get the report.

Madame Chair, according to the submitted site plan, the proposed garage will be 888 square ft and the existing single family dwelling is 1,230 ft. As such, the garage will be 72% of the floor area of the principal dwelling where a maximum of 50% is allowed pursuant to title 1906. While the proposed garage would meet setbacks and separation requirements and would be aesthetically compatible with the primary dwelling, no evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance related to the physical characteristics characteristics of the property has been presented to warrant the requested variance for size and coverage. As such, the hardship is self-imposed and therefore staff recommends denial of this requested variance. Thank you.

Thank you. This uh is the applicant in the audience at this time? Please come down and state your name for the record.

John Tman, JT Contracting, representing George Murphy, client who resides out of state. And Maya Maxwell. Hi. Yes, I'm Maya Maxwell, JT Contracting. Thank you. Was there um was there anything you like to present on this agenda item or were you just

No, we met with Commissioner Rogan a couple weeks ago on property and discussed with a few other neighbors that had concerns. I think we left there with uh no denials from the neighbors. There was a couple of items Commissioner Rogan uh suggested that we do to basically um what I would call it uh shade the side that with some shrubbery from Rancho Street to kind of hide the structure. And I did talk with the homeowner regarding his car collection. This garage is he's moved down in a few years to retire. He has some very um rare late60s models Mustangs that he would like to keep on his property. Without this size, he would have to store them off site. Would be a cost to him on a monthly basis.

No. Thank you so much. So, with that, this item has been noticed for public hearing. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak on this agenda item at this time? Seeing none, I will close the public comment and I will take it over to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Rogan.

Thank you, Chair. This is another one. I did meet with the applicant and some of the neighbors. The concern that was was raised prior to last meeting was that the uh owner was using the property for commercial enterprises. There were these um tractor trailers dropping off boxes um time and time again. That turned out to be a tenant and not this a former tenant and not this owner. So that that issue was was satisfied. With regard to the garage, uh I was okay with it. The neighbors that we met with it after talking to Mr. Thyman were okay with it. My one concern is this is a a large structure. It's 40t long. It's going to take up about half or if not more than half the the width of the property and it's going to be right on Rancho. So I have a condition for you, Mr. Thyman, that we discussed. It's to make sure that the uh rear yard setback, that's the west setback that borders Rancho is 7 feet in width and that you have 36 inch minimum box trees um that are placed placed 20 feet on center and those trees have to come from the um approved regional plant list and you agreed you agreed to that condition, right?

Yeah. And I I spoke with the client he agreed with it as well. Okay. So again, 7 foot um set back from the rear property line and trees spaced 20 feet on center, 36 inch minimum box size. Okay. Do we need to make that a little prettier or are you okay? Uh with that, uh staff would like to add a condition. Uh that condition will read, "The accessory structure garage shall be a minimum of 7 ft from the west property line. Within this area, 36-inch box trees shall be spaced 20 feet on center that conform with the Southern Nevada regional plant list.

Okay. Um, with that, I make a motion for approval of agenda item 21, project 26-0015 VAR1. And you agree to that condition and all conditions, correct? Yes, we do. Thank you. motion carries. And that is final action tonight unless appeal to the city clerk in 10 days. Thank you.

Thank you. And with that, we are going to be go going out of order. I am going to be pulling forward agenda item 49. So at this time under director's business item 4926-0123dir1 applicant owner at the Howard Hughes Company LLC for possible action on a request for the second amendment of the development agreement for the Summerland West area. Staff may please get the report.

Uh thank you Madam Chair. This request is for the second amendment of the Summerland West development agreement between the city of Las Vegas and the Howard Hughes Corporation. this amendment. In this amendment, the city and Howard Hughes have agreed to the following. Uh the removal of the existing community sports park requirement for the from the parks agreement. The removal of the existing community center construction and dedication requirement. The addition of a requirement for the master developer to construct, equipped, and dedicate a new fire station to the city, which would be the second provided within the community. Uh the removal of a third fire station requirement from the agreement. the addition of a requirement for the master developer to build, dedicate, and maintain a dog park within Grand Park. And it also, this amendment will also authorize the master developer to construct a public roadway within village 30B. Uh, the proposed amendment complies with all NRS 278 and title 19 requirements and as such, staff recommends approval of the request. Thank you.

Thank you. May I please get your name for the record? Good evening, madam chair, commissioners. Stephanie Gronower, 1980 Festival Plaza Drive here on behalf of the applicant. Howard Hughes. Really, we'd just like to thank your staff for all their hard work. It takes a lot of time to come up with these negotiations and agreements and um they're the top at everything they do. So, we really appreciate it. The parties have an agreement and I think these changes to the public facilities, the parks, the fire station will be to the benefit of not only Summerland, but also the city of Las Vegas residents. And so, we'd ask for your approval tonight.

Thank you so much. This item has been noted for public comment. Is there anyone in the audience at this time who would like to speak? Seeing none at this time, I turn it over to members of the commission. Is there anyone who would like to give comment? Commissioner Labau.

Sure. Um, I just wanted to thank both the city and Howard Hughes for making uh these revisions. I know it's taken a long time to go through the negotiations and Summerland continues to be an amazing um community to live and work in and um I just think it's really important for um any community to kind of keep up with what the needs of the residents have and what the needs of the community are. So, just wanted to say thank you to all.

Seeing no other comment, Commissioner, would you like to make a motion? I'd like to motion to approve item number 49 26-0123 DIR1. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Have a good night. And now we'll move on to city council on June 3rd.

Thank you. That brings us back to agenda item 22, obeyance 26-0048, applicant owner Umbra Holdings LLC for possible action on the following land use entitlement project request at the southeast corner of Harrison Avenue and H Street. Staff, may you please get the report.

Madam Chair, Josh Nolan, senior planner with the Department of Community Development. For the record, while the proposed development would introduce additional housing stock into the historic westside and would otherwise redevelop a parcel that is underutilized, staff finds the proposed development is not compatible and harmonious with the surrounding area due to the multiple requested waiverss and the variance requests to allow vehicles to back out onto the right of way, which is a self-imposed hardship where the development could have been redesigned to accommodate parking facilities fully on site. As such, staff recommends denial of all requ uh all requested entitlements subject to conditions if approved. Thank you. Thank you. At this time, the applicant may come down to present on the agenda item. Is there anyone in the audience? Not seeing the applicant, I turn it over to Oh, turn it over to members of the commission. Starting with Oh, sorry. This agenda item has been open for public comments. Is there anyone who would like to speak at this time? Seeing none, I will close public comment and move it over to members of the commission. Starting with Commissioner Walters.

Hi. Yes. Thank you. So, I did talk to this applicant and I understand that the safety concern about pulling out onto Harrison Street right there at the intersection or backing up. They want to deal with and rework the the plan for it. So, maybe the best course of action is to obey this. Are there any other comments? Commissioner Labau, do you have any comments? No. Sorry. Oh, no. Not a problem. Seeing none, you're welcome to make a motion. I move to obey agenda item 22. Uh, obeyance 26-0048. Is that to the June Planning Commission meeting? Okay. Is that June 16th?

Okay. June 16th. Yeah, that's June 16th.

Thank you. Motion carries. Perfect. That brings us to agenda item 23, obeyance 26-0053. Applicant Jean Pierre Piron, owner Jewelry and Minerals of Las Vegas at Tal for possible action on the following land use entitlement project requests on generally bounded by Sahara Avenue, Sanorita Drive and Santa Paula Drive 23A obeyance 26-0053 GPA 1 from Lowdensity Residential to TOC2 transit oriented corridor LO APN low APN's 16203415 021 022 027 and 028 23B B Aance 26-0053 Z1 from R1 single family residential PR professional office and parking and C1 limited commercial to C2 general commercial 23 C Aance 26-0053 V1 to allow 14 parking spaces where 29 are required 23d obeans 26-0053 V2 to allow proposed commercial building that does not conform to title 19.08 8 development standards for setbacks and residential adjacency setbacks. 23E obeyance 26-0053 SDR1 for proposed three-story 37,000qt commercial development with waiverss of the perimeter landscape buffer requirements. Staff, may you please get the report?

Madam Chair, the overall proposed development represents a redevelopment attempt of an otherwise underutilized segment of Sahara Avenue which has been identified in its appropriate corridor for redevelopment and transit oriented development. While the proposed buildings are generally oriented towards the major street frontages with parking facilities screened from Sahara Avenue, which meets the intent of transit oriented development, the proposed development requires multiple variances, waiverss, and exceptions of title 19 requirements that indicate the proposed commercial development is overdeveloping the site. Staff recommends approval of the general plan amendment from Low Density to TOC2 transit oriented corridor low. However, due to the requested variances, waiverss, and exceptions, staff recommends denial of the requested reszoning, variances, and site development plan review. If approved, the variances and site development plan review will be subject to conditions. Thank you.

Thank you. Please state your name for the record.

My name is David Strait, 1223 Heather Oaks way, and this is Christopher Eckles. We're here representing Jean Pierre Peron, the owner of Minerals and Jewelry of Las Vegas. Uh this started um this is a 40-year-old business that's been situated on this site and uh it began last summer trying to resolve some issues that both zoning and building department issues that we discovered cannot be resolved unless we uh basically redevelop the site. So we want to um it involves eight separate parcels uh three of which or two of which were commercial situated on Sahara. Uh there's two two more that are PR. Uh the rest are are single family residents. Um our intention is to combine all eight parcels into one into one and then reszone it. Uh to do that we needed a general plan amendment. Um the um the zoning we've requested is C2, which is appropriate for what we're doing. And since our last appearance, we've redesigned the buildings to be more attractive and look more like a less like a warehouse and more like a commercial uh attractive development. We've added trees, landscaping. Most of the variances that we have are are kind of minor variances, but because we're multiplying it by eight parcels, it looks like a lot more and three buildings. So, we were asked to develop the entire site. We only want to build uh we want to build it in three phases starting with building number one. Uh if we can do that then uh the existing

business can exist on phase two and three until building one is sufficiently developed to accommodate the uh business that's there. Now after that uh and during that time the parking that's available for the existing business will remain available. So, we won't have an impaired parking condition, at least not until u we tear down everything in phase one and two. So, um I'm open to any questions. I I think it's an attractive thing. And um N thank you so much. And at this time, this has been noticed for public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to give comment at this time? Please come down and give your name for the record.

Good evening once again. My name is Eric King. Um I have uh some real familiarity with this business, a real quality one here in town for so long on a corridor that um I think we all would love to see a lot more great things get even greater. Um, so I I'd be all for this beautiful rendering becoming reality from this fine gentleman, one of our valued architects here. Thank you all for your time. Thank you. And with that, I will turn over to members of the commission, starting with Vice Chair Slottman.

Yes. Uh, chair through you. I, if you'll remember last month, I held this in advance for 30 days. I wanted to meet with the applicants and city staff and see if we could make this project a little bit better. And I feel that we have made it better. as you indicated. Um, one of my comments was it kind of had a little bit of a warehouse fill and I I wanted to, you know, to have more of a an office fill or or or, you know, just to uh something different than just harsh like plain walls. So, uh, during our meeting, you you agreed to add windows and you can see from the one uh renderings that there's windows going around this building now, not on the first floor. They're concerned about people breaking in and smashing windows as they have over the past uh 15 years. But upstairs at least, we'll we'll have, you know, um some uh relief from that that plain wall with these uh windows. Also, we looked at the uh landscaping buffer on the north uh at our last meeting. We didn't have any any landscaping. If if if you want to Mr. Straight, if you want to point at that location where we on on the overhead. Yeah, that location. it it was just a sliver and we were able to widen that landscape buffer and have trees to to buffer the the from the residential property to the north. We still don't have any trees uh on that west portion. Uh but there's a block wall right there. the neighbors have a lot of landscaping in their backyard and we talked about potentially putting small shrubs in that location, but what's the purpose of the the for me having bigger shrubs or taller trees and stuff is supposed to be the landscape buffer between the neighbor and us with the tall wall that's providing that buffer and a couple of shrubs isn't going to help the neighbors out. It would just basically uh give the interior of your development behind the gated area a better look. But that that that's why we don't have any landscaping in that one location.

There's overhead power lines that would keep us from putting in anything that was of any any size. And then the the next landscape buffer uh along the parking lot, we intensified that landscape and we put trees in there whereas just lower shrubs and then it had a couple of trees on the parking lot island, but we're we're able to get about five more trees in that location. And then we we did get a little bit more uh landscaping on the interior of uh phase two, building B uh on the inside of that fence. Um and and uh that was just due to the fact that I I feel that you would have a bigger landscape buffer for people that are driving down the street and and seeing that. Um I don't recall if we put anything else. I think you're already meeting the standard um around phase one and phase three uh along Sahara, Santa Paula, and Santaorita. Uh but anyway, so that that looks great. Uh, and one of the main reasons why there's a a variance is because a lot of the parking is behind a uh is behind a gate and so those parking spaces aren't counted. However, there are 14 parking spaces outside the gate and plenty of other parking spaces for staff or other customers that want to come into this property. So, thank you for holding this uh for 30 days, meeting with staff and myself, uh going back, adding the windows, adding all the additional landscaping, and I feel that we finally have a project that we can get approved and love to see you uh love to see you build the new building and put your museum and everything else in there.

All right. Uh, Madam Chair, uh, I'm ready to make a motion on item number 23 A through E. I move to approve, uh, subject to staff's conditions, and you agree to all staff's conditions have approved. Yes. Thank you.

Motion carries and that will move on to city council on June 17th.

Thank you. Thank you. That brings us to item 24, obeyance 26-0056, applicant owner LLC LLC and Wick LLC for possible action on the following land use entitlement project requests at 3230 and 3232 North Duringo Drive. 24A 26-0056 B1 to allow 118 parking spaces where 146 are required. 24B obeyance 26-0056 SDR1 for a major amendment to an approved site development plan review for proposed one-story 118qt building expansion of a proposed restaurant with drive-through with outdoor seating areas and a parking lot reconfiguration. Staff may please get the report.

Uh thank you, Madam Chair. Uh the request is for a proposed restaurant within an existing suite and approval of an existing outdoor seating area. The applicant has submitted a new site and landscape plan date stamped of 51126, which are provided in your supplemental materials. The revised landscape plans depict the replacement of the required perimeter and parking lot landscaping that had previously been removed without approval and replaced with outdoor seating areas for mobile food vending. This request, if approved, will allow for the outdoor seating to remain as it currently exists, as well as require uh the installation of trees and landscaping as previously required by the original SDR approval. The revised plans reduce parking reduce the parking variance request from 118 to 127 provided spaces where 144 are required. Um that said there is no evidence of a unique or uh extraordinary circumstances circumstance has been presented in that the applicant has created a self-imposed hardship by removing required landscaping park. I'm sorry required parking and then proposing a land use with a more intense parking requirement. Um as such staff recommends um denial of the request and uh because of the new plans I need to read in a quick amended condition and that would be condition number four. Uh all development shall be in conformance with the site plan, landscape plan and building elevations date stamped 51126 except as amended by conditions herein. Thank you.

Thank you. May I please get your name for the record?

My name is Ken Small. I'm a architect here in Las Vegas, 740 Laredo Street, Sweet C. I'm here representing the applicant. I want to thank staff and uh Chair Kasma for helping us in many discussions about how to make this more um friendly to the neighborhood and to the area. Um most recently, we have um added some landscaping to uh the proposed landscape plan. Let me just find that. There it is. So, these are all the new trees here. Quite a lot added. Um the landscaping that was originally removed was a result of some food trucks that were there and arrangement that um the property owner had tried to make with them and the city was not happy with. But that established the uh realistic use of the property for a coffee shop, which is what we're actually proposing. And um so what they did is that when they removed the um natural landscaping, they replaced it with artificial turf and picnic benches. And so we're recommending to uh allow the artificial turf and the picnic benches to remain, but they're being extensively supplemented by trees. We actually have not removed any parking spaces. It's just that the parking requirements for this type of use and the exterior eating are greater than they were for what this space that they are turning into the coffee shop was previously which is a auto repair shop and the auto repair has been underutilized. There just doesn't seem to be sufficient demand to fully utilize it every day. So, um, this is how they have been looking for an alternative use to, um, fully utilize the site. Um, with that, I could go into more detail, but I

think it'd be better to just stop there and see if there are any questions.

Thank you. This item has been noticed for public comment. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak at this time? Seeing none, I will turn over to members of commission, starting with myself. I just want to say I do appreciate um, you we obey this item. it gave us time to kind of talk through the item more. I'm appreciative that it's no longer a drive-thru. I was just worried about some of the um traffic and congestion concerns. Um I also really appreciate you submitting the updated plans this Monday for the updated landscaping. I know that's a concern for myself as well as other members of the commission. Um so by addressing the landscaping and having that waiver removed, um as well as it's also good to know that it's the same owner and operator for the auto body and the cafe. And so I appreciate that, you know, through all of this that there's not going to be an undue um burden on a fellow business owner. So I appreciate that. With that, I do turn over to members of the commission if there are any other comments or questions. Seeing none at this time,

Madam Chair, Lucian Pay public works. Quick quite yet. Due to the fact that the driver was removed, I'd like to um request that condition number 12 of 24B be deleted because it refers to a queuing analysis which isn't required since there's no drive-through. So requested again condition number 12 of 23B um be deleted.

Okay. Hey, sorry just to clarify condition number 12 of 24B. Okay. Yes. And madam chair for clarification on my condition I amended as well. That'd be number four of 23B or 24B, sorry. Perfect. Thank you. So with that, I'm happy to make a motion to approve subject to the staff conditions as they were just read into the record. And you agree with all the staff conditions? Yes, I do. Okay. With that, I make a motion to approve item 24, 24 A, and 24B. subject to stock condition.

Motion carries. And that will move on to city council on June 17th. Thank you. That brings us to item 28. Obeyance 26-0093 SUP1 applicant Hera Holistic Recovery owner LV Reamp Properties LLC for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for proposed community residents including family community residents and transitional community residents use at 2612 West Oki Boulevard. Staff may please get the report.

Uh thank you, Madam Chair. Due to the due to an active community residence located 100 feet south of the subject site, staff finds the addition of the proposed community residence will facilitate the saturation of community residences in the immediate vicinity and as such staff recommends denial. Please note that the a revised staff report provided in the commissioner supplemental packet amends finding number four to read as follows. Due to an oversaturation of uses in the immediate area, the approval of the special use permit will compromise the public's health, safety, and welfare. In addition, uh the request is inconsistent with the overall objectives of the general plan. Thank you. Thank you. Please give your name for the record. Jennifer Eden Joy Nelson.

Um Chesan Paris. I'm the owner of the property. Um do you want to go ahead with that?

Okay. So um in behalf of Heriah um we our purpose of the res of this residence for the special permit use is to provide safe, stable and structured housing for veterans who are transitioning toward long-term independent living and permanent housing placement. Um many of our veterans face challenges um related to housing stability, social reintegration, mental health concerns, financial hardship and limited support system after the military service. So our program is designed to help bridge that gap by offering a supportive residential environment focused on stabilization, accountability, life skills development and community reintegration. Um it is centered on collaboration with behavioral health professionals and veterans advocate to ensure residents appropriate support services while maintaining a residential lowintensity living environment. Um I am partnering up with um with um clinical psychologists and um nurse practitioner nurse practitioner um psych who are also um veterans. So, our goal is to provide a pre free um screening and intake protocol um so we could um check their behavioral assessment um and to uh to ensure that each resident is appropriate for the level of care provided within the home and compatible with the safety and well-being of other residents and the surrounding community. So, that's all I have.

Thank you. With that, this item has been noticed for public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak at this time? Sure. Um, please come down and state your name for the record.

Hi, my name is Melo Riola. I live at 2613 Gilmary Avenue. I've been a resident of McNeel Estates for 20 years. I don't need this whole holistic thing in the backyard of my house. I've lived there and brought my kids, you know, all my residents and I know everybody and I like to read some things right here for you. Uh assuming uh assuming a silver home is just another single family home, our businesses restrictions. Uh McNeil is known for a historical place. It's zone for an R1 and RE, which is restricts commercial businesses. And for the record, they tried to do the same thing 15 years ago and we shot that down. And I don't know why they're trying to do this again to us. I love that place. It's an historical site. I want to grow my kids there. I don't have to have to look over my shoulder. And by the way, when they built the wall and extended it, they had never have an approval from me. Ruined my pool. All the cement went over my house. I was really upset and nobody had to fix it. So why would I have a resident come in and build a holistic place that we don't know nothing about? And uh I'm sure my neighborhood we all agree on this. We don't want anything like that. It's a very beautiful place. I want my kids to grow up there. Not over looking over his shoulder and all this.

Thank you. Yeah. Thanks. Um I'm sorry. We have still public comment. So we have someone else who's coming down. Thank you. this one. All right.

Good evening, Eric King. Um, I mentioned earlier I'm all for more wonderful veterans housing and uh I have a holistic background. This is a tickles my heart even more knowing uh many many veterans over the years. is I've volunteered 10,000 plus hours of my life to help them and first responders too and learned a lot along the way in and out of hospitals and such. Um, holistic health wellness, no stranger here in Vegas is also on the rise and I understand not in my backyard. All respect to the gentleman here. Absolutely. And other and other and other neighbors. So, I'm and I promise I'm no authority on the neighborhood or um the lives well-lived in there. Um but I did want to make a plug for more veterans housing, please. And if there is any ways to to find joy out of this rather challenging situation right now, I look forward to that for all. In fact, her name is Joy. So, it seems to bode well for some some resolution if possible. And I can't speak for all these fine folks over here, but thank you all.

Thank you. And please come down and state your name for the record.

Yes. Good evening. Um, thank you for letting me uh get the opportunity to speak today. My name is Stephanie Hills and uh I live next door at 2616 West OK. Uh, I want to begin by saying that I deeply respect and support veterans. My husband and my father both served and I fully believe they deserve safe, stable, and well- reggulated services. My concerns today are not about the individuals this program aims to help, but about the ongoing inconsistencies and how the property at 2612 has been operated. Over the past several months, there have been multiple documented issues. Several LLC's tied to the home with few or no corresponding correspondence licenses that I can u validate. shifting statements about who lives there from alleged managers and new LLS registered to the home during a short uh short-term rental period. There have also been conflicting representations from individuals associated with the property. Recent police presence and involving someone who was allowed to temporarily stay at that residence there in December. An unpermitted wall height increase across all three perimeters. Um me being one of them. Additionally, our surrounding area has also um has several transitional or group style facilities already operating nearby. Uh adding another would meaningfully change the um overall character of our historic single family neighborhood. Uh taking all these things into consideration, all these think patterns reflect, you know, unclear uh oversight and management in my perspective and I fully support programs to help veterans that are in need. Um but you know any program operating residentially should really be licensed, transparent and really most importantly responsibly managed. Um for these reasons I respectfully ask the commission to consider the full pattern of activity and the impact to our historic neighborhood before approving the special use permit. I appreciate your time. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak at this time?

Please come down and state your name. If there are other people that would like to comment, you're welcome to line up as well. My name is Mon'nique Thomas. I live um right behind as well at 2613 Gilmary Avenue. I'd like to thank you guys for listening to me and for taking the time. Um I have children and I really do not want this situation pushed to my backyard. Um my family lives in a residential area that's not familiar for commercial licensing. I feel like it will also depreciate not only my house but as well as my neighbors if this is allowed. Um homes we've had for years, homes that we've invested on upgrades and upkeeps. Um our neighborhood is well known for strong family values. And I honestly don't know how this would not be a zoning issue in such a historical establishment where we live. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any others who would like to speak at this time? Please state your name for the record.

Hi, my name is Alexis Tener. I'm also a neighbor in the McNeel neighborhood. And while I have ultimate respect for veterans currently serving and retired or disabled, my concern comes with you're going to try to make sure you run background and and pair with psychologists and whomever you need to behavioral specialists. but who is policing the whole situation to make sure that they're actually working with the people that they should be working with to really be looking at these applicants. And then if for some reason the house does get the special use permit and there is activity there that is not normal for a residential neighborhood, who is making sure that everything's still being run properly after the special use permit is given? What's to say that they can't do anything with they want with the house once the special use permit is approved? And that's where the concern comes in is retroactively what's going to happen to the neighborhood if these special use permits continue to get approved. That's it.

Thank you. Thank you. Are there any others that would like to speak at this time? Seeing none, I will close public comment and I'll give the opportunity for the applicant to address some of those concerns. Do you want me to go with the fence first? Yeah, you can. Okay. I just uh placed here um I don't know if you can see that but um what this is here is the architect engineer uh design for the fence and oh yeah there we go

um there we got some misinformation originally from the city and acted uh based on that information but we resolved this immediately. So, we actually did get architect design, engineer design, and uh submitted a permit. And then we were supposed to have an inspection yesterday, May 11th. And I'm thinking that Jennifer um is her name Rebaines has possibly just approved us. Um I'm going to follow up with her tomorrow. I couldn't get a hold of her today. So, the fence issue has been resolved to the best of my knowledge. Um and as far as the Airbnb, I just thought I would mention that that's how I met Jesse. I was actually renting the Airbnb which was sorry 30 midterm 30-day midterm rental sorry um she brought receipts from that and I actually just got passionate about this because I have a huge passion for veterans. They are a protected class of citizen. We are not intending to change the outside of the building. During the time that I've been there, which is since I think January 10th, there's been four attempted breakins, including one which I posted on the community um site because we're on Oki. It's a very very busy road. Um so I understand the need to protect the neighborhood. I believe that this won't really change the function of the neighborhood.

Yes. And I will answer the um Airbnb and the ownership. I just obtained this property um back in um July and as you know as a as my second home in the beginning I wanted to do um midterm rental Airbnb for corporate rentals specifically for travel nursing because I'm a nurse. I've been a nurse for 15 years. I run veterans home in LA. Can you sorry can you please address the members of the commission rather than the audience?

Oh okay. Sorry about that. So, um, so I I did rented it for midterm Airbnb for two months and after my first breakin in January, um, my my tenant was actually a domestic abuse violence running away from the spouse and that person is actually the spouse who is also disabled vets. So, this people needs help. And when I when when she mentioned when I met with the doctors from the VA, I decided to do it as a transitional housing program and reintegration program to support veterans because of that one incident. I h my mom was a domestic abuse violence survivor. So I I really went for that. Um and with the concern of the 247 supervision and operational oversight, um we plan to designate a house manager and on-site supervisor 24/7. We would structured house rules and resident expectations. We will be zero tolerance for substance abuse while they're in the facility. Like I said in the beginning, I would have a pre-screening checking their drug use, their their wellness, and bring them back to the community so they can get back to, you know, to working, building their resumes, credit repair, and all that. That's why I partner up with the professionals. So, it's not just housing that I will provide. It's also to reintegrate them and provide support for them. So, I'm not quite sure what who is the owner 15 years ago, but you know, we're only doing six beds. It's not going to be a 10 bed facility. And you know, the the rules is I could have co-l livingiving with four unrelated guests in the house. So, I'm only asking for special permit use to have two more in the in the home. So, I hope it's not much to ask. One of the things I wanted to comment on to expand on that is if she only has four like having staffing and stuff. So the extra two individuals, so getting the special use permit allows

her to expand like we're expanding the house just by two bedrooms on the interior so that she can then um afford to have staffing because this is a passion project of hers. You know, this is not um I mean I'm a volunteer position person. Um it's it's a very passionate project for her and I think that this community, you know, the gentleman, I can't say for sure, but I do have video of the man that tried to break in and I'm pretty sure he had a veteran um tattoo on his arm, very big fellow tried for about seven minutes to break in. The issue already exists in Las Vegas and specifically in this neighborhood and you know this is a solution. This was completely unrelated. I don't know this gentleman over here, but as he was saying, veteran housing is necessary.

Well, thank you so much. And with that, I will turn it over to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Rogan.

Thank you, Chair. Um, I can say that uh since being on the planning commission since 2019, and I'll obviously defer to Commissioner Schlapman, who's been on the planning commission since about 1950, the this is one of the most difficult decisions that I've I've had to make because on the one hand, I I see the need for these types of integrated housing. We've we've moved away in our community, in our state, in our in our federal system from putting folks in long-term nursing homes where they're not living like regular people, but they're institutionalized. And we've decided that that's not a good thing for their health and for um uh the health of their family members and and our community. And so we've moved towards this community-based model where folks are integrated into the community so that they can live normally and have access to the same things that we have access to. And I think that's a good policy. I don't think that just because a person has a disability, um whether it's mental health, whether it's um recovering from drug abuse, whether it's just simply that you've grown old and you can't ambulate or function, um that you should be institutionalized. Um and so I think this again is is a is a good idea. That being said, it doesn't mean that we need to accept every single group home in a specific location. I understand the neighbors concerns. um based upon their fears that a group home that comes in is going to be um full of recovering drug alcohol uh drug addicts or alcoholics and there's going to be problems. I in and McNeel, I know that that I lived in that neighborhood. I know we've experienced that in the past with other group homes, but we don't know anything about this group home and we can't just take into consideration that because there are some bad operators elsewhere that this group home will also be a bad operator. can't we can't rely on on that prejuditial um belief. We have to look

at these on a case-byase basis. Um but in the city of Las Vegas, the the one issue that I've been hung up on, and I've told this to Joy, and I've told this to Jesse since we first met, the one issue that I've been hung up on is the city has a 660 foot distance separation, and you have one that's across the street. Now, I understand that when you bought that home, Jesse, that one had not applied for their conditional use permit to operate. Um, and then after you bought your home with the intent of opening this, they got their group home uh conditional use permit. So, it was just a poor timing, the unfortunate issue of timing. But my one hang-up has been that 660 foot distance separation. And I think that that 660 foot distance separation is is in place because we're trying to promote the integration of disabled people into the community. And if we suddenly have an overconentration of group homes in a specific area, then it defeats the purpose of integration. Um, and so that's been my one hangup. I nothing else, nothing but that. And so in looking at that, I think that because you don't meet the 660 foot distance separation, I I don't think I can give you that special use permit. I've granted in the past when it's been on the line where you've had 640 ft or 650 ft and I thought that's a reasonable accommodation, but you're 100t away. It's a house across the street. And I think that they're providing elderly care and it's a different type of community residence, but you've you've got that across the street. Um, in addition, I also take into consideration, absent that 660 foot distance separation, um, some statistics the city has pulled for me. Um, and I want to put those on the record because I think it's important to talk about when we're considering overconentration of group homes in particular areas. And so, um, the city has pulled and and has found that between 2020 and 2025, there's been an increase in community

residence applications, group home applications to a total of 128. Um, from 2022 to 2025, we've had an increase of 146%. And ward one, where you're trying to locate, is where most of these applications have occurred, followed by W three and W five. in W six and the other wards have had the fewest applications. W six has had the least I think with eight in that fiveyear period. So in putting that percentage, Ward one has had 375% more approvals than W six. And the city has a map that shows each and every group home and I want to incorporate into the record this this map by reference and if we could print it up later on that shows every location. And if you look at this map and you put in that 660 ft distance separ uh distance separation, you can see this the saturation that you have in Ward One, particularly along this Oki Boulevard where you want to locate within the one to one and a half mile radius of of your location. There are already 15 group homes of varying nature, whether that's elderly care or whether it's um any other type of disability. And that's by far the most that I can find in the entire city. So, I don't take this consideration lightly. It's I I think that what you're trying to do is very noble and I think that you should be able to do it. I think that you just need to do it in a location that's a little bit less saturated with group homes for the benefit of of your residents that deserve to live or potential tenants that deserve to live in an integrated community. Um perhaps you can look in places that don't have as many group homes. I can see from looking at this map that Ward three and Ward One do have locations, but in this particular specific location along that Oki Boulevard, you've got you've got just so many. I mean, and just looking at this map, just counting it up as you were speaking, even from the 95 down to just

below Sahara and from the 15 to Decar, there's 40 40 group homes in that area where others have one or two within that same kind of location. So, that's the only consideration that I'm taking in uh or the only factor that I'm really taking into consideration and recommending denial tonight. And I don't again, I don't do that lightly. I I do want to hear if there's any other comments before I make this decision because I'm I'm honestly heartbroken about it, but I just think it's the right call, but I just want to hear from other folks. Vice Chair.

Yes. Uh Commissioner Rogan, I I I feel the same way. I you know how it is. I'm uh represent W three and I I see more uh group homes than just about anybody other than yourself. Um and you know I I I support them. I support them in my ward. I've supported them year after year after year. Um, but whenever we get to a certain level of saturation, you've seen me uh deny some of these applications and um I and and I'm with you when it when it gets to 640 620 ft away. Um we we can look at it and we can look to see what level of saturations within that neighborhood. Um but I I I feel right across the street. Um I I mean we've seen probably five applications come before us over the past 12 months that uh I I denied due to the same reason. So I I do support um um your comments and what what I feel that you're going to do tonight. But uh anyways, I I do feel that we there there is a good way to integrate these into the community. I I do welcome in in my ward. Heck, I even have them right across the street. That's a lot more concentrated than this and it it's been a good thing for our community.

Seeing no other comments, Commissioner Rogan. All right. Well, um, with reluctance, I will make a motion to deny agenda item 28, project 260093, SUP1. Motion carries

and that item is final action tonight unless appealed to the city clerk in 10 days. That brings us to agenda item 2925-0290 VR1 applicant owner Medina Trust for possible action on land use entitlement project request to allow an existing patio cover carport to encroach into the front yard setback area where such is not allowed and to allow two existing residential accessory structures shed one and shed two to not conform to title 19.06 for aesthetic compatibility at 1113 Silver Lake Drive. Staff may please get the report. Madame Chair, this is a result of an open code enforcement case for an unpermitted carport located in the front yard. Staff finds that no evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance has been presented in that the applicant has created a self-imposed hardship by constructing a carport and two sheds that do not meet Title 19 development standards. Removal of the carport and painting the sheds to match the primary dwelling would allow conformance to Title 19 requirements. Thank you.

Thank you. Who is the applicant in the audience? Please come down and state your name for the record. Good. Good evening. Roy Medina.

So, I want to know what was the main issue. Well, it's not my house. It's my mom's house. Um, my father did that carport with no bad intentions. He did it for her. She's disabled arthritis level 10. So, he did it for good intention with the shade for her to be walking around the front front of the house. And those uh backyard sheds were already in the house when they bought that property over 10 years ago. So, I went and moved them how they told me to move off the wall 7 by7. So, yeah.

Okay. Thank you. So, at this time, this item has been noticed for public comment. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak? Seeing Oh, please come down. And please give your name for the record.

Hernandez. Hi. Um, I'm having the same problem as he has for my mother's house. Like a 1117 Silver Lake. Uh, I think in one of the pictures you could actually see my mom's house. Um, I haven't done the paperwork or anything because I've been trying to. I don't know how to. So, I've been struggling at that to make sure it goes through. Um me personally, I went over to several of our neighbors uh asking them if there's because when my mom told me that she has the same problem. I asked the neighbor I asked them twice actually. Once for my mom's house to see if anybody has a problem with which almost everybody said they don't have a problem. They're actually happy for my mother for having that because they know Vegas gets stupid hot. um let's say 100 to 115 125 was the highest that I've remembered and um I also asked sorry I also asked for our neighbors at 1113 as well and they say they have no problem with it because they understand that mo most of the people who live there are older people around 55 plus so they understand that she actually does need it and they also don't have any problem. Plus, most of the neighborhoods do talk to each other. They do hang out like under the carport whenever they talk because it's too hot to be close to the sidewalk because like I said, it gets very hot in Las Vegas.

No, I appreciate that. And so, a couple of things. One is you're welcome to reach out to one of our staff members and they can provide contact to help you point you in the right direction for that paperwork and the process that you're going through. Um, what I do want to clarify though is, so I just want to assume and clarify for the record that you are in support for your neighbor.

Yes, that's correct. I'm in I'm in support as well for my neighbor because like I said, he has an elderly mother, 55 plus. I'm not sure how older she plus she has arthritis, which me and my mother also knew about that because like I said, they they talk to each other. She tells me I don't live with my mother anymore. So, I just want to say that they should keep it. Most of almost all the neighbors that I talked to say they have no problem with it because they understand that most of the people who live in that area are 55 plus and most of them do need the shade because as I repeat, it gets hot in Las Vegas over 100 degrees to 125 the last time I remembered.

No. And thank you for your comments. And so if there are no other comments to be had, I will turn it over to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Walters.

Hi. Hello. Um I was able to go by the property and visit it and um your carport is much nicer than many others on the street. I will say that. and also uh several of your neighbors carports project out much further than the carport at this particular address. So, um it I I don't really see issues with the carport as it stands. It's also behind this wall and um seems like it's in the aesthetic of the house and very very nice overall. Uh the sheds in the back, I appreciate that you moved them from the edge. Is painting them uh a similar color of the house uh an option for you?

So she lives I could if that's an issue I can take care of that for her. That's her house. So but I can take care of if it's a problem to fix that issue.

Yeah, I think your mother would appreciate that. And um I think that if I don't see any issues with this particular applicant as long as the sheds can then get painted to match the the color of the house. If any other commissioners have any comments. Um okay madam chair through you. So um we are going to strike conditions one or two and three. Uh therefore that those were the variances to allow the the non-esthetically compatible structures. Those will be removed. Therefore, they'll need to meet current code which would be aesthetically compatible. Uh we could add a condition if you so choose. We could add a condition to require the painting of the sheds to match the existing home if that's what you'd like to do.

Yes, I think so. Yes. So, let's go ahead and instruct conditions two and three uh for 25209 VR1. And then we'll add a new condition stating that both sheds one and two shall be painted to match the existing uh house. Do you agree with those conditions? Yes. Okay. You're welcome to make a motion. Okay. Then I make a motion to um approve agenda item 29 uh 25-0290 V1 uh with staff conditions with staff amended conditions.

Motion carries and that will move on to city council on June 17th. That brings us to agenda item 30 26-000026 applicant don't pass don't pay inc owner 4275 Westbell Drive LLC for possible action on the following land use entitlement project request at the southwest corner of Vegas Drive and Buffalo Drive 30 A26-0026 B1 to allow zero additional parking spaces where three additional spaces are required for parking impaired development and 30 C 26-0026 6 SUP 1 for proposed motor vehicle smog check use. Staff, may you please get the report?

Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, motor vehicle smog check is a conditional use in the C1 zoning district. The proposed smog check facility does not meet conditional use regulation number one, which requires a minimum of 200 square feet within within an enclosed structure. The proposed facility provides two stacking spaces. Conditional use regulation number four requires either three vehicle stacking spaces or two regular spaces in addition to a standard testing space. Uh pursuant to 1912 040, a special use permit is therefore required for this request. Uh revised plans were submitted on 512 2026 which are included in the commissioner supplemental packets. This ail ailiated the the need for the setback variance. In addition, revised elevations now indicate that the smog check building is compatible in appearance with the on-site convenience store. Those changes aside, the site is deficient in the amount of required parking due to the loss of spaces where the smog check is physically located. There are no extraordinary circumstances and the hardship is deemed to be self-imposed. As such, staff recommends denial of the parking variance and associate special use permit. Thank you.

Thank you. Please give your name for the record.

Dennis Rusk, architect, 616 South 8. I'm a little I've suffered under COVID for the last nine months and I'm a little hard of hearing. So, please speak up. Madame Chairman, chairmans, we uh have worked diligently on this small smog center. It is true that the city ordinance requires 400 and 200 square feet for a building for a smog station, although 660 square ft is more than adequate to put the equipment in and to make the necessary connections. I spoke with Commissioner Levo and we made a changes and adjustments to the elevation to make it much more compatible with that particular site by dressing up the parapips with uh Spanish style and corbals to make it look like it's part of the whole center. The issue with parking is what I'm suggesting is we added two parking spaces that were not there in the center before. As hard as I've struggled, and I've been an architect for 50 years to come up with one more space someplace, it just didn't seem to work for me. So we're asking for the variance of one space because we provide two additional spaces there. We're using one space from the center and we have the testing area here.

Um I believe it's the issue is one parking space is the actual variance that we're requesting and the reduction in size of the actual smog center to be compatible with a lot of the smog centers that are throughout the whole valley. If any other questions I'll be pretty glad to answer them. Thank you so much. With that, this item has been noticed for public comment. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak at this time? Seeing none, I will turn it over to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Leau.

Um, yeah. Thank you so much. I just wanted to say thank you for working with us um on making the revisions that we requested and I I think that, you know, you've addressed some of the main concerns of which were site egress on this already tight and underparked site. Um it's great that you were able to get those two additional stacking spaces so that customers at the smog station won't have to walk across any egress points um through that parking lot. Um we just, you know, really want to ensure that pedestrian safety is is first and foremost there. And I know how busy um that those smog stations can can become during the day. Um and I I think that was critical to get those spaces in there. Um and then in addition making those small changes uh to the to the smog station design itself and making sure that it was compatible with those um existing PBLO style buildings. Um I think that'll be a much better look um for that site. So appreciate your work on this and thank you so much. With that, I think I'd like to make a motion to approve unless anybody else has comments. All right. I motion to approve item 30 26- uh 0026 30A and 30C I believe 30B was stricken

and was that subject to conditions? subject to conditions.

Motion carries and those items are final action unless appeal to the city clerk in 10 days. Uh thank you. By the way, I have enormous respect for the last 50 years for planning commissions, county, city, and the municipalities. I don't normally dress up for a planning commission meeting, but I have another meeting to go to after this. Thank you. We appreciate it. Thank you, Chair. The city attorney's office was going to implement a new tuxedo only rule for the planning commission after missation.

And with that, that brings us to item 3126-0051. Applicant Silver State Contracting and Development LLC owner ADNNI LLC for possible action of the following land use entitlement project requests at 2167 North Decar Boulevard 31A 26-0051 V1 to allow a proposed commercial development that does not conform to Title 19 development standards for on-site minimum parking requirements 31B 26-0051 SDR1 for the proposed conversion of an existing 3,224t motor vehicle parts and sales development into a convenience store with fuel pumps and parking lot reconfiguration with waiverss of title 19.08 perimeter landscape buffer requirements. Staff, may I please get the report? Madame Chair, the proposed general retail other than listed convenience store land use is permitted in the C1 limited commercial zoning district. Pursuant to title 19 on-site parking development standards, the development is required to provide a minimum of 19 parking spaces. The proposed site design proposes 12 total spaces which do not conform to title 19 minimum requirements. In addition, the development is required to provide one loading space to accommodate deliveries to the site and the site design proposes to provide zero loading spaces. In addition, the applicant is requesting waiverss to allow a 1-ft buffer on the east perimeter where 15t is required, zero foot buffers on the north and south where 8t is required. and staff has concluded that these reductions will create an uncon unattractive uh commercial frontage along a major arterial street that are inconsistent with the intent of title 19. Staff notes that there is no unique hardship that has been demonstrated. The need for variances in waiverss results in the applicant's proposed site design and intensity of the proposed use rather than any exceptional condition of the property. For that reason, the hardship is considered self-created and the request does not meet the criteria for the variance variance approval. Therefore, staff does not support the

requested variance and site development plan review. Please note that additional documents for protests were received after publication. Thank you. Thank you. Please give your name for the record.

Tony Gillerson with Silver State Contracting. Um yes, we're proposing to um renovate the existing uh mechanic shop to a convenience store um with a small like ice cream parlor in it with uh and we wanted to add four uh fuel stations. Uh, with that being said, we um added all of the landscape barriers around um went through numerous uh revised drawings to accommodate um what to to to get it approved. um talking to Commissioner Walters today, um we we we kind of spoke about um the fuel stations, which is one of the reasons why it's so tight when it comes to the the parking and the the variances. Um so, you know, we've decided that we can get rid of those those uh those fuel pumps and be able to accommodate all of the um parking, zoning, loading. We do have a smaller zoning um that that's on the that's on the drawing that we revised. Um I don't know if that was adequate enough, but I know the the the the parking was uh was the biggest issue.

All right. And with that, uh this item has been noticed for public comments. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak at this time? Seeing none, I will close public comment and turn it over to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Walters. Hi. Yes. Thank you for uh for speaking with me on this project. I appreciate uh your willingness to I think remove those fuel pumps and revisit this project in order to allow for the the uh parking, allow for the landscaping requirements that are needed here. Um was there a new plan submitted today? I they're working on it as we speak right now. I was going to um I was confused.

I was just texting them. Um we we thought we were going to have it done, but it does look like we will be able to get the parking spaces that that's needed because now the parking spaces can go in front of the building now. Um so we so we'll be able to have a lot more spaces. Okay. Available. And then that will allow you to account for that delivery uh space as well. Correct.

And accommodate some of the landscaping needs around the property. Yes, it looks like we did. Did Did we uh not for the landscape? And I know we added as much as we could around for the the back of the property like we spoke about the the barrier from the the homes. Um we added some greenery behind that. Uh some palm trees and then coming around the perimeter also. Yeah. So, we're also going to ask that you do not use palm trees. Okay. They they don't really provide a lot of uh coverage for for our So you could um maybe I'm speaking too soon. So

yeah, the SNWA um approved list of trees would be a good resource to find and notate the kind of plants that that would get you through the requirements. So okay. Um so so is perhaps the best course of action to bring this back with an a updated plan and to give you a time for that to submit that. So that would be an obeyance likely.

I can Yeah, I can have the plan. I'm actually trying to get the plan here shortly like tomorrow by by Thursday. Uh I can have a plan. We're actually working on it right now. I just didn't want to delay it anymore. But um I don't know what we could do to make that happen.

Madam Chair, through you. What we can do is add some conditions to um require some of these things and in between is this going to council? Yes. If it's approved, it goes to councils. In between council and planning commission, we can work with the applicant to update the plans and get it ready for city council. If that's uh that's an option or you can obey it for 30 days as well. Um I think it would be fine. I think it will go through council anyway. So if we can what can I do today in order to move it forward without the fuel pumps and notating?

Right. So we can add a couple conditions to uh 31B. Uh one condition would read um prior to the submittal or prior to the issuance of building permits uh the fuel canopy shall be uh removed from the site. Fuel canopy and fuel pumps.

Fuel canopy and fuel pumps. Correct. Um and then the second condition I I I noted you were concerned about the species of trees. So we can just add to condition 11 uh again for 31B and just add that uh all tree species shall be in conformance or or or or yeah be in uh in compliance or conformance with the Southern Nevada regional plant list and then between uh we'll be in contact with the applicant and between u now and city council we'll get those revised plans and get everything updated for council. And would that also include uh that they would meet the parking requirements or that uh

the 19 and the No. Uh unless they revised their plans to meet their requirement uh as of now it doesn't meet it and the variance would move forward as well. Okay. Are those conditions that you can agree to? Yes. Do we have any other

Commissioner Rogan? Do you have comment? I I'm just there's a lot of moving pieces to this. I'm just kind of hesitant to to move it on to council without knowing the full extent of what he's planning to do. I mean, my major concerns were the lack of landscaping along the I guess north and south um property lines and whether this is just overbuilt. So, I I mean I'll be a no on moving it forward. It doesn't mean that I'm a no on the project overall, but I'd prefer that you obey it just so that we can take a look at it. Yeah. Um but it's up to you, Commissioner. I I think that's probably

Yeah. And I I will echo I I would I would support an obeyance as well just because to your point if the updated plans haven't been received and kind of to Rogan's point, a lot of moving parts. I think obeying it for 30 days just gives a little bit more time to flush it out and also work maybe on the facade as well and kind of tidying it up and then sending it on to city council. Yeah. So, um is it possible for you to bring it back here next month or would you need extra time? You said that next month. Yes, I I can. So then let's move to obey it, which means that it would just come back to the June 16th meeting before you move on to city council. Okay. Uh

yes. So I'll make a motion to obey um item 30 31. Thank you. Which is 26-0051. um to the June 16th meeting. Motion carries. That brings us to agenda item 32, 26-0061, SDR1. Applicant owner Henry Dennis Thorns for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for proposed five-story 11 unit multifamily residential development with waiverss of title 19.09 formbbased code development standards at 508 Van Beern Avenue. Staff may please get the report. Madame Chair, the proposed development would introduce additional housing stock into the historic Westside district and would provide much neededed subsidized affordable housing within a mixed income project that includes eight market rate units and two subsidized units. Further, the proposed units are two and threebedroom units and these family-friendly housing uh types are identified by the 100 plan as meeting a particularly critical need in the area. The proposed development meets all required development standards except for the requested parking waiver which is a request to allow eight parking stalls where 10 are required. Uh as such staff recommends approval of the requested site development plan review subject to conditions. Please note additional documentation of protest has been received since publication. Thank you.

Thank you. Please give your name for the record. My name is Andrew Nasarella. I'm with K Architects. We're here on behalf of the client, Henry Thorns. How you doing? I'm Henry Thorns. Nice to meet you guys. Thank you for your time.

Uh we're really excited to bring this project to everyone here. Uh this is part of the reinvigoration projects that are happening on the historic west side. Um there's a couple things that I'd like to draw your attention to on this project. There's 11 uh really amplesized two and threebedroom uh units that are going to be provided. There's a really nice amenity space uh for those residents. There's also going to be an internal parking structure uh for uh covered parking. Now, along with that, we want to be respectful to our neighbors. So, there's a couple things that we've provided is deep setbacks for um all the balconies and windows so that there's no overlooking onto the neighbors. We've also provided a breeze block uh divider to additionally create um separation between us and our neighbors to be to be good good neighbors in that way. Um, we really focused on adding as many trees and screen walls as possible. And, uh, I think that about covers it.

Uh, this project basically started, uh, my family owned this land for since 1980s. Uh, I I grew up in this neighborhood. Uh, I know what it takes to keep this neighborhood safe. Uh, anybody in this neighborhood will know me if we walk around. I'm familiar with the churches. I'm familiar with everybody around. Uh, I've even been reached out and had the opportunity to, uh, be mentored by Sam Cherry and Cherry Development, which he's a project two blocks away. So, we're talking about partnering and things going on in the community, and we're just here to help. This is a this is a dream come true to me. I would love to provide in the community that I was raised in, that I grew up in, and I think it's important to inspire and let the community know that we can do it. You can do it. You can look like me, you can be from here, and we can do it. So, thank you for that.

Thank you. This item has been noticed for public comment. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak at this time? Seeing none, I will close public comment, turn it over to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Walters. Hi, thank you for your presentation. Um, yes, this this housing development does provide a lot of infill uh needs for that area. And um my only my only concern is if you have I I know that there are two one-story homes next door. Have you um spoken with them and have you heard any concerns specifically from

briefly spoken with the neighbors. Uh the only concern was hey we don't want people looking over into our backyard. So we already made those adjustments by pushing things back so that they can have their privacy. So we've done that. Yeah. Um okay. I I I have looked at this project. I have um I have went to that area. It's in real need of this kind of development. And so, um if there are any other comments or Yeah. Cena, please make a mot. Oh, Commissioner Taylor. Thank you, Madam Chair, through you. Um great to see this kind of development going on in this area. Just I'm I'm guessing this is these are rentals, correct? Yes.

Okay. Um, and I'm looking at your supporting documentation and I know that this is a little bit different in terms of the landscaping requirements, but I'm just not am I missing it? Do we have any actual landscaping for the perimeter of the building? because I see like three trees in your rendering, but I always get very concerned in this area because it is one of the highest mapped heat urban heat island areas and we just, you know, want to do what we can do, especially in some of these higher heat island areas to try to mitigate that. Um, especially when you might have, you know, radiating heat up into the building and cause additional costs to your occupants. So, I didn't see it. So, if you want to show me what you've got for landscaping, that would be fantastic. Bless you, Commissioner.

Yeah, absolutely. So, uh we due to the size of the site, uh we are providing as much as possible. We have one pistache tree with a 24-in box and then we have uh three 24-inch box mountain laurels as well on this small site. And then along the sides of either side of the building, we're packing in as many oleander trees as possible uh to provide as vertical uh break in that thermal barrier as well.

Okay. Yeah. I mean, I will say I wish that I understand it's a small site. I understand you've got constraints on your layouts to maximize the site and the and the costs and all of that, but I do wish that you had more landscaping and and I will just say that because again, it's always a concern in these areas. So, but it is the renderings are beautiful, so it's going to really I think be a great uh visual addition to the community. I just wish that you had more landscaping in there, trees specifically. But with that, Commissioner Walters, if you'd like to make a motion.

Yes. I uh will motion to um approve item agenda item 32. That's 26-0061 SDR1. Uh with staff conditions, do you agree to staff? We agree to the conditions. Yes. Motion carries and that will move on to city council on June 17th.

Thank you. That brings us to item 3326-0078 SDR1 applicant owner Maria Emma Griselda Quuo Diaz for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for proposed two-story 5-unit multifamily residential development with waiverss of appendix F interim downtown Las Vegas development standards area 2 at 617 North 10th Street. Staff may please get the report. Madame Chair, uh while the proposed development would introduce additional housing stock in the downtown North Master planned area, the proposed waiverss and exceptions are evidence that the subject site has been overbuilt and is encroaching into required setbacks through the addition of a fifth unit and the existing storage shed. Staff recommends denial of the requested site development plan review subject to conditions if approved. Please note, additional documents of support have been received since publication. Thank you.

Thank you. Please give your name for the record. My name is Maria Emma Gela and he's my son because I can understand all the things in English. He can translate translate. Please give your name for the record. Uh Javier, I'm the son. and I'm going to translate and you can take this opportunity to present on the agenda item or if you have no nothing to present at this time and just want to take questions, I can turn it over to public comment real quick. Um I I just wanted to ask in regards to why the staff recommends a denial.

Okay, we'll save that then for the dialogue of the commission. So at this time then this item has been noticed for public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to speak at this time? Seeing none, I will turn it over to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Walters. And Commissioner Walters, you can have staff also help answer his question. Yes. Is it possible to first provide some clarity about why staff recommends denial?

Sure, Madame Chair. Through you, um, it's really just a matter of the the waiverss that we have. So, in the rear yard, there's the requirement for the 20 foot uh setback, and then they've only able to provide 8 ft with the addition in the rear. Um, and then uh a couple other waiverss in the front yard setback area. There's that uh shed that's built and it doesn't meet our aesthetic compatibility requirements. Um and and so just as a result of those uh waiverss and and the parking count waiver as well, uh staff recommended a denial on this application.

Thank you. I think I can also provide some some further um understanding for that. So, um, I I went by this property and I understand that you purchased it around 2019 and then built a unit in the back of it. Is that correct? Yes. Yes. I made a mistake.

Yeah, I I understand. Um, so that that unit uh requires you to get a permit for it, but because of the location of that unit, it's now triggered uh several other violations that you need to overcome in order to what would be get a permit to build that unit. One of those, for example, is that you you need 10 parking spaces on that site. And uh right now you're suggesting five. Well, that's because the others would fit in the back of the property as many other units uh uh many other multifamily complexes on that street and in that sort of small area do

but you have a unit there. Um there's a 20 foot rear setback that's required and you're asking for eight. That one is okay except it's for the unit that you've built, which is also the problem for all of the other uh variances being requested. For example, the shed that's in the front. It doesn't it's not set back from the wall. And so my question about the shed is it can it be moved over? Yes. Yes, it could be. Yes, it can. Okay. It could be moved. And can it be painted to match the color of the building?

Yes. Um, so it would need a three I think a three-foot uh setback from the sidewall. Is that correct? Yes. So So Madam Chair, three, so I believe we're speaking of the structure in the front of the So our code doesn't permit a structure in the front at all. So, one of the waiverss that they're requesting is to allow that structure in the front yard of the of the home. Uh, as opposed to the backyard. Correct. Correct. Can be in front of the house. So, so the waiver again is is is to allow that in that location.

So, um, the other issue on that street is that there isn't a lot of available parking around there for residences anyway. So, I'm not sure that you would have um been successful in reducing the amount of parking to build uh this building in the back. The other difficulty is that this is an urban heat heat zone and there's no trees or other landscaping and um and because of this structure and the and the rest of the property being taken up by the few parking spaces that you're providing, there's then no uh ability to put much landscaping on the property. And so it's sort of a domino effect. And um I think that there's just several things happening um happening here that that maybe if I would not be able to support at this time moving forward on uh allowing the permitting in the face of nine or 10 variances including including all the parking and landscaping and placement that this has triggered on the property. Commissioner Walters, is there a motion that you would like to make?

Are there any other comments on the commission that would like to speak on this item? Um, I do have a question. Is there um is there a tenant currently living in that space? No. No. Okay. I just wanted to make sure that there were no long-term leases in place or anything that somebody would be displaced. There's none. Thank you.

I could with that. Commissioner Walters, are you ready to make a motion? Um, yes. At this time, I have to make a motion to deny uh agenda item 30. three. Thank you. 33 which is uh 26-0078- SDR1.

Motion carries. And that will move on to city council on June 17th. Thank you. That brings us to agenda item 3426-0085 SDR1. Applicant Trout Electric, owner Jackson Hotel LV LLC and uh ST612E LLC for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for proposed permanent parking facility with waiverss of title 19.09 formbbased code development standards at 612 and 620 Jackson Avenue. Staff may please get the report.

Uh thank you, Madam Chair. The request is for a parking facility with electric vehicle charging stations and to convert the existing building into a customer lounge. There are several requested exceptions and waiverss including the reduction of perimeter and parking lot landscaping. Jackson Avenue is central to the ongo ongoing redevelopment efforts in historic westside and this autocentric proposal is incomplete with 2050 master plan and the 100 plan both which envision Jackson Avenue as a walkable main street with a variety of mixeduse commercial and entertainment type development. Overall, the development does not meet the development standards for this zone and does not meet the long range planning goals for this area of the historic westside. As such, staff recommends denial of the request. Thank you.

Thank you. Please state your name for the record. Pernella Christensen of Trout Electric. On behalf of the applicant, we are actually after speaking to the commissioner today, we're going to request to remove this from the agenda. Okay, so request to be struck from the Okay, got it. So with that, sorry, one moment

then. Um, Commissioner Schman, would you like to make a motion to strike?

Yes, Madam Chair. On item 34, make a motion to strike. Motion carries. Thank you. And with that, that takes us to agenda item 3526-0088 B1 applicant owner Alan Goodall for possible action on a land use entitlement project request to allow proposed residential accessory structure shed that does not conform to tile 19.06 06 development standards for setbacks and separation at 6141 West Elcampo Grande Avenue. Staff, may you please get the report?

Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. No evidence of unique or extraordinary circumstance has been presented in that the applicant has created a self-imposed hardship by proposing to construct a residential accessory structure, a shed that does not meet the sideyard setback and separation from the main building. Relocating the shed would allow conformance to title 19 requirements. In view of the absence for any hardships imposed by the site's physical characteristics, it is concluded that the applicant's hardship is preferential in nature and is thereby outside the realm of NRS 278 for granting variances. Thank you. Thank you. Please state your name for the record. My name is Todd Argrove representing Tough Shed on behalf of Alan Goodall.

Thank you. Is there anything you'd like to present on this item?

I do. So, we plan on doing an accessory building. It's going to be architecturally compatible. It's going to be painted to match the existing residence. And we're looking to get the setbacks reduced from the sidewall on the west side and the east side towards the house. And as you can see where we plan on putting the building in this location here, it's zero low impact on the neighbors on this on his west side, his south side, and we got like an aquarium and little center right there. This kind of gives you a little bit visual. So, it's going to be behind the gate here. And we need to set backs because the way the house is offset to the house, but we're going to make it all architecturally compatible, painted the same to match.

And I would also like just to mention we did have for the same project back in 2017 got approval, but due to financial situations with the customer, we did not move forward, but we'd like to move forward again. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you. So with that, this item has been noticed for public comment. Is there anyone who would like to speak at this time? Seeing none, I will close public comment, move it over to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Taylor.

Thank you, Madam Chair, through you. Um, thank you for the presentation. Um, I'm obviously familiar with the projects that you do at Tough Shed and what they look like and I've been by this lot um to see the sort of layout. Was there any objection from your neighbor to the west on Maverick? Not at all. Not at all. There was not an objection back then and there's not an objection now on that. And there's a picture of the front of the building. Okay. Where it's going to go

and for the That's okay. I don't even need to ask that. I'm gonna answer my own question. All right. Um I don't really have any other questions for this project. Again, I mean, I've seen the site, so um if you don't have any objections from that neighbor on Maverick, I'm I'm not that concerned. Um and I didn't see an objection in the record. Um so, anybody else have any questions or concerns on this one? Okay. Then I'm prepared to make a motion. Um I'll move to approve item 35260088 VR1. Uh subject to all staff conditions. And you agree to all staff conditions? Of course. Thank you very much.

Motion carries. And that is final action. Let's appeal the city clerk in 10 days. Thank you. Thank you. That brings us to item 3626-0094. Applicant Cardan Punjab owner Cascade Valley Medical Holdings LLC for possible action on the following land use entitlement project request at 7180 Cascade Valley Court 280 36A 26- 094 VR1 to allow zero additional parking spaces where one is required on a parking impaired site 36B26-0094 SUP1 for a proposed general retail store other than listed pharmacy. Staff may please get the report.

Uh thank you, Madam Chair. No evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance has been presented in the in that the applicant has created a self-imposed hardship by proposing a use with a greater parking requirement than the site can accommodate. As such, the applicant hardship is deemed preferential in nature and staff recommends denial of the request. Thank you. Thank you. Please give your name for the record.

Kardam Punjabi. Thank you everyone. Um so this is a place which uh I'm going to I'm the tenant. So I'm going to rent it and my future my plan is to open up a pharmacy which going to be in the medical hub which is the Tanaya way is considered as a medical hub. So my uh pretty much my basic goal here is primarily delivering the medication. So the space which we going to need is not the as much as what a medical I mean a doctor office needs. So my primary focus is going to be delivering to all the one who has problem with uh transportation who are chronic conditions for any individual who needs delivery. Our goal is going to be 100% delivery. So, we're not going to need as many space to uh to cover to cover up. And second uh secondary uh this is my first time. So, uh because we going to pro provide the free uh delivery service, it's it's going to be mostly uh delivery. Uh they're not going to come pick up and even if we set up a pickup, it's going to be scheduled on certain times. So, they can come. So the turnaround time will be less than five minutes. They we call them, we schedule pickup, which is going to be very rare because my business model is going to be about delivering anywhere in Las Vegas. It's going to be free delivery. So that's the main reason. It's on the second floor as well where people don't even have to come. Even though there's an elevator, it's going to be pretty much focused on delivery anywhere in Vegas who has patient who has chronic conditions, individual who cannot go or they cannot have any transportation. So that's my uh goal. Um, also we going to minimize the traffic by not having people come to that location. So yeah, please consider uh thank you

for listening. Thank you. This item has been noticed for public comment. Is there anyone who would like to speak at this time? Seeing none, I will close and turn it over to members of the commission. Starting with Commissioner Rogan. The only reason that this is on for denial is that they're providing 81 parking spaces where 83 are required. So, I have no problem um approving the variance or supporting the variance and the special use permit. Are there any Commissioner Taylor, do you have any comments? If there's no other comments, chair, I'm ready to make a motion for

approval on agenda item 36 uh 26-009 for VA one and SUP1. And sir, you agree to all of staff's conditions. Is that a yes? Yeah. Can you just say it a little louder? Okay. Uh yes. Yes. Thank you. Okay, that's my motion. Motion carries. Uh madam chair that I will move on to city council on 61726. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you guys. That brings us to agenda item 3726-01000 SDR1 applicant owner Destiny Christian Center for possible action on land use entitlement project request for a major amendment to an approved use permit and plot plan review UC017684 for proposed one-story 12595T building addition to an existing one-story 10,322 church house of worship development and parking lot reconfiguration at 6210 West Cheyenne Avenue. Staff, may you please get the report? Um, thank you, Madam Chair. A proposed 12,595 foot building addition is proposed along the southern portion of the existing church building closest to to Cheyenne Avenue. Per the submitted justification letter, the existing modular buildings on the subject site will be demolished to accommodate the proposed development. While this addition includes a slight reduction of landscape planting materials, the proposed development generally meets title 19 development standards and staff recommends approval subject to condition conditions. Thank you.

Thank you. you please to give your name for the record?

Yes. Hi, good evening commissioners. My name is Steven Ward uh 151 Fulgora Street. I am the architect for the project from Banaker Architecture. I'm here representing the applicant Destiny Christian Center. We have actually some of the members uh in the audience today if I'm not able to answer some of the questions that you may have. Um, the project is a one-story sanctuary and supporting space addition to a existing church on Maverick and Cheyenne. Uh, the proposed addition has been designed with materials and an architectural character we feel will make a great addition to the surrounding area. Additional on-site parking and site improvements have been added uh for the increased square footage. And we have been working with staff and officials over the past couple months to work out any issues that we have had and we are prepared today to move forward with the conditions of approval. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you so much. This item has been noticed for public comment. Is there anyone who would like to speak at this time? Seeing none, I will close public comment, move it to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Walters. Hi, this is a large development right on Cheyenne. Um, I think it'll be a very big improvement to that area and a large investment. Uh, and I don't have any concerns with it. I had some questions about trees because they were so hard to see, but now that I can zoom in, I see that it's full of trees in this um that conform. So, I don't have questions at this time. I don't have concerns. If anyone else has comments, you're welcome to make a motion.

Right. I uh would like to motion for agenda to approve agenda item 37. That's 26-01000 SDR1 um with staff conditions. Do you agree to staff conditions? Yes. Thank you. It's not popping up on my screen. Would you like a verbal? Yes, please. Verbal for three. Commissioner Schlotman. Alters.

I tener. We that motion did pass unanimously and that is final action unless appeal to the city clerk in 10 days.

Thank you. That brings us to agenda item 3826-0104 SDR1 applicant owner Charlie LLC for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for a major amendment to an approved site development plan review 21-0310 SDR1 to allow required planting materials to not be installed for an existing parking lot with a waiver of the appendix F permanent parking lot development standards at 212 East Charleston Boulevard. Staff may please get the report. Madame Chair, staff has determined that the proposed development is not compatible with adjacent development in the area. Without the required planting materials adjacent to Charleston Boulevard, parked cars, asphalt, and service areas become fully visible from the street. This reduces aesthetic quality along Charleston Boulevard, which is a key arts district corridor leading to visual blight. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the requested site development plan review. Please note, additional documents for support were received after publication. Thank you.

Thank you. Please give your name for the record. Chris Lexus. Good evening. Uh I'm here for the waiver on the two trees and theif roughly 50 square foot of U landscape. Perfect. And with that, I'll turn it over to members of the public. This has been noticed for public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to comment at this time? Seeing none, I will close it and turn it over to members of commission. Starting with Vice Chair Schlotman.

Yes, Madam Chair. I I remember this parking lot when we first approved it years ago. It was uh way too tight and u I I took a chance on it and like a lot of our parking u parking lots downtown, they're tight and don't have the right amount of landscaping. I I I think that and it could potentially cause a site visibility issue with the traffic coming down or eastbound on Charleston. Um, and if we put a tree on the east side of your site, it it's going to be the only tree within like three blocks on Charleston. The the the Charleston corridor um is really tight. I mean, it it's a three or four foot sidewalk. Um, and hopefully we have a new plan one day, Mr. occupy at uh where we can revitalize Charleston and put in a little bit wider sidewalks and amenity zone. We did such a good job with uh commerce and Main Street and uh we're doing such a uh you know public works is doing such a great job with uh all the capital improvement program uh projects on Utah and uh the California that's already gone in and um some of these other streets and I know that Las Vegas Paven is Las Vegas Paven bringing the u the storm drain that you could drive a truck down um all the way down to this location.

Uh to you, Madam Chair. I actually not sure who the contractor is on the storm drain project. I could look it up if you I could tell you after probably. Yeah. I hopefully uh hopefully we can we can look at something for for Charleston going through the arts district. It's just not enough room to have all the all the street trees in the small and the mind zone within the existing sidewalk. So, for those reasons, I'll be supporting this and I'm ready to make a motion. Please do on item number 3826-01 04 SDR1 move to approve subject to staff's conditions and uh based on my testimony tonight and you agree to the conditions.

Yes. Okay. Thank you. It's not popping up on my screen but I'm Yes. Thank Commissioner Walters. Yes. Yes. Motion carries. And that is final action. Let's appeal to the city clerk in 10 days. Thank you.

That brings us to agenda item 4026-05. applicant owner Lazaru Real Estate LLC for possible action on the following land use entitlement project request at 1701 South Decatur Boulevard 39A26-0105 VR1 to allow proposed 50ft tall off-remise sign where 40T is the maximum allowed 39B 26-05 SCP1 for proposed 50 foot tall 14 foot x 48 foot off-remise sign not qualifying as a city communication sign use with digital LED electronic message illumination staff may please get the Start.

Madam Chair, one moment. Yeah. Uh the the uh there is no unique or physical characteristic for the subject property that warrants the requested variance for the construction of a new offer sign that exceeds the height requirements. As such uh the applicant's request is self-imposed and staff therefore recommends denial of the variance and the special use permit request subject to conditions if approved. Thank you. Thank you. Please give your name for the record.

Good evening. Marissa Ferman 1980 Festival Plaza Drive here tonight on behalf of the applicant property owner. We are on the southeast corner of Oki indicator. Uh this uh application relates to an existing billboard um for which there are two components of this application. First being the special use permit. Turning to the site plan. As you can see here, there's been an existing billboard for the last 30 years that the applicant uh has maintained. Um the purpose of this application is because the applicant would like to convert the existing billboard to have an LED display. In order to do that um it has to be relocated. So you can see here the existing billboard is uh just south of an existing trash enclosure. Um for this conversion it has to be moved 10 ft to the north in front of this enclosure as you can see here. Now the purpose of that is because of the weight um associated with the LED display. Um the current footing and piping with the existing display cannot handle that additional weight. Um in order to uh modify that existing footing, they would have to go in and dig up the uh concrete and asphalt here. Um it'd be extremely difficult and costly to do that for a new sign. Um and so that is the reason why it is going to be moved 10 feet to the north. Um secondly, we do have a variance for height. It is currently at 40 feet today and we are requesting a height variance to go up to 50 feet. Um you can see this sign uh just on the other side of the uh building on the subject site. Um the reason for this height increase is to accommodate the existing mechanical equipment on top of the roof. Um you can see here um there's some equipment you can see here. Um, and now turning to an aerial, and I apologize, it's a bit blurry. So, where it currently is, um, at 40 feet, um, it's able to exist without touching any of the mechanical equipment. When moved 10 ft to the

north, there is, um, AC units on top of the roof that will be too close to the sign at 40 ft. So, after moving the sign 10 ft to the north, we will need to, uh, go up a bit to make sure there's enough separation distance between the mechanical equipment and the sign. And just to show you, and I know this is quite blurry and it's uh as zoomed in as we could get off of Google Earth, but the new location would be about here. And there's an existing AC unit that you can see here. And um if you were to pull this up on Google Earth, it probably would have been a little bit clearer, but again, this is the best we could do. So, if you could imagine this sign being moved up about 10 feet to the north, um it would uh clash with the AC unit on top. So, um staff is recommending uh denial as I understand um the height is an issue. Um but again, this is a minimal increase in height and it won't have any negative impact to the residential in the area. Um with that, I will conclude my presentation and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. With that, this item has been noticed for public comment. Is there anyone who would like to speak on this item at this time? Seeing none, I will close and turn it over to members of the comm uh commission, starting with Commissioner Rogan.

Thank you, Chair. And that billboard has been there for a long, long time. There's a lot of billboards in that area. I have no problem with um with the new billboard going up with the electronic sign. I think it's it's fine. It's far enough away from residential properties that it's not going to be a problem. The height that's really self-imposed. I mean, you're you're really just subject to a business decision at this point. It's expensive to build it in the same location. I understand that's an expense your your client may not want to bear. It's expensive to move AC, but again, all of these things are with within um his or her control and can be adjusted just depending on spending how much money they want to spend. There's not a situation where there's um you know, the government has taken an action by putting up a sound wall that's blocking a billboard that's existed and so there there's a necessity to to raise the height. Um that's out of the control of of a person in that situation, an owner of a billboard in that situation. and and your proposal is entirely different. You just got to make a call on whether you want to spend the money to move the AC, whether you want to spend the money to to build the billboard in the in the same location. But but justifying an increase in height based upon things that are purely in your control are not something that I'm willing to do. I I told you on the phone, I don't want to go tit for tat. When you get a height increase, the seven or eight billboards that are within a thousand feet of this are going to come in and asking for the same uh consideration and with same justification. So, I just I can't do it. Um, so are there any comments before I make a motion?

Nope. Nope. All right. So, Mr. Oh, sorry. May I um if if height is the issue, are you able to vote um on the items separately that he's Okay. Okay. Great. Thank you.

Um which is what I was about to do. So, um on agenda item 39, we'll have to take them individually. I'm going to vote uh I'm making a motion for denial on 39A the variance 26-05 VA1. That motion carries.

Okay. And then on I'm gonna have to strike I think condition No, I don't have to strike any conditions. Okay. Um for I'll make a motion as well to um for approval of agenda item 39B uh 26-05 SUP1. Madam Chair, you we may want to strike that condition number two that requires the approval and performance of conditions of E since we are denying that. Okay. Um then I'll ask that that be stricken condition two. Yeah. For um that would be um 39B. Okay.

And Marca, you agreed to that striking of condition two, understanding that you don't like that I'm denying the variance. Yes. Okay. And you agree to all the remaining conditions? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. And those items will move on to city council on June 17th. And that second motion carried. A motion carries. Thank you.

All right. That takes us to agenda item 40 26-07. applicant owner RDC LLC for possible action of the following land use entitlement project requests at 21101 South Rainbow Boulevard. 40A 26-07 V1 to allow a zero foot sideyard setback where 10 ft is required. 40B 26-07 V2 to allow 26 parking spaces where 35 are required. 40C 26-0107 SDR1 for a major amendment to approve plot plan review Z1688 for the proposed addition of a one-story 6000 foot building to an existing building maintenance service and sales development with a waiver of title 19.08 development standards for building facade staff may please get the report.

Uh thank you madam chair. The request is for a proposed singlestory 6,000 foot building addition to an existing 4422 foot building maintenance and service maintenance and service sales use. An existing coverage storage area will be removed to accommodate the proposed building and a condition of approval has been added to ensure there's no outdoor storage outside of the enclosed building. No evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance has been presented in that the applicant has created a self-imposed hardship by proposing a 6,000 foot bill and does not meet required setbacks and parking. In view of the absence of any hardships imposed by the site's physical characteristics, it is concluded that the applicant's hardship is preferential in nature and staff recommends denial of the request. Thank you.

Thank you. Please give your name for the record.

Yes, it's Daniel Downey. I'm the architect representing the owner RDC. Um the uh to talk about the the setback requirements that it's an existing condition you have on the north property line that that both buildings there were granted a zero uh set back when those those are put in. All we're doing is adding on to that with the same materials and the same fire protection. And then as far as the the the vehicles, it's because of the the two separate buildings that uh that we need it. Uh and and to be very very crystal clear, I want to first thank Commissioner Rogan for meeting me out there and meeting the owner and going over this whole thing uh in in completeness. But his his facility is used primarily for wholesale where he has very few um patrons come in and actually use parking. He he goes to the uh developments and the the um and red does apartment building complexes as well as large casino projects. And so this is truly a carpet storage facility that is a small prep area before it goes out there. If if you go by there during the most of the days, most of the parking stalls out in front are filled by his neighbors uh utilizing the parking stalls. Um,

so I'll I don't know if that's going to be enough for you or not. So if you have any other questions, go ahead and I appreciate at this time. So this item has been noticed for public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to speak at this time? Seeing none, I will close public comment and take it to members of the commission. Starting with Commissioner Rogan. Thank you. Thank you. I did meet with the um with with Dan and the applicant with regard to this um application. Did you submit new landscape plans to this I'm sorry. Did you submit a new landscape plan showing um a landscape plan? Yes. Yes, I did. Okay.

But it's it it shows that I intend to comp combine you go ahead and make the condition is that I'll provide a a brand new landscaping plan for both the east and west planter areas. that we just talked about. Okay. Well, it's going to city council, so you can do that between now and city council then. Um, so the the idea for that landscape plan would show landscaping on the rear property line, correct? Um, as well as the front property line since that's correct. Deleted that's been um deteriorated over the years.

So, um, in looking at this, the the neighbor has a zero lot line. This existing property has a zero lot line. If we imposed, in my opinion, if we imposed the the setbacks, the sideyard setbacks for this new structure, it would be very awkward and strange to have um an alleyway running between these two buildings of 10 ft and width. I think that um a zero lot line where the buildings practically touching is is better than that. Um and we've approved such things in the past. So, um I'm okay with the the variances uh with the site plan. I think that the uh blank expressionist wall in the back is not appropriate. So, I'm not going to improve that condition. I think that was um I'm sorry if staff could help me find that condition. I wasn't prepared. Um but you understand that that would be moving forward to city council without that condition. Correct.

Correct. All right. Okay, Fred, can you help me find that? Sure. That uh was uh the SDR condition number five. Okay. So, if we could strike condition number five, please. Does anyone have any questions or concerns before I make a motion? So, we are striking condition number five on 40C. And do we want that landscape condition? I'm going to I'm going to let him put it in a new landscape plan. He understands what I want. Okay. So,

okay. Um, with that record being made, um, with regard to agenda item 40, project number 2607, um, VA1, VR2, and SDR1, I make a motion for approval subject to the conditions and amended conditions this evening. And you agree to all those conditions and amended conditions, Dan? Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Motion carries. And that those items will move on to city council on June 17th.

Thank you. That brings us to agenda item 4126-0113 SUP1 applicant partners Auto Services LLC owner Cardona and Cardona LLC for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for proposed motor vehicle sales parts installation and repair motor vehicle repair major use at 1250 Northeastern Avenue suite number three. Staff may please get the report. Madam Chair, while the subject site is developed and utilized for motor vehicle parts, sales, installation, and repair uses, the proposed motor vehicle repair major use intensifies the services allowed to be performed on the site. Staff finds the proposed use cannot be conducted in a manner that is harmonious and compatible with the surrounding area as evidenced by the need for the special use permit approval due to the site's proximity to R1 single family residential zoning. Also during a f field check of the subject's site, staff observed multiple vehicles u that appeared to be disabled vehicles parked on the eastern portion of the site. A code enforcement case was open to ensure the property is in compliance with on-site parking requirements. Thank you.

Thank you. Please give your name for the record. Good evening. Uh uh my name is Fermin Miranda. I'm authorized representative of partners out of service. Um, on behalf of my father, Fermin Miranda, owner of the record, um, we are requesting a special use permit uh, to operate a motor vehicle repair facility. Yeah. Thank you. And with that, this item has been noted for public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to speak in the audience at this time? Seeing none, I will close public comment, turn it over to members of the commission, starting with Vice Chair Schlotman.

Yes. Uh, chair through you. This site's already a auto automotive minor. It's going to an automotive major. Uh it's adjacent to R1 which isn't allowed but which is a church. Um and so I don't have a problem with this since the use is really not changing that significantly. Uh just a question for staff. Um what was the comment about the uh cars that were parked out outdoors? Uh yes, during a recent field check um during our site visit, we observed that there were multiple uh disabled vehicles which were parked in the parking lot on the eastern perimeter of the site.

Okay. And is there some condition that exists uh previously that states that there won't be any um any cars parked? Um what we did is we opened up a code enforcement violation so that code enforcement can go out there and monitor the situation and make sure that they bring the site into compliance.

Okay. Thank you. And chair through you. Um yeah, if you could just make sure that you you work with code enforcement, make sure there's not abandoned vehicles sitting out there um for extended periods of time. And you you'll just have to see what code enforcement says about this. But I'm I'm not in support of seeing abandoned vehicles or vehicles just being worked on just being stored in parking lots and um and having all the neighbors uh look look at those vehicles. So uh work with them work with them closely. Madam Chair, ready to make a motion? Please do.

On item 41 26-113 SUP1 move to approve subject to staff's conditions and you agree to all staff's conditions if approved. Can I get a yes? Yes. Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Motion carries. And that will move on to city council on June 17th. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. That brings us to agenda item 4326-0120 SDR1. Applicant Jean Corerator, owner Reebong Serator, irrevocable trust at AL for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for proposed one-story 4,914T commercial development with waiverss of appendix F interim downtown Las Vegas development standards area 1 on the west side of Third Street approximately 135 ft south of Garcia's Avenue. Staff may please get the report. Madame Chair, uh, as demonstrated by the lack of an articulated building entry, the absence of ar of architectural projections or shade structures, and the lack of consistent treatment of architectural detail, staff has determined that the proposed development fails to provide the visual interest or walkable environment required in the downtown area. Also, while projects within the downtown Las Vegas overlay area 1 are not automatically subject to parking requirements, the complete absence of parking where 17 spaces would otherwise be required is not compatible or harmonious with the surrounding development. If approved, the site development plan review will be subject to conditions. Thank you.

Thank you. Is the applicant in the audience at this time? Seeing no one come down, I will open up it for public comment. This item has been noticed for public comment. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak at this time? Seeing none, I will close public comment and turn it over to members of the commission. Starting with Vice Chair Schlapman.

Yes. Uh cheer through you. This is downtown on Third Street. Um you know, as a lot of our properties have um are built to the zero lot line. as this property is built to the zero lot line, um there's not a lot of opportunity or if if you put the additional money into the uh into the facades on on the side, likely another building's going to be built right next to it and cover those improvements as we want to see more buildings built closer together and taller and especially on some of these corridors. Um, you know, not that slate is my favorite uh material to to put on a facade, front facade of the building. Um, you know, whenever I first seen this, I I almost fell over backwards thinking the whole thing was just one big yellow building. But, um, really the the portion that you're going to see is the slate with the covered on and the rooftop deck and all the storefront windows facing outward. So, um, whenever I finally got my barons set on this property, I was, um, I was better with it. Uh, but I I have to say last night I was a little bit confused when I was looking at this, uh, a little differently. So, um, I I don't have any other questions or comments or or issues with this. Any other comments?

Okay. I I just have a quick question since you've looked at it. I mean, so I'm I'm just scrolling back through this and it's a zero lot line development, which means the only I see there's landscaping, but they're not trees. So, you're relying on the street trees as the actual shade and walkability for this property. Yes. And this uh property is uh on the west side of Third Street, approximately 135 ft south of Garcus. I think this is where the city put in the third street uh park. Is that correct? Yes, that is correct.

So, years ago, we spent time going to Manhattan looking at all their parks and everything. And this is one of the parks that uh come about from that trip. And so, um and on my next downtown tour, I'll bring you down Third Street and show you what the city uh put in there. really wide 15 20 foot wide sidewalks um with tons of street trees and park benches and everything else. All right, look forward to that next tour. Okay, Madam Chair, ready to make a motion on item 4326-0120 SDR1. Move to approve subject to staff conditions.

Motion carries and that will move on to city council on June 17th. Thank you. So, at this time, we are actually going to go back and we are going to be reopening agenda item 40 26-07 applicant owner RDC LLC for possible action the following land use entitlement project request at 21101 South Rainbow Boulevard. And I will turn over to Commissioner Rogan to resend and rehear this agenda item. Thank you. Um, after it was called, I I found the landscape plan. He did submit it. It's in our backup. So, um, I'm going to make a motion to resend the approval of all items on agenda item 40.

Motion carries. Right. And then if we could amend uh condition four under the SDR conditions to reflect um date stamped 51226 rather than 31926. And with that amendment I'm ready to make a motion again for approval of agenda item 4026107 A through C. Um, Madam Chair, do you I think we have to restrike condition five. Uh, the Okay. Yes. And also with the condition five being stricken. Thank you, Fred.

Motion carries. And that will move on to city council on June 17th. All right. All right, that brings us to agenda item 4526-0127 SDR1 applicant Trout Electric owner Novak Holdings LLC for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for proposed parking facility with waiverss of perimeter landscape requirements at the northeast corner of Lake Meat Boulevard and San Simeon Street. Staff May, can I please get the report?

Madame Chair, the parking facility is proposed on vacant property zone C1. Uh this site is directly adjacent to a single family residential subdivision to the north and a shopping center development to the east. The vehicle charging operation is intended to serve the general public 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. The facility is proposing to contain 16 electric vehicle charging post specifically serving Tesla vehicles and four Tesla power cabinets. Although it will be screened from view, the location of the proposed mechanical equipment near residential property is a concern. Padmounted transformers and the proposed Tesla power cabinets are typically low-noise generators under normal operation and generally meet noise requirements per title 19. However, the equipment should be cited away from residential property to minimize nuisance. In addition, the proposed development proposes waiverss of perimeter landscaping buffer requirements and exceptions of parking lot landscaping and trash enclosure location which staff does not support. Please note additional documents for support were received after publication. Thank you.

Thank you. Please give your name for the record.

Panella Christensen of Trout Electric. Thank you, Chairwoman, for this opportunity. In 2025, there were only 22,000 electric vehicles registered in Nevada, which was a 70.3% increase over the previous five years. As of May 11th, 2026, Nevada ranks in the top three states nationally for AV adoption with over 65,600 EVs registered, roughly roughly a 13% EV adoption, nearly doubled the previous year. To s to sustain this adoption and support clean cars Nevada standards, additional infrastructure is required. Without the resources made available to the public, the initiative has no legs to stand on. Also to can be be considered in Vegas, batteries can reduce an efficiency up to 15% due to heat. Increased charger density is a safety necessity for drivers who may not anticipate the sudden drop in range during high temperatures. Also to be considered is a stay and spend effect. EV drivers spend an average of 30 minutes or more while charging. And during this 30 minutes, they spent on average of $30 during their chargering sessions at near nearby restaurants, casinos, and shops. The proposed chargers will bring in additional business for the established business commercial district. Futurep proofing tourism. 30% of Vegas visitors come from California. 11% come from Arizona, where adop EV adoption rates are high and are projected to continue and increase. It is important to fulfill these drivers needs. Without the necessary infrastructure to support these drivers needs, they may choose to travel elsewhere. Vegas is also the home to conventions such as CES and the EV charging summit expo. The city must maintain its reputation as a high-tech city to keep these lucrative events secured. These these will be the fastest chargers in Vegas, delivering up to speeds of up to 500 kW. The surrounding area has a density high density of multif family homes where charging privately is unavailable. During a search of the neighboring 60 square miles, we found less than 27 level 3 EV chargers. To put that into perspective,

on average, there are roughly 3,300 gas pumps in a 60-mi radius in the Las Vegas metro area. We believe this project is a clear solution for Ward 5 while sim simultaneously alleviating the issues that an empty lot can create. Due to the configur configuration of electrical equipment completed in tandem with NV energy, we are asking asking for a variance to allow for a small section of the landscape buffer on San Simeon to have a depth of 5 foot as shown on the plans. This allows for client clearances required for NV Energy's electrical equipment as required by utility standards. Not approving this waiver will have an adver adverse effect on the amount of infrastructure available and slow EV adoption in W 5. With that, I will ask if there are any questions. Thank you. Thank you. With that, this item has been nosed for public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak at this time? Seeing none, I will close and move it over to members of the commission. Starting with Commissioner Walters.

Hi. Hello. Yes. This this is a really small plot of land. Uh I know, but I want to ask uh because there is lacking some dimensions on the plans. How much space is in that back of that property that's unfilled? like from the dumpster to the We're going to have an 8ft buffer from the residential to the electrical equipment. All right. Is that a landscape buffer? No, that is just a buffer. Okay. Can we can create a landscape buffer? Yes, I think that needs to be uh trees and and some landscaping there especially to separate. I think that will also help you um uh separate for that resident who lives right there on the edge of the Absolutely. We are going to be adding some privacy screening on that wall as well.

Oh, okay. That's great. Um, my other question is that some of these trees, it's hard to tell which ones are trees. Uh, I see that you have palo verde. What are the other uh plants that are included in this? See, I can read. I'm just not familiar. Daisy, we have a a daon willery. Those are part of the shrubs. And then we also have a euphoria turali. Uh, there's 20 of the daurans. And there's 40 of the Forbia turkalis. Okay.

So there is four shrubs per tree. And there are a total of 15 trees. So there should be 60 shrubs. 15 trees. 16 shrubs. And then how many on the back across? That includes the back. That count does include the back. The back area. The back area to the resident. The northern uh landscaping buffer. We have no landscaping buffer on the northern parcel line, but we can add that as a contingent. Yes. Or condition. Um the width of that space, hold on. It's 8 feet. It's It's 80 feet across though.

Uh it is 80 ft across from east to west. And then the buffer from the north residential parcel line to our electrical equipment, that buffer is 8 ft. Okay. So, um I'd like to stipulate how many trees you'll put along that landscape buffer in the back. staff is there.

I'm sorry. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Um, so we can add a condition. So, so standard code requires an 8ft buffer adjacent from commercial to residential uh with a tree spacing of 20 ft on center. Is that what that's the standard code if if that's what you're looking for? Um, yes. So then the condition could be an 8 foot landscape buffer in that back that conforms to

this is the way I was I was thinking about writing it or the way I wrote it. 8 foot um condition number four would be amended to state an 8 foot landscape buffer um is required along the north property line in conformance with all title 19.08 landscape buffer requirements. And that would that would bring the northern portion um up to current to two standard code along that along that property line. Okay. Can we also stipulate the SNWA compliance? Sure. Trees and plants.

Um uh we can we can give me one second to craft it and make it nice and so it flows and then I'll we can read it. 24. Yeah, I know. We have to get rid of it. Yep.

I think I'm just going to do another condition. So, I'll just do number four. Get rid of the north and then do another add another condition. Yeah. And then do Yeah. Okay, Madam Chair. Oh, I'm sorry. While you were drafting that, I had a couple questions if you wanted to draft if Madam Chair has Okay, go ahead. Um, I have a couple questions um about the project itself. So, I understand these are going to be Tesla charges. Is that correct? Correct. Are they going to have all the requisite adapters to ensure that vehicles other than Teslas can charge?

Yes, that is correct. They have them built in. Drivers will not need to provide them. Okay. And then um you talked about the impact to um surrounding businesses. But as I look at the um some of the mapping the parcel immediately to the east um between Sanimeian and Jones looks like there's a lot of out of business designations. Have you actually been out to that site and seen whether there are businesses in that space? There are businesses. There on the other side of the wall to the east parcel line, there are a couple of health clinics. Okay. But there are also out of business empty buildings in there as well.

They we didn't go investigate too thoroughly, but it looked like they were up and running. All right. And then um it I know you also mentioned you know I I know that it's very important to be able to provide charging especially where there is multif family. Um but this looks like a lot of single family residential or is there multif family immediately adjacent to the proposed charging site? We did we looked on the south side of West Lake me and there is a high density of multif family household.

Okay. Okay. And then I just want to make sure I'm understanding what we're crafting for um landscaping um requirements. So where your chargers are, the actual charging bank, is that the east side of the project? That's correct. Okay. And are we I think Commissioner Walter was talking about the north side, but are you able to provide any type of shading on that east side so that people aren't sitting in their cars just getting baked by the sun if they're not able to go and get retail chart, you know, retail shopping done.

We did discuss uh gazeos would be sturdy enough for this climate. Um and that would be our our choice. We have an area on the northern uh landscaping buffer by the trash enclosure where we can put some shade. Um and we've also incorporated one in the bottom um east corner. Okay. Wait, so you're saying you're going to put gazeos for people to go sit out in the heat while their cars are charging? Yes. Okay. Create some sort of shade. Okay. But can you do anything to shade the cars as they're charging? Can you put carports there? That is something that we can definitely look into. Yes.

Okay. Well, this is the time when we're either approving this or we're not approving this. And I know it can potentially I don't know. Does councilwoman want this to go to city council? Commissioner, she's uncertain. She's uncertain. So I, you know, I think then my Commissioner Taylor, it is going to city council. It is going to city council. Okay, great. So then that would be something that in order to get my support, you would need to commit to working on before city council. We can do that. Okay. Um and that is again just make sure we're both on the record on this that you will look at um and propose ways to shade those cars as they're being charged. Yes, absolutely.

Not just providing because it'll be great in October for people to sit out at the gazeos, but not in August. Sure. Okay. Um All right. All right, I think that was all I had. So, Mr. Ciss, if you had conditions, if I've given you enough time to write conditions.

Yes, you have. Thank you. Um, okay. So, madam chair, through you, we will be amending uh condition number four um to read a waiver of title 19.08070 is hereby approved to allow a zero foot permanent landscape buffer along the east property line where 8t is required. And then we're going to add another condition um to read, "An 8 foot landscape buffer shall be installed along the north property line conformance with title 19.08070 landscape buffer requirements including adherence with the SNWA approved plant list." Um, so I think that those trees also we need to stipulate that they're 36 in box trees.

We can do that. With the 3-in caliper and six planted six inches above grade.

Okay. So, let me uh All right. So, we will go to the standard condition. Thank you, Nicole. Uh it will read um the new condition will read along the north property line um an 8 foot landscape buffer shall be provided in accordance with title 19.08070 for a landscape buffer including fast growing large shade trees with a minimum 3-in truck caliper measured 6 in from the base of the trunk and be planted in the required landscape buffer. um with the exception. Hold on. That's not Yeah. So, so three with Yeah. So, let me let me start over again here. This is um So, all all trees. All right. One more time. Scratch all that. Start over. An 8 foot landscape buffer with 36inch box tree shall be located along the north property line in conformance with title 19.08 landscape buffer requirements, including adherence to the SNWA approved plant plant list. And these trees shall be uh fast growing uh large shade trees with a minimum 3-in trunk calipiber measured 6 in from the base of the trunk.

Commissioner Taylor, sorry, I just had one other question. If we were adding conditions since we're not going to get to vote on any proposed shade over the charging stations, would you be amendable to a condition that's that requires you to put that in prior to city council? Yes. Yes. Yes. Sorry, Mr. CIS. Can you can we add another condition related to um incorporating shade structures over the actual charging stations? And I don't know if it makes sense to maybe just trail for a minute and you can draft that so that we can keep moving since I threw this in at the end.

Yeah. No, I think we can we can accommodate. Uh, so are you looking just for shade over the proposed parking spaces? Correct. Yeah. So like some type of carport, shade canopy, something over each of the charging station so that there's shade for the cars as they're charging. Yeah, sure. That that's not too difficult here. So, we'll just add another condition stating that carports or other shade uh structure shall be located over each of the proposed electric vehicle charging stations along the east portion of the site.

Okay. And then I swear I won't ask any more questions, but just on do we need to put any type of condition? I think it's not really a land use planning condition. So, we're just going with your representation that all appropriate adapters will be provided. Yes. Correct. Okay. Yes. Thank you.

Thank you. With that, are you ready to make a motion?

I am. Yes. Uh, I'll motion to approve item 45. That's 26-0127- SDR1. uh with amended staff conditions. Do you accept the amended staff conditions? Yes.

Motion carries. Thank you. And that I will move on to city council on June 17th. Thank you. That brings us to agenda item 4626-012. Sorry, agenda item 4626-0128. Applicant Hisuk Kim owner survivors trust at Al for possible action on the following land use entitlement project requests at 919 East Bonavville Avenue. 46A26-012801 from PR professional office and parking to R4 highdensity residential 46B 26-012A WVR1 to allow 5 foot front yard setback where 10 ft is required area 2 staff may please get the report.

Uh thank you madam chair. The proposed resoning is compatible with the surrounding zoning designations and may provide greater housing type flexibility which is needed in downtown Las Vegas. In addition, the waiver request is minor in nature and would further support the city's goals as expressed in the vision 2045 downtown Vegas master plan regarding additional housing stock. Staff recommends approval of the request. Thank you. Thank you. Please give your name for the record.

Hi, my name is Ricardo Jasso. I'm here on behalf of the owner of the property at 915 East Bonavville Avenue. Um, chair and members of the commission, thank you for the opportunity to present today. I'm here on behalf of the owner uh to request reszoning from PR professional office to R4 highdensity residential and a waiver to reduce the front yard setback from required 10 ft to 5T. Uh, we feel reszoning will allow future development um in that location and bring additional needed housing to the area. and we are requesting the five- foot um setback so that uh any future development would be able to utilize uh the existing structure that currently exists. Um I respectfully ask for your support of the resoning and setback waiver and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you so much. This item has been noticed for public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak at this time? Seeing none, I will close public hearing and take it back to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Schlapman. Thank you, Madam Chair. I pass by this property on a daily basis. Um, I know this property well. I have no problem with this. Staff has no problem with this. And so I'm ready to make a motion. Please do. Madam Chair, on item number 46 26-128 46 A&B move to approve subject to staff's conditions and you agree to all staff conditions, sir? Yes.

Thank you. Motion carries and that will move on to city council on June 17th. All right. Thank you so much.

Thank you. That brings us to agenda item 4726-0144. Applicant KB Home Las Vegas Inc. owner KB Home Las Vegas Inc. at AL for possible action on the following land use entitlement project request at the northwest corner of Log Cabin Way and Alpine Ridgeway. 47A 26-0144 V1 to allow proposed perimeter retaining in screen walls that do not conform to tile 19.06 development standards for height proposed common element AA 47B 26-0144 VR2 to allow proposed perimeter retaining and screen walls that do not conform to tile 19.06 development standards for height proposed law 57 47 C26-0144 Vier 3 to allow proposed perimeter retaining and screen walls that do not conform to tile 19.06 6 development standards for high proposed lot 58 47D26-0144 VR4 to allow proposed perimeter retaining and screen walls that do not conform to tile 19.06 development standards for high proposed lot 67 47E 26-0144 VR5 to allow proposed perimeter retaining and screen walls that do not conform to tile 19.06 6 development standards for high proposed lot 74 47F26-0144 VR6 to allow proposed perimeter retaining and screen walls that do not conform to tile 19.06 development standards for high proposed lot 136 47g26-0144 VR7 to allow proposed perimeter retaining and screen walls that do not conform to title 19.06 06 development standards for height proposed lot 137 47H26-0144 V8 to allow proposed perimeter retaining and screen walls that do not conform at tile 19.06 development standards for height proposed lot 138 47 I26-0144 VR9 to allow proposed perimeter retaining and screen walls that do not conform to tile 19.06 06 development standards for high proposed lot 139. 47J 26-0144 VR10 to allow proposed perimeter retaining in screen walls that do not

conform to tile 19.06 development standards for high proposed lot 140. 47K 26-0144 VR11 to allow proposed perimeter retaining and screen walls that do not conform to tile 19.06 development standards for high proposed lot 141. 47 L26-0144 VR12 to allow proposed perimeter retaining and screen walls that do not conform to tile 19.06 development standards for a high proposed lot 142 47M26-0144 VR3 to allow proposed perimeter retaining and screen walls that do not conform to tile 19.06 development standards for high proposed lot 143 47N26-0144 VR14 to allow proposed perimeter retaining and screen walls that did not conform a tile 19.06 6 development standards for high proposed lot 1447026-0144 VR15 to allow proposed perimeter retaining and screen walls that do not conform to tile 19.06 development standards for high proposed lot 147 47P 26-0144 VR16 to allow proposed perimeter retaining and screen walls that do not conform to tile 19.06 6 development standards for height proposed common element N. Staff may please get the report.

Madame Chair, on December 17th of 2025, the city council approved a tenative map for a proposed 232 lot single family detached residential subdiv subdivision named the Cresten on the subject site. The applicant is now seeking to construct perimeter retaining and screen walls on 16 lots within the residential subdivision that exceed the maximum allowed height in the RCL zoning district. Staff finds that no evidence of the unique or extraordinary circumstance has been presented in that the applicant has created a self-imposed hardship by proposing perimeter uh retaining and screen walls that exceed title 19 requirements. Uh therefore, staff recommends denial of the requested variance. Please note additional documents for support were received after publication. Thank you.

Thank you. Please give your name for the record.

Thank you, Madam Chair, commissioners. My name is Bob Groonower, 1980 Festival Plaza Drive. I'm here representing KB Home on these matters that are before you. Uh the overhead, as you can see, is highlighted in yellow. This piece of property was just recently approved for a residential subdivision uh development about two and a about two months ago. uh as I was here representing KB homes. This is uh located in the Kyle Canyon area. As you can see, there's already been construct homes under construction or homes that are existing. Uh this was approximately a 30 acre project that was just recently approved. And although I don't show on the overhead here, there is a uh trioint development that is actually being developed right adjacent to us. Uh the first thing that I want to mention is with respect to the variances that we are requesting um it sounds on the face of it it's a lot worse than what it really is and and let me explain first of all with respect to the uh legal hardship we do have a unique and unusual circumstance as I'm going to show you on the property here as you go from west to east there's a significant slope on the property it slopes anywhere from 24 to 30 feet in certain areas here so first of all we have unusual topog photography issues with the property just uh just by alone. Then you take in consideration that you already have the grades that are set out here on the east, west, and south of our boundaries. And by that what I mean is Alpine Ridge, the center line grade has already been set for us in this area. log cabin way the grade has already been set by the Trioint development under construction and the homes that are adjacent to us has an elevation that's already set. So, as you may know, if you're familiar with construction, not only is it difficult when you have topography that drops about 24 to 30 feet across your property, but it even becomes more difficult to meet code requirements when

you have grade that's already set around you somewhat in a in a sandboxes as usually as I explain it. uh but because of that we feel that we these are not self-imposed conditions and with respect to the variances that we're asking for they are for specific lots and what I have here these are this is the uh tenative a map and that was approved in the site development plan that was approved a couple of months ago um again this is the 30 uh 31 acres that we're discussing um the lots that are in yellow here that are highlighted um these are for the most part these are all internal lots And what I mean by internal lots meaning that if you're driving on log cabin or alpine ridge in this area or across some of these streets in here, you're not going to see the the um exterior uh wall height increase as you would if you are adjacent to each other of homeowners in this area. Uh there may be a question with respect to the wall height increase about the lots being adjacent to each other. If you're familiar from a disclosure standpoint, before uh homes are sold, especially the way KB does it, they build out the roads, they grade the pads, and they build the walls that are located in the property. And what will happen is a home buyer will come out and look at that specific lot. They'll already see where the walls are actually positioned and how high those are. The second part of that disclosure process is before you actually go vertical in any of these 232 lots, what you'll have is you'll sign off on a plot plan. And the plot plan will explain to you the retaining walls, wall heights, the setbacks to the house, and everything else that is a part of what is going to be part of that construction. Um, as as I mentioned, so it will not be a surprise to a home buyer when they're out there purchasing a home and be surprised that in certain areas, the highlighted areas here, we'll have

anywhere from a 8 foot high uh retaining wall up to a 10-ft high retaining wall only in those areas. So, it's not across the entire property. Um, this doesn't affect all uh the all the 232 lots, but just 16 of the lots that we have um on the plan. And uh with that being said, I'm here to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. This item has been noticed for public comment. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak at this time? Seeing none, I will close public comment and turn it over to members of the commission. Starting with Commissioner Taylor.

Uh thank you, Madam Chair, through you. Um thank you, Mr. G Grown for describing the disclosure process. Um if you could just for the record talk about the um requirements for wall construction when you have that kind of a retainer again for purposes of making sure that the homes behind those high retainers are not subject to degraded block walls and retaining walls.

Yes. Um so first of all the geotech uh goes out there on the on all projects and based on the geotechnicals uh report uh the builder in this case KB home will comply with those recommendations. As part of those recommendations, uh we have thirdparty inspectors that will come out and inspect the walls. And those walls are are set standards within the the code requirements and building code. And as part of that is all these walls will be waterproofed and some of them will have uh drainage or not some they will also have drainage pipes in there. Those are requirements and obviously for liability purposes or future potential liability issues down the road for construction. uh you have these third-party inspectors outside of the city's inspectors that come in and review the um the quality of the walls that are being built. So that is the overlapping of care that is taken by the builder to ensure that these walls will not pro pre be a problem somewhere in the future.

Okay. Thank you. I don't have any other questions. Anybody else have any? Okay, then um if not, I'm prepared to make a motion. Um, okay. So, on item 47A through P, like Peter, uh, item 26-0144 and all of its subp parts, I make a motion to approve, subject to all conditions, and you agree to all conditions, Mr. Grauer. Yes, ma'am. Motion carries. Oh, sorry. Those items will move on to city council on June 17th.

Thank you. Have a good night.

Thank you. That brings us to agenda item 4826-0149 SDR1 applicant YMCA of Southern Nevada owner Clark County for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for a major amendment to an approved site development plan review Z86991 for the proposed addition of three one-story modular buildings and parking lot reconfiguration at 2900 North Tory Pines Drive. Staff me can I please get the report? Madame Chair, staff finds the pro proposed development meets all applicable title 19 development standards for the civic zoning district and staff finds that the development is compatible with the existing and surrounding land uses. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the requested site development plan review subject to conditions. Please note that a revised building building elevation uh changing the color of the building to tan has been provided um after the agenda was posted and this is in your supplemental documentation. And please also note that additional documents of protest and support have been received since publication. Thank you.

Okay. And with that, please give your name for the record. Stanton Snow from the YMCA. I'm just here to answer any questions you have and thank staff for their working with us on this project. Thank you. So with that, this item has been noted for public comment. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak? Seeing none, I will close public comment, turn over to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Walters. Um I don't think I have any questions on this project. Uh there's it's an undeveloped lot that I went by and and saw and your plans are very thorough. has a lot of um southern Nevada water approved trees on it. And um I'm ready to make a motion unless anyone else has questions.

Commissioner Rogan, I I don't have any comments. I just um I I need to abstain from this item considering that the owner of the property is Clark County and I'm attorney for Clark County. I've um routinely abstained on any of uh similar items where Clark County has been the owner, the applicant, and so I'll be abstaining on this one as well. Thank you. With that, Commissioner Walters, you're welcome to make a motion. Yeah, I just want to say uh also that it's a early childhood learning center and so it's much needed in that area as well. Uh I'll make a motion to approve agenda item 48. That's 26-0149 um with staff conditions. Do you agree to staff conditions?

Yes, ma'am. Motion carries. And that will move on to city council on June 17th. Thank you. With that, we are done with the public hearing and move on to director's business agenda item 5026-0103 TXT1 applicant owner city of Las Vegas for possible action on a request to amend various provisions and definitions of of LBMC title 19 and to provide for other related matters. Staff.

Uh thank you, Madam Chair. This amendment will clean up various provisions in Las Vegas Municipal Code Title 19 that contains misleading or incorrect language and resolve potentially conflicting development regulations regarding allowable light levels at residential property lines. Staff recommends approval of the request. Thank you. Thank you. And this item has been for public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak at this time? Seeing none, I will close it and turn it over to members of the commission. Are there any comments or concerns? Seeing none, Vice Chair Schlotman. Yes, Chair. I'd like to make a motion on item 5026-03 TXT1. Move to approve.

Motion carries. And that will move on to city council in ordinance form. Thank you. And then we conclude with citizens participation. This is public comment. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak at this time? Seeing none, I will close public comment. And with that this meeting is adjourned.