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 to other city content by visiting lasvegasnevada.gov forward slash connect. The proceedings will be rebroadcast on the 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. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll?

Vice Chair Schlottman?

Present.

Commissioner Kusama? Excused. Commissioner Taylor? Present. Commissioner Rogan?

Present.

Commissioner DiSalvio?

Present.

Commissioner LeBeau? Present. Commissioner Walters? Thank you, Chair. You have a quorum.

Thank you. I call your attention to the information printed in your agenda concerning our actions and 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 you adhering to these rules of conduct, and the agendas are right here on the corners of the podium. So, 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, give your name for the record. The amount of discussion as well as amount of time in speaker, single speakers loud may be limited. Seeing none, I'll move on. May we have a motion to approve the minutes of the planned commission meeting of May 12th, 2026.

Yes, I would like to make a motion to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of May 12th, 2026.

Thank you. Motion is on the floor. Please cast your vote.

Commissioner Walters. Aye.

Thank you. That motion carries. Let's move on to the housekeeping items. Are there any items Commissioner, staff, applicants, or members of the public would like to pull forward for action?

Good evening, Vice Chair. This is Steve Swanton with Community Development Senior Planner. And we do have a few housekeeping items tonight. The applicant is requesting to hold item 19, 26-0162-VAR1 in abeyance to the July 14th Planning Commission meeting. Staff requests to hold item 21, 26-0173-VAR1 in abeyance to the August 11th Planning Commission meeting due to a notification issue and staff requests to hold item 34 26-0217 TXT1 in abeyance to the July 14th Planning Commission meeting.

Thank you. Thank you. Does anyone wish to be heard on these items? Please come forward. State your name and address for the record.

Good evening, Mr. Chair, Commissioners. My name is Tony Celeste, address 1980 Festival Plaza Drive. Here on behalf of the applicant for item number 26, we'd like to obey that for 30 days until the July 14th hearing, and that would be for 26A, B, and C. Thank you. Thank you.

Seeing no one else, Commissioner Taylor, can we get a motion?

Yes, I would like to make a motion to hold item 19 in abeyance to the July 14th, 2026 Planning Commission to hold item number 21, that's 260173VAR1, hold that in abeyance to the August 11th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting to hold item 34, 26-0217, TXT1 in abeyance until the July 14th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting and to hold, sorry, being out of order, hold item 26, A through C in abeyance until the July 14th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting.

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

Commissioner Walters?

And that motion carries. Moving on to consent agenda items. Consent items are considered routine by the Planning Commission and may be enacted by one motion. However, any item may be discussed if the Commission member or applicant so desires. Commissioner Taylor, may I have a motion for approval on the consent items 7 and 8?

Yes, I would like to make a motion to approve consent items number seven and eight.

And that'll be eight A and eight B.

Eight A and eight B.

Thank you. Motions on the floor, please cast your vote.

Commissioner Walters. Aye.

All right, that motion carries. And those items are final action tonight unless appealed to the city clerk in 10 days.

Thank you. The following items are items that may be considered in one motion, one vote. They're considered routine non-public and public hearing items with staff recommendation of approval. All public hearing and non-public hearings will be opened at one time. Any person representing an application or member of the public or 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. Item number nine, abeyance 26-0099-SUP1, applicant Christian Yerby, owner of CCEN Centennial LLC. For possible action on land use entitlement project request for a proposed beer wine cooler on sale establishment use with a waiver of a distance separation requirements from a childcare facility license for 12 or more. Ward 4. Number 10 is 26-0052-VAC1. Applicants for property owner Arizona Charlie's for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for a petition to vacate U.S. government patent easements generally located at the southwest corner of Evergreen Avenue and Decatur Boulevard. Ward 1. Number 11 is 0226VAC1, applicant owner, GSI, Oso Blanca, Las Vegas owner, for possible action on land use entitlement project request for a petition to vacate a portion of the right-of-way generally located on the west side of Oso Blanca Road, approximately 1,106 feet south of Elkhorn Road, Ward 4. Does anybody wish to be heard on any of these items? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. Any planning commissioners? Seeing none, Commissioner Taylor, may I have a motion for the one motion, one vote?

I would like to make a motion to approve the items under one motion, one vote, including item 9, 26-0099, SUP 1, item 10, 26052, VAC 1, item 11, 260226, VAC 1, item 12, oops, and that's it. Thank you. Motion is on the floor. Please cast your vote.

Commissioner Walters? Aye.

And that motion carries. And items 9 and 10, our final action tonight in Westfield, the city clerk in 10 days. And item 11, we'll move on to city council on July 15th. Thank you.

Moving on to public hearing items, starting with item number 12, abeyance 26-004A, applicant owner. Umbra Holdens, LLC, for possible action on the following land use entitlement project requests at the southeast corner of Harrison Avenue and H Street, Ward 5. Staff recommends denial. 12A is abeyance 260048VAR1 to allow vehicles to back out onto right-of-way Harrison Avenue where such is not allowed. 12B is abeyance 260048-SER1 for a proposed three-story, six-unit multifamily residential development with waivers to Title 19.09 form-based code development standards and 12C abeyance 26-0048-TMP residents at Harrison for a proposed six-unit condominium subdivision. Can we get the staff report please?

Mr. Vice Chair, staff finds the proposed development would not be compatible and harmonious with the surrounding area as evidenced by the request for variance and multiple waivers. Development could be redesigned to fully accommodate parking facilities on site. Staff therefore recommends denial of all requested entitlements subject to conditions if approved.

Thank you. All right. Is the applicant here on this particular property? Seeing no applicant, I'm gonna open this up for a public discussion. Anyone from the public wanting to be heard, please come forward. Seeing none, Commissioner Walters.

Hi, yes, we have been in communication with this applicant who has faced some hardship throughout the process, planning process, and her email today requesting a third abeyance to the July 4th Planning Commission meeting.

Okay.

I can make a motion if anyone else has anything to say.

Yes, please make a motion.

Okay, I move to obey item 12, that's abeyance 260048 to the July 14th Planning Commission meeting.

Thank you. Motions on the floor, please cast your vote. And Commissioner Wolters?

Aye.

That motion carries. All right. I'm going to take a couple of items out of order. We're going to move to Director's Business. We're going to start with number 32, which is 26-0176, applicant owner, City of Las Vegas Redevelopment Agency, for possible action on the following land use entitlement project request on 1,350.23 acres, generally bounded by Owens Avenue to the north, Nellis Boulevard to the east, Charleston Boulevard to the south, and 21st Street to the west, Ward 3. Staff recommends approval. 32A is... two six zero one seven 60 hour one for a review of the plan for the redevelopment of area three as redevelopment area 32 B is two six zero one seven six GPA one to establish redevelopment area three. Can we get the staff report please? Straight to you.

Okay. Good evening. Tracy Reich, redevelopment manager in the Office of Economic and Urban Development for the record. About one year ago, we came forward to you to present a proposed boundary for a blight study to explore the creation of a new redevelopment area. Tonight, that was the first step in creating that area. Tonight, we're here to present the results of that blight study and present the redevelopment plan. which is the next step in moving for approval on that. And at the end of this, after our presentation tonight, we would love for you to consider the approval of those two items so that we can move forward to the next steps. And tonight I'm going to change that over to turn it over to Alex Strasser, who's going to give us the actual presentation.

All right. Thank you.

Thank you. Good evening. Alex Strasser, City of Las Vegas, Department of Economic and Urban Development for the record. As Tracy mentioned, we've been working on this project for quite a while and we're really excited to be here tonight to show you our findings. Before I get started, I wanted to give a shout out to Sierra Webb and Rich Adkins who had helped me out with the process for this project. So back in 2020, the city adopted the City of Las Vegas 2050 Master Plan, and one of the key components of this plan divided the city into 16 different sub areas. The intention was that over time, each of these different sub areas, based on their different needs and demographics, would have an individualized neighborhood plan associated with it. The first one was East Las Vegas, highlighted with the circle. And so then in June 2023, the city adopted the Nuestro Futuro East Las Vegas Special Area Plan. This plan looked at transforming aging commercial centers into vibrant walkable mixed use hubs. The plan looked at helping to support existing businesses and its residents and improve public transit and housing opportunities as well as economic opportunities. But one of the takeaways was that the Nuestro Futuro plan specifically recommended evaluating East Las Vegas for a new redevelopment area. The city of Las Vegas already has two redevelopment areas. The first one is our downtown core, commonly known as Redevelopment Area 1. This was adopted in 1986. Our second area is going to be to the west, which is the Redevelopment Area 2, consisting of Charleston Boulevard, Sahara Avenue, Decatur Boulevard, Commercial Corridors, as well as Meadows Mall. Over time we can do different amendments to expand the redevelopment area as applicable or to extend the timeline. The typical timeline is 30 years. So this has been extended once for redevelopment area one. Back in August, we took before you a preliminary plan where we came before you with the area in blue to further evaluate the suitability for the new redevelopment area. This area was carefully considered based on city staff and management. It was considered by the Citizens Advisory Committee who specifically went out and toured the streets as well as looking at the land use of the 2050 master plan to see the overlap. So just to put this into size scale and perspective, this is how the RDA3 would compare to redevelopment area one and two. So why a new redevelopment area? Well, a redevelopment area helps to eliminate blight, it helps strengthen the neighborhoods, it creates opportunities for private reinvestment, allows for infrastructure upgrades, as well as allows for coordination with development. But more specifically, a new redevelopment area, the dollars generated would stay within that neighborhood. After the evaluation, the preliminary plan, we had to go forward with a blight study. And this is a physical assessment of each property within East Las Vegas based on their physical conditions. And when we were out on the streets from November to February, we determined that 64% of the properties in this area showed visible signs of deterioration or needing of repairs. Specifically, the blight study noticed that 80% of the buildings were built before 1999. Most of these have outdated building systems. Crowded spaces, making it difficult for pedestrians and motorists. Economic strain, the visible signs of abandoned businesses or vacant lots. One of the key components of the 2050 master plan, notice that East Las Vegas disproportionately deals with the urban heat island effect due to a lack of shade and tree canopy coverage. Traffic hazards as a result of the streets being accommodating for different users than originally intended. And unsafe right-of-ways and alleyways, just overcrowded and dealing with access issues for emergency vehicles and affecting air quality. Lastly, the depreciating values make it difficult for property owners to continue to pay for reinvestment into their property, but also to make necessary upgrades. So these kind of issues can create a domino effect. For instance, 81 acres of vacant land is within East Las Vegas. And this can be a nesting ground for homeless or illegal dumping. And unfortunately, that can lead to a pileup of these conditions, which can then impact neighboring properties and affect businesses. So within the toolbox of the redevelopment agency, we have a couple different incentives that we can offer to help encourage reinvestment into the community. The first and probably most common one is the visual improvement program. This would help property owners reinvest into their into their property, making necessary exterior improvements. So this can vary from landscaping, a fresh coat of paint, new windows. So we have a couple different examples below with the top being the before and the bottom being the after. This recently got improved from 25,000 up to 50,000 rebate for the applicant. Two of our newest incentives, we have the tenant improvement incentive. This would focus on retail users and can vary based on the square footage of their unit. This would help cover 10% of the eligible interior and exterior costs. We also have the business security grant program. A lot of businesses in the arts district have used this lately. This would cover necessary security improvements such as improved lighting, cameras, and fencing covering $5,000. Multifamily residential renovation would help property owners for apartment buildings and other high density residential properties with a minimum of five units covering interior and exterior unit upgrades. And lastly, we have development coordination. So if anybody's familiar with Tom Burkhart, his team with development services helps provide additional guidance moving through the city's building permit process and working with local utility companies to get the project completed as efficiently as possible. So the redevelopment plan and the redevelopment agency have eight goals. Ultimately, these goals come together to improve the overall quality of life and condition of the neighborhood for all users. And these same kind of principles are found within the 2050 Master Plan as well as the Nuestro Futuro Master Plan, or Special Area Plan. These principles look to create infill redevelopment-focused strategies that maximize land use efficiency, creating greater density and improving the neighborhoods. So below is an example from a major development proposal we have for the area that's going forward that's already been approved for desert pines. Just touching on the NRS requirements of a redevelopment plan, it touches on a couple different aspects, but we're required to talk about open space landscaping, light, height limitations, and size of the building, number of dwelling units, public uses, and the method of financing the plan. We've done quite a bit of outreach for this redevelopment plan area. This has been featured in the Ward 3 email newsletter, featuring 13,000 recipients. This has been noticed in the review journal already and will continue to be noticed in the review journal going forward. We've had three neighborhood meetings already. Well, we have had two. We have a third one forthcoming next week on Wednesday. But between the two meetings, we've had roughly 100 residents show up to come find out about the plan and to have their questions answered, in addition to probably three dozen phone calls. With that, we are asking for your approval of the blight study and the redevelopment plan and to move forward to city council. With that, we'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. This was noticed as public hearing. Anyone want to be heard, please come forward. Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and turn it over to planning commission. Yes, Commissioner Taylor.

Thank you very much for the presentation. I just wanted to make sure that... I just want to confirm something. So in looking at blight and looking at how you could alleviate some of the blight in this area, one of the things that you identified as an issue was lack of landscaping, lack of trees, and that that was also something that was significantly contributing to the urban heat island impact in this area. Is that correct? That is correct. Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Commissioner. Yes, Commissioner Rogan.

I've had an opportunity to look at this study, and I think that I'm surprised that this area already hasn't been included in a redevelopment area. It's very blighted. I don't think anyone can really dispute that. And looking at the redevelopment plan, I think it's appropriate, and I think we should recommend approval.

Thank you. I'm on the CAC, so I was able to see this redevelopment area and actually go out and drive some of the neighborhoods and help formulate some of the areas where this redevelopment area is going. One of the things that I was concerned about when we had the Nuestro Futuro plan four years ago, or whenever it was, is that it would get written, put on a shelf, and I've constantly asked for planning staff and public works and everybody kind of give us presentations and stuff and staff really has and staff's really stepped up and I'm really happy that this plan's coming together and look forward to this moving forward. I do have one question about redevelopment areas. They sunset after 30 years but I was noticing on the overhead, RDA1 was established in 1986 and then some in 1995 in different areas. When we add a new area, does that increase the total time frame of that RDA?

Not necessarily, but you can extend the 30 years for another 15 years. And so that's what happened with RDA1. It sunsets in 2045.

Okay. And does that allow the base tax rate to stay at where it was when it was originally? It doesn't reset? Okay. All right. I'm looking for a question. I just have one question, Chair.

So are you going to be able to use all of the money that's generated in the different redevelopment areas in Redevelopment 3 as one pot of money, or solely are you using what's earned in Redevelopment Area 3?

We have to use the funds that are generated in each redevelopment area in that redevelopment area. So the funds generated in RDA 3 will be what we use there. We could maybe start a little bit there and then reimburse back and forth. I'm looking at my attorney going, maybe not.

But Commissioner Rogan, one of the things that we looked at when Tracy and Schrauser and everybody else from the RDA come and asked us, should we do an expansion to one of our existing RDAs or should we do a new one? And Sam Cherry and I sit on the board and Ryan Doherty, and I was very vocal about this. It should be its own redevelopment area because I was concerned that we would take money out of this and put it into another project that's bigger or better in downtown or that those funds would start getting exchanged. I want every dollar that got generated from this neighborhood to get reinvested back in this neighborhood. If there's no other comments, I'd like a motion. Commissioner Rogan.

Make a motion that the proposed redevelopment area three meets the definition of blighted area under state statute and recommend approval of the redevelopment plan.

That's 32A and 32B. All right, thank you. Motion is on the floor. Please cast your vote.

Commissioner Walters. Aye.

And that motion carries. And those items will move on to City Council on July 15th. Thank you for your presentation today. Thank you.

Moving on to item number 31, 26-0172GPA1, applicant owner, City of Las Vegas, for possible action on land use entitlement project request to amend and incorporate a supplemental heat mitigation, drinking water, cooling spaces, building practices plan as part of the conservation element to the City of Las Vegas 2050 master plan consistent with section 11 of ordinance 6788, all wards. Staff recommends approval. Good evening, can we get a staff report?

Good evening Mr. Chair, Commissioners, Marco Vallada, City of Las Vegas, Department of Community Development for the record. Tonight's item covers a general plan amendment to the 2050 master plan covering a supplemental heat mitigation plan and that will fulfill the requirements of Assembly Bill 96 of the 2025 legislative session. In December of 2025, The Planning Commission did approve one part of that assembly bill. That's the Urban Forestry Management Plan. And there are a number of components that have some overlap between the two, but we took these in a couple different words. There are a lot of issues in the 2050 plan that know no jurisdictional boundaries, like traffic, air quality, and a number of those other issues. Heat's one of them. And unlike the others, we could consider this a classic wicked problem. It's complicated. might seem like there's practically no solutions up front. It might not seem to have a clear-cut resolution. But that said, this amendment will try to help answer some of that. When I was growing up, I went to Valley High School. In the middle of the summer, we would be in the middle of the heat. This has an impact on things like athletics. Think about people who are working outside in the construction industry. This is something that legislation in recent legislative sessions has attempted to deal with. And it's not just here in Southern Nevada. It's happening across the country. If you've been watching the World Cup over the last week, you've noticed that there's hydration breaks in between the in between the halves. Many of the stadiums are encountering this in the middle of a major sporting event. You go out for a walk, oftentimes at night, you can find yourself walking in temperatures that are still above 100 degrees, even at 9 p.m. or 10 p.m. Right now, as it's 110 degrees outside as I speak, heat is considered to be one of the deadliest natural disasters at whatever scale it's being measured at, whether that's local, that's regional, or global. As we've noted in the 2050 Master Plan's hazard goal, southern Nevada has been on this ongoing warming trend for both daytime and nighttime temperatures since the 1970s. And Las Vegas and Reno are the top two metro areas experiencing these warming trends. If we look back over the last couple decades in particular, where we've seen a lot of that change, growth in urban expansion with a lot of new concrete, glass, rooftops that have been added. We've been setting a number of heat-related records, and the last few years in particular, we've been breaking new ones. Summer 2024 is particularly noticeable when we hit 120 degrees, only to be eclipsed by the earlier warming trends that we had this year. It's particularly noticeable in neighborhoods that we just talked about, East Las Vegas. The center of the valley, immediately around downtown Las Vegas, around the Strip, we have that convergence of the urban heat island effect with other socioeconomic and demographic factors that are impacting these particular neighborhoods particularly hard. And heat, you can see the public health toll with it. In East Las Vegas, we saw a particular uptick in deaths and heat-related emergencies, with more than 500 heat deaths and 3,500 ER visits attributable to heat in 2024 alone. The most recent projections that we have from Desert Research Institute, which has been really on par with leading in terms of some of the research recently on the urban heat island effect, they have told us that we can anticipate 20 more days per year above 105 degrees in terms of a daytime high by 2035, and another month to 45 days by 2050. So an extended summer that's creeping into our springtime and our fall time seasons. So it's important to underscore that everyone is exposed, but the experience isn't necessarily equal for everyone, especially in a neighborhood like East Las Vegas. A chronic stressor and it can be an acute shock it can happen, we have a little bit of forecasting that goes into it, but it can have some cascading effects and compounding crises like if you have a brownout then the energy loses a substation that can lead to widespread loss for people who have air conditioning systems. If an RTC transit vehicle breaks down in the middle of the day, or if there's a broken AC unit in a poorly insulated home, that can lead to other in-home public health effects. The heat is vulnerable for those that are most permanent. And of course, the homeless population are the ones that seek resources. The people that live in homes typically do not. So with Assembly Bill 96 from last session, we were directed and we lobbied to bring heat to the forefront because heat really doesn't have a home right now. We've been going over this with our other counterparts in our neighboring jurisdictions over the last couple of years, and it culminated in this call to action to look at shading, cool building practices, drinking water, and ultimately that urban forestry management plan was the first step for us. And this does help address what we are going to do over the next couple years. To summarize for you the heat mitigation goal, it's important to note that there's been a lot of that engagement that's been going on. There's been recent heat summits. There's been a DRI-led study on the usage of cooling centers, tabletop exercises with local governments and service providers. We're all owning this. And ultimately, what it comes down to is we need to have local action and regional action happening simultaneously. So having a response for our own jurisdiction is necessary, as well as coordination with a wide range of other public entities and private stakeholders as well, whether that's the utilities like NV Energy, whether that's transit providers like RTC, whether it's the faith-based community that provides cooling resources or opens up their doors for those that need it. All across the board, we need to have this response. With respect to basic needs, from a health perspective, drinking water for cooling must be publicly accessible. And we took a look across the city at where we have drinking water available. Our building code and our facilities do require water fountains based on building types, but there are other measures and operational policies that can be introduced to ensure access for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users. Another recommendation coming out of this is having an interactive map to direct people to where you can access things like drinking water. During that same inventory, there was a recognition that we had gaps in public spaces that provide shading, and although they do exist, we do need to have cooling spaces activated to access a gap in certain areas of the city, especially those immediately around downtown. Currently, there are limited days, times, and locations a cooling center is offered during extreme heat events with the homeless resource center or the courtyard being one of them. That's the single location right now that's operational 24-7, 365. We know that cooling centers are being used routinely and are a hub for community support, but awareness is a barrier, whether that's from a multilingual standpoint or just a communication standpoint, social media, those who have it, those who do not. Bottom line is that we need to have a coordinated response and a regional operational protocol that's developed to expand access to cooling centers. They're a valuable resource worthy of investment and planning, and the plan does discuss that we could benefit from improved signage messaging, cross-agency communication, expanded hours, and that coordination. Cool building practices are also recommended. Long-term investing in cooling infrastructure and developing urban design standards to mitigate the urban heat island effect is going to be necessary. the building stock that is aging, but there are many features that need to be considered in terms of the residential and the commercial space, whether that's constructing or renovating buildings to reduce hardscapes, doing energy efficiency improvements, adding measures like insulation, passive cooling, upgraded HVAC equipment, There are resources that are available, whether that's a C-PACE program through the commercial side, the Nevada Clean Energy Fund. There have been resources for things like heat pumps, you name it, across the board over the years. Some of that has been recently cut back, but this does drive home the point that these are things that need to be done with respect to building architecture. And then other public space improvements. I mean, what else are we missing? If you look at other cities and communities across the country, there have been innovative approaches to finding ways to shade different locations. There is the conventional trees and landscaping that we talk about in the urban forestry management plan. But there are going to be opportunities like we see here locally at downtown Summerlin, at the Las Vegas Premium Outlets, in Scottsdale, Skysong, having other places that are shading existing asphalt and concrete landscapes. to really drive home the fact. In Scottsdale, Arizona, we see Albertsons and Fry's, you know, major regional grocery stores that have fabric covers covering the parking lot. We have solar covered parking at many of our fire stations and community centers. Doing these types of things help help address the issue that's going on. But it's going to take that long-term approach in terms of how do we mitigate and how do we adapt to this changing environment that we live in. And with that, if there are any questions, I ask for consideration on amending the general plan for this heat mitigation net.

Thank you, Marco. This was no discussion public hearing. Anyone wanting to be heard, please come forward and state your name and address for the record. Seeing none, I'm close to public hearing. Turn this over to the Planning Commission for discussion and possible action. Start with Commissioner Taylor.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Vallotta, and thanks for your continued work on these really important issues for our community. You know that you and I have been working together for a really long time, and I just have so much respect for the work that you put into the sort of conservation elements and the sort of environmental and the writ large space to make our city great. And you know that this is a really important issue to me, too. So I just want to ask you a couple of questions. The first one is just can you, a couple of things sort of more broadly on urban heat impacts. like can you tell us if you know the difference between, like what's the differential for temps in the shade versus in the sun? Is it like 10 degrees, 20 degrees?

Yeah, Marco Vallotta for the record. So again, it's going to depend on your context, but it can be as much as 10 degrees, plus or minus, depending on where you're at. Desert Research Institute, Ariel Chouinard, who heads up the heat lab there, we've been speaking about this quite a bit. She is certainly an expert in this realm. Having a tree is going to have a cooling effect, depending on what type of tree it is, and that's gonna vary within that range. You might have more in some cases, and if you have even more trees and more canopy immediately adjacent to it, you're gonna have a greater cooling effect.

Okay, and then, The urban heat island impact, does that also have detrimental impacts on Lake Mead and the evaporation rate and the drought conditions that we've been dealing with?

Mark Ovala for the record. Anecdotally, I think that the answer is going to be yes. There's going to be that evaporation that's happening. If you look in terms of the total loss off of Lake Mead and probably more importantly right now, Lake Powell, you're losing... But you're also in the geographic context of things. I mean, there's other things that are going into effect as well. The topography, the latitude that makes that loss of water in the Colorado River system happen as well. I mean, it is happening for sure. And it's going to happen at different rates for different locations in the basin.

Okay. And then if you can just indulge me. So just let's talk a little bit more about landscaping in general. And, you know, you talked about sort of a local and a regional effort. So is there regional coordination on landscaping requirements, looking at the frequency of requested landscape waivers and the frequency of those being granted? Are you working across all the Clark County jurisdictions to sort of analyze that and figure out some solutions for possibly educating decision makers on how much of an impact that makes and really working towards trying to, because we talked about that with the urban forestry, really working towards mitigating either the request for waivers and the grants of waivers. Is that something that you guys are all, you individually working on and then your peers across the different jurisdictions working on?

Marco Vlada for the record. So we have had, leading up to this point, post passage and approval of Assembly Bill 96, a working group with City of Henderson, Clark County, and North Las Vegas on all of these elements and talking about what are some of the things that are overlaps. Our approach is gonna be a little bit different between the jurisdictions for things like landscaping and trees. I mean, the counties, a lot larger and it has a lot of different procedural aspects to it. We are still in agreement, though, that landscaping requirements need to be improved in general from an urban forestry management standpoint. They have adopted, for example, a fee in lieu policy as part of their Title 30. That's something that, as I mentioned in the December hearing on the urban forestry management plan, we're looking at as far as implementation of that plan next in terms of addressing things like variances and waivers exceptions that that type of thing that's something that we're still working on we hope to have that for your consideration at a future meeting but yes there has been that collaboration it's not going to be one-to-one but there is that recognition anyway on you know cooling spaces on cooling centers cooling building building practices, drinking water, on what we can do. And then I think we're all kind of coming around or coming to the conclusion of a regional approach is going to be necessary for some of these things, for sure.

Okay. And then just one final one, if I may. You know I talk all the time about landscaping and trees and the importance of trees, but you mentioned building stock. And, you know, from my experience at the state, I know – there's a lot of work at the IBC level to try to come up with better efficiency in buildings through development of codes. And so can you just speak a little bit to what maybe the city is doing for the next iteration or how the city is involved either on its own with IBC and energy efficiency codes or in coordination with other jurisdictions in the state and the state itself to make sure that we have the most comprehensive codes to ensure efficiency and especially because you mentioned the fact that heat impacts everybody differently. We know very well that like the energy burden on lower income folks really makes a difference in terms of how well they can do with energy bills and so if you can maybe just talk about how yourself at the city or again regionally and statewide how you're working towards driving better efficiency in our buildings and bringing forward the most energy efficient codes that we can have to help that work.

Marco Vallada for the record. Admittedly, I'll say up front that I'm not an expert on the code side of things like our building officials are. We can say, though, that the newer building stock that has been built under the most recent codes that have been adopted, the IECC and the IBC, that has... helped in terms of their energy efficiency. There are also stretch codes that are out there, green codes. Some of the home builders have their own products that certainly speak to their in-home energy efficiency efforts that really do But that's newer building stock. I think the main issue that we're trying to deal with is the existing building stock that's in the center of the valley where we know that there's the urban heat island, in fact, having the greatest impact to it. We need to have particular attention on retrofits there. On the commercial side, buildings, they're subject now to the evaporative cooling moratorium. There has been a lot of innovation in that because of that policy that's been adopted. So multifamily is starting to look a lot different. I mean, any new infill and redevelopment that takes place, that's gonna be under that guise. And we certainly have to take into account any additional code changes that might come into effect, whether it's on the residential and commercial side, how we make sure that we're accomplishing the urban heat side of things. That being said, we do have recommendations in the plan that can touch on some other things that we could explore as a city.

Okay, thank you so much, Mr. Vallada. Thank you, Chair.

Anyone else? Seeing none, I will be looking for a motion on item number 31. Commissioner Taylor.

I would be happy to make a motion on item 31. I would like to make a motion to approve item 3126-0172GPA1, general plan amendment for amending and incorporating a supplemental heat mitigation plan as part of the conservation element to the 2050 master plan.

All right. Motion is on the floor for approval. Please cast your vote. And Commissioner Walters?

Aye.

That motion carries. And that will move on to city council on July 15th.

Thank you. Going back to item 13, advance two, six, zero, zero, five, one applicant, silver state contract and development, LLC owner, 80 and NILLC for possible action on the following land use entitlement project request at 2167 North Decatur Boulevard Ward 5. 13A is advanced 26-0051 VAR1 to allow proposed commercial development that does not conform to Title 19 development standards for on-site minimum parking requirements. And 13B is advanced 26-0051 SDR1 for the proposed conversion of an existing 3,224 square foot motor vehicle parts and sales development into a convenient store with fuel pumps and parking lot reconfiguration with waivers Title 19.8, Perimeter Landscape Buffer Requirements. May we get the staff report, please?

Mr. Chairman, Nicole Eddowes, for the record, staff finds that the lack of sufficient on-site parking may lead to on-site vehicular circulation conflicts and the lack of landscape materials will only contribute to the heat island effect, which is in direct conflict with the 2050 master plan. Therefore, staff is recommending denial of both the variance and the site development plan review. Thank you.

Thank you. As applicant here this evening, please come forward. If I could have you state your name and address for the record and give us a brief presentation. Yes.

Tony Gillerson, 2595 Chandler, Suite 4. Eight nine one two zero. Yes. So what we're doing is we're converting the existing it was auto parts store into a convenience store that houses a like ice cream buffet and Also was going to have four pumps and we're also Thinking about putting two charge stations on it. We've had several reviews with planning and we tried to do as much as we could with the landscape and everything that we could to get the approval.

Okay, thank you very much. This was noticed as a public hearing. Anyone want to be heard, please come down. Seeing none, I'm gonna close the public hearing and turn this over to Planning Commission for further discussion. Commissioner Wolters.

Hi, thank you for being here today. I just want to ask about the fuel pumps we had discussed last time that they were sort of contributing to an over design of the space here, which was causing some of these variances. Was there consideration to remove those as we discussed?

After meeting with the Councilwoman Summers Armstrong, she liked the plan, so we were going to keep it as the plan is and not revise it.

So can you describe some of the additional landscaping efforts that you made from the prior application?

Yes, it's still, we didn't revise the landscape, it's still the same, but if you can go to that plan L, it's the second page, and you can see the, do I need to open it up or?

Yeah, if you have a copy, go ahead and lay it up there. We'll go up to the overhead. All right. Perfect. Right there. Okay.

Yeah, so you can see we have all the landscape that's going around. So in the back of this convenience store is actually you have residential. So what we have is we have trees and landscape that's on the back. of the perimeter and going along the side, the sides also, and then up front on Decatur Boulevard, we put as much trees that's around the bus shelter and also on each island when you come into the parking lot.

Is that five trees?

There's a total, so... We have six trees.

And was there consideration for the ability for delivery drivers and others to be able to turn around or back out on this space as we discussed last week?

So we're going to, this is not going to be open 24 hours. It's going to be between 7 to 10. And so all of the loading will be done in the morning.

Okay, if anyone else has comments at this time, I'd be welcome to take them, but I...

Yes, Commissioner Walters, if you can give us a couple minutes. Commissioner Taylor?

Thank you, Commissioner Walters. I just have a couple follow-up questions, especially given what we just talked about with urban heat mitigation, urban island... urban heat island mitigation. Is that a shade canopy over your fuel pumps? It is. Okay. And you are keeping the fuel pumps, right? Correct. Okay. And then those are parking spots?

These are parking spots, yes.

Okay. And you have no parking lot islands that will have trees to provide additional shade on that asphalt, correct?

No, we will not. Just the trees on the two islands here.

Okay. And you have... 25 trees. Yeah, that's what the staff report says is required. Okay Yeah, I understand you've got a at least you've got a shade canopy But I why can you not put more trees over by where the bus is on Decatur? because that will help with both shade for people waiting for the bus and You know mitigate some of the additional asphalt that surrounds it.

Okay, so

because I'm looking at this and I'm trying to, it looks like there's no trees actually in that space, correct?

Right, that is correct.

Okay, so I just, I think that this needs work because again, we just talked about urban heat island, we've talked about trees, we've talked about landscape waivers and that they are problematic. This is an area that is part of high heat in urban heat island mapping and so absent Some type of commitment that you will continue to work on these trees I just don't think I can support this because you've got the landscape waiver in here I know it's not my ward, but I just want to make sure that that's that that you you know know that there's issues Thank you.

Thank you commission. We will

Yeah, so I have a couple of questions for you about egress on this site. It just seems really tight from a few standpoints. Number one, it looks like both of your egress points are 12 feet wide, which means there's one-way access both in and out of the site on either side. Is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay. So in relation to that, I'm really challenged that When you have a fuel tanker that comes in and needs to fill those underground fuel tanks, that you're going to be blocking a majority of your parking spaces along the south side of that property. And because you can only come in and exit one direction, it's probably going to cause a huge roadblock and people are going to try and go out the opposite direction. So from a safety factor, I just think that's problematic. And then the second point is there's currently no car shown on the east side of the fuel pump that is closest to Decatur Boulevard. And so I'm curious if you've been able to, are you able to give us a dimension on how much space would be left if there's a car using that fuel pump?

You mean right here on this?

Yeah, correct. So I don't believe that another vehicle would be able to get through that area if someone is using that fuel pump.

So if someone's here, they can... Yeah, they wouldn't be able to go around that. I can get that dimension for you.

So I believe it's a minimum that you would need, you know, 12 feet for a one way access. But again, you're pushing in doing that, you're pushing all of your vehicular traffic towards the front of the convenience store and forcing everyone to go that one direction. Um, which is also going to cause congestion with pedestrians walking through that, that front of house area as well. So I'm just, I'm a little challenged to want to approve this, um, as it's drawn for those reasons.

Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none, Commissioner Walters, where would you like to go from here?

Yes. At this time, I would like to make a motion to deny.

Okay. There's a motion for denial. That's motion to deny 13A and B.

Yes. Thank you.

All right. Motion's on the floor for denial. Yes votes for denial. Commissioner Walters?

Aye.

And that motion carries.

Mr. Chairman, that item will move forward to City Council on July 15th, 2026. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Moving on to item 14, advance 26-0116, SDR 1, applicant owner, Zipperberg Towers 1, for possible action on the land use entitlement project request for a proposed seven-story, 71-unit mixed-use development with 1,800 square feet of commercial space with waivers to Title 19.09, form-based code development standards, 1801, Fremont Street, Ward 3. May we get the staff report, please?

Mr. Chair, the proposed development is consistent with Vision 2045 Downtown Master Plan goals for this location in the Fremont East District, which calls for additional multifamily housing, including live work and mid-rise workforce housing. Given the irregular shape of the lot, staff supports the requested waivers and exceptions. Staff recommends approval of the site development plan review subject to conditions. Thank you.

Thank you. Good evening, if we could get your name and address for the record.

Sergio Comparan with SEA Design, 2140 Pebble Road. OK. On behalf of the client.

How are you guys doing, your honors? 1801 East Fremont Street. It's a triangle.

What was your name?

My name is Brock Silverberg.

Thank you. Go ahead with your presentation.

The property consists of .38 of an acre, which is 15,500. I believe it's within a T4 zoning. Therefore, we'd like to build a seven-unit building, which would substantiate, as far as parking, 32 and 71 units, with a 1,400-square-foot retail space as well.

Okay, thank you. All right. Anything else that you wanted to add?

No. In addition, we just want to thank staff for working with us and for the recommendation of approval.

Thank you. I appreciate it.

We would like to improve the community and make it so well inviting. That's what we'd like to do. Perfect. Make it home.

Thank you so much. This was noticed as a public hearing. Anyone want to be heard, please come forward. Seeing none, I'm going to close the public hearing and turn this over to Planning Commission for discussion and possible action. This is within my ward. I also live in the notification area. But I'm not affected any greater or lesser than anyone else. So I will be voting on this matter. I know this property pretty well. I pass by it every morning and every evening. And I know that there's been, you know, It's a place where people like to camp out, and there's sometimes RVs popping up on there, and there's one that just recently caught on fire. And so the school's right on the side of it. Not a lot of traffic on Sunrise. Not a lot of pedestrian activity on Sunrise. Most of the pedestrian activity is on Fremont Street. It would be a cool property if it actually gets built. I hope you actually can build this. There's not enough right away for the street trees on Sunrise, but there are plenty of trees going in along Fremont Street. So I have no other questions. Staff's recommending approval. And if anybody has any comments or has a motion or anything. Okay, seeing none, on item number...

Okay, I'll go ahead and make a motion on item 14, abeyance 26-0116, SDR. I'll make a motion to follow staff's recommendation for approval.

Thank you, motion's on the floor. Please cast your vote. Commissioner Walters?

Aye.

All right. And that motion carries.

And Mr. Chairman, that item will move forward to City Council on July 15th, 2026. Thank you.

Congratulations. Hope to see it come forward.

Thank you.

Moving on to... Item number 1526-0013, applicant owner 2331, MLK Investment, LLC, for possible action on the following land use entitlement project request at 2333 North Martin Luther King Boulevard, Ward 5. 15A is 26-0013, VAR 1, to allow 15 parking spaces where 20 are required. 15B is 26-0013, SUP 1, for proposed motor vehicle parts sales installation repair. 15C is 26-0013 SDR1 for a proposed one-story 2,921 square foot auto repair garage development and parking lot reconfiguration with waiver of Title 19.08 development standards to allow bay doors to face the right-of-way where such is not allowed. May we get the staff report, please?

Mr. Chairman, staff finds the proposed use to be too intense for the subject site as evidenced by the requested parking variance waiver to allow service bay doors to face the right away and exception to allow zero parking lot trees where six are required. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the variance, special use permit and site development plan review. Thank you.

Thank you. As an applicant here today, please come forward, state your name and address for the record.

Oh, excuse me, Dennis Lara, 7901 South Island. This is representing Mr. Eric Pena. Okay, this is a tire repair shop, to clarify, and a window tint repair or service. Okay. And this is the operational characteristics of this. This is a tire service that is limited to repair, patching, balancing, and replacement of tires. And the window tint service is a quiet and clean installation service. And it's all indoors. As far as the community benefit to this, it says this use provides a practical and needed neighborhood service for residents and commuters along the Martin Luther King or MLK corridor without introducing impacts commonly associated with automotive businesses. This is appropriate for the commercial zoning And also it's low impact and compatible with the surrounding area. It's a low impact business. And designed to operate entirely indoors with no outdoor use. So the denial, I don't see why it would be denied. It's needed in this area. This tire repair shop and window tint. So I request approval if we need to... add trees in the front. We can do that. But as far as that corner, it's pretty desolate. There's nowhere else to get your tire repair and to get your windows tinted. So we recommend approval.

All right. Thank you. This was no excessive public hearing. Anyone want to be heard, please come forward. Seeing none, I'm going to close the public hearing and turn it over to Planning Commission for discussion and possible action. Starting with Commissioner Walters. Sir, if you want to stay up front.

Hi. Thank you. Yes, hi, thanks for being here today. I did reach out, and I hadn't heard back from anybody, so I just want to ask a couple of questions here. One, can you speak a little bit on the number of business license enforcement cases? Seems to be several, including unlicensed tire shop and food trucks occurring at this property frequently.

Okay, this was... This was done prior to my involvement, and this is something that I'm not familiar with. The number of them, I did speak. I'm familiar with the code enforcement. They addressed the front doors facing MLK. That's the only way you can face them is to MLK. You can't face them either, or there's no space. The front, the doors face that way. Yeah, they're not put in legally, but they can be retrofitted and getting an engineer to approve them. There's no structural there, but they can be approved and it can be permitted. But yes, and the work is done inside. What's your other question? As far as all the violations, I'm not familiar with the violations, just the code enforcement issue on the doors, and that's it.

Okay, I appreciate that. I'm looking at a list of code enforcement cases, numerous ones over the last few years, including for unlicensed tire shops and food trucks and others, including when this request was made. And there was also, again, the food truck in an unpermitted area of the property. And so I just know that there have been a lot of code enforcement cases since this owner took over. And I'm just not sure what kind of guarantee we would have that, you know, the plan we enact and put forward would actually be followed in this property. And I wanted to ask a little bit about that. So I have other questions. So one is about the landscaping on the property. I did not see any landscaping plans OSBT, Michelle Estrella , for this property, and I think without one you know I would not be inclined to approve this plan, do you have any sort of guidance on landscaping for this property.

Sure, we can add trees along MLK if that would suffice. And also, as far as the food truck, they're guaranteed. Well, the only thing you can guarantee is taxes and death. But as far as guaranteeing that they will be licensed, that will be one of the requirements that the owner will have to comply with to rent out. to make sure that whoever's renting these food trucks are properly licensed. And as far as myself and the owner in the city of Las Vegas, I suppose when it's rented, court enforcement, like any other place throughout the valley, that's their job to make sure they're licensed and they can get shut down if they're not licensed. But we can definitely add the trees. We can add the trees all along MLK. I would speak with the owners, and they want it open, so they will absolutely comply with trees if that's what's needed, or an island with trees on it along next to the spandrel.

Okay, one minute. Commissioner Wolters, it looks like we may have some other questions. I may go to another commissioner. Commissioner Taylor?

Thank You chair yeah I would echo Commissioner Walters concern about the landscaping again you've heard me say urban heat island a bunch of times tonight and this is a really hot area in terms of heat mapping and to just approve this without any type of landscaping when it is required I can't get behind that either so maybe we can put a condition on because I'm not comfortable with voting to move this forward unless we know that there's a condition or any alternative. I know you said you want to get open, so is this final action, Mr. Floyd, if it's approved tonight? Is Mr. Floyd not here?

Mr. Chairman, through you, this will move on to City Council. I do want to make a note, though, adding trees along Martin Luther King would impact the parking spaces and that could actually increase their variance request. And so if they are looking to add parking lot trees or trees along Martin Luther King, I would recommend an abeyance and bring it back to planning commission before moving to city council.

Thank you. That would be my, Commissioner Walters, that would be my humble suggestion is that this gets obeyed so that you, I know you want to get it open, but it doesn't sound like you, it sounds like you may not have votes tonight. So, you know, let's, maybe that makes more sense to just obey it, work with staff, work with Commissioner Walters and the Councilwoman's office to try to get appropriate landscaping in here to help the issues that we talked about. The other question I have is just the building itself. Are there plans, because we did look at some examples in the redevelopment proposal related to blight, and I'm not saying that this building is blighted, but I do see some lettering that is missing, and that could probably use some improvement to help improve the aesthetics of that corner. If I was making the motion, that would be my motion would be to obey, but it's not my award. So I'm just suggesting that.

The conditions are well founded. As far as the room that they do have in parking, they do have enough when they park forward facing MLK, they have enough room to give an additional three or five feet of landscaping before the parking. behind a sidewalk, back a sidewalk. They can do five feet and add the trees right there and landscaping right there. As far as the building, yeah, they can repaint it. They can put up all the lettering. So with conditions, that would be good, with conditions, and then that way can move forward with the conditions.

Okay. I think that Ms. Eddowes' concerns about making sure that you're not increasing the intensity of your variances are well-founded. So I really think an abundance of caution and for the best interest of the project, your client, and the harmonious nature of this project for the neighborhood. I think, again, my humble opinion is the best course of action is in abeyance, and then you can really work through everything, and we'll see you in July. That's what I would what I think would be the best thing to do. But again, it's not my ward. Thank you, Chair.

Commissioner Walters.

Hi, yes, thank you. I agree with Commissioner Taylor. Thank you for the comments. I'm ready to make a motion for abeyance for this project because at this time I am also unable to to really approve this project as is. So if there are no other comments, then I move to obey.

To obey? Yes.

I move to abeyance for item 1526-0013 and 15A, 15B, and 15C to the July 14

Give me one moment just for a technical question that I need addressed. All right. Uh, so commissioner Wolters was there, was there an advance, uh, a motion for advance to the July 14th meeting? Okay. Abance motion for advances on the floor to July 14th. Please cast your vote.

Hi.

All right, and that motion carries. That will be obeyed till July 14th. I would suggest you get with Commissioner Walters and staff and try to get those things worked out to make sure that we don't have any issues before you come back.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you. All right, moving on to item 1626-0059, applicant Murphy, USA, owner Charleston Corner, LLC, for possible action following land use entitlement project request at 2035 East Charleston Boulevard, Ward 3. Staff recommends now 16A is 260059 SUP1 for proposed alcohol off-premise beer wine use. 16B is 26-0059 SDR1 for proposed one-story, 2,824-square-foot convenience store development with fuel pumps with waivers to Title 1909 form-based code development standards. May we get the staff report, please?

Mr. Chairman, the numerous waivers of form-based development standards requested indicate that the overall development does not meet the urban design intent of the T5 MS zoning district to create a compact, walkable environment with active street furnishes. Staff therefore recommends denial of the special use permit and site development plan review subject to conditions if approved. Thank you. Oh, and please note there were additional documents of protest and support received after publication. Thank you. Good evening.

Good evening. Jennifer Lazovich, 1980 Festival Plaza Drive, here tonight on behalf of the applicant. The site is located on Eastern Avenue and Charleston Boulevard. It is approximately .85 acres in size. For a number of years, it was used as a Carl's Jr., but that tenant has vacated, and now this is what the site looks like. It's currently boarded up and completely fenced in. I think the other thing that's important to note is that over time all the landscaping that might have been there at one time has also completely died and is no longer there. So what we're proposing to do tonight is to redevelop the site, tear the existing building down. In light of the earlier discussion about the heat island effect and some other applications, I want to spend a minute talking about the landscaping. You will note that there are some landscape waivers in our application, and I want to kind of talk about some of those. First of all, along the north property line, there's a commercial use to the north, and there's an existing what I will call pony wall that sits there today. So we're mirroring really the area that we have left for landscaping on that side. So we have bushes, but we don't have trees. There's no Direct access from here to here in this way from a walking perspective Where we did concentrate our trees now the west is behind our building But nonetheless on the west side because we had the room to do landscaping and then as you come around Charleston and on to Eastern Avenue So what you're seeing are all the trees that we would be planning Overall the site has the required number of trees. It's just where they're spaced and I do also want to point out that it says one of the waivers that we have along Eastern Avenue is for a one foot landscape buffer where an additional width is required. There is a bus turnout that runs along Eastern Avenue and we have a pinch point. So in that pinch point we believe is where that one feet shows but the rest of the landscaping predominantly up here it really meets or exceeds what code requires and then you kind of come over in this corner the same. We just have that tiny little pinch point, so I don't want there to be an idea that the entire landscape frontage along Charleston or Eastern is that small in width. We have the width that we need to plant the trees. As it relates to the trees themselves, the areas where we have parking right here, we do have two trees on either side of that. We only have six parking spaces. All of our trees, as submitted, showed 36-inch box, but if this commission would like to move this item forward tonight, we would ask that an additional condition be added, that if the gist of it is that all trees would be 3-inch caliper measured 6 inches above ground. Again, our plan showed 36-inch box, but knowing how this commission prefers that to be worded, we're fine with that. and it achieves what we were trying to do with the 36-inch box trees anyway. With respect to the waivers, we think it is a cleaner look on this street frontage to place the building back on the west side, but that drives a lot of the waivers that you'll see in the staff report. In addition, the overlay for this area requires there to be a minimum of two stories. So what we did is created a two-story building. The two-story building, the second floor of it is actually faux. It's not real. But just in terms of a nod to what the overlay plan says for this area, we did create that two-story elevation. In addition, some other things that I just want to point out, all of our pylons underneath our fuel canopy have stones stacked all the way to the top of the fuel canopy. And it showed in a better picture as staff was going through. But the reason why I wanted to show this at nighttime is because it's a two-story building, we were trying to think of a way to light up the building, but not only the bottom of the building, also the top of the building. So this lighting, this up down lighting would go all the way around all four sides of the building. We understand it's important to keep the entire area lit up. In addition to that, of course, there will be lighting under the fuel canopy as well. So with these kind of added changes to the area, we would ask for your approval of this application.

Thank you. This notice is public hearing. Anyone want to be heard, please come forward. Ms. Lasovich, if I could have you step to the side. And sir, if I can get you down here and have your name and address for the record. You can take that microphone.

Thank you, Jason Macris. My address is 1721 East Oakey Boulevard, 89104. So we live a few blocks just from this planned development. We actually have a face group, the Crestwood neighborhood. We actually have a Facebook group about this and we saw that this was on there. I'm not speaking for the entire neighborhood, but there were a bunch of people who were opposed We were really concerned about the liquor license and another liquor store being added. I think you're probably aware of the store that's on the 15th in Charleston and kind of the congregation that goes along there. We'd love to see the residents, of course, the people who are homeless and have those issues be helped, but there is a concern about that kind of congregation helping there. I think that you guys are probably also aware that that particular intersection at Eastern and Charleston gets very heavily, densely populated by vehicle traffic. So I think there's going to be a further concern with having another gas station right across from the one that is already present there with regards to traffic congestion, pollution, the urban environment that it's going to create with regard to heat. And I can appreciate the business wanting to establish something here, but I think overall it's going to actually detract from the area and create more environmental and public safety hazards. And so a lot of us were concerned about, so I would like to note my objection to the item.

Thank you for coming down. Seeing no one else, I'm closed to public hearing. Have Ms. Lasovich come back up? Did you have anything you wanted to add before I turned it over to Planning Commission?

Yes, just one thing to note, and I don't know the specific details of what the gentleman just referenced with that location. But this location will not sell hard alcohol or liquor. It is limited to beer and wine only. I don't know if that's a distinction that's important to the other example that was raised. And then the only other point that I wanted to make is a convenience store with fuel pumps is by definition used for the convenience of those who are driving by. So the traffic that is already in the area is why this is an attractive location for an additional convenience store with fuel pumps. I don't believe that it will add more It will just service the traffic that's already moving around in the area.

Okay, thank you. I'm going to close the public hearing and turn this over to Planning Commission for discussion and possible action.

Yes, Ms. Lebo. I have a question regarding the bus turnout. You mentioned that there is, I don't know if it's an existing bus turnout or if you're dedicating additional land for that bus turnout as part of this project. So I'm just curious about that. It's an existing bus turnout. Okay. It sits there today.

It sits right about here.

Gotcha. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm going to turn it over to myself. So I met with Ms. Lasovich, I don't know, a year ago about this particular project and looked at some plans and asked her to go back to the drawing board and then she brought back another set of plans and then trying to look at the, you know, a two-story to Try to get this to look more along the lines of what we're looking for in a form-based code and then we asked to make some more modifications and it went back and forth and then I Asked her to make some other modifications in the exterior and then when she brought it back I was like, no, let's come back to the first one So we we made had a lot of work on this. I did hear about the neighborhood and and all the Facebook posts, um, and everything and about the liquor. And, uh, I, I wouldn't support liquor here. Um, that, that was a no go for me. And, uh, actually when I heard, uh, of the Facebook post, I, I actually called Ms. Lasvech and asked her if she was planning on doing liquor, that it's not gonna, not gonna fly at this location. So anyway, she called me back and said, uh, that there won't be liquor. It'll be beer and wine like everywhere else, but liquor brings a whole nother element, uh, uh, to, uh, to these locations. I live in this neighborhood. I live in the notification area. I'm not going to be affected in a greater or lesser than anyone else. Uh, so I'll be voting on this matter, but I live at the Fremont street loss, just a couple, couple of projects up from here. And when they put in the terribles, I was on the fence on that project, but actually I, I go there and I actually go there because, it's much easier for me to get in there and get my fuel and get back out. The Five Points gas station that is in the center of that triangle of Charleston, Fremont, and Eastern is the worst laid out project that I think I've seen. If you're going eastbound on Charleston, westbound on Fremont, or southbound on Eastern, you can't make it in. You can keep driving around there and not get in. Only if you're going the opposite direction can you actually enter that gas station. And sometimes it becomes so overcrowded that it just becomes like a traffic nightmare there. But I would like to say that the Terribles is there. I go there early in the morning. I go there in the evenings. And they do a really good job of keeping that place clean. And you don't see that element of people hanging out there like you do at every other place up and down Fremont Street and some of these other places this gentleman mentioned. Because some of those places he mentioned, I wouldn't even want to walk in. You know, for those reasons, you know, we could look at this. We could try to put another fast food joint in there. This building's old and dilapidated. But at this point, I think this is better than what we have, and it's as close to the look and feel of what the building is that we're looking for down there. I would like to... see if staff at some point in the future could talk to us, maybe have a agenda item and talk to us about gas stations and the frontage and how they do front on the streets and how we want the gas pumps in the back because we've been talking about this for, you know, as long as I've been on the planning commission, which Commissioner Rogan said was 1950. So, but I don't remember ever approving any of these where they were actually built in this direction. So I'd like to see what the thought is behind that, and also if we need to look at modifying code or what, but we don't have to discuss that tonight. But those are my comments. Commissioner Rogan?

I mean, I agree that we have to take a look at all these auto-oriented uses in this area. I mean, I know we've dealt with car washes, and I think that we've kind of taken a position, as I recall, that we're not putting car washes on Sahara Avenue right now. And I think the same should be said for gas pumps, or at least have a discussion about what we're doing with gas pumps. As far as this particular application, I appreciate all the effort that you've gone through to redesign it, and it's taken a year, but at some point I think we just have to make a decision that we're following form-based code or we're not following form-based code. And we have a code here. You're seeking to put traditional suburban developments. And it looks great. And I appreciate that you put that redesign in there. But it still doesn't meet. It's so far from code that I just can't support it. And along the lines, if we're asking staff to do things, I'd like to at some point inquire if we're keeping track of how many times we're deviating from form-based code and approving these things so that we can actually see if it's working or if we're not doing our job in requiring applicants to come back, because I feel like we're doing this all the time. And I just want to get some data on there to make sure that my feeling is matching the reality of what we're seeing. So I appreciate, again, Ms. Lazovich, everything that you do, but I'm just not going to support it tonight.

Thank you, anyone else? All right, I'm gonna close this and look for a motion on item number 1626-0059, 16A and B. I'll go ahead and make a motion to approve item 16, 16A, 26-0059, SUP1, and 16B, 26-0059, SDR,

subject to all conditions, including the added condition regarding the trees being three-inch calipers, six inches above grade.

Yeah, Mr. Chair, through you, that added condition would be on 26-059-SDR1, and it would be all trees shall be a minimum three-inch trunk caliper measured six inches from the base of the trunk.

Thank you. Motions on the floor, please cast your vote. Commissioner Walters?

Aye.

And that motion carries.

Thank you. And Mr. Chairman, that item will move on to City Council on July 15th, 2026. Thank you. Thank you.

Item number 17-260-0143-VAR-1, applicant owner pro-view series 36 for possible action on land use entitlement project request to allow a proposed front yard wall fence that does not conform to Title 19.08 development standards for height at 1701 South Las Vegas Boulevard, Ward 3. Can we get the staff report, please?

Mr. Chairman, no evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance has been presented and that the applicant has created a self-imposed hardship for proposing a fence taller than what Title 19 allows. Therefore, staff is recommending denial of the request. Thank you.

Yes, and... I'm gonna go ahead and open number 18, 26-0198VAR1, Applicant Honor Pro View Series 3-6. For possible action on a land use entitlement project request, allow proposed free stand-in sign that does not conform to Title 19.08 Development Standards for sign area and setbacks at 1701 South Las Vegas Boulevard. Can we get the staff report, please?

Mr. Chairman, for that one, again, no evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance has been presented and that the applicant has created a self-imposed hardship by proposing a new freestanding sign that exceeds the maximum allowed sign area and that will remain within the setback area. Therefore, staff is recommending denial of this request as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Good evening, sir. Good evening, Planning Commission. My name is Adam Fulod, 10-225 Stony Ridge Drive. I'm going to be speaking on both items. I'll focus on one at a time, though. For the first, regarding the fence, I know that staff said that there's no reason for it, more or less. This is the same area that Mayor Goodman several years ago said that she went with Mr. Oscar Goodman and refused to get out of the car at Lovett Custards because she was worried about the homeless people out front. We have invested a lot of money to redevelop this property. Unfortunately, I don't have photos of what it looks like now. We've done a lot of projects in the Arts District and in the downtown to revitalize properties. Unfortunately, this area is very rough, and the reason why we want the oversized or tall fence is because of all the riffraff in the area. We see it as absolutely necessary, and for that reason, we're proposing, instead of doing the standard five or six foot, to go past that. So that's regarding the fence. Now regarding the sign, they did say it's a new sign. This is an existing sign and I'm gonna go through several photos. Right now it shows the location of the existing sign. On our approved plans, it specifically states existing signage to remain. And again, same location, we're not removing it or changing it. We are changing it to something more modern. Now, I'm going to go ahead and show this. Unfortunately, the microphone is in the way. There you go. This is the existing signage. What we're proposing is this, and the reason why we see that as necessary, again, this area is underdeveloped. There's more homeless people right now than you see, more homeless and people on drugs than you see the average person walking around. So we need something to help attract tenants to the area. Across the street or across Las Vegas Boulevard is the White Cross. Unfortunately, nothing is going on there for right now. And we need something to be able to connect this property to the main part of the Arts District. For that reason, this is the sign that we're proposing. We do already have the existing sign. And the new sign is only 38 square feet larger than what would be, I assume, what is allowed. I do want to show some examples of other signs that are within a stone's throw of the property. This is not even a two-minute walk from our property. It's 370 square feet. It's larger than what we are proposing. This is directly up the street on Las Vegas Boulevard. It's the Fun City, a neighboring property to another property we own. Again, larger than what we're proposing. This is another one a little bit down the street, closer to our property, again, 672. This is another sign at the Atomic Golf, 1,836 square feet. I'm going to keep that one. So again, to go over it, regarding the fence, it is specifically for security. I do understand the reasoning for the shorter fences. Unfortunately, this is not a clean-cut area for us, and we need something to help secure the property at night. And again, regarding the signage, this isn't a new sign. We already have the approval to keep the existing sign. I do understand the setbacks, but for that reason, I believe that this is grandfathered. And this would be just something nicer to help tie us in to make sure that the property is a success.

Okay, thank you. This was noticed as a public hearing. Anyone wanting to be heard, please come forward, state your name and address for the record. Seeing none, I'm closed public hearing. Turn this over to Planning Commission for discussion and possible action. Commissioner Lebo.

Yes, Chairperson. NRS 281A-420 requires me to disclose a conflict of interest. The applicant before the Planning Commission and I had a previous business conflict that a reasonable person in my situation would be materially affected by this issue, and because this is a disqualifying conflict of interest, I'm going to be abstaining from voting and speaking on this matter.

Thank you. All right. I've seen this site. I've watched it. My warehouse is across the street from here and I've seen it as it's gone up. Put a ton of money into this building and taking kind of a big risk as you're on the on the outskirts right now, but I, I feel that this is, uh, right across the street on Las Vegas Boulevard and Okie. There's going to be, I hear about a lot of things that's going to be coming in that area within the next five years, which I'm kind of excited about. Um, and I do remember when this particular project come forward, I, I thought, felt that we're going to have a lot of opposition from the neighbors and, We had a lot of neighbors actually show up in support of this, saying that they want to come support the breweries and the restaurants and everything that's in there. It was nice to see that you did have some community support then. I don't necessarily have a problem with the The sign's in that location. It's staying in the same location. Like you said, it's 38 square feet over the existing sign. And the fence matches everything, all the steel that you'll have added to that building. My question is, is this LED?

Yes, it's going to be LED to help attract tenants, or it's going to be for the tenants to help attract visitors to the property.

Okay, and what's on the east-facing side of that sign? Is that going to be LED as well?

Yeah, it's double-faced, so the side facing into the property and the side facing out will be the same. All right.

Well, and my only concern would be the brightness and the illumination from that sign and making sure that it's not blinding to the neighbors and blinding to traffic that's coming down that street. So, you know, if approved, I would like to see that underneath a one-year administrative review. just to make sure that we're not having any issues in that semi-dark neighborhood. So you're gonna really have to keep this thing kind of somewhat muted facing the neighborhood, maybe a little bit brighter facing Las Vegas Boulevard.

So just keep that in mind. Absolutely. The side that faces into the property is almost blocked in by the building. Oh, is it? Yeah. So it doesn't face east-west. It's angled. So the back end of it would really be facing into the property. But I do agree. We don't want a sign that's going to be blinding drivers just to get their attention. We don't need a spotlight. It's more so just to show, hey, there's something over here and attract people to walk over. OK.

So if we do an administrative review, what happens is it'll just be heard by or reviewed by its staff. If there's a lot of code enforcement complaints or anything like that, then it will come back to our body. But if not, then it'll be final at that point. But I have no further questions. Anybody else have any questions? Yes, Commissioner Taylor.

I had two questions, but you covered mine about the LED facing the neighborhoods. So I'm just looking at this site, and I'm trying to figure out, like, where's your access?

We have two. Right now we have the main access is going to be here along Oakey. There is one. We had an agreement. Unfortunately, long story short, the 7-Eleven was built into a agreement that they would never build there and i guess during covid they decided to build we went back and forth they have given us another access right here this does not show the current development this is i don't know how old this photo is but there is one man door here that we've been given approval for and the main access will be here off of oki right next to the sign

Okay, and then what is to the east? Is that public access as well?

This side is all the alleyway. So these are businesses are right here. This is all one owner. And then these are, for lack of better words, boarded up homes.

Okay. So let me just make sure I understand. Are you like, so are you using that neighboring site at the 7-Eleven then as an access point? And for parking or?

No, it will just be the access will be Oki. I think if we have, and we're going to have security as part of our umbrella liquor license, if we see the need for two entry points or exit points, there would be one off of Oki, sorry, one off of Oki, and the second would be here through the 7-Eleven. We have an access agreement with them now.

Okay, and so there's no access on that alleyway between your site and that Plum Crazy Solutions? No.

No, there's business access. The tenants have access in order to get to the trash enclosure. So they have alley doors that allow them to exit to the alley in order to take their trash to the trash enclosure. But those entries are not for patrons. It is just for the back of house.

And is that access, are you restricting that access or is that a joint agreement with you and all of the businesses to the east?

I don't know if I fully understood. The alleyway here is just a public alley. Did I misunderstand that? Okay.

There's actually no on-site parking at this location. The parking is off-site across Las Vegas Boulevard. Okay.

All right. We have some creative ideas for that. Okay.

Yeah. We don't have alleys in Ward 6. Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Okay. Seeing no others, be looking for a motion on item number 17.

I can go ahead and make a motion if you like on item 17. I'll make a motion to approve item 1726-0143VAR1. Motion is on the floor. Aye.

Through you, Chair. Sorry, was there a required review? Is that a condition that needs to be added on the item or no?

Yes, with one year. Sorry, thank you. So does she need to read that condition? No, on 18.

So motions on the floor, please cast your vote.

Oh, sorry, on 17 and 18. I forgot that that was both of them.

And we had an aye vote for Commissioner Wolters. Okay.

That motion carries and that is final action tonight.

Let's build the city clerk in ten days Commissioner Taylor Got it Okay, and then I'll make a second motion on item 1826-0198VAR1, subject to all conditions, including the condition of a one-year administrative review, and you agree to all those conditions?

I do. Mr. Chairman, let me read that condition in really quick. For the added condition, it will read a one-year administrative review shall be performed from the date of final inspection of the building permit. Thank you.

Thank you. I agree to that. Thanks. Motion's on the floor. Please cast your vote. Commissioner Walters? Commissioner Walters?

Aye.

Thank you. And that motion carries.

And that is final action. Let's appeal to the city clerk in 10 days. Thank you so much. Have a great night.

Thank you. Moving on to item number 20, 26-0165, applicant owner Santa Gold Realty LLC for possible action on the following land use entitlement project request at 1712 Santa Paula Drive, Ward 3, staff recommends to now. 20A, 26-0165, BAR1, to allow a 16-foot rear yard setback where 20 feet's required for an existing building. 20B, 26-0165, ZON1, from PR, Professional office and residential or professional office and parking to our for high-density residential. Can we get the staff report, please?

Mr. Chairman the existing building previously converted from a multi-family use to an office in 2015 Where it conformed to the rear yard setback requirement staff does not now support creation of a non-conforming setback and there is no physical characteristic of the lot that warrants approval of the variance and Therefore, staff recommends denial of the variance and rezoning. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there an applicant here tonight? Seeing none, I'll open this up to public hearing. Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and turn this over to the Planning Commission. reviewed this, um, I, I do understand it. It was, uh, it would not, uh, meet today's codes, but considering how this was a multifamily at one point, uh, went to professional office and going back to multifamily, uh, I, I have no, uh, um, no issues with this. So there's no other issues. Commissioner Taylor.

Um, I will go ahead and make a motion on item number 20. That's 26-0165, um, and then 20, um, sub A, 260165VAR1 and 20B, 26-0165ZON1 for approval.

Motion's on the floor for approval. Please cast your vote.

Vice chair through, that's subject to conditions, correct?

Yes. Subject to conditions. Thank you. Commissioner Walters.

And that motion carries and that will move on to City Council on July 15th and mr. Chairman I need to make one correction on item number 16 I believe we said that would be moving on to City Council in July 15th That is actually final action tonight unless appeal to the city clerk in ten days. Thank you for the clarification.

I Moving on to item 22, 26-0175-VAR1, applicant owner, Ala Ortiz and Humberto Ortiz Jr. for possible action on land use entitlement project request to allow an existing residential accessory structure garage that does not conform to Title 19-06 development standards for separation setbacks and aesthetic compatibility at 5329 Dennis Springs Way, Ward 6. Staff recommends no. Can we get the staff report, please?

Mr. Chairman, no evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance related to the physical characteristics of the property has been presented to warrant the requested variance. As such, the hardship is self-imposed and therefore staff recommends denial of this request. Please note additional documentation of support was received after publication. Thank you.

Thank you. Good evening. Can we get your name and address?

Yes, Mr. Chairman. Umberto Ortiz, 5329 Dennis Springs Way.

Thank you. Tell us about the project.

So when I purchased the home in 2021, the structure was already existing and I didn't know about the setback and all like that. It's been there, I guess, from, I got letters from the neighbors directly behind me and to the side and in front. The neighbor in front actually said that that structure has gone through three different owners since he's been there.

Okay. Is that it?

Uh, yes.

Okay. Thank you. This was no, it says public hearing. If you want to be heard, please come down. Seeing none. I'm close to public hearing. Turn this over to the plan to commission the start of the commission. Taylor.

Thank you. Um, good evening, sir. Thanks for coming down. Uh, we have had a similar item, um, on your neighboring street of echo crest. And it seems to me that there are a lot of these structures, um, in this area off Dana Springs way. Um, you know, My understanding is there was one contractor out there building these pretty robustly. So as a result, I do believe that this is harmonious and compatible for this neighborhood. Did you have any opposition from any of your neighbors either on your street or on the street behind you, Echo Crest?

No, ma'am, just support.

Okay. Are those written support?

Yes.

Would you be able to turn those into the clerk?

Yes.

Great. And then I have a question for staff on this item. I don't know if you guys can answer it, but, um, considering we did again, have this on echo crest, the same issue, what, What are the next steps for these homeowners? Because I also understand that we've got several more of these potentially in the pipeline. So what happens if we grant a variance like this and what's their timeline?

Mr. Chairman, through you, if the variance is granted, they will have two years to obtain a building permit and have that permit receive its final inspection. That will exercise the variance. If they do not obtain a building permit and get their final inspection and close the permit, the variance will expire. And if somebody complained again, then they would be back having to repeat this process.

Okay. And, um, the applicants received that information in the letter that goes out following a hearing in terms of their timeline and their next steps.

Mr. Chairman, through you, yes, the final action letter will give them their expiration date, and one of the conditions of approval is for them to obtain a building permit.

Okay. All right. Thank you. I am prepared to make a motion if there are no questions. Please do. Okay.

I have one question real quick. Yes. Concerning what... what she said. I had spoke to Officer Nick Gonzalez, who is a code enforcement officer right now on the case. Really nice guy. And I explained to him, because I was under the impression that me and the other neighbors were under the impression that we had two years to get it permitted. Because when we talked to a building and safety, they say, because it's already a free existing structure, that we have to hire a structural engineer to draw the plans and all that, which consists, obviously, of money and time as well. I was informed by the... Current enforcement officer that we don't have that privilege of two years that we were basically because we are already in violation right now That we don't that's only if it was nothing was built there before and we're fighting for a variance So that was my concern is that I needed some more time, you know like I said officer Gonzalez said that basically Since I'm already in violation. The clock is already ticking. So I I would ask for some, uh, one second.

If I could ask a plan, is there a condition that tells them how long he has?

Mr. Chairman? Yes. The variance. If it is granted tonight, they will have two years to receive their final inspection and exercise the variance. A timeline given by code enforcement is separate. So code enforcement will give them a timeline and make sure that they stay on track by obtaining the building permit, by going through the inspection process and by obtaining that final inspection. to ensure that the structure is safe and secure. So that's two separate timelines.

I suggest you just get an architect and get this into the city as soon as possible. Commissioner Taylor?

I mean, I guess my question then, Ms. Eddowes, is through you, Mr. Chair, is that that seems sort of... disconnected then that you guys can give them a certain timeline but then that may be completely obviated by code enforcement and that just seems a little, I can't think of the best adjective I want but it just seems like there should be better alignment between code enforcement and this process.

Mr. Chairman, through you, the building permit process, especially when you have to obtain structural drawings, can take a little bit of time. It could be six months, eight months, nine months. So it is to the applicant's advantage to start this process you know, if it is granted tonight to start this process immediately because two years can go quite quickly. So code enforcement will, you know, monitor this and make sure they are continuously making progress and that they're not just sitting on it and waiting until a month before the expiration date to go get their building permit because then it will expire. They will not have time to obtain that.

Okay. I understand that part right there. Can code enforcement find me during the process? So if I call next week and get the process going just to show that I'm being proactive in getting it permitted, will I still get the fines over that process for failed inspections from code enforcement?

So Mr. Chairman, Seth Floyd for the record. The next thing that will happen after this meeting typically is the code officer will then check in with you. Nick will check in with you. If you are, as Nicole said, making progress, then they will keep the case, typically will keep the case on pause as long as you are making progress. So you won't necessarily get a fine, but if that progress stops, they may pick the case back up.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you. So with that, I would like to go ahead and make a motion to approve item 22, which is 260175VAR1, subject to all conditions.

Motion is on the floor for approval. Please cast your vote. Commissioner Walters?

Aye.

That motion carries. And that item is final action tonight unless appealed to the city clerk in 10 days. And Mr. Chairman, I apologize for the confusion again. Item number 20 is also final action tonight unless appealed to the city clerk in 10 days.

Thank you for the clarification. Moving on to item 2326-0179-SDR1. Applicant Kalita Group, owner 116 10th Street, LLC. For possible action on a land use project request for an existing parking facility with waivers to Title 19.09, form-based code development standards at 946 East Carson Avenue, Ward 3, staff recommends denial. Can we get the staff report, please?

Mr. Chairman, staff recommends denial of all requested waivers as development that was previously considered temporary and built to temporary standards should now be redesigned to meet form-based code standards to continue operation as a permanent parking lot. The addition of landscaping would enhance the aesthetic appeal of the parking lot and provide shading benefits. Staff therefore recommends denial of the site development plan review. Thank you.

Thank you. Good evening, sir. Good evening. Robert Cunningham, 6030 South Jones Boulevard with Tanny Engineering representing the applicant.

All right.

All right. uh... what we're asking for is exactly what staff requested uh... this is an existing parking lot that was temporary and permitted in twenty i believe twenty seventeen or eighteen constructed and utilized it was supposed to be uh... removed and tore down i believe in twenty twenty twenty one it's been remaining and functioning as a parking lot since then uh... the goal here is to make it permanent Doing so the codes changed and been updated several times since this was initially constructed some of the variances that were applied for were related to the changes there and But in particular the landscaping I'd like to address that one of the things that we applied for was waiver of landscaping, but I think I'm going to ask staff. And the planning Commission, if we can modify that this is the landscape area or the area where landscaping could be built along 10th the majority of this is in the public right away only five feet of this is actually within the private property. If a license and maintenance agreement can be entered into with the city, we could plant the required 24-inch box trees 15 feet on center with the required shrubs running down here, all down the 10th street alignment. Now, Carson is a different story. There's only about three to four feet of landscape rock area in this area here. We would be able to plant shrubs in this area. Trees would be very limited and nearly impossible to plant in that very narrow landscape, so we would still request that variance along that area there. The wall, as you see here, is just a CME wall with iron on top. As part of this as well, we would agree to paint the wall or stucco it and make it more decorative in nature. We believe that the combination of the two would aid in the view from the adjacent street. And the setback waivers and other variances that are requested, we would still ask for approval of those. That concludes my presentation.

Thank you. This was known as a public hearing. Anyone who wanted to be heard, please come forward. Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and turn this over to the Planning Commission for discussion and possible action. Mr. Cunningham, thank you for calling me. Thank you for being willing to add those trees and that decorative stucco. It will totally make a difference on that property. And especially since this is finally going from a temporary parking lot to a permanent parking lot. And I know that the Kalita Group does such a great job all over town. I'm sure they're gonna do an amazing job here and putting in the shrubs along Carson where there's no room to put in the trees was a great addition too. So thank you so much for making it easy for us to make those modifications. So go ahead, Commissioner Taylor.

Just quickly, Mr. Cunningham, I think you probably know what I'm going to ask. Instead of 24-inch box, are you willing to agree to a condition that the trees will be 3-inch calipers at 6 inches above grade?

Yes, absolutely. Okay.

Thank you. And can we ask planning staff to read a condition into the record?

Oh, and actually, sorry, through you, Mr. Chair, large, fast-growing trees on the SNWA plan list?

Absolutely.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Cunningham.

Do you want to make the motion first or do you want me to read the condition?

No, read the condition.

Mr. Chair, on item 26-0179, SDR 1, I want to amend condition number 5 to read, upon approval of a license agreement, fast-growing large shade trees with a minimum 3-inch trunk caliper measured 6 inches from the base of the trunk shall be planted every 15 feet on center along 10th Street with four five-gallon shrubs for every required tree and five-gallon shrubs planted along Carson Avenue.

Thank you. And you agree with that condition? That's acceptable, yes. Thank you. Thank you.

Commissioner Taylor? Yes. Okay. With that, I would like to go ahead and make a motion on item 23. Oh, no. I'm sorry. I thought that there was another question. For item 23, that's 26-0179-SDR1. To approve the application with the added with the added condition to raise your motions on the floor.

Please cast your vote and Commissioner Walters All right Thank you that motion carries and that is final action list appeal the city clerk in ten days, and I'm sure about that. Thank you.

Okay We'll just see about that give it a couple more items I On item 2426-0180, SUP 1, applicant First Watch Restaurants Incorporated, owner 2001 North Rainbow LLC for possible action on land use entitlement project request for a proposed alcohol on-premise full use with an outdoor patio area at 2001 North Rainbow Boulevard, Ward 5. Staff recommends approval. Can we get the staff report, please?

Mr. Chairman, the proposed use is consistent with the uses allowed in the C1 Limited Commercial Zoning District and can be conducted in a compatible and harmonious way with the surrounding land uses. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the special use permit. Please note additional documentation of protest was received after publication. Thank you.

Thank you. Good evening.

Good evening. Thank you. Ryan Chappell, 8725 Pendry Place, representing First Watch Restaurants, Senior Development Manager. First Watch Restaurants is a award-winning daytime dining concept. We have 630 locations across 31 states and recently entered Nevada in late 2025 with another location opening in early 2026. For the request here, we're seeking special use to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages. It's a menu of four to six alcoholic cocktails. All drinks must be served with a food item. Custom drinks are not accepted or possible since all alcoholic drinks are batched daily and not made to order. The location is former Romano's Macaroni Grill, which we will be doing pretty significant interior renovations, updates to floor plan, furnitures, fixtures, as well as exterior renovations.

Thank you. This was no decisive public hearing. Anyone want to be heard, please come forward. Seeing none, I'm going to close public hearing. Turn this over to Planning Commission, starting with Commissioner Walters.

Hi. Thank you for being here. I am familiar with this site. I used to attend it. Frequently as a macaroni grill, I'm looking forward to something else coming in there with similar but different menu options. So I will allow if anyone else has any questions for you at this time.

There's no other comments. Please make your motion.

Okay. I'd like to make a motion on agenda item 24, that's 26-0180, SUP1, special use permit for approval.

Motion's on the floor for approval. Subject to conditions. Aye. The motion's on the floor subject to conditions with a aye vote for Commissioner Walters. And that motion carries.

And that item is final action tonight unless appealed to the city clerk. Final answer. Final answer. Thank you.

Thank you.

Moving on to item 2526-0183, VAR 1, applicant owner Jose Francisco Solis de Leon and Paula E. Soto Chavez for possible action on land use entitlement project requests to allow an existing front yard wall fence that does not conform to Title 1906 development standards for height and visibility at 1420 Ingram Street, Ward 3. Staff recommends now. Can we get the staff report, please?

Hi, good evening. My name is Bob. Oh, I'm sorry. One second.

We're going to go with the staff report. No problem.

Mr. Chairman, this is the subject of an open code enforcement case. As there's no unique or extraordinary circumstance related to the physical characteristics of the subject property that warrants the requested height and visibility variance, the hardship is deemed to be self-imposed and staff recommends denial subject to conditions if approved. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening.

Hi, good evening. My name is Paola Soto, and I'm owner of the 1420 Ingram Street, the property. And I'm requesting the approval of the variance of an existing wall and fence in front of the side of my property, since these don't have the height and visibility standards. As you can see in the photograph, the measurements of the fence and the wall. This property was purchased in 2022 and already has this wall built more than 20 years ago. The fence was added to the existing wall. The wall and the fence do not affect the light, ventilation, or privacy of my neighbors. Many of my neighbors have a wall and a fence on their property, and we also wanted to add it to our property since the neighbor looks safe and harmony, and it is also a way to protect the property. Thank you.

Thank you. This was noticed as public hearing. Anyone who wanted to be heard, please come forward. Seeing none, I'm going to close the public hearing and turn this over to Planning Commission. Starting with myself, I went back and forth on this one. Usually, I'm... don't like a proven too many front yard fences that are built right out of the right of way. However, if they're somewhat open and visible where you can see through, I could kind of get behind it. The neighbor's fence is just as tall as yours, solid concrete, can't see in at all. The difference is the neighbor is, it's their side yard. And it's your front yard that meet each other because they're on a corner lot. So, you know, and then your neighbor, a couple of houses down has a fence that's, you know, almost as tall as yours with a see-through fence in. So, you know, for those reasons, if it was any more solid than what it actually is, I would likely say no. But for those reasons, I think I could approve this one. There's no other comments.

I'm happy to make a motion for you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

Okay. On item 2526-0183 VAR 1, I would move to approve.

Subject to all conditions. Thank you so much for your time.

And you agree to all conditions, ma'am? Paula? You agree to all conditions have approved? Motion is on the floor for approval. Please cast your vote. Commissioner Walters?

Aye.

That motion carries. And that is final action. Let's appeal to the city clerk in 10 days. Thank you.

Thank you.

On item 26, 26-0184, applicant block development owner. That was obeyed. That was obeyed. Thank you. 27, 26-0195, VAR1. applicant owner VA 07650 LLC for possible action on land use entitlement project request to allow proposed front yard wall fence that does not conform to Title 1906 development standards for height and visibility as 7650 via Levero Avenue Ward 1. Staff recommends no. May we get the staff report, please?

Mr. Chairman, as there is no unique or extraordinary circumstance related to the physical characteristics of the subject property that warrants the requested height and visibility variance, The hardship is deemed to be self-imposed and staff recommends denial, subject to conditions if approved. Please note there are additional documents of protest received after publication.

Thank you. Good evening, sir. Good evening. Tom McLeister, 1904 Tomahawk Drive, Henderson, Nevada, here on behalf of the homeowner. We are requesting a variance for the front yard and side yard wall height to be eight feet. The wall will sit back off of the back of sidewalk 15 feet and will be landscaped in front. The wall will be stuccoed and we feel it's harmonious with the neighborhood. The property just to the west of us has an 11 foot high wall. We understand that's their side yard wall, but as you come down via Oliveira, it's mainly block wall as you go down the street. So we're going from 11 foot to the west of us. We're doing eight foot. And then as you turn down Tioga Way, we would increase that to eight feet as well to match the remaining north portion of our lot.

All right. Thank you. This was known as public hearing. Anyone want to be heard, please come down. Seeing none, I'm going to close the public hearing and turn this over to Planning Commission, starting with Commissioner Rogan.

Thank you, Chair. I've been out to the site and I've had discussions with Tom and my normal inclination is to deny these because once I approve them, then everyone else comes in with it. But It depends on the context. And looking at this area, you're correct. When I drove it, when I looked at Google Maps, I mean, the entire area, this development is predominantly cul-de-sacs with exterior walls that are eight foot in height on the major streets and the major collectors and minor collectors. And certainly along South Buffalo, there's very few streets like yours or very few properties like yours that have the front yard facing the street. And in looking at that context, I think it's fair and appropriate to do this. I also note that you have a gigantic, your client has a gigantic front yard, and if we denied it, they could simply build this wall 50 feet back, and I think that would look very dumb. So I think... Although it's not normally my position, I think that it fits, and so I'm ready to make a motion for approval unless other folks have any comments. Please do. All right. With regard to Agenda Item 27, Project 26-0195VAR1, make a motion for approval subject to staff's conditions. And, sir, do you agree with all those conditions? Yes, I do.

All right. All right. Motion's on the floor. Please cast your vote. Commissioner Walters.

Aye.

That motion carries. Thank you.

And that is final action.

Let's appeal to the city clerk in 10 days. Thank you. Item 2826-0202, SUP1, applicant Jeffrey Iverson, owner, Boulevard Motel Group, LLC, for possible action on a land use entitlement project. for a proposed single-room occupancy residence use at 2500 Fremont Street, Ward 3, Diaz. Staff recommends approval. Can we get the staff report, please?

Mr. Chairman, this request meets all the minimum special use permit requirements as outlined by Title 1912 and staff has determined that this use can be conducted in a compatible and harmonious manner within the existing structure. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the request. Thank you.

Thank you. Good evening.

Good evening. Lucy Stewart, 1930 Village Center Circle, representing the item. And with me is Mr. Jeffrey Iverson. And he's the CEO, president, and actually founder of the organization who's the tenant. And this is a really interesting piece of property. It was built in 1954 and... To say it had a lot of deferred maintenance would probably be an understatement. I think it's been a problem for Metro for years. There's been crime. There's been many calls. And, in fact, it became so bad that the previous owner lost their business license. And so if January 1st of this year it was sold, The property's been cleaned up. If you've driven by it lately, you'll see it looks quite nice. They remodeled it, but it was really just the maintenance. The exterior's been cleaned. The electrical plumbing, all that's been replaced. Everything's been upgraded and brought to current code. And so I'm actually very excited about this project because this is... I'll let Jeff explain, but this is a sober living facility, and this is really the last step. The people who live here have been with the program like six to nine months, and it goes from intense as it progresses. less intense, but there still is close supervision. There's counseling. And again, I'll let him come and tell a little bit about it. And this is the last step before people go off and live independently on their own. And in fact, while they're living at this facility, the staff, the counselors help them find permanent housing. And so if you want to tell a little bit better than I can do, I'm sure.

Jeff Iverson, for the record. 2121 West Charleston is our address. The organization is known as Crossroads of Southern Nevada. Over the last seven years, we've developed a very comprehensive continuum of care to address the unhoused, specifically the unhoused that are experiencing substance abuse and mental health issues. Our main location is our crisis intervention center and detox center located across from UMC at 2121 West Charleston. We have put together probably one of the most unique treatment programs that I'm aware of in the state. It starts with detox at our medically licensed detox facility. Then we have residential treatment available at that location and from there We have several locations where people are housed while they're attending outpatient care. This location on Fremont Street would be kind of like the final stay in our continuum where they've completed their inpatient treatment. They may be meeting with a counselor once a month in our outpatient program, but this is where they're really going through their case management program. And final step for us is helping them find permanent housing, and employment. So we are currently occupying this location and licensed as a motel, but we would like to be classified as a residence hotel so we can extend the length of stay anywhere from 30 to 90 days while we're helping these people find jobs and permanent housing. Thank you.

This was no decisive public hearing. Anyone want to be heard, please come forward and state your name and address for the record. Seeing none, I'm going to close the public hearing and turn this over to Planning Commissioner. Commissioner Taylor, did you have a comment?

I did not have any comments. I was just...

I have a comment. So I actually went out to this location and met with Ms. Stewart and Mr. Iverson and the ladies that are in the back. And so, you know, a couple of years ago, we had some of these transitional housing and other projects that come on Fremont Street, and everybody was really nervous about this and how it was going to affect the neighborhood and Actually, I cleaned up the neighborhood, and instead of having prostitution and pimps and drug deals and ambulances and police and everything else coming in across the street from where I live all the time, now it's clean, it's quiet, and I actually enjoy having that across the street from me. This one was a little farther down a few blocks. I looked at it. They put over a million bucks in it. I walked in one of the places. They're working on a temporary permit right now. It's amazing. This is the last step before they get back out in the community and start working. And you're doing good things. And I like the facility. It was well run. So anyway, I was wishing you a lot of luck and looking forward to getting this approved tonight. And you agree to all conditions if approved? Absolutely. Thank you. Commissioner Taylor? Okay. I was just...

Eager to make a motion on this great project. Yes. Okay. So on item number 28, that's 26-0202, SUP 1. I would like to make a motion to approve subject to all conditions.

Motion is on the floor for approval. Please cast your vote. Commissioner Walters.

Aye.

Aye.

And that motion carries. And that's final action. Let's field the city clerk in 10 days. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you.

Moving on to item 2926-0206, EOT1, special use permit, SUP 78660, applicant owner, Pacific Classic LLC, for possible action on land use entitlement project requests for the third extension of time for the approval of the proposed car wash, full service, or auto detailing use at the northwest corner, Iron Mountain Road and Sky Village Road, Ward 6, staff recommends denial. Can we get the staff report, please?

Mr. Chairman, this is the third extension of time for the special use permit approval, which has remained active for six years, even though the site development plan review for the site that includes the car wash expired three years ago. Staff recommends denial and recommends that a new special use permit be sought when the developer is ready to obtain a new site development plan review entitlement. Thank you.

Thank you. Good evening, sir.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Bob Gronauer, 1980 Festival Plaza Drive. I'm here representing the property owner and the developer on this piece of property. Yes, this property was owned a few years ago for a commercial shopping center. This is also part of the site that was supposed to be the Costco was looking to come in at this location for an anchor tenant. We are in the process of moving forward with another anchor tenant in this area here. The convenience store was just recently approved by the city council with an expiration date for that use permit or the extension. I believe it was for December 4th, 2026. We would like this application to have that same condition if you were to approve it to be December 4th, 2026. Our intent is to come in with a site development plan before that time. uh, with our anchor tenant. And, um, at that point in time, we'll be able to move forward with our entitlements on this piece of property.

Thank you. This was no, it says public hearing. Anyone who wanted to be heard, please come forward and see a non closed public here and turn this over to plan commission. I'm starting with the commissioner Taylor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, good evening, Mr. Grunauer. Um, just a couple of questions since staff's recommendation is to, you know, just move forward with a new SUP given that it has been six years. Um, what happens if this application is not granted tonight?

Then the, uh, the use, the extension of time expires on wait, if it's granted or not, if it's not granted. Oh, um, we have a purchase and sale agreement with the, uh, anchor tenant. Uh, this is moving in parallel course right now. The Convenience store and this here has to be entitled as we get ready to submit the entitlements So it's more of a technical issue. We're dealing with and we're hoping for Now that this is going to be going to City Council if this gets approved That means that would be going in July. We wouldn't be able to probably be here until September October of for a planning commission hearing. That's what we're trying to hit for a site development plan review.

Okay, and that's to come back in front of us for a more comprehensive plan for the commercial subdivision.

You're going to see the entire site. Yeah, we've negotiated with the anchor tenant, and the anchor is somewhat dictating as they do. The anchor that we're dealing with will dictate with what most of the uses are. So we'll be able to lay that out. So we're either going to put up here in the next two months or you're not going to see anything happening here for a while until we find another anchor tenant.

Okay. And so you don't really have an SUP for the C store right now. You just have the SUP for alcohol, correct?

Oh, for the alcohol. Yeah. But that that's, yeah.

I know it's a technicality, but just to be clear. And then the site plan that you showed that was shown as you were presenting that site plan is essentially the, not like not in existence, not in existence because you're going to come forward with a new one. Okay. And then, um, so it is your expectation that should this secondary SUP be, um, extension of time on this SUP for the car wash be granted tonight that you should be back before us with a completed PSA, um, and a site development review plan for this anchor tenant and for this pad no later than December.

Yes, that is the agreement that we have with the anchor tenant that we have to get it all done by the end of this year. So that's the plan. Yes, ma'am.

Okay. I don't have any other questions. I don't know if anybody else does.

Okay. I'm looking for a motion.

I will make a motion and also, you know, as always save the best for last, right? Mr. Grunauer, you're last up again. It seems like that happens. Um, I'll go ahead and make a motion to approve item number 29, uh, two six zero two zero six EOT one extension of time on your special use permit seven eight six six zero. And that is subject to all conditions and you are going to work aggressively with your client to move this forward expeditiously. Mr.

Chair, through you, the, We would amend condition one to align the date of expiration.

Thank you.

Yes, please align that date. Yes. I'll read that one into the record. So condition number one of 26 dash O two Oh six EOT one would be amended to read this approval shall expire on December 4th, 2026, unless another extension of time is approved by the city of Las Vegas.

Okay. Thank you. And you're not expecting another extension of time, right?

No, I don't want to stand up here again, asking for an extension. I we're, we're either going to be getting this on and Liz, my partner will probably be representing it, but I'm hoping one of us are here in two months with this site development plan, meaning that's where we are.

Okay. Well, just keep up the communications with the ward office so that we can get this moved forward. So. My motion, again, is to approve with the amended condition one and subject to all conditions.

And you agree on those conditions? Yes, sir. Motion is on the floor. Please cast your vote. Commissioner Wolters?

Aye.

That motion carries. Thank you very much, and it was my pleasure to be with you for the entire night. Thank you.

It's not over yet. And that item will move on to City Council on July 15th.

Thank you. Moving on to directors of business, number 30, abeyance 26-0161-TXT1. Applicant owner, City of Las Vegas, for prospection on a request to amend LVMC-1909 relating to outdoor dining within downtown Las Vegas overlay district to allow the individual care center use, mixed use, and animal husbandry and... additional zoning districts and to provide for other related matters. Staff recommends approval. Can we get the staff report, please?

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Fred Solis for the record. This text amendment revises existing form-based code language as a cleanup to outdoor dining standards and to allow the individual care center use, mixed use, and animal hubs entry in additional FPC zoning districts. This amendment is intended to create consistency between the form-based code and other chapters of the zoning code. Uh, the proposed changes are in alignment with the vision 2045 downtown Vegas master plan and staff recommends approval of the request. Thank you.

Thank you. This was noticed as a public hearing. Anyone want to be heard, please come forward. Seeing none closing public hearing turned over to plan commission for discussion, possible action. Seeing none. Can I get a motion? Commission Taylor.

Yes. I'll make a motion on item 30 abeyance, uh, 26 dash 0 1 6 1 T X T 1. Um, motion for approval.

Thank you. Motion for approval on the floor. Please cast your vote. Commissioner Wolters?

Aye.

Thank you. That motion carries.

And that will move on to city council and ordinance form.

Thank you. Item number 3326-0216DIR1, Applicant College of Southern Nevada, owner of Nevada System of Higher Education, for possible action on a request for the First Amendment of the Cooperative Campus Development Agreement between the City of Las Vegas and Board of Regents, of the Nevada System of Higher Education on behalf of the College of Southern Nevada, Ward 4, staff recommends approval. Can we get the staff report, please?

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The proposed amendment complies with all NRS 278 and Title 19 requirements. The amendment updates the development agreement with more accurate information and provides a review mechanism for the City Council to monitor the progress of the future Northwest campus. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the request. Thank you.

Thank you. This was no public hearing. Anyone want to be heard, please come forward. State your name and address for the record. Seeing none, I'm going to turn this over to planned commission. Close the public hearing and turn it over to planned commission.

Commissioner Taylor. I have no comments.

Can I get a motion, please?

Yes, you can. Item 3326-0216DIR1. I'll make a motion to approve.

Motion on the floor. Please cast your vote. And Commissioner Wolters.

Aye.

Thank you. Motion carries.

And now we'll move on to city council on July 15th.

Moving on to citizens participation item number 35, public comment during this portion of the agenda must be limited to matters within jurisdiction of the plan commission. No subject may be acted upon by the plan commission unless that subject's on the agenda and scheduled for action. If you wish to be heard, come to the podium, give your name for the record. The amount of discussion on any subject as well as amount of in time, any single speakers loud may be limited. Seeing none. Sir, you don't have anything to say? Okay. Then this meeting's adjourned.