Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening. We're ready to begin. This planned 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. live online and access 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. Would everybody please stand for the pledge? City Clerk, would you please call the roll?

Vice Chair Schlottman? Present. Commissioner Kusama is excused. Commissioner Taylor? Present. Commissioner Rogan? Present. Commissioner DiSalvio? Present. Commissioner LeBeau?

Present.

Commissioner Walters?

Present.

Thank you, Vice Chair. You have a quorum. Thank you.

I call your attention to the information printed in our 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 so we could have a smooth meeting. Public comment during this portion agenda must be limited to matters on the agenda for action. If you wish to be heard, come to the podium, give your name and address for the record. The amount of discussion as well as amount of time any speaker is allowed may be limited. Seeing none, I'm gonna go ahead and close the public discussion. Mr. Floyd, do you have an announcement to make?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Seth Floyd, for the record, we've made this announcement, unfortunately, a couple of times in the past where we have learned that someone has tried to scam some of the applicants who have applied for planning applications. And one of the ways they do that is they'll send an email that, if you look carefully, it doesn't have our actual city email addresses. So this is just a public service announcement that, please be careful checking your emails. Make sure it's actually a city email address. If you have any questions, you can always reach out to us. So thank you.

Thank you. We also have agendas up here on the pony wall if anybody would like to grab one and follow along with us. All right, moving on to item five for possible action to approve the final minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of July 14, 2026. Commissioner Taylor.

I'd like to make a motion to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of July 14th, 2026.

Motion's on the floor. Please cast your vote. And that motion carries. Are there any items from the Planning Commission staff or the applicant that wish to be stricken or held in abeyance to a future meeting may be brought forward and acted upon at this time?

Mr. Chair, Jonathan Boyle, Senior Planner with the Department of Community Development. For the record, staff has a few housekeeping items. The applicant is requesting to hold item 15 to the November 10th Planning Commission meeting. The applicant is requesting to table item 18. The applicant is requesting to hold item 32 to the September 8th Planning Commission meeting. The applicant is requesting to hold item 33 to the September 8th Planning Commission meeting. The applicant is requesting to hold item 35 to the September 8th Planning Commission meeting. Staff is requesting to table item 44 and staff is requesting to table item 47 to the September 8th Planning Commission meeting. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening.

Commissioners, oh, sorry.

All right.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Stephanie Gronauer, 1980 Festival Plaza Drive. Here on behalf of the applicant for item 26, we'd ask that it be held until the September 8th Planning Commission hearing, please.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Good evening, Lucy Stewart, 1930 Village Center Circle, and we're requesting item 41 be held until the September 8th Planning Commission meeting.

All right, thank you very much. Thank you. Anybody else?

Hello, my name is Andrea Carroll, 1980 Festival Plaza Drive. We are requesting item 32 to be held in abeyance till the September 8th Planning Commission.

Okay, thank you very much. Anybody else? All right, seeing none, I'll close this and ask Commissioner Taylor if she would make a motion on these housekeeping items.

Thank you, Chair. I'd like to make a motion on item number 15 to hold that in abeyance to the November 10th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting. On item 18, to have that item be tabled. On item 26, to have that item held in abeyance to the September 8th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting. On item 32, to have that item held in advance to the September 8th, 2026 planning meeting. Item 33, to be held in advance to the September 8th, 2026 planning commission meeting. Item 35, to be held in advance to the September 8th, 2026 planning commission meeting. Item 41, be held in advance to the September 8th, 2026 planning commission meeting. Item 44, a staff is requesting this item be tabled. And then a motion on item 47 to have it held in advance to the September 8th, 2026 planning commission meeting.

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

Yay.

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 a commission member or applicant so desires. And this is item number seven. Can we have a motion, Commissioner Taylor?

Yes, I would like to make a motion.

One second. Staff? Sorry, Omar. Omar with Public Works. Through you, Commissioner, or through you, Chair, I want to read in changes to the condition items number five and seven. Number five? Yes, sir. So number seven, number five was for housekeeping. It is for item number seven, sorry. Conditions five and seven. Oh, okay. Go ahead. Condition five to read dedication of public streets shown on the tentative map date stamp 730 2026 is subject to review and approval of civil improvement plans associated with this tentative map. Dedicate a bus turnout on rock street just north of street a on the final map for the site additionally grant a bus shelter pad easement on rock street and conformance with standard drawing. number 234.2 and 234.5 to the regional transportation commission. Prior to the recordation of the final map for this site, the required bus turnout may be combined with a dedicated right turn lane for access into the Northern portion of lot one or another location acceptable to the RTC and for condition number seven to breed as The Auroch Street dedication shall allow for the construction of two northbound lanes. Additionally, construction of traffic signals at both the Auroch Street and Street A intersection and the Desert Foothills Drive and Street A intersection will be determined by the city traffic engineer based on future development of the site. An alternative solution to provide for an off-street bike path and appropriate easements may be approved by the city traffic engineer. The geometry of such easements, if any, shall be determined prior to the recordation of a final map for the site. The final map for the site shall grant all easements required by Public Works. Thank you. Thank you. Is the applicant here?

Hello. Do you agree to those added conditions and change to modified conditions?

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Stephanie Gronauer, 1980 Festival Plaza Drive. Here on behalf of the applicant, we are in agreement with the conditions read into the record.

Okay. Thank you very much. Commissioner Taylor, can I get a motion on item number 7, one motion, one vote? Um, I mean, I'm sorry, the consent agenda.

Yes, chair. I'd like to make a motion to approve item seven abeyance 26-0199 TMP one, um, with the revisions to conditions five and seven.

Thank you. Motion's on the floor. Please cast your vote. Aye.

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

And Commissioner Rogan, if you press your refresh button in the top left-hand corner, it might go ahead and allow your vote and come back up. Moving on to the one motion, one vote, the following items are items that may be considered in one motion, one vote. They are considered routine non-public and public hearing items with a staff recommendation of approval. All public hearing and non-public hearings will be opened at one time. Any person representing an application or a member of the public or a member of the planning commission not in agreement with the conditions and all standard conditions for the application recommended by staff should request to have those items removed from this part of the agenda. Item number eight, 26-0196-SUP1, applicant Shake Shack, Nevada, LLC, owner KRG, Las Vegas Centennial Center, LLC, for possible action on land use entitlement project request for a proposed 3,558 square foot beer wine cooler on sale establishment with use with a 60 square foot outdoor patio area with a waiver of the distance separation requirements from the school at 6181 Centennial Center Boulevard. Number nine, 26-0269, applicant Kite Realty Group, owner KRG Las Vegas Centennial Center for possible action on the following land use entitlement project request at Northwest corner of Tropical Parkway and Centennial Center Boulevard. 9A is 26-0269-SUP1 for a proposed restaurant with a drive-through use. 9B, 26-0269-SDR1 for a proposed one story, 828 square foot drive-through only restaurant with a waiver of the town center development standards manual. Number 10, 26-273-SUP1, applicant Southern Nevada Art Museum, owner 1025 Main Street, LLC, for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for a proposed 7,194 square foot alcohol on premise full use with a 500 square foot outdoor patio area at 1027 South Main Street, Suite 110 and 1029 South Main Street, Ward 3. Number 11 is 26-0274-SUP1, applicant owner, Los Quireles Restaurant, for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for proposed 3,500 square foot alcohol on-premise pool use with a waiver of a distance separation from a church house of worship at 1515 Northeastern Avenue. Number 11, 26-0276, applicant owner, the Howard Uses Company, for possible action on the following land use entitlement project request on a property located west of the intersection of Alta Drive and Park Drift Trail. 12A, 26-0276MDR1 for proposed Summerlin West Village 32A, or 12B is 26-0276TMP1 Village 32A for proposed 13 lot parent tentative map. 13 is 26-0301SGP1 applicant Shane Centennial, owner of Copper Cart 2, for possible action on the land use entitlement project request for a proposed 1,547 square foot beer wine cooler on-sale establishment, alcohol on-premise beer wine use at 6491 North Durango Drive, Suite 140. Number 14 is 26-0302, SDR1, applicant, Las Vegas billboards, owner, Palaflax Creative Iron Works for possible action on land use entitlement project request for the proposed structural modification and addition of a digital LED electronic message illumination to the north and south faces of an existing off-premise sign at 3052 South Valley View Boulevard. Are there any members of the public that would like to be heard on any of these items? Seeing none, I'm going to close the public hearing. Is the applicant for number 14 here, Las Vegas Billboards, Polyflex Creative Ironworks, for their billboard? Please come forward. Can we get your name and address for the record?

I apologize, I'm slow. My shoe broke on the way coming up the stairs, so I have to kind of drag it. So Lucy Stewart, 1930 Village Center Circle, representing the applicant.

Thank you. I'd like to ask if it's okay with you to do a one-year review on your sign?

Sure.

Okay. All right. Thank you. That's it. Thank you. And that'll be a one-year administrative review?

Mr. Chairman, Nicole Eddowes for the record. That would read an administrative review shall be performed one year from the date of the final inspection. Thank you.

Yes. Okay. Thank you. All right. And then... Mr.

Chair. Yes. Omar Quesani with Public Works. Yes. For the record. I would like to propose... read in a modification to the conditions for item nine B please do, uh, for a change in condition number 11, uh, to read as connect to the public sewer system at a size depth and location acceptable to the sanitary sewer engineering section of the department of public works. Thank you.

And that was item, which nine B item nine B. Okay. And then I'm going to make a disclosure on item number 10, the Southern Nevada Art Museum. I work with the landlord for this property and quite a few different properties, so I'll be abstaining on that matter. Madam Chair, no other comments. Can I get a motion?

Yes, Chair. I would like to make a motion on our one motion, one vote items, 8 and 9. to approve item eight, nine, with nine Bs, modified conditions, item 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14, including the revised condition of a one-year administrative review.

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

And Mr. Chairman, items eight and 12 will move on to city council on September 16th. Items nine, 10, 11, 13, and 14 are final action tonight unless appealed to the city clerk in 10 days.

Thank you, sir. Moving on to the public hearing items. Starting with item number 16, advance 26-0167VAR1, applicant owner Corey Anthony Nation for possible action on a land use entitlement project request to allow an existing residential accessory structures storage structure that does not conform to Title 19.06 development standards or setbacks. Separation or aesthetic compatibility and size at 6505 Echo Crest Avenue Ward 6. Staff recommends now. Can we get the staff report, please?

Yes. Madam Chair, Josh Nolan with the Department of Community Development for the Record for the variance request for an existing residential accessory structure at 6505 Echo Crest Avenue. Staff finds no evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance related to the physical characteristics of the property and have been presented to warrant the requested variances. As such, the hardship is self-imposed and therefore staff recommends denial. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Good evening. Can I get your name and address for the record?

Good evening, Vice Chair, members of the Commission. Denicio Gordillo, 204 Belle Isle Court, Henderson, Nevada, 89012 here representing the applicant on this matter. You have the exact same exhibit that I was going to show. Basically, this is the fourth property along this cul-de-sac that is in for the exact same thing. We appreciate staffs and understand the recommendation. However, the structure has been here for years, has not shown to have any kind of negative impact on the community. and in fact has really integrated as part of the cul-de-sac, both this neighborhood and the neighborhoods to the north and to the south. We do have letters of support from all the adjacent property owners and from the cul-de-sac as well. And we held this because we weren't sure if we were going to be able to get it permitted. We've been working with the building official. We did verify that it can be permitted. And so at this point in time, we would respectfully request your approval on this item. And we are in agreement with all conditions if approved.

All right, thank you, sir. This was noticed as a public hearing. Anyone want to be heard, please come forward, give your name and address for the record. Seeing none, I'm going to close the public hearing and turn this over to Commissioner Taylor.

Thank you, Chair. Good evening, sir. Thanks for bringing another one of these down. So the only issue I have with this one is that it is a little different because it's enclosed. And so are there any other ones that have been enclosed on the streets as you've been talking to the neighbors and looking at these structures that really, you know, the structure themselves are really harmonious and compatible with this neighborhood and really part of the condition of the neighborhood now? But does anyone else have theirs enclosed?

Yes. So it's not fully enclosed. The orientation of the lot is such to where he put these. So it started out as a carport, as all of these did, because they were all constructed by the same company. And then he added some lattice to the side just because of the sun, the orientation of the sunlight. So it's not fully enclosed. But if you look at it, it does look like it's enclosed. But a simple answer, yes, there are others. And within a quarter mile of, I won't put anything on the record, but within a quarter of a mile of this property, there are probably 30 other accessory structures that are very similar.

Okay. And then did you have any of the adjoining neighbors oppose this?

No, and in fact, we were out, I was actually out to the site here a couple days ago. We spoke with the neighbor to... the south and to the east. And if they had not submitted their letters of support, we do have those as well. But I believe they were already submitted for the record.

Okay. Okay. If anybody has any other comments, otherwise I'm ready to make a motion on this.

Please do.

Okay. On item 16, abeyance 26-0167-VAR1, I'd like to make a motion to approve.

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

Oh, subject to all conditions. He did say he was, yes, but you agree to all conditions.

We're in agreement with all conditions.

Okay, thank you.

That motion carries.

Thank you, commissioners. Appreciate it.

And that is final action tonight. Let's appeal to the city clerk in 10 days.

All right, thank you. Moving on to item 17, abeyance 26-0173, VAR 1, applicant owner. Constacio Beltran for possible action on land use entitlement project request to allow an existing home addition that does not conform to Title 19.06 development standards for setbacks. At 2620 Las Verdes Street, Ward 3, staff recommends now. Can we get the staff report, please?

Mr. Chair, this request is the result of an open code enforcement case. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow an existing home addition within the rear yard that does not comply with minimum rear yard setbacks. The submitted floor plan indicates the additional space is utilized as a master bedroom for the home. Staff finds no unique or extraordinary evidence has been presented to warrant the requested variance to allow a six-foot rear yard setback where 15 feet is required for the addition in the rear yard. As such, the hardship is self-imposed, and therefore, staff recommends denial of this request. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, sir. Can we get your name and address for the record?

Yes, good evening, my name is Jaime de la Vega, address is 6944 Erin Circle, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89145, and I represent the owner. The owner, he tried to be here, but he's really sick at this time, and this is the problem. The whole addition is 646 square feet, but the problem is right here in this area. On this part, we have a 15 feet setback, but just right here in this section is just six feet. So we kindly ask you to consider approval for this setback. There is no complaint with the rest. Now, the architectural design will be compatible with the rest of the house.

Okay, thank you. This was noticed as a public hearing. Anyone want to be heard, please come forward. Seeing none, I'm close to public hearing. Turn this over to Planning Commission. Let me ask you, is this already constructed?

Partially, partially.

Okay, let me ask staff a question. Was this a property that y'all were not able to get in the backyard to take photos of?

No, we were not given access to go to the back of this house to get photos of this particular structure. This particular project was misnotified on the June meeting and the sign was placed across the street and that's why it was pushed to this meeting.

Okay. I'm looking at this and unless if I'm looking at it wrong, it looks like 100% of the backyard is built out on Google Maps, not just what he's showing. Is that correct, sir?

Yeah, that's correct, but there's a lot of construction that was built here is already demolished because we told them that there's no way, you know, that get approved like was before. But we are always in touch with the code enforcement officer.

Let me continue, sir. So if it truly is what you're talking about and it's only that one little section, I could get behind that. If staff goes out and finds that the whole yard's built and is not demolished, then I'm going to have a bigger issue with that.

As of today, most of the area was built, like all this. It's already gone. And they also have a new structure here. It's already gone. And so these plans are, if we get the approval, these plans are going to be ready to submit to building department. And it's going to be just like this, exactly like this.

I have no problem with that. And when it goes through permitting, we'll have building inspectors come out and take a look to make sure that that's the way it's built. But I have no other comments on that. And considering that's the case, I'm fine with this application. Does anybody have any comments on this? Okay, then I'll make a motion on this on item number 17, Bans 26-0173-VAR1, move to approve subject to staff's conditions. Do you agree to all staff conditions, sir?

Yes, we agree.

Thank you. Motion's on the floor, please cast your vote.

That motion carries. And that is final action tonight, and let's appeal to the city clerk in 10 days.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Moving on to item number 19, abeyance 26-0236, Applicant KB Holmes, Las Vegas, Incorporated, Owner, SDE 60015. For possible action on a following land use entitlement project request on the north side of Iron Mountain Road, approximately 970 feet west of Pooley Road, Ward 6, staff recommends approval. 19A is abeyance 26-0236, GPA 1, from PCD. planned community development and PF public facility to ML medium low density residential 19B, abeyance 26-0236, ZON1 from UU undeveloped, PCD planned community development and PF public facility general plan destinations to RSL residential small lot. Can we get the staff report, please?

Mr. Chairman, if you like, 19, 20, and 21 are all related. If you wanted to open them all up and then we could discuss them and vote.

Okay, 19, 20, and 21.

Okay, let me read the other two into a record. 20 is 26-0280, applicant K.B. Holm, Las Vegas, owner, United States of America, for possible action on the following land use entitlement project request for the south side of Rodley Avenue, approximately 970 feet west of Pooley Road, Ward 6, staff recommends now. 20A is 26-, 0280VAR1 to allow private gated streets do not conform to Title 1904 Complete Street Standards. 20B is 26-0280-TMP1, Montero Unit 1 for a proposed 62 lot single families residential subdivision. 21 is 26-0292, applicant KB Holmes, Las Vegas, owner SDE 60015 for possible action on following land use entitlement project requests on the north side of Bradley approximately 970 feet west of Pooley Road, Ward 6. Staff recommends now 21A 26-0292 VAR 1 to allow private gated streets. Do not conform to Title 19.04 Complete Street Standards. 21B is 26-0292 TMP 1, Montero Unit 2 for a proposed 60-unit single-family residential subdivision. May we get the staff reports.

Mr. Chairman, the proposed general plan amendment and rezoning are compatible with the designations and densities of the adjacent parcels and conform with the Kyle Canyon Area Plan and Las Vegas 2050 Master Plan. Parcels to the east were recently approved for low density residential general plan designation and rezoned RSL. residential small lot with similar density range as the proposed request. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the general plan amendment and rezoning. While both proposed tentative maps are consistent with the land use vision of the Kyle Canyon Special Area Plan, The subdivisions failed to comply with the Title 19 Complete Street Standards. No unique or extraordinary circumstance related to the physical characteristics of the sites have been presented and the hardships are self-imposed. Therefore, staff recommends denial of both tentative maps and variance requests. Please note additional documentation of support and protest was received after publication for items 20 and 21. Thank you.

Thank you. Good evening, sir.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Bob Gronauer in 1980 Festival Plaza Drive. I'm here representing KB Home on these matters that are before you. As I can get your attention to the overhead, I'd like to just give you a little bit of background of this area, and then we'll zero in on the property that you see highlighted here in yellow. The first thing I want to mention to you in this area here, this is known as the Kyle Canyon Gateway. Over the last several years, you have seen us come in with applications coming in with single family residential development. This is US 95. This is the off ramp here, which takes you up to Kyle Canyon, going up to Mount Charleston in this area. So as you can see here, some of the development that's already existing in the area. You've also approved other projects just recently down in this area here. These are all mainly single family detached homes, typically around 3,000, 3,500 square foot lots. You have another subdivision in this area that's slightly a little bit larger up adjacent, which we call the Sheet Mountain Parkway. As I show you here, this runs north and south in this area. This is that major arterial parkway that connects all the way down through Sky Canyon, Sky Hills, and Sky Summit down in that area down to 215. So this is a major arterial in this area. Then as you go west of Sheep Mountain Parkway, you see this right here. This is already under construction. This was just recently approved by you. It's a similar application that actually we are proposing tonight. This application here came in with medium-low master planning, which we're asking for tonight. It's also got approved for RSL zoning, which allows minimum 4,500 square foot lots. And it came in with the same variances that we're asking for for the variances for complete street standards. The reason why I point that out is because you see in this area here what has been trending is to be more 4,500 square foot lot sizes instead of the product that you see over here, which is more of the 3,000, 3,500 square foot lot product. So we believe in this area here and as you go further west that you're getting a lower density and a bigger lot product of what's being proposed. So we do appreciate staff's recommendation. These are actually two separate parcels. The southern parcel is a parcel that KB Home has picked up in the BLM auction. which is 10 acres down here, and then this 10 acres, which is located here approximately, is in private hands. So total of the two properties comes out to about 21 acres total, plus or minus, in that area. So staff is recommending approval for the medium-low land use plan, and they're also recommending approval for the residential small lot zoning designation in this area, because of everything I just mentioned to you, as you see here. In addition to the master plan and the zone change, this is a zoning map in this area. As I said earlier, this is the off ramp coming off of US 95 along Kyle Canyon in this area. You can see the zonings that have been approved in this area and then our property we're asking to be that same color in this area here. So that gives you a better perspective from the zoning of what you've seen in the past. Next is we have our two projects, which is, I'm going to start with the one on the south side of what we call Radley in this area here that I'm showing you. This is 62 homes. These 62 homes are going to be minimum 4,500 square foot lots. The density comes out to just up to about 5.7 units to the acre. which is definitely compatible to about the 5.37, 5.4 units an acre that is currently under construction in this area. As you can see here, parts of that project, actually I'll show you exactly what we're This is the Jason project here and the only reason why I'm showing you the Jason project because what you'll see here although it's been approved had does have a little bit less of open space of what we're proposing and it has the same type of street private street standards that we're asking to be approved also. That being said you can see here. We have a large green space area here for open space. This is more for usable open space, although we're not required to do so with the RSL. What we're asking to do is come in with some amenity plan. We do have a temporary amenity plan right now that we're putting together. What I'd like to do is, as we go through this process for the record, is that we'll continue to work on the amenities within the area here as we go up through city council. And that's one of the things my client is asked to do as we try to figure out to finalize some of the amenities that we are proposing in this area. So that is the southern portion to the north of us in this area. So if I could show on this map here. And this is essentially what you would see for the development, which, as I said, the road is Radley located in here. And the irony is this is all going to be one HOA. So you're going to have access from one subdivision to the next since it's all under one HOA ownership. And then in this area here on this plan to the north, we have approximately 60 homes that we're proposing in here. And what we have, though, is for open space because in the area which I should have shown you in the beginning is we have a fairly large wash that goes through the properties in this area. So we will, we have to pipe this area here. As you can see the wash that's going through for drainage. And when you take a look here is this is where we're going to have to put our pipe. And as you know, where we put our pipe, we're going to have to have our open space in that area. So again, we're looking to program this area here as we go between planning commission city council. We'd ask you to approve the applications that are before you for the general plan amendment, the zone change, tentative maps, and the variances that are before you today. So I'm here to answer any questions.

Thank you. This was no decisive public hearing. Anyone wanting 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, starting with Commissioner Taylor. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Gronauer, as always, for your and your clients' diligent work on trying to bring projects up that fit with what the vision for Ward 6 is, and we really appreciate the work that you always put into it. A couple of questions, and I know you just sent over some of the working plans for your open space and that that is going to be you know part of the ongoing iteration as you get to City Council but on the south side if you can flip to your open space plan I understand there's a general rule KB one of your market segments is our families right young families and so I think it's great that you have this play structure sketched in here and I and I do hope that that's a permanent piece of it but my question is for you Does this include a shade structure over the play structure, and can we put a condition on there to be sure that it does?

Yeah, I was presuming there was a shade structure on that, but if you want to put a condition on that, you can. I don't want to say yes for sure, but...

But you don't have a problem with putting a condition on it to require a shade structure? Okay, so staff can vet that up. And then... What was the other thing I was going to ask? If you can go back to your walking trail because I think we talked about this on the north side. On the north side, yes. And then I have... How... How long is that, do you think? Like, how long is the whole walking trail? And the only reason I ask is, we didn't talk about this, but I was thinking, or maybe we did talk a little bit about it, but lighting, even if it was sort of like footer lighting, so it doesn't go into the houses, but some kind of pathway lighting, have we discussed?

Yeah, I thought we discussed that. There will be some lighting in that area. I want to say we did discuss that in this application. It's probably approximately 400 feet in length there. I'm just doing some quick math with the 45 minimum square foot lots that we're backing up against. It should be about 400 plus linear feet.

Okay, yeah, so just, I don't know if, again, we need to put a condition on there that there'd be some type of low lighting.

We'll work with you through that, but I'm almost sure we discussed that. Okay, great. At least I believe it was on this project.

All right, thanks, Mr. Gronauer. And then just the other thing I just wanna point out, at the beginning of your presentation, you were talking about surrounding zoning. And we spent a lot of time at the beginning of Councilwoman Bruni's first term talking about what Kyle Canyon should look like. And I don't know, I think the only thing that has been approved that are these smaller lots that you referenced, the 3500, would have been that prior council office's approvals of Kyle Gateway and possibly the Summit Hometown Homes, but I don't think that we've approved anything that small. And I'm double checking that. And I only want to put that on the record, again, because we have talked extensively with everybody developing up there that we want to make sure that the character quality, the sort of space of Kyle Canyon is got is maintained in a way that protects it and we have in discussions about the overall holistic development talked about making sure that we are having larger lots as we go west and where the density is that it makes sense closer to the freeway, where the summit town homes were and so I just want to make it clear that it is not my recollection that this office has approved 3,500 square foot lots other than the town homes and I just want to make sure that we're kind of clear on the record. I believe also that some of the projects that we've approved that are to the east have been substantially larger lots and so really if you're thinking about trajectory, we're kind of a little bit going backwards. But I know that your client is trying to provide product to allow different ownership and allow lots of different folks to be able to come and live in this incredible area. But I just want to make sure that we're very clear for the record that continuing to bring forward smaller and smaller lots as we move west is not something that I'm comfortable with.

Yep, got it.

Okay. But otherwise, again, thank you for the great work and if anybody else has anything. Yes.

Yes, on item number 20, do you mind pulling up the amenity plan again for me? I actually have a question relating to the site section. It looks like there's a significant slope that runs east to west on that portion of the parcel. And so I just wanted to know on that amenity plan, do you know how much of that is actual usable space?

Are they planning to? When you say usable, this area would be turf area in here?

Right, and so is that other portion with the landscaping, is that graded up for a slope?

I don't know what the cross sections are on that. I do know that we do have a walking path in this area that's being planned. And actually I just received as I was sitting here a more updated plan of moving the play equipment up in this area here. So we're still moving some stuff around working with our landscape and our planners for the open space here.

I'm just concerned that it looks like a lot of space on the site plan, but when you actually look at the slope of it, I just wanna make sure that they're taking full advantage of that area. So that's all I have.

Thank you, Commissioner Lovo. Anybody else? Seeing none, Commissioner Taylor, can I get a motion? Starting with item number 19.

Yes, on item number 19, and I guess quick question before I make motions. Ms. Eddowes, for the condition of the shade structure over the, the playground area, which item would that attach to?

That would attach to item number 20. So you can go ahead and read 19 and vote.

Okay, great. I'd like to make a motion on item 19. That's abeyance 26-0236, item sub A and sub B to approve.

Motion is on the floor. Please cast your vote. Subject to conditions. Oh, thank you. Subject to conditions. Mr. Groenhauer with all conditions. Yes, Mr. Chairman. All right. That motion carries.

And that item will move on to City Council on September 16th.

Thank you. Commissioner Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Chair. On item 2026-0280 and subparts 20A and 20B, I would like to make a motion to approve subject to all conditions, including an amended condition, added condition for a shade structure over the tot lot. And do you need to read that condition into the record?

Yes, through you, Mr. Chairman, that condition will read areas dedicated for play structures shall include a shade structure over the play equipment. Thank you.

Thank you. So that is my motion to approve on those two items. And you, again, agree, Mr. Grunauer, to all conditions in the added condition. Yes, ma'am. Thanks.

Thank you. Motion is on the floor. Please cast your vote. Through you, Chair, which child item was that adjudication going on to? Was it 20A or 20B?

That would be 20B, the TMP.

Please cast your vote.

That motion carries. And that will move on to City Council on September 16th. Thank you, Commissioner Taylor.

Okay, and then on item 2126-0292. 21A and 21B, I would like to make a motion to approve subject to all conditions, and you agree to all conditions. Yes. And I will look forward to continuing to speak with you as this moves to City Council about these projects. As always. Thank you, Mr. Gurner.

Motion's on the floor. Please cast your vote. That motion carries.

And that will also move on to City Council on September 19th, or September 16th. September 16th.

Thank you very much, and have a good night.

All right, thank you. Moving on to 22, 26-0153, SCP-1 applicant, Thai Active Massage and Spa. Owner is GWHC of Nevada for possible action on land use entitlement project request for a proposed massage establishment use with a waiver of distance separation requirements from residentially zoned property at 8450 West Sahara Avenue, Suite 108, Ward 2. Can we get the staff report, please?

Mr. Chair, the subject suite is located within an existing commercial shopping center, which includes various commercial uses. The applicant is proposing to operate a Thai spa that includes massage and other wellness services. While the proposed massage establishment use requires waiver of distance separation from a parcel zone for residential use, there is no direct access to the residentially zoned property. Staff finds that this use will not negatively impact surrounding development and can be conducted in a manner that is harmonious and compatible with the existing surrounding land uses. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the special use permit subject to conditions. Please note additional documents for protest were received after publication. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, ma'am.

Can we get your name and address for the record?

Good evening. My name is Kitty Lepanis. I'm a representative for Thai Active Massage and Spa. And the unit at the address is 8450 West Sahara. Las Vegas, Nevada, 89117-260153.

Would you mind spelling your name?

My name is Kitty, K-I-T-T-Y, last name Lepnis, L-E-P-N-I-S.

Thank you. All right. Continue on with your project.

The owner is right here. Her name is Supawi Wang. And she completed four years of the study in Thai traditional massage program in Thailand. And currently, she attend the AMO. study to become a Thai therapist. The Thai Active Massage and Spa will operate as a professional massage establishment, providing therapeutic massage only. We do not offer or permit any sexual services. We maintain a zero tolerance policy for inappropriate requests or behavior inappropriate behavior occurs, the session will be terminated immediately. Our goal to provide a safe, respectful, and professional environment for both clients and our therapists. In addition to providing professional therapeutic massage services, our business will also benefit the community by creating a new employment opportunities. As the business grow, we hope to create jobs and contribute positively to the local economy. So there are three licenses, okay, for this panel. And then also the hour operation, it gonna be, will be on Monday to Sunday. So it gonna be from seven, eight, you know, seven, okay, sorry, 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. Last appointment will be at 7 PM. And the location, the business is located between the Sahara and Durango. Is this kind of heavy traffic in area? Sorry, I'm a little bit nervous.

All right.

The surrounding area including residence, development, local business, restaurant and shopping center. The establishment is located with active commercial area surrounded by numerous other businesses. The parking, we have plenty of parking. There is ample parking available for customer including handicap, accessibility parking access. When there are approximately 82,000 homes in Lake Pacific subdivision is that behind the establishment, many of which are rental properties. On August 8th, we went door to door to introduce ourselves and discuss the proposed business with the residents. The majority were tenants. They're not owners of the property. They respond, but the response was overwhelming. Positively, residents were welcoming and positive of our becoming part of the community. And I also have the signature, some of the owner sign for us. I'd like to show this one here.

As you can see that. Okay, you can turn that into the city clerk if you'd like.

Yes, I will do that, yeah. And the other thing, okay, the difference between Thai Massage. Okay, thank you. So they are different between Thai massage and the other massage. They are fully closed on the floor mat, number one. Number two, no oils or lotions. And number three is active movement and stretching. Number four, focus on energy life. So we hope that you get us approved on this business.

OK, thank you.

Thank you.

All right, this was noticed as a 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 Commissioner LeVo.

Thank you so much for your presentation. I appreciate that you were being a good neighbor and reaching out to the neighborhood just to make sure that they were okay with your request. My office is right across the street from this location, and I think it is a very busy business corridor. I don't really see any issues opening up this establishment in that location, and I think it's an appropriate use for it. So with that, I'd like to motion to approve. Item 260153, SUP 1.

Motions on the floor, please cast your vote. Subject to conditions. And you agree to all conditions, ma'am?

Yes.

Thank you. Yes, sir.

The motion carries.

Thank you so much.

And that is final action tonight. Let's appeal to the city clerk in 10 days.

Thank you. Item number 23, 26-0211, applicant 300, Stewart Avenue Corporation, owner of City of Las Vegas. For possible action on the following land use entitlement project request at 300 and 350, Stewart Avenue, Ward 5, staff recommends approval. 23A, 26-0211, SUP 1, for a major amendment to improve special use permit, SUP 69331. for a proposed 20,000 square foot addition to an existing 2,600 square foot alcohol on-premise full use. 23B is 26-0211-SDR1 for a major amendment to improve site development plan review for a proposed two-story 20,000 square foot addition to an existing 36,901 square foot museum, the Mob Museum, and the proposed permanent parking lot with waivers of Appendix F, Interim Downtown Las Vegas Development Standards Area 1. Can we get the staff report, please?

Mr. Vice Chair, staff finds that the proposed expansion of the Mob Museum is consistent with the objectives of the 2045 Downtown Master Plan and the expansion of this cultural asset will contribute to the vitality of downtown. Similarly, staff supports the expansion of the alcohol on full premise use associated with that expansion. The proposed addition has received support from both the State Historic Preservation Office and the City's Historic Preservation Committee and staff recommends approval subject to conditions. Please note additional documentation of support were received after publication for these applications. Also, please note there's a corrected staff report provided in your supplemental items for tonight's meeting. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening.

Members of the Commission, my name is Jonathan Allman. I am president and CEO of the Ma Museum, address 300 Stewart Avenue, Las Vegas, 89101. I'm here with Alexia Chen, with LGA Architects, our architect of record. We're very excited about this project. expansion to the east and the north. As noted by staff, the additional facility is on the parcel that we lease from the city. So it is city land. It is a somewhat challenging site, but we are excited with what we've been able to conceive to work within that parcel. And we're very grateful for the support of city staff as we've come to this juncture. We've gone through the process with historic preservation review at the local, state, and national level. the approvals from the National Park Service, State Historic Preservation Office, as well as the Historic Preservation Commission to make certain that what we're doing is respectful of the historic building that we hold very dear that is what houses the current museum. So we are happy to discuss or answer any questions that members of the commission might have for us.

Okay, thank you very much. This was noticed as a public hearing. Anyone want to be heard, please come forward. Seeing none, I'm close to public hearing. And turn this over to Commissioner Walters.

Hi, hello. We're excited about this expansion to the Ma Museum and some of the work that you're doing there. And to see this development, I know that you've been in talks for a little while about making these changes. On your landscape plan, I just want to ask if your trees are 24-inch box trees, a couple I'm not really familiar with. So I'd like to ask for condition for those trees to be large, fast-growing trees identified in the Southern Nevada Water Authority's tree list with three-inch caliber at six inches above grade. Is that something that you think that you're willing to?

Yes, absolutely. Is that within the parking lot or within the perimeter landscape buffer area?

Parking lot for sure. Both? Both. Is that okay? Yes. Are you accepting of that?

Yes, we are.

Otherwise, I think it's a beautiful layout, and we're excited to see it move forward.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else who has other?

Yes. Good evening. I just had a, it's a little outside the purview of what we do, but I did just have a question about the actual design and how it links into the museum. And I only ask because I am sort of familiar with the CCHP and the SHPO at the state level. And I just don't, well, two things. I would be really curious to hear Ms. Chen or you talk about how you integrated this sort of much more modern expansion and how it's intended to reflect the existing architecture of the building. And then what's the connection point and how did you limit any sort of intrusion into the existing building at that connection point for the expansion?

I will answer some of that, and then I'm sure Alexia will have a few things to add. We've talked about this extensively. both with the Historic Preservation Commission as well as the State Historic Preservation Office, very careful selection of material types and colors that would be on the new building to make certain, you know, I think at the highest level, what we're aspiring to do here is to make certain that the building addition is complementary of the historic structure without creating any confusion about what is historic and what is a contemporary building. So that's really what we're trying to thread is to make certain that it's aesthetically complementary but if someone that doesn't know any better is not familiar with our building and was standing on the street, they would not conclude that the new building is actually the historic building that's on the National Register of Historic Places. So that's the aesthetic approach. In terms of the connections, been really trying to identify how we can minimize any impact on the historic structure. So the two penetrations are on the east side of the existing historic building to the north. It's in a corner that's already been altered you know, considerably, certainly relative to other portions of the building. There is on the north side of that corner, there was already a window that was turned into an emergency exit. And there's a ADA accessible ramp that's out there as well. So we need to have some physical opening that goes through. We thought that that would have the least impact. It's towards the rear of the building. And then additionally, the hyphen that connects the historic building to the new building, we've minimized the height of that hyphen and really tried to maximize the setback from the street so that it would have as little impact as possible on the exterior view of the east facade of the building.

OK, thank you. I just had one other follow-up question trying to look at the pictures. So what you've got shown here, the bottom elevation, does it wrap behind the building so that it's like blocking the view of the building?

It wraps to an extent. So this is really what. What we're trying to kind of weave here is the addition to the east that does not entirely block the east facade. On the north side, we consider the perspective from the north to be important as well because that's where you can see the extension of the courtroom. which is the most historic portion of the building that's right up here, as well as the historic former post office loading bays. So you can see the bit of the green awning over here as well. So if you're looking at from the north side, Yes, there is some wrap around the corner, but it does not fully obstruct the north facade of the building.

And the south side of the building is completely unobstructed to see the entrance?

Yes, yes.

Okay. And then on the bottom rendering, what is, I'm just, exactly where you had your index finger, is that also, that's the east side, right? Yes. I got it. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thanks for the walkthrough. Sure.

All right. Mr. Boyles.

Through you, Chair. On item 23B, condition number 17, a new bullet point shall be added that states all trees within the parking lot and landscape buffer areas shall be fast-growing large shade trees with a minimum 3-inch trunk caliper measured 6 inches from the base of the trunk in accordance with the Southern Nevada Regional Plant List. Thank you. Thank you. And you agree to that condition?

We do, and if I may, we agree to all of the conditions. We do have just one question on one of the conditions. Please ask. Go ahead. Under Public Works, number 21.

Right, so our question is on the description of constructing a bus turnout in alignment with the right-of-way and the description of bus shelter. It's unclear in this condition as written where this is happening, if there is a bus stop for RTC in front of the Mott Museum.

Through the Chair, Omar Quesani, Public Works. The bus stop is going to be by the right turn lane, the turnout that is just south of this proposed parking lot.

You're saying over here? Correct, it's right there.

It's all in the right of way. In the right of way.

So is the request to construct a bus shelter in the right of way there?

Yes, that is a request.

We need to make sure that we're accommodating a bus shelter or we are constructing a bus shelter.

Um, usually the RTC will be constructing the bus shelter. You will be, uh, accommodating for that bus shelter space. Okay.

So just the alignment of the driveway connection.

That is correct.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. So you agree to all the conditions? Yes, we do. And the added condition? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Uh, seeing no other comments, Commissioner Walters, can we get a motion?

Yes. Uh, I'd like to make motion item 23, that's 26-0211, uh, to approve With staff conditions, do you accept all staff conditions?

Yes, we do. And that's on 23A and 23B?

23A and 23B, yes. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. And that added condition will go on to 23B for clarification. All right, please cast your votes. The motion carries.

Thank you very much.

And that is final action tonight, and let's appeal to the city clerk in 10 days.

Okay, thank you. Item number 2426-0213VAR1, applicant Guadalupe Ferusto, owner is Casas de Lupe, for possible action on a land use entitlement project request to allow an existing front yard wall fence that does not conform to Title 1906 development standards for height and visibility at 3436 Venice Drive, Ward 5, stack recommends denial. Can we get the staff report, please?

Mr. Chair, this request is the result of an open code enforcement case. The applicant is requesting a variance to maintain an existing front yard wall and fence that was constructed without obtaining required building permits that does not meet Title 19 development standards for height and visibility. Staff finds no unique or extraordinary evidence has been presented. The applicant has created a self-imposed hardship by constructing a front yard wall that does not meet Title 19 development standards. Modifying the top two feet of the wall to have 50% visibility and lowering the gate to a maximum of five feet would allow conformance to Title 19 requirements. Therefore, staff recommends denial of this request. Please note additional documents for protest were received after publication. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Good evening.

Hello, I'm Angel, this is Guadalupe Frausto, and we live at 3436 Venice Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada, 108, 89108.

Angel, what's your last name?

Hernandez.

Okay, thank you.

Ever since we moved into that house, we bought it. They have been stealing from the front yard. We go out, we come back, we have people swimming in our swimming pool without us being in the house. So in 2021, we decided to put two more feet to our front yard. There's people, homeless people with shopping carts stealing stuff from the front yards. It's a lady walking with a dead cat. I'm just, I'm not, I didn't do it for cosmetic reasons. We did it for our own safety. And ever since 2021, we haven't had nothing stolen from. We had nothing, people swimming in a swimming pool no more. But it's been there for four years or five, five already.

Okay. All right. Thank you.

And we're just doing it for our own safety.

Okay. Thank you. 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 one over to Commissioner Wolters.

Hi. So I understand your safety concern and I understand the reason why you have the solid wall fence. I did come drive through the neighborhood and I did not find any other front yards that were of similar aesthetic, which is one of my concerns in that neighborhood. And I also see that that several of your neighbors, including on one side and across the street, have not similar walls, but ones that conform with the two foot and then the metal in between. Do you know what I'm talking about? Yeah, the fence. Two foot block with metal in between. it does appear like your fence is very out of the ordinary for the entirety of that neighborhood. And so, you know, I wish you'd come.

Yeah, I'm just not trying to make it easier for them to jump in, you know, like it's very, I mean, we come back to the house and there's strangers swimming in our swimming pool, you know, it's,

It's very... And I think there are ways to build a fence that would deter that without it being so unlike the rest of the neighborhood.

And actually, like, the four feet, it's like right here, like up to that, like right here, four feet.

I understand.

If I go back to the two feet, they're just going to jump over it.

I did come and see it.

And there's also like three houses to the left that has like the same kind of fence, a wall, like a wooden wall. And it's even higher than mine.

Yes, thank you. Hi. So Commissioner Wolters, I'll add just a few things. So basically our code says you can have a maximum of two feet solid, but then you can put three foot of metal on top of that. So kind of like your main entry gate. And so it would probably be higher than what you actually have right here, which would give you more security than what you currently have. So maybe you consider going back to what our code allows, just chop off the top two feet, then put the metal going all the way up to five feet, and then you have more protection.

Well, all right. We could do that.

Would... I mean, and did you have any thoughts on the gate?

Sorry. The gate is taller than expected, but it is visible through. And so I do not have concerns with the gate. I do have concerns with the wall. So that's where I'm at. Are there any other comments?

No.

Okay.

Is that something? What was the total height of the fence? I mean the gate?

The gate went up to seven feet in the center only.

Okay. It's just for the cars, and then the wall is four feet.

Yes. So do we ask?

And I do have entrance on the side.

One second, sir. Sir. So did you, were you in? Okay. Yes, I guess we should ask staff if Commissioner Walters is inclined to allow them to have a taller gate, but then they need to be in conformance with the standard fence. Maybe you can help us figure out how to craft that.

Mr. Chairman, the conditions of approval address each situation. So you could deny for the four foot solid wall and then approve for the seven foot tall gate. So we do have that option.

Which, if that's the motion, means you could keep the gates, and then you would cut down half of your wall, and then put the metal up, and then you would be in conformance with code.

Okay.

One motion.

I'd like to make a motion. Item 24, that's 26-0213, VR1, to deny the four-foot solid wall and approve your seven-foot gate.

Okay, Mr. Chairman, through you, then that would be condition of approval for the variance. Condition of approval number one would read a variance is hereby denied to allow an existing four foot tall solid block wall where five feet consisting of a two foot solid wall base is the maximum height allowed and condition of approval number two will remain as is stating a variance is hereby approved to allow an existing seven foot tall gate where five feet is the maximum height allowed. Thank you.

You agree with those conditions?

Yes.

Okay. Complaining. Please confirm that the two foot wall, with three foot metal meets code so the applicant could come in for a permit for the three foot additional metal after they cut the wall down just for clarity?

Mr. Chairman, through you, yes. Our code allows for two feet of solid block wall on the bottom, and then you can put three feet of wrought iron on top for a total of five feet in height. And then they could keep the seven foot tall gate.

All right, Commissioner Walters, is that your motion for approval? Um, I think it's on the floor. Okay. Motion's on the floor.

Let's uh, my motion, uh, I motion for approval subject to staff conditions. Do you accept staff conditions?

Yes.

Okay. Motion. Motion's on the floor. Please cast your vote.

Motion carries. And that will move on to city council on September 16th.

Okay. Moving on 25, two six dash two one nine VAR one applicant owner, Andrew Schmidt and Anna. Bill Letty for possible action on land use entitlement project request to allow an existing residential accessory structure carport that does not conform to Title 19.06 development standards for location, separation, and aesthetic compatibility at 2109 Verdenial Drive, Ward 1. Staff recommends now. Can we get the staff report, please?

Mr. Vice Chair, staff finds no evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance related to the physical characteristics of the property. As such, the hardship is self-imposed and therefore staff recommends denial. Please note additional documentation of support and protest was received after publication. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Is the applicant here tonight on this item? Seeing none, I'm going to open this up for a public hearing. Anyone from the public want to hear this, speak on this matter? Seeing none, I'm going to close the public hearing and turn this over to Commissioner Rogan.

Well, I was inclined to deny this, but I've never spoken to the applicant, so I want them at least to be able to come here and express their request. So I would ask for an abeyance for 60 days, since I won't be here next month, for them to have that opportunity to come. Staff, we haven't heard from this applicant, have we?

No.

OK. My request is for... I would move for an abeyance of agenda item 25, project 26-0219VA-R1 to the October whatever planning commission meeting, October 13th planning commission meeting.

Motion is on the floor. For abeyance, please cast your vote. That motion carries. Moving on to item number 27, 26-0229, applicant Allen Al-Nafali, owner Katana Holdens, for possible action on the following land use entitlement project request at 2921 West Sahara Avenue, Ward 3 Diaz. Staff recommends approval for the land use project. 27A is 26-0229-SUP1. For a proposed 3,503 square foot alcohol off-premise full use 27B26-0229-SGP2. For a proposed game and establishment restricted one to five machine use. Can we get the staff report, please?

Mr. Chair, the proposed uses are consistent with the uses allowed in the C1 Limited Commercial Zoning District and the subject site meets the distance separation requirements for both uses. As such, staff recommends approval of the requested special use permits subject to conditions if approved. Please note additional documentation of support and protest were received after publication. Thank you.

Thank you. Good evening, sir.

Good evening. My name is George Ross. My address is 7582 Las Vegas Boulevard South, Suite 518 in Las Vegas, Nevada, 89123. On behalf of the applicant, my client would like to open and operate a market and liquor store for off-premises full alcohol sales, along with a restricted gaming license for one to five machines. Currently, as you can see by the picture, the current building is being completely rehabilitated and rebuilt, and my client would take over the brand new built 3503 square foot building. It is adjacent to current and existing Dottie's. I guess as stated earlier, it conforms with the C1 zoning and we're not asking for any type of variances. Typical products are going to be similar to those that are contained in a 7-Eleven or Circle K or a Rebel convenience store. There are 46 parking spaces provided and there are only 21 that are required, so we're not asking for any type of parking variance. There's no problem in terms of the distance separation and staff has recommended approval. We're willing and able to abide by all the conditions if approved. And I'm here to answer any questions you might have.

All right. 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 the Planning Commission for discussion and possible action. Does anyone have any comments on this? Seeing none, this is my award. Stats recommend approval. Read through the agenda item. Um, so I feel comfortable moving forward with this. So on item number 27, a and B moved to approve subject to staff's conditions and the applicants already agreed to all conditions. So please cast your vote. That motion carries.

And Mr. Chairman, that item will move forward to city council on September 16th, 2026. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Moving on to item number 2826-03-0231, applicant Beezer Homes, Holden, LLC, owner, Northwest Development, Inc., and 215 Plaza, LLC. For possible action on a fallen land use entitlement project request generally located in the southwest corner of Deer Springs Way and Osa Blanca Road, Ward 4, staff recommends approval on the fallen land use entitlement project. 28A26-0231ZON1, from you, undeveloped, to T.C. Town Center. General Plan Destination C1 Limited Commercial to TC Town Center 26B26-0231 MOD1 from MSTC Main Street Mixed Use Town Center to MLTC Medium Low Density Residential Town Center 28C is 26-0231 SUP1 for a proposed gated community with private streets. 28D is 26-0231 VAC1 for a petition to vacate a portion of the right of way, Osa Blanca Road, generally located 700 feet south of Deer Springs Way. 2080-26-0231-SDR1 for a proposed 57-lot single-family residential subdivision. And 28F-26-0231-TMP1, Osa Blanca and Centennial for a proposed 57-lot single-family residential subdivision. Can we get the staff report, please?

Mr. Chair, the applicant is proposing to construct a 57-lot single-family residential subdivision with private gated streets that has primary vehicular access from Osa Blanca Road. As proposed, the 57 lot residential subdivision will have a density of 7.91 units per acre, which conforms to the proposed medium low density residential town center special land use designation. The submitted building elevations indicate the proposed single-family residential subdivision will provide two-story products throughout the development consisting of three product types, which include Spanish, traditional, and desert contemporary. This is also consistent with the adjacent existing single-family residential subdivision located to the west of the subject site. Staff finds that the proposed single family development is in alignment with the goals and policies outlined within the town center development standards manual and is harmonious with the existing surrounding development. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the project and all associated entitlements. Please note additional documents for protest and support were received after publication. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening.

Good evening, Jennifer Lazovich, 1980 Festival Plaza Drive, here tonight on behalf of Beezer Homes. The site is shown on your, there you go, you can see it on mine now. So it sits right here next to Aso Blanca Road. The piece is in triangle and the vacant land to the south of us is owned by the Clark County Public Works Division. So this is not privately owned down here. This piece of property, as staff indicated, we're asking for a major modification to go from Main Street mixed use to basically town center and then corresponding zone changes that would take us from the site is presently zone C1 except for a little tiny corner in green, which is zoned undeveloped. And so we would take both of those to a residential designation. For just a minute, I do want to note that in the town center standards, the purpose of Main Street mixed use is to encourage some type of mixed use with either office or shopping on the main floor, and then medium to high density residential on the upper floors. You will hear from some representatives from the Timberlake Homeowners Association, which is adjacent to us to the west, and they will tell you about their history of various projects that have been proposed on this site. So we want to take the commercial zoning that sits on the site and the master plan that would encourage mid to high density residential with some mixture of uses, and instead we want to do a single-family detached housing project all of the homes are two-story I can show you those elevations in a little bit and we do appreciate staff recommending approval and I would be that brief except that in our years representing applications in this area we know just how involved and active the Timberlake homeowners association is which sits immediately to our west is our neighbor So we did a voluntary neighborhood meeting last Monday night, and we had about 55 people come. That shows you how involved their neighborhood is, how well they've taken care of their association, their homes. Their community stays incredibly active and involved. And so I want to take a minute and go through some of the issues that came up at that meeting and walk through them. So if anybody's listening in the audience or if anybody's listening and watching at home, I will try to address some of the things that came up from that. I would say the majority of the people who spoke, not all, but the majority of the people who spoke were in support of changing it from commercial or this Main Street mixed use over to a single family detached, that's a key word, a single family detached product. It really kind of came down a little bit more to this edge condition where our project backs up or Our project backs up to the side yards of some of the existing homeowners in the Timberlake area. Some of the discussions surrounded the existing wall. There is a boundary wall on Timberlake. It's pretty tall here. I didn't measure it exactly, but I estimated to be somewhere between 8 to 10 feet in height. And with this layout, these homes would use that existing property line boundary wall as the rear yard for us. Oftentimes I'm in front of you and we get asked, could we do a secondary wall? Well you usually get asked to do that and a builder will do that when one side of the wall, if we were higher and therefore the wall was basically three feet on our side, it would make sense for us to put in a secondary wall so that you could have that true five or six foot tall wall on the back of our side. In this case it's the reverse. The wall that's already there now is really tall And the way the drainage works is it drains from the west slightly to the south and really comes out on the east side where Asa Blanca is. So our site has to sit a little bit lower, and then we have to take that drainage through our site. And I just want to point that out. At the end of each of these cul-de-sacs, you'll see some gray areas on our site plan. In this case, it's green, but it also includes a gray area. That will be where we take the flows that come from their sites. onto our site, we will take them in our private streets and then work them this way out to Asa Blanca. A lot of discussion was about that drainage, that existing drainage condition, because if you go out there and you look, their wall literally has gaps, if you will, intentional gaps, where that water would flow through onto this site. So we have to capture it. We know that. We've accounted for it. And then we will take it into the flows and take it up. The other thing that came up, there was a lot of discussion about the elevations that are here versus the elevations that are next to us. I can go through that in some detail, but suffice to say, with this layout right now, I had my engineer look at what the finished floor elevation would be for these proposed lots and what the finished floor elevation is of the existing lots. If you go to this north area, these lots right here, lots one, two, and roughly three, would sit about seven feet. The finished floor of that lot would sit about seven feet lower than the finished floor of the homeowner who lives here. That's not necessarily true as you move this way. It kind of varies, and it varies from about two feet to five feet. This side is lower, the side that I'm proposing this project on, but the lowest point is on this upper north corner for us. And then the range sits somewhere between two to five feet, again, lower on the homes that sit on this side. So we had a good amount of conversations about that. They also were concerned that this could turn into a three-story development. We are not proposing three-story homes. We would agree to a condition that states all homes within the subdivision shall not be more than two stories. We're only proposing two stories. We're not proposing three stories, but I think that condition would be important so that the neighbors know there won't be some kind of change down the road. The other things that we talked about is would this community have a homeowners association? Would there be CC&Rs that go with it? You can see that we have open space throughout. We also have private streets. So yes, there would be a homeowners association that goes with this development. And along with that came some additional questions about short-term rentals and some other things, which I will talk through. But as it relates specifically to short-term rentals, Beezer would agree to put in their CC&Rs a condition that prohibited short-term rentals within this community as a homeowner association restriction. In addition, I want to just make it very clear for the record, which I did at the neighborhood meeting, this is a for sale market rate project. They are not seeking any type of federal funds or state funds or local funds to do some type of lowering the price of the homes for certain individuals who have qualified income levels. It's completely market rate. It's not designed to be anything else besides that. And then just talking through, there's been some rentals of homes within the Timberlake, and they've shared the challenges, but they've also shared the lessons learned, which has been really nice in talking with them. And so one of the other things that they asked for is would our CC&Rs not make it If you want to rent a house in this neighborhood, it can't be for a month or two. It needs to be for a longer term so that probably you're getting somebody in there that hopefully might care a little bit more about the house and how they're acting as a neighbor. So Beezer has also agreed that their CC&Rs could contain a condition that if you want to rent your home, they can't restrict that, but if you want to rent your home, it would have to be for a minimum of a year. I think the final thing that I just want to say, I did want to show you these, the homes. They showed them as staff was reading the staff report. But I do want to say that there's still some concern about how these two projects come together on that edge. These are all of our rear yards. All of these rear yards would be a minimum of 10 feet in the back. But these homes that sit on the Timberlake side, that's the side yard for their homes. And so some of the individuals who are at the neighborhood meeting live in those homes. And they expressed just some concern about the number of backyards that we have on our side backing up, if you will, to their side yards or their lots. We have committed to keep working on something that might soften this edge. And I'm saying it to the Planning Commission. This has to go on to City Council. And so we will keep working on that. But I did tell everyone at the neighborhood meeting last Monday night that I would be presenting this plan for consideration. And I would just talk through what the issues were that were raised and that they had my word. I give you my word that we will continue working on this this edge, that's what I call it, this edge condition next to Timberlake as this application moves on to City Council. So I will conclude my presentation.

Thank you. This was no public hearing. Anyone want to be heard, please come forward. Ms. Lasovich, if you could step to the side. We have a couple of mics. Please step up to each of the mics. Be prepared to speak. If there's anybody else in the audience that wants to be heard, please come to the podium. Good evening, sir. Can we get your name and address for the record?

Ron Calderon, 8320 Farnbrook Court, president of Timberlake Association.

Okay, thank you. Go ahead, sir.

As Jennifer stated, we had that meeting on August 3rd. We had 55 residents that attended the neighborhood meeting on August 3rd. There were a lot of questions and concerns that we had, and the builder's representative answered the best she could at the time with the information that was available. Again, our concerns that we had were taken into consideration, and that's what she's working on now for our community. Out of all the options that there are and have been in the past, which were many, this, we feel, is the best option that's present at this time. Of course, most of the residents would prefer one-story buildings, but it's not going to happen. It's going to be two-story. So that's one thing that we're all going to have to live with. The builder proposed on August 3rd that they were going to place in 57 two-story detached homes, no three-story homes. It would be a gated community. The base price of the homes would range from 525 to 568. We were also told that HOA fees would run anywhere from 100 to 125 a month. Also, lot size would be from 2,000 to 2,500 square feet. They would be two and three bedroom homes. We are still dealing with the representative on a possible new rendering of the format of the placement of the homes. And that's what she was discussing a little bit earlier along that common wall area, which is 10 feet high. And what might end up being is that where those homes are based up against that wall, instead of them being there, there may be a street there instead. A 37 foot wide street would run across where that wall is at and the homes would begin on the other side of that street there. Which I think at that point, most of the residents would be more in favor of because it gives a bigger distance. So the side yards that are there on that original plan, would be looking right into that yard i mean be right there but with the street there we're talking 37 feet further to the east of that lot so if that's doable that would be great i know the builder's application is asking for a rezoning from a u undeveloped to a c from a c1 limited commercial to a town center residential and with that we are in full agreement for that rezoning to take place all the other issues that we have we'll deal with as time goes on before the city hall meeting sometime in September. But they've been willing to work with us on this and this is important. There's been other things that wanted to be placed there such as gas stations, storage units and you know and that wouldn't help us at all and at least with these homes here it would preserve our property values in the Timberlake Association area, which we would be in favor of, of course. And the other thing that helps is now that that's just a vacant lot there, we've had numerous problems with that vacant lot as far as encampments being set up there on that lot. We've had fires started on that lot and so forth. So at least with this property being developed, that will eliminate all those problems that we have.

Thank you. I appreciate you coming out and expressing all those comments and concerns and appreciate your time.

Yeah, any negative responses that were directed into maybe our ward councilwoman's office, I spoke with some of those people on the phone last night. for well over an hour. And after we talked, they felt more resolved. They didn't know a lot of the issues and what the answers were to them because they weren't able to attend the meeting. But they're more than happy to see this go forward. Well, thank you for doing that. Good evening, sir.

If I may, my name's William Rohack, spelling's R-O-H-A-C. My address is 8213 Deer Springs Way, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89149. I'm the vice president of the HOA. The only comment I have is just I don't want to be... But I was very pleased in how Jennifer has conducted herself. Beezer Homes is just really pleased with how they've done stuff. Now, not everybody in our community is going to be in agreement. But like Ron had said, you know, having high-density housing or having a bar or a gas station there, would certainly have a negative impact and higher crime in our area. And that's obviously our main focus is the safety of our community. And then also just making sure that our property values maintain or increase. But I think the process has gone well, so. Okay, thank you. Thank you for coming out tonight.

Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you.

Okay. Ms. Lastovich, do you have anything to add on that?

I think just, I just do want to say thank you. It, you know, you walk into a room with 55 people and, um, that can go one of two ways and I have to hand it to both, uh, Ron and, um, William. They, uh, listened to all of the, their own homeowners. They gave their thoughts. It was a very, very nice, respectful meeting going both ways. And I very much appreciate their comments and the involvement of the neighborhood.

Okay. Thank you. Well, I'm close public here and turn this over to planning commission for discussion, possible action. I'm going to go ahead and start. I appreciate you working, uh, with, with these gentlemen here and with the rest of the residents, um, figured we'd have a few other people here tonight. We don't, which is a good thing, but it sounds like you still have a little bit of work and, um, maybe work with the council person and, and, uh, and then, see if there's any other modifications that you want to make prior to city council and then get with these gentlemen, because they seem like they reach out to the, uh, to the rest of the HOA and spread the word. So, uh, that's my thoughts, but overall I'm in support of the project. I like, uh, like the project is the infill project. We've seen other stuff come forward here that hasn't been as a pill in. So hopefully this will be the best, uh, project that we can put in, in there.

Commissioner Taylor. Thank you, Chair. Ms. Lazovich, I am very familiar with that dirt and with your subdivision. I love your subdivision at Christmastime because as I drive to and from where I live up by Tule Springs, I can see all of the amazing decorations that you have in your subdivision. So I have a lot of respect for the activity that you guys have been engaged in to make sure that your neighborhood is protected. And so I think with that, while I recognize and truly respect and know that Ms. Lazovich, when she says she will continue to work on this, she will. My inclination, though, is to make a motion that would be in approval of A through D, because we know that that's something that you guys support as well. And this is part of a lot of work and a lot of discussion over the years to try to get to the type of neighbors that you would want generally. But I am concerned about ENF and I want to make sure that you do that work between now and City Council. And so without Chair Kusama here, my inclination would be to make a motion to approve A through D and then deny ENF. And then that will, you know, make sure that you do the work you need to do between now and City Council.

Mr. Chairman, may staff please read in the condition about the no three-story homes?

I was going to ask about that next, so yes, please.

We have a date stamp correction to make, too, as well for the landscape plan.

Which item will that go on?

F. So a condition of approval will be added to item 28E, which states all homes within the subdivision shall not be more than two stories. And then for item 28F, Condition number five, the revised date stamp condition will state all landscaping shall be in conformance with the landscape plan date stamped 7-15-26, except as amended by conditions herein.

I mean, I think the answer is we agree to those conditions, but I understand your motion is not to approve. But we would agree with those conditions.

Can you do the conditions if there's a denial? That seems counterintuitive. Ms. Lazavich is right to point that out. So maybe I will change my mind to make sure that those conditions are integrated.

Mr. Chairman, through you, this, because there is a rezoning, this will move forward to city council. So we can add those conditions between now and then if they're stated on the record.

Okay, well then, Let me revise that then. Let me just go ahead and make a motion to approve everything because I do want to make sure that those conditions are on and go through. But again, Ms. Lazarevich, you know, I have tremendous concerns about anywhere from two and a half to five lots backing up to those houses. And so I really like, I'm concerned because my inclination was to deny ENF Um,

Mr. Chairman, through you, this will help. This will move forward to the city council with your recommendation of either approval or denial. And you can add those conditions. The staff report will state, you know, planning commission is recommending denial if approved subject to these conditions. And then the added conditions will be in there to address the date stamp and the no three-story homes.

Okay, all right. So gentlemen, you are good with continuing to work with Ms. Lasovich to get to something that you're all in agreement with, knowing that you're getting the best possible option in terms of your neighbors being a subdivision rather than any of the other commercial uses that have been proposed. I just, I don't necessarily need you to come up. I'm just, I guess I'm sort of rhetorically throwing that out there as opposed to asking for a response. Because again, I really want to make sure that Ms. Lazovich works with you because I am not comfortable with that number of lots abutting your lots. And so while, again, my inclination is to do a motion for denial on ENF, I would also very much like to have those conditions put in. to move forward to city council. So Ms. Lazovich, you understand that that is too intense and too dense for at least my comfort level, but I am going to change my mind and make a motion to approve all of it, knowing your commitment and your stated commitment to continue to work with these folks.

Yes, thank you. Beezer will continue working. We've been actively, it's been about a week since we had the neighborhood meeting, and we've been actively trying to work on what that edge looks like. to address the concerns that we've had. Ron and I had conversation for, I don't know when he has all time for all of his hour long conversations, because we had an hour long conversation last night too. And I expect that to continue before city council. So yes, we will keep working on it.

Okay. And then if you're going to do a street, perhaps then one of the things you could consider, that's what they mentioned was sort of a street between, perhaps one of the things you consider is like a good landscape buffer, which you probably already have. thinking about, so. Okay, with that then I'll make a motion to approve item 28 with subparts A through F subject to all conditions and the two added conditions from staff related to three stories and what was the second one, Jonathan? Landscaping, yep, okay.

All right, motions on the floor, please cast your vote. Okay, it's not coming up for some of us, so for Commissioner Slotman, that's an aye. Commissioner Taylor? Aye.

Do you need from anyone else? Chair, if I could just interrupt, do we want to have that condition revised to say no taller than two stories?

I had it all homes within the subdivision shall not be more than two stories. You want to revise it too?

No, that's the condition, but I think on the condition on the record was no three stories.

Yes, that's correct. So then the condition, the added condition should be no taller than two stories. Yes.

Okay, thanks. The condition was read, as Ms. Lazavich indicated for item 28E, that all homes within the subdivision shall not be more than two stories. Thank you.

And that motion carries.

Thank you.

And that will move on to city council on September 16th.

Thank you.

Thank you. Moving on to item 2926-0251-VAR1, applicant Santiago Espinoza, owner Tres Hermanos, live in trust for possible action on land use and title my project request to allow an existing residential accessory structure, carport and patio covered that does not conform title 1906 standards or location separation setbacks and aesthetic compatibility at 10, 70 Griffith Avenue, Ward 3. Staff recommends no. Can we get the staff report, please?

Mr. Chair, staff finds no evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance related to the physical characteristics of the property. As such, the hardship is self-imposed and therefore staff recommends denial. Please note additional documentation of support was received after publication. Thank you.

Thank you. Good evening, sir. Name and address.

My name is Santiago Spinoza, 1070 Griffith Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89104.

Okay.

Yeah. The reason I'm here is I want to see if it's possible to prove to keep it a car for woman car. You know, this house doesn't have a garage. I want to see if they keep it. And I live in this house for 34 years. And the shade, I have around eight years already. And... And that's what I can say. I just want to see this possible to keep.

Thank you. This was noticed as a public hearing. Anyone who want to be heard, please come forward. Seeing none. I'm a close public here and turn this over to planning commission for discussion, possible action. Start with myself. Uh, look, I, I, I've had a couple of requests on Griffith Avenue and recently have walked or driven down Griffith Avenue last month to look at another fence that was going up in the front yard. that wasn't aesthetically compatible with anything else. And I told him that I just wouldn't be able to support it. Um, and it's, you know, Griffith Avenue, the street that you live on is a really nice street. Like everybody takes care of their houses and they, they look nice. It's one of the nicest little streets in the neighborhood. So you should be proud of the street that you're on. Uh, and in saying that, I, I mean, I don't want to start having carports pop up in the front of all the houses and things of the sort. So it's not compatible with the house. I have a history of like following staff's recommendations on these. The state law says we have to show, prove that there's some sort of hardship. There's no hardship that is proven here. So I do understand trying to keep the heat off your cars. I just, I can't approve it and especially here because you live on a pretty amazing street and it wouldn't match anything else up and down that street. So anyways, for those reasons, nobody else has any comments. On item number 29, I'm gonna have to follow staff's recommendation for denial. So motions on the floor. And let me reset mine. Just go ahead and mark me down as a denial. And that motion carries.

And that will move on to City Council on September 16th.

All right. Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you. All right. Moving on to item number 30, 26-0252, VAR 1, applicant owner Daniel Aguilar for possible action on a land use entitlement project request to allow an existing residential accessory structure card port that does not conform to Title 1906 Development Standards for Location Separation and Aesthetic Compatibility at 3525 Struts Avenue, Ward 3. Staff recommends no. Can we get the staff report, please?

Mr. Chair, this request is the result of an open code enforcement case. This is a request for variance to allow an existing carport that does not conform to Title 1906 Development Standards. Staff finds no evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance has been presented. in that the applicant has created a self-imposed hardship by constructing a structure that does not conform to Title 19 development standards. Therefore, our staff recommends denial of the requested variance. Staff notes that a blue-sheeted staff report has been added to your supplemental packets. Also, please note additional documents for protest were received after publication. Thank you. Thank you.

Is the applicant here on this particular item? Seeing no applicant, I'm going to open this up for a public hearing. Anyone from the public want to be heard on this item? Seeing none, I'm going to close the public hearing and turn it over to Planning Commission. for discussion and possible action, starting with myself. Historically, I do not like carports in the front yard, especially if they are not aesthetically compatible with the house or the neighborhood. There's not a ton of carports in the neighborhood which would make this compatible with that neighborhood. And so therefore, if there's no other comments, I'm going to go ahead Make a motion on item number 36-0252, VAR 1, move to follow staff's recommendation for denial. Please cast your vote.

That motion carries. And that will move on to City Council on September 16th.

Thank you. Moving on to item 3126-0256-EON1, applicant owner, AFL-CIO, Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trade Council for possible action on land use entitlement project request from R1 single family residential to PO professional office at 360 Shadow Lane Ward 1. Staff recommends approval. Mr. DiSalvio.

i just want to disclose that i am an executive board member on but it really has no effect on my me voting either way so i'm gonna okay thank you sir can we get the staff report

Mr. Chairman, the proposed rezoning from R1 single-family residential to PO professional office will allow for the subject site to be in conformance with its current use of office other than listed, as well as its current general plan designation of office. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the rezoning request. Please note additional documentation of support was received after publication. Thank you.

Thank you. Good evening.

Hello, my name is Estrella Matledge, and I am here representing the applicant, the Southern Nevada Building Trades. My address is 2810 West Charleston Boulevard, number 75, Las Vegas, Nevada. I am the broker of Wealth Realty. I'm here just in case you guys have any questions. A long time ago, I was a member of Teamster Local 995, which operates on Shadow. That area has had these union places forever. I don't know why it was never changed earlier. It conforms. So if you have any questions. Okay.

Thank you. Appreciate it. This was no public hearing. Anyone want to be heard, please come forward. Seeing none, I'm close to public hearing. Turn it over to the Planning Commission for discussion and action.

Commissioner Rogan. I make a motion to approve Agenda Item 31, Project 26-0256ZON1.

Thank you. Motion's on the floor. Please cast your vote.

That motion carries. And that will move on to City Council on September 16th.

Thank you.

Thank you. Moving on to Item 34-26-0266-VAR1, Applicant Owner Nevada Donor Network incorporated for possible action land use entitlement project request to allow a front yard fence that does not conform to 19.08 development standards for height that 1050 east sahara avenue ward 3 staff recommends now 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. Thank you.

Thank you. Good evening, sir.

Good evening. My name is Jose Chavez with SEA Design, 2140 East Pebble Road, Suite 140, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89123. I'm here on behalf of the applicant who is proposing an eight foot tall fence. I have no other presentation and answer any questions you have.

Thank you. This was no decisive 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. I know this area, it's around Sahara near Maryland Parkway where they're all private streets. Uh, the lots are just scattered all over and it, it, it doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. It does create like an area for a lot of, a lot of, uh, uh, transient people to, uh, post up. And so I, I do understand the need for this fence. Uh, I think it's, uh, appropriate and I can, uh, support it. There's no other comments ready to make motion. Go ahead.

Um, you're on your landscape plan. You have. Sorry, excuse me. On your landscape plan, you have a palm. Would you be willing to switch your trees to those from the SNWA, Southern Nevada Water Authority, the fast growing trees that are identified on their tree list?

Yes, we would.

Is there actually enough room on the front of this property to be able to grow a large tree?

I believe so.

Okay, because I know a lot of those properties in this area are up against the, or there's not that much room.

Yeah, we're willing to change the plants as necessary in the conditions.

It does look to be about a 15 foot by 30 foot area that the palm is in the middle of, so that would be a...

Mr. Chairman, through you, with this particular variance application, we would not be able to condition for the trees. It would just have to be an agreement here at the meeting.

I wouldn't be inclined to change a tree anyways, so thank you. On this particular project, I'm ready to make a motion. Item number 34, 26-266VAR1, move to approve, subject to staff's conditions, and you agree with all staff's conditions.

We agree.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Please cast your vote. That motion carries. Mr. Floyd.

And that is final action tonight. And let's appeal to the city clerk in 10 days.

Thank you. 36. 26-0272, applicant owner, corner of Main Street, LLC, for possible action on the following land use entitlement project request at the southeast corner of Utah Avenue and Main Street, Ward 3, Diaz, staff recommends approval and staff recommends now on the SDR. 36A is 26-0272ZON1 from CM commercial industrial to C2 general commercial. 36B is 26-0272SDR1 for a proposed one story 26,248 square foot commercial development with 3,333 square feet of outdoor patio space with waivers of appendix F interim downtown Las Vegas development standards area one. Can we get the staff report, please?

Mr. Chair, although the proposed infill development would further revitalization efforts in the Gateway District, staff finds the proposed development will negatively impact parking in the immediate area. The commercial site provides no onsite parking spaces where 119 parking spaces would be required in another area of the city. Uh, as the applicant has indicated several food and beverage tenants, uh, staff funds that providing zero parking spaces places an undue burden on the surrounding properties to provide parking for future tenants, employees, and patrons as such. The proposed development is not compatible with adjacent development and development in the area. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning and denial of the site development plan review. If approved, the site development plan review will be subject to conditions. Thank you.

Thank you. Good evening, sir.

Good evening. It's me again, Jose Chavez. With SCA design 2140 East Pebble Road, Suite 140, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89123, On behalf of the applicant, we feel that the proposed project is designed to enhance visual interest in the area. The building will reinforce active pedestrian environment, and it is compatible with the surrounding arts district context. With these items in mind, I respectfully ask for your approval, and I'm open to any questions.

Thank you. This was noticed as a public hearing. Anyone who wanted to be heard, please come forward. Seeing none, I'm closing the public hearing and turning it over to Planning Commission, starting with myself. Thank you for giving me a call, talking about your project. It's a beautiful project. It's right near that old 7-Eleven. The old wise guys were there at one point and that building's been torn down. I do understand the staff's report about no parking for this building, but I'm hoping that I'm hoping that all those patrons will go over to the parking garage and help make a couple of payments on that big bond that we have to pay off. So I'm happy we're going to get more parking in that parking garage. And you're literally on the same block or one block over from that parking garage. So anyways, I like the project, I think. With having a large tenant mix, it's kind of what we're looking for over there. So good luck with your project. Does anybody else have any questions on this one? Go ahead, Commissioner Taylor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's a really neat-looking project. I love the murals, so I'm looking forward to seeing it. But I just wanted to just... To be consistent with what we've said with landscaping for other projects, I really appreciate that you were going to put in 36-inch box trees, but are you willing to accept the condition that instead of 36-inch box, that it be a standard condition we're cooking in now, so large, fast-growing trees on the SNWA plant list with a 3-inch caliper at 6 inches above grade?

Let me interject.

Where are these trees that you're asking them to put in? I thought that am I looking at the wrong project? I must be.

Because there's already street trees.

There are street trees.

Going around this project and I'm not inclined to make them put in any new trees.

I'm looking at the landscaping plan under the supporting documentation. Am I looking at the wrong one? No, I'm not. 0272. If you look at page two of seven for his supporting documentation, he has in here seven Mexican ebonies that are 36 inch box. So were those to be installed or are those the existing street trees that you're just identifying?

There were existing street trees that we were identifying. We actually added a few more in this iteration, in this view.

You are adding in a couple is what you're saying? A couple, yes. Yeah, okay. So then yeah, just instead of them being 36 inch box, the ones that you are adding, not the ones that are existing street trees, if we can just have it be that language that we've been using as a condition.

I'm not willing to put that language on this property. So if you'd like to do it in your ward, that's fine. I'm fine with my 36 inch box trees on this particular property.

Okay. Thank you. Thanks for putting in 36 inch boxes though.

All right. Any other comments? All right. Seeing none, I'm gonna go ahead and make a motion. on 36A and B, motion for approval subject to staff's conditions, and you agree to the conditions.

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

And that motion carries. And that will move on to City Council on September 16th.

Thank you. Item number 3726-0288, SDR1, The learned and experienced owner EHI investment for LLC for possible action on land use entitlement project request for a proposed one story 10,000 square foot childcare facility with a waiver of Title 19.08. Building orientation standards at the northeast corner of horse drive and Fort Apache Road Ward six Bruni staff recommends approval. May we get the staff report please.

Mr. Chairman, staff finds the proposed development to be harmonious and compatible with the surrounding area and recommends approval of the requested site development plan review. Please note additional documentation of support and protest was received after publication. Thank you.

Thank you. Is the applicant here on this particular property? Okay, 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 Commissioner Taylor.

Thank you, Chair. I don't see... Sorry, I just want to make sure I'm on the right one. I don't see the applicant here, but I have had... a conversation with the applicant. And I know the applicant has also talked to the ward office and any of the sort of concerns that were raised were either addressed or added. So I don't have any problem moving forward and making a motion on this. If there's any other questions from anybody else on the commission.

Seeing none, please do.

Okay, yep. A motion to approve item 3726-0288 SDR1 Motion to approve on that. Subject to all conditions.

Thank you. Motion's on the floor. Please cast your vote. All right. That motion carries.

And that is final action. Let's appeal to the city clerk in 10 days.

Thank you. Moving on to item 38, 26-0295-VAR1, applicant Epic Development, owner Ann at 215 LLC, for possible action on land use entitlement project request to allow proposed perimeter and retaining walls that do not conform to Title 1908 development standards for height, located on the north side of Hammer Lane, approximately 700 feet east of Schaumburg Road, Ward 4, staff recommends denial. Can we get the staff report, please?

Mr. Chair, staff finds no evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance related to the physical characteristics of the property. As such, the hardship is self-imposed, and therefore, staff recommends denial. Thank you.

Thank you. Good evening, sir.

Hi, my name is Jason Thompson. I'm with the owner, Anna 215, LLC. The address is 3227 East Warm Springs Road, Suite 200, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89120. Jeff Thompson, Tanny Engineering, 6030 South Jones Boulevard, with Tanny Engineering, the civil owner project.

Okay. Would you like to talk about the project a little bit?

Yes. Can I get the camera?

Yes. We can go to the overhead? Perfect. There we go.

So this is our site plan. Basically, we already have an existing self-storage facility here to the west of it that we built, I think, five years ago. What we're looking to do now is just add this additional piece that's going to be covered RV parking and some RV storage here. And this is basically a leftover piece from when they created the 215 right away. What we're asking for is some retaining walls because of the slope of the project. So this is the current site. These are the total lines, if you look at it. If you calculate this out, it's about 6.7% slope across here, 6.3. And then the fact that the walls are kind of necessary, I think, is attested to by the fact that if you look at all the neighboring projects, they all have walls that exceed the standard. This is our project. When we built it, there's like a 10-foot retaining wall over here. These guys have another 5-foot retaining wall here. This is a bus yard that's to the south of us, and there is some residential houses over here to the southeast. On this bus yard, this is what the wall looks like directly across from our project. This is the retaining wall. This is a screen wall. So it's about a nine-foot retaining wall right here, and there's a six-foot screen wall on top, and then there's another four-foot retaining wall down here. This is directly across the street from us. And then additionally, like I said, to the southeast, those are the houses. Once again, a six-foot screen wall, a six-foot retainer, and then another eight-foot wall below it. So the topography here, as you can see, everything is sloping down to the 215 right-of-way. And because of that, and because it's a weird infill piece, and then we have a sewer easement over here that we have to get down to grade for so we can maintain access to the sewer. Because of this, we believe we need to have a variance for the wall height. So we're able to put in the walls around the piece and make it usable for the RV storages.

Okay, thank you. Did you have anything? No, that's good. We're here to answer any questions. Okay, perfect. All right, this was notes as a public hearing. Anyone want to be heard, please come down. Seeing none, I'm close to public hearing. Turn it over to Planning Commission for discussion, possible action. I looked at this. I spoke to you gentlemen. It seems like at the beginning I was a little shocked, but then I started getting on Google Maps and looking at the residential neighborhood across the street had just as tall of a wall. The one directly across the street has the same thing. There's just a lot of terrain, topography around that general area. is compatible with other projects in that neighborhood. Does anybody else have any comments on this?

No, but I'm happy to make a motion on it.

Okay, please do.

On item 3826-0295VAR1, I would like to go ahead and make a motion to approve subject to all conditions and you agree to all conditions.

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

And that motion carries. Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you. And that will move on to City Council on September 16th.

Thank you. On item number 3926-0297 SCR1 applicant Las Vegas billboards owner Twisted Willow Investments LLC for possible action on land use entitlement project request for the proposed structural modification addition of a digital LED electronic message illumination to the east and west faces of an existing non-conforming off-premise sign at 2401 West Bonanza Road Ward 5 Staff recommends no. Can we get the staff report, please?

And I apologize, Mr. Chairman, Seth Floyd. So the last item was final action. Let's be able to city clerk in 10 days. So item 38 is final action. Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, the applicant is requesting a site development plan review for the proposed structural modification and digital conversion of the east and west static faces of an existing non-conforming off-premise sign. Staff finds that the digitally illuminated panels on this location may negatively affect, have negative visual impacts on the condominium units located directly to the northeast of the existing off-premise sign. The sign is located approximately 100 feet from the southern building and approximately 75 feet from the western building, which has the most window and patio exposure to the sign. Pursuant to Title 19 electronic message units, must be located or located within 200 feet of property zone for residential use are prohibited for on-premise signs and discouraged for off-premise signs unless they are not visible from the protected property. For this reason, conversion of the illuminated panels at this location is not recommended at this existing off-premise sign use may be rendered incompatible with the adjacent development. Staff therefore recommends denial of the site development plan review. Thank you. Thank you, good evening.

Good evening, Lucy Stewart, 1930 Village Center Circle.

Greg Esposito, 1442 White Drive.

And while we do appreciate staff's comments, this is a little bit different because if we can go to the overhead please. The north edge of our sign is at the south edge of the building that faces US 95. I'm showing you but you can't see, sorry, thank you. So you can see the north edge of the sign is equal to the south edge of the building which really faces and is oriented towards US 95. But what's interesting is that the, The bottom of the billboard is actually above the top of the balconies there. And as you can see, this item that's facing to the residences is the back end, so there's no lighting there. But what's, I think, even more interesting is that this building that is facing the billboard This is what the wall is. That's every wall on every floor. It's a solid wall. The building, the places are oriented towards the street or the other buildings oriented towards the shopping center. But this is the closest building and it's solid. There's no windows. There's no doors. There's no opening. It's just a passageway. But Mr. Esposito is going to talk about the light and any impacts on the residences.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. So as it was read into the record by staff, their concern is that if this gets converted to a digital billboard, it may have a negative visual impact on the condominium units, and that the western building is 75 feet in the staff reported reads, which has the most window and patio exposure. I'll get back to that part in a second. Back in 2008, the Outdoor Advertising Association of America commissioned a Dr. Ian Lewin to conduct a study on this exact subject, the impact of converting conventional billboards to digital billboards. And a whole bunch of math went into that study, and I'll go over that in a second. First, it needs to be said that each one of the billboards that Las Vegas Billboards puts up all have this photo cell. This photo cell goes right alongside the LEDs that are on the billboard. that photo cell is set to where the brightness will always be, will be no more than 0.3 foot candles above ambient light. So that photo cell constantly measures the ambient light. It's not on a timer. And obviously a foot candle is the amount of light one candle puts out at one foot in a completely blackened room. So the brightness will never be more than 0.3 foot candles. And the sign will be limited to 7,500 nits, N-I-T-S, during daytime hours and 250 nits at nighttime. And I'll get into what that means in a minute. The 0.3 foot candle maximum illuminance level was derived from a report completed by a former president of IESNA, which governs billboards or regulates billboards. It is the recommended maximum level to prevent light trespass, which is what staff's concern is right now. So getting back to nits and foot candles and all that such, I want to point out that currently, on the current billboard, there are three metal halide lights that illuminate that billboard from underneath. I do not have the exact number on what those are. But industry standard, I did some research, and industry standard, those are 400 watt metal halide lights currently on there. Each one of those puts out 43,000 lumens. And so that side of the billboard that currently faces those condos, if those are 400 watt lights, currently emits 129,000 lumens. That gets projected up to the billboard and then reflected out. There is a lot of light trespass with those numbers. By way of comparison, the maximum nighttime that is agreed to in this application, which is 250 nits, which is what I said earlier, is only 49,000 lumens. So converting this to digital will already cause, I believe, like a 68% reduction in the amount of lumens that those neighbors are going to be exposed to. Speaking to what Lucy was talking about a few minutes ago, this is the, so first of all, if you remember what staff said in their recommendation, it was talking about how the building, the western building was 75 feet. First of all, so this is what they're calling the southern building. As she pointed out, there are no balconies and no windows on the two facades that would be most affected. This is the facade that is doesn't quite face the billboard. It actually runs perpendicular to the billboard. You'll notice that this is a walkway. These are the doors and these are the windows to the apartments. They're all recessed. They're all recessed with a slight sound light barrier, whatever you want to call it. And the walkway itself has barriers that would prevent extra light trespass from this billboard. I'll also point out that the 15, obviously right there at a very busy intersection, has a lot of lights and ambient light coming in from the lights that traffic needs. And drawing from the same study I quoted before, Street lights on major roads emit one to three foot candles on their own. So the people who live here are already staring straight into multiple freeway lights that emit at least three times as much light as this billboard will. And then finally, the most important thing I can show you here. This is the diagram of what the light will look like from the billboard and so this is what we're worried about. This is the western building that staff is most worried about, the 75 foot one. That blue line is the extent of where the light will shine. You'll note it's a 90 degree angle that comes off the face of the billboard and so the limit of what will shine towards that housing development hits the wall. It hits the blank wall where there are no balconies, no doors, no windows. And furthermore, as I said, it's never going to go above 0.3. As you get further out, as you get to the 200-foot mark, it actually drops down to 0.25. not only will switching it to digital generate less lumens, but as it goes out further, it'll have less and less of an effect, and the building is oriented in such a way it'll never shine under their windows anyway, because they're facing perpendicular to the way the light is facing. So I appreciate what staff has pointed out. One thing I did forget to say, all of these security lights, all these exterior lights are on all night. I drove by there the other night. That back area is lit up like a Christmas tree. It's a secure location. All these lights are on all night anyway. So area back there is already pretty well lit up. This is actually going to reduce how much light's back there.

I agree to do that. to put the things on that side. What's going to limit the light to that 90 degree angle

are louvers. If you remember about a month or so ago, we were talking about louvers that would prevent it from going down and affecting people directly underneath it. The technology here is going to limit to this 90 degree angle to where it doesn't affect the residents as much as if it was a regular billboard.

So that would be a condition that we agree to, that there would be louvers on the east side of the billboard?

Okay, thank you. This was not 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 Commissioner Walters.

Hi, yes, thank you for calling. I just want to make sure we're working on the louver wording for that. But thank you for the analysis of the lighting and for letting you send me a study. It was very interesting. I appreciate that. It does seem, I did go by there, it does seem like this development was built with the knowledge and recognition that there are a lot of lit billboards, namely the giant lit cowboy also, uh, at the other side of your property. So it does look like they, they took that into account for the residents of that particular complex.

Thank you. And, uh, commissioner Wolters, I have a few comments. So, you know, I, I'm, I'm not necessarily against, uh, led billboards, but I am against, um, you know, the constant change in and blinding of people as they're going down the road, because you go from a dark image to a lighter image. And look, I know I worked with y'all, and y'all been in my office, and y'all showed me a book, and it was pretty impressive on how y'all go about doing that. And being on a highway, I'm not as opposed, but you have those louvers. Can you have those louvers set up? Because one of the biggest problems with this is the changing. I can sit in my room on Fremont and there's lights and it's bright and it's bright in my bedroom with the blinds closed, but If it's a constant light, then it doesn't bother me. I can go to sleep. But if one of the light bulbs is going out and is flickering, I can see this through my eyelids as my eyes are closed. If I have my TV on and it's changing, I can see this and it keeps me up. So that's my concern with the LED and residential is when it changes. It doesn't really matter to me how bright it is because you can adjust to that. You can't adjust to this constant changing even when your eyes are closed. So is there a way to potentially look at a louver that kind of restricts even a little bit more so it's not hitting those apartments?

So to make it instead of just going down to also go like on the north side to... So it would keep it from going back... Because we're like... You can see the board is here and the buildings are there. So to have something to sort of block it from there.

No, you see the first couple of slices, you know, that come off of there. You're going through that building. So you're still building. Yeah, right there where your pen was, you're still hitting the edge of, well, yeah, the edge of the buildings on the south side of those buildings and that north side of that one building, but going all the way down that south side of the building, you're blocking it, so is there a way to put the louvers on that would help block that? We have an expert coming up. Okay, good. If we can get your name and address.

Hi, I'm Jared Andrews. I'm with Jones Media, C6 contractor for Las Vegas billboards. Address is 4145 West Tico Avenue. To answer your question, I've been doing this since 2005, since digital just kind of came into the picture. We have a few different options here. This particular sign would have to be replaced with a new kind of up to building code sign, right? The option to orientate this sign just a touch to kind of direct that light and kind of control the light that you're talking about is also an option. There's also what you can do, a light shield to the right side of the digital itself that would also block out some of that light that you're talking about. There is a billboard that we did over off of I-15 and Blue Diamond that was above a bunch of Actually, there's three billboards there on that property, Oasis RV, and one of the requirements was that we essentially put decking out beyond the digital at the bottom just to help block that light. Most of the light disbursement is what you see that five feet out from the digital itself. Beyond that, it's not, there's not a lot of, what you're catching is that brightness, you know, shock factor could actually be reduced by putting that decking out there, especially at 75 feet, which this sign is currently, was given a variance a couple years ago from 65 to 75. So that would, there's options there, especially being new construction.

Well, I would think the west facing side is not a big deal because that's facing commercial. It's just those first three red roofs that I would be concerned with and the light hitting their bedrooms. But this is your warden, if you have any... If you'd like to look at trying to put the... I know you talked to me about the louvers and if you'd like to maybe talk to him about conditioning to have that shield and that platform underneath to kind of help protect that apartment building, that might be something to look at.

And we'd agree to that condition too, to both the louvers and the light shield.

Okay.

To be clear, the platform and the light shield, that's what you're saying you would agree to?

Correct. And that would be in addition to the louvers? Yes. Okay. Does staff understand that good enough to help craft a motion?

Yes, through you, Chair. An added condition would be added which states louvers and a light shield shall be installed on the east sign face to control the viewing angle and direct light towards intended viewers. Can we also add the word platform? Light shield to the platform? A light shield and a platform. Okay. Let me reread that. Louvers, a light shield and a platform shall be installed on the east sign face to control the viewing angle and direct light towards intended viewers. Thank you. All right.

And we agree to that. Thank you.

All right. I'm ready to make motion.

Please do. Sorry. Thanks. Yes, Commissioner Rubin. I really didn't understand any of that last bit. What is a platform? What does it look like and how does it work?

Yeah. So underneath the current catwalks, it would just be decking material that would be installed underneath in order to kind of reduce the amount of visual impact that you get from the digital itself at five feet out. So it would essentially shade the ground.

Okay, so it's preventing light from going down, and since the billboard is taller than the residential, you're allowing the billboard to be seen by the highway, but not by the resident.

Exactly. Yes, sir.

Okay, great. Did you have any conversations? I know that when we mail out these special use permit applications, we mail them to the property owners, which in this case would be the owner of that. apartment complex, but was there any effort made to have any discussions with the tenants that lived there?

Actually, I think it's a condominium project.

Is it a condominium project? So do we know whether all those were mailed to?

Mr. Chairman, through you, yes. Each condominium owner was mailed a postcard.

And we got nothing back from any of them?

Commissioner Walters. Okay. On item 39, that's 26-0297-SDR1, I motion for approval with staff conditions. Do you agree to staff conditions?

Yes. Any additional ones, we add it. Thank you.

And the added condition is written to the record by staff. Okay. Thank you. Motion's on the floor. Please cast your vote. And my vote is a yes.

And that motion carries.

Thank you very much.

And that item will move on to City Council on September 16th.

Thank you. On item 42.6-0298, SUP 1, Las Vegas Billboard's owner, 1615 North Decatur. for possible action on land use entitlement project request for a proposed 40 foot tall, 14 foot by 48 foot off premise sign, not qualifying the city communication sign use at 1615 North Decatur Boulevard, Ward 5. Staff recommends approval. Can we get the staff report please?

Mr. Chairman, staff finds the proposed off-premise sign is compatible with the existing land uses and zoning districts that surround the subject site. In addition, the proposed off-premise sign is compliant with Title 1912, and staff is recommending approval. Thank you.

Thank you. Good evening.

Yeah, hi. Jared Andrews again with Jones Media. Address is 4145 West Tico Avenue. Again, here I'm just appearing on behalf of Las Vegas Billboards. for this proposed 40 foot tall, 14 by 48 foot off-premise digital. I don't know if it was mentioned before, but this was also requested for back-to-back digital.

Okay, thank you. This was noticed as a public hearing. Anyone want to be heard, please come forward. Seeing none, I'm closed public hearing. Turn it over to Commissioner Walters.

Hi, yes, I did go by this property. It's pretty commercial and residences are fairly far away, so if anyone has any other comments.

Please make a motion.

Okay, I make a motion on item 40, that's 26-0298, SUP 1, for approval.

Subject to staff's conditions, and you agree with all those? Yes, sir. Thank you. Motions on the floor, please cast your vote. That motion carries.

And that will move on to City Council on September 16th.

Thank you. Item 42, 26-0304, VAR 1, applicant owner, Evarts Family Trust, for possible action on the land use entitlement project request to allow an increase in sign area for illegal non-conforming freestanding sign does not conform to Title 19 requirements for sign area 607 South Las Vegas Boulevard. Ward 3, staff recommends denial. 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 variance request. Please note additional documentation of support and protest was received since publication. Thank you.

Thank you. Good evening, sir.

Good evening. Taylor Lamb, 5119 Cameron Street, on behalf of the owner.

Okay.

The owners requested a variance to increase the square footage of the sign from 114 to 162. We're not making any changes to the height or the width of the sign, just reusing the existing square footage, moving it down a little bit onto the pole cover. The project has already gone before the DDRC. They've reviewed it. They're ready to approve pending your approval and the City Council approval. And the reason behind the project, obviously they're changing the name back to the original name of the Wedding Chapel and want to restore the original

style of the sign and i'm here for any oh we also agreed all conditions if approved and i'm here to answer any questions okay thank you this was noticed as a public hearing anyone want to be heard please come down seeing none of them close the public hearing uh start with myself um on This particular item, I reviewed it. It's pretty close to what you have. And, you know, you meet all the requirements of the Las Vegas Scenic Byway, which is what we're trying to achieve down there. And it's a great looking sign. So I have no problems. I'm ready to go ahead and make a motion for approval on item 4226-0304 VAR1. Move to approve subject staff's conditions and the applicants already agreed to the conditions. Please cast your vote. That motion carries.

And that will move on to City Council on September 16.

All right, thank you. Thank you for your time. Item 4326-0305VAR1, Applicant Rhythm Rose, Incorporated, owner BJH Property LLC for possible action land use entitlement project request to allow 37 parking spaces where 70 are required for a previously approved restaurant coffee shop at 2747 North Rainbow Boulevard, Ward 1. Can we get the staff report, please?

Mr. Chair, on March 18th of this year, the City Council approved a variance to allow 39 parking stalls where 76 were required on this site. A new variance is requested as the subject site provides only 37 of the parking spaces where 39 were previously identified. However, staff finds no evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance related to the physical characteristics of the property. As such, the hardship is self-imposed and therefore staff recommends denial. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, sir.

Good evening. George Ross, 7582 Las Vegas Boulevard South, number 518 in Las Vegas, 89123. As previously just stated, this item was previously approved back in March. The site plan that the architect originally drew showed 39 spaces. In actuality, there were only 37, and that's why I'm standing in front of you today to redo this.

Okay. Thank you. This was noticed as a public hearing. Anyone want to be heard, please come forward. Seeing none, close public hearing. Turn it over to Planning Commission for discussion, possible action. Commissioner Rogan.

Just so I'm clear, we initially approved it was 39 where 76 were required, and this has now been changed to 37 where 70 are required?

Mr. Chairman, through you, that is correct. From what I understand, we calculate the parking when it's not a shopping center, the difference between your high traffic areas and then your back of house. So there was a little change in the floor plan. And then in the site plan itself, once they actually got into the building permit with real hard numbers, there was a difference between the two.

So their deficiency actually got improved.

Oh, yes, slightly, yes. Okay, all right.

Make a motion for approval for agenda item, unless anyone has any thoughts. Motion for approval, agenda item 43, project 26.0305VAR1.

Motion's on the floor, please cast your vote.

And that's subject to conditions which you agree with?

Yes, we agree to all conditions.

I'm a yay. And that motion carries. Thank you. Thanks.

And Mr. Chairman, that item will move on to city council on September 16. Thank you.

All right. Moving on to directors business item 45. Abayance and re notification to 60281. Dr. One applicant owner city of Las Vegas for possible action to appoint a member to the plan of the planning commission downtown design review committee for the following list of planning commissioners Jeffrey Rogan, trendy Haven Schlottman, Serena Kusama, Stacy Walters, Lindsay Lee LeBeau and Jennifer Taylor. Staff has no recommendation. You sure you don't have a recommendation? No, no, no, no, no report needed. Can we get a nomination?

Sure. I thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to go ahead and nominate Commissioner Schlottman to serve on the committee.

Okay, but when you say chair, that's really Serena.

Fair. No, I am not nominating Serena. I am nominating... Vice chair. Vice chair, Trinity Haven Schlottman, currently serving in his ad interim position as chair, just to make the record clear. That's why I said chair.

Any other nominations? No other nominations? Can we get a vote? A vote for... Vice Chair Slotman to be on the Downtown Design Review Committee. I'm an aye.

That motion carries. And that is final action unless the commissioner wants to appeal his own nomination in 10 days.

Maybe expect that appeal. 46, abeyance 26-0294-TXT1. Applicant owners, city of Las Vegas for possible action on a request to amend LVMC 19.08, 19.12, 19.18, relating to contractor and outdoor storage uses and to provide for other related matters. Staff recommends approval. Do we have a staff report?

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Fred Solis for the record. The request is to remove and replace the building service maintenance use with the new contractor's office category and contractor's plant shop and storage yard use with a new contractor's yard category. The amendment will clarify between low-impact contractor offices that typically serve customers at off-site locations and the more intense contractor yards that include on-site storage of raw materials or heavy equipment. The amendment will also clarify limits for accessory outdoor storage where such is allowed. 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. Give us your name and address for the record.

Hi, my name is Sunny Westbrook, S-U-N-N-I-W-E-S-T-B-R-O-O-K. My address is 8109 Via del Cerro Court, and I'm here just because I'm a huge fan of the City Planning Commission. And I didn't know this was going to be on the agenda, and my question is, will this change how cargo containers can be stored on residential property? or how cargo containers could possibly be used as storage on residential property.

Mr. Chair, through you, no, it does not. This is strictly for commercial and industrial locations that have contracting businesses that either serve folks off-site like a plumber or a landscape that has heavy machinery and rock and mulch. We're distinguishing between the two to ensure that These higher, more industrial-type locations are constrained to the industrial zoning districts as opposed to just a general contractor or something less intense. But no, it doesn't have any effect on the storage of containers in residential districts.

Okay, so... making two different distinctions between a home builder contractor and a plumbing contractor, a landscaping contractor, someone with a smaller business.

Mr. Chair, through you, yes, that is correct. We are distinguishing between heavy machinery, raw materials, dispatch of commercial vehicles from a location versus, yes, a landscaper plumber who has a truck and stores a few pipes indoors in a facility.

Okay. This is kind of a silly question, but what's the definition of a commercial vehicle? Is it a pickup truck with a sign on it, or is it... What's a commercial vehicle?

It's funny you ask, Mr. Chair, through you. So this text amendment does actually define what we consider a commercial vehicle. So if you give me a second, I can pull it up and read it verbatim.

I have a particular interest in cargo containers because my neighbor that I share a property border with has five in their backyard.

All right, so almost there. One second.

You do you. I'll just keep going.

All right. So our contractor's office now defines a commercial vehicle as one that exceeds 10,000 pounds and is considered a commercial vehicle by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

OK. And I can look up the contractor's office rules and regulations online and find all that stuff.

Yes, so this will need to go through council as an ordinance, but you can look at what we have as backup on the planning commission agenda for tonight. Although it won't become official until it goes through city council through ordinance.

Okay, and then where can I find information about the use and storage of cargo containers on residential property?

I think at that point, I think what we would do is we would just have you go over and grab one of the staff here in a second, then they can look at you. I mean, they can help you find that information because that's...

So it sounds like the change keeps everything the same, but drills it down into different silos.

Yeah, through you, Mr. Chair. That's generally correct. The interpretation of these two uses were ambiguous at best, depending on what you were trying to do. So the purpose of this amendment is to dial that down and to make it a little bit more clear to individuals using either one of these uses and easier for staff and the commission to be able to judge what exactly is going on on a property when they they come in with one of these uses.

Okay, cool. Thank you very much, appreciate the time. You're welcome.

If you want to step over to the side, they can tell you about the containers on a residential property.

Fabulous, thank you.

Okay, thank you for coming out today. All right, moving on to citizen's participation. Oh, that was still open? Okay, let's go back. Number 46, can I get a motion?

Motion to approve.

All right, motion for approval. Please cast your vote. That motion carries.

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

All right, thank you. Moving on to citizens' participation in public comment during this portion of the agenda must be limited to matters within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. No subject may be acted upon by the Planning Commission unless that subject is 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 of any single subject, as well as the amount of time any single speaker is allowed, may be limited. Anyone want to come down and talk?

No?

Any planning commissioners? All right. Well, this meeting's adjourned.