Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. We're ready to begin. This Planning Commission meeting is called to order. This meeting has been properly noticed and posted in compliance with the open meeting law. These proceedings are being video recorded and can be viewed live on City of Las Vegas TV on Cox Cable Channel 2. You can also watch the meeting live online and access other city content by visiting lasvegasnevada.gov slash connect. The proceedings will be rebroadcast on City of Las Vegas TV the Saturday after the meeting at 10 a.m., Monday at midnight, and the following Tuesday at 6 p.m. Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. City Clerk, would you please call roll?

Chair Kusama? Present. Vice Chair Schlottman?

Present.

Commissioner Rogan? Excused. Commissioner Taylor? Present. Commissioner DeSalvio? Excused. Commissioner Lebo? Present. Commissioner Walters?

Present.

Thank you. We do have a quorum.

I call to your attention the information printed in your agenda concerning our actions and the appeal and review process, if appropriate. Please read this carefully, and if you have any questions, staff is available. Also, the second page of the agenda contains our rules of conduct. We appreciate your adhering to these rules so we can have a smooth meeting. Thank you. Public comment during this portion of the agenda must be limited to matters on the agenda for action. If you wish to be heard, come to the podium and give your name for the record. The amount of discussion, as well as the amount of time any single speaker is allowed, may be limited. All comments made under this item for specific action items will be cross-referenced to those items. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak under this portion of the agenda at this time? Seeing none, then we'll move on to agenda item five. May we have a motion to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of August 11th, 2026?

I move to approve.

Commissioner LeBeau? Aye.

Motion carries. And with that, we are moving on to our housekeeping items. Are there any items that commissioners, staff, applicants, or members of the public would like to pull forward or for action? Does anyone wish to speak on said items?

Madam Chair, Nicole Eddowes for the record and we have a few housekeeping items tonight. The applicant is requesting to hold item number 16 to the October 13th Planning Commission meeting. The applicant is requesting to hold item number 17 to the October 13th Planning Commission meeting and the applicant is requesting to hold item number 38 to the October 13th Planning Commission meeting. Thank you.

Thank you. Would you like to speak at this time? Please give your name for the record.

Nancy Ebenson, 520 South 4th Street. I'm here on behalf of the applicant for item number 20. We request that be obeyed until the October 13th Planning Commission meeting.

Thank you. That is noted for the record.

Vice Chair, may I have a motion?

Yes, Madam Chair. Through you on items 16, 17, 30, and 38, I move to hold these items in advance till the October 13th, 2026 Planning Commission hearing.

Aye. Aye. Was that an aye from Commissioner LeBow and Commissioner Walters? Commissioner Walters?

Yes.

It's not registering, though.

Motion carries. And with that, that brings us to our consent items. Consent items are considered routine by the Planning Commission and may be enacted by one motion. However, any item may be discussed if a commission member or applicant so desires. Vice Chair, may I have a motion for approval on consent item number seven?

Yes, Madam Chair. I move to approve on item number seven and eight.

Aye.

Yes. Commissioner LeBow? Yes. Aye.

Motion carries.

Madam Chair, items number seven, eight are final action unless appealed to the city clerk within seven days. Thank you.

Thank you. That brings us to the one motion, one vote agenda. The following are items that may be considered in one motion, one vote. They are considered routine, non-public, and public hearing items with a staff recommendation of approval. All public hearings and non-public hearings will be open at one time. Any person representing an application or a member of the public or a member of the Planning Commission not in agreement with the conditions and all standard conditions for the application recommended by staff should request to have that item removed from this part of the agenda. Starting with agenda item 926-0121-SUP1, applicant owner Lee J. LLC for possible action on land use entitlement project request for proposed rental store use with a waiver of Appendix F Interim Downtown Las Vegas Development Standards Area 2. at 731 South 7th Street. Agenda item 10, 26-0303, VAC1, applicant 95, management owner, KB Holmes, Las Vegas, Inc., et al., for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for a petition to vacate a portion of right-of-way Sky Edge Drive, generally located on the east side of Sky Edge Drive, approximately 1,300 feet south of Sky Ridge Parkway. Agenda item 11, 26-0320, SUP1, applicant 0, India Catering, Inc., Owner Mercado888, LLC, for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for a major amendment to approve special use permit 25-0320SUP1 for proposed alcohol off-premise ancillary use, beer and wine, within an existing 1,510 square foot alcohol on-premise use at 1118 South Rainbow Boulevard. Agenda item 12. 26-0325, SUP 1, applicant Boom Bang Fine Foods and Cocktails, owner, City of Las Vegas, for possible action on the land use entitlement project request for a proposed 2,637 square foot alcohol on-premise full use at 70 East Bonneville Avenue. And finally, agenda item 13, 26-0346, SDR 1. Applicant Garrett B. Logan, owner at L. Walker LLC, for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for a site development plan review for a proposed parking facility with waivers of Appendix F Interim Downtown Las Vegas Development Standards Area 2 at the southeast corner of Bonneville Avenue and 8th Street. Vice Chair, may I please have a motion? Sorry, now open for public hearing at this time for the one motion, one vote. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak on any of those agenda items? Seeing none, I will close public hearing. And Vice Chair?

Yes, Madam Chair, through you, I'd like to make a motion to approve items 9 through 13 on the one motion, one vote subject to staff's conditions.

Motion carries.

Madam Chair, items 9, 10, and 11, and 13 will move forward to the October 21st City Council meeting. And item number 12 is final action unless appealed to the city clerk within 10 days. Thank you.

Thank you. That brings us to our public hearing items for the evening. I will be taking one item out of order. I will be pulling forward agenda item 40. So at this time, agenda item 40, 26-0289DIR1, applicant owner, City of Las Vegas, discussion for possible action on a report by Seth Floyd, Director of Community Development, regarding the implementation of the City of Las Vegas 2050 Master Plan. Staff may please get the report.

Good evening Madam Chair, members of the Planning Commission, Marco Vallada, City of Las Vegas, Department of Community Development for the record. The item before you tonight is our annual report on the implementation of the 2050 Master Plan and this is an opportunity that we take and that we've done for the past five years to provide you some updates on how things have gone over the last year as well as some opportunities for you to provide recommendations that we will carry forward to the City Council at their meeting in October for discussion. This comes at the tail end of the 2020 strategic strategic plan sunsetting and a new strategic plan being implemented and I'll get into that a little bit as well as go over some highlights. Just to recap for the commissioners who are seeing this for the first time, in the 2050 master plan we have goals that are embedded throughout the cover, a wide range of subjects and actions that can be done by the city or by associated regional partners. or policies that can be done to help implement the plan. Outcomes within that plan help measure or shorten our long-term progress, and we measure about 50 of them in addition to a number of other ones to see how we're doing over time. And for the last couple of years now, we've been able to build up some data points, and we have those available on our website, masterplan.vegas, and our dashboard that's embedded on there. and we've been able to see some of our progress. So going chapter by chapter of the master plan, you can kind of see where we've had some positive performance or improvements in trends, where we've had a little bit of a slide here and there, some things that we're not hitting the benchmarks on or those long-term outcomes, or things that have more or less just stayed the same. And those are within the hard copy version of the report that's in front of you. And over the last year or so, we've been able to provide some updates on each one of those and get some temporal trends as well. In terms of The land use and development chapter, we've seen a lot of our growth focused in the west and the northwest, counterbalanced with infill and redevelopment in downtown Las Vegas and along some of the major corridors. And a lot of that is thanks to the adoption of our special area plans along the way. We've had... A number of them that have come into effect over the last year, Charleston, La Madre Foothills, and Kyle Canyon are the two that are most recent, as well as some new ones that are about to kick off. Downtown South, Angel Park, and Twin Lakes are the next that we're doing public outreach on. And we've just awarded a contract for downtown south coming up this month at the last city council meeting. As you'd expect, new housing in Summerlin West and Monument Hills and in the Cow Canyon area, Sky Summit, for example, those of all been our high growth areas. But at the same time, we've also seen quite a bit of activity that's in the infill form. And that is really what the 2050 Master Plan has been trying to do, because we are landlocked and we do not have growth opportunities further in the west. or to the northwest of us. So we've seen activity in Symphony Park, a lot of new mixed-use residential that has come online. It is a higher-end product, but we've also seen new development activity in the historic west side. We have development agreements that have come into effect for the Cashman Complex and Grant Sawyer. I think at the time of that picture, it was just getting started, and now it is almost, if not completely, knocked down at this point. The same thing will happen with Desert Pines. and East Las Vegas and the golf course will be redeveloped. So these are all infill opportunities that were talked about in the master plan. What we haven't seen a lot of is growth in the arterial corridors themselves. We have seen some activity in places like the Arts District and then Fremont East But that's the next area of focus, and thanks to the Planning Commission and the City Council's adoption of the transit-oriented development overlay, we'll have the ability to start infill and redevelopment on corridors like Maryland Parkway and Charleston. Maryland Parkway just had new high capacity service that just started on August 23rd. We're going through an alternatives analysis right now for either light rail or some other form of high capacity transit on Charleston Boulevard. The same thing is happening on Boulder Highway and Henderson right now to form up a major system that will be accessible valley-wide. So those policies, coupled with things like the establishment of redevelopment area three in East Las Vegas, incentives for attainable housing that were authorized under Assembly Bill 540 in the last legislative session, updates to our parking standards, and right-sizing our parking, which will be in front of City Council in a couple of months, All of those have helped complement infill and redevelopment opportunities, and we're hoping that over the next year and years to come, we'll start seeing more growth between downtown Las Vegas and the suburbs to the west and to the east of it. As mentioned, over much of the last year, city council was developing a new strategic plan and that was adopted over the summer and it focuses on four strategic priorities, public safety, healthcare, economic development, housing and homelessness. And each of those areas have sub categories that go into specific things that individual departments can do, including community development, where we have the greatest nexus, of course, with housing and homelessness and economic development. So over the last year, I mean, we've seen that visitor volume has been a little bit flat. Air traffic at the airport has been down 7%, and the Average daily traffic at the state line has seen a little bit of modest growth, and a lot of national and regional economic trends have been at play for that. Tourism has continued to slow down, according to a lot of the metrics from the LVCVA. Fewer tourists have come in, and there has been declines in visitor spending and broader hesitancy and consumer caution from things like inflation and national economic uncertainty. That does have impacts to other sectors of the economy and highlighting the need for that increased diversification. But we have a lot to look forward to. I mean, this is now a major sports town. We have the 2027 college football playoffs coming up, the 2028 NCAA men's Final Four basketball tournament, Super Bowl 63. And then we're entertaining an expansion team for the NBA. All this highlights that we have a lot coming in the next couple of years, and we need to continue to watch the impacts on the national trends, on our local tourism, especially in light of what's been going on and hoping to bolster what we've already built on in successes regionally and have that trickle down to the city itself. Simultaneously, we have to address that economic diversification piece and we have many opportunities, especially in the medical district. We have new things coming online. elsewhere in the region such as a specialized children's hospital there are other opportunities for new and event innovative investments in medical care and specialized care that can take place in the medical district itself and adjacent to it and we've seen some of that expand and creep out of downtown Las Vegas itself with respect to housing The median price of single-family homes sold in Southern Nevada in July 2026 reached a new record peak at about $490,000. And that's, again, setting new records. And the primary drivers of those housing prices, of course, have been the in-migration of residents regionally. But we've also seen a flattening in rent prices. We don't see that necessarily reflected on these maps. But there are a lot of signs that in that sector in particular, things are starting to stabilize. It's something we'll have to continue to monitor over the year. At a federal level, the 21st Century Road to Housing Act became law in July, and that does help a little bit. It does impose corporate investor limits on home ownership, and it establishes new grants programs and helps streamline NEPA reviews, but there is definitely a need and an imperative for looks at land sales, other components that are driving up the price of housing. Land costs have increased for all types of developments, and affordable housing production has been considerably slow and not at the rates necessary to fulfill the need, as we have heard over the last year. However, as with 2025 in the legislative session, we can expect in the 2027 session We'll likely have more policy changes in funding for housing development incentives, and we have started to provide matching funds on building permits. We have provided for density bonuses. We have provided expedited reviews for housing to meet new requirements new tiers going all the way up to 150 percent area median income that's something that we've only started to see the success of but we're continuing to push that program and hopefully with those incentives and the and the money that's been allocated to the city we can see that continue to grow As far as some of the environmental considerations that the master plan discusses, we have been the leader in the American West when it comes to water conservation. But as we've heard in the media and as you can go see for yourselves out at Lake Mead itself, the elevations of the reservoirs have reached record lows. And after years of negotiations with the basin states, the Colorado River allocation has been cut, as it has for Arizona and California as well, with only voluntary reductions in the allocations for the upper basin states. The Department of Interior's operating guidelines require a 20% cut And that means approximately 86,000 acre feet. So for the next two years, we're able to withstand that thanks to a lot of Southern Nevada Water Authority's efforts and some of the ordinances that the city council has imposed, including the turf limitations and evaporative cooling moratoria. But even with the savings from those plans, Lake Mead is projected to hit on or around 1,000 feet in elevation by summer 2028, and that's 35 feet below its current level today. There's other concerns that we have to be aware of as well. A LITTLE ON THE ENGINEERING SIDE FROM A TECHNICAL STANDPOINT, LAKE POWELL AND GLEN CANYON DAM IN PARTICULAR ARE HAVING THEIR OWN ISSUES. THERE IS NOT A LOT OF BACKSTOP IN THE RESERVOIRS UPSTREAM FROM LAKE POWELL TO HELP GET WATER THROUGH THE SYSTEM. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS A REGIONAL CONCERN. IT WILL BE SOMETHING THAT WE'LL NEED TO CONTINUE TO MONITOR This has national implications, but we, as a community, have to, again, continue on with the conservation efforts, and SNWA, as the water purveyor, is serving as our leader in terms of negotiations, both on the judicial side as well as on the policy side. Heat is the other issue that we've been closely watching. We have implemented the urban forestry management plan and we've been planting trees throughout the community, especially in and around downtown Las Vegas and East Las Vegas where it's most pronounced. But we've also, through the planning commission, there's been the adoption of the other aspect of Assembly Bill 96 on heat mitigation, dealing specifically with drinking water, cool building practices, and shading. Those efforts are going to continue and what will be in front of you in a couple of meetings will be a code update with respect to Title 19 as well as a complimentary amendment to Title 13 specifically addressing shading and urban forestry management from a development standpoint, addressing public and private trees. Again, to help with the cooling and combating the urban heat island effect, urban forestry is one of the main ways to help combat it, but it has to include the most water efficient trees possible and that provide the best benefit in terms of shading. In terms of final recommendations to sum up here, we have recommended that we continue on with our transit-oriented development efforts in concert with those new transit corridors that have come online or will be coming online over the next couple of years and overlay that with the complementary housing policies and incentives that have been adopted and give those a chance to work to help with affordability and new housing production. That can be done through those outreach efforts in downtown south and elsewhere along the Charleston corridor to start. We also have some transportation-oriented efforts that are going along simultaneously. One thing to pay particular attention to is the long-term sustained transit funding. RTC in particular has been facing a shortfall in transit operational funding for some time now. This next year or this next session will be pivotal for them to increase their overall operating revenues that have started to erode since the ballot question in 2000. help provide operating support. We'll make, because this is the fifth year of the implementation of the master plan, we will provide some refreshed data and information and do an overall comprehensive review so this time next year you have an idea of what has happened at a much more surgical detail. We'll provide some updates from our Mobility Master Plan, which has been wrapping up, as well as some other efforts that are in line with the City Council Strategic Plan. This is now time for the Planning Commission. If there are any recommendations or anything that you would like to pass along to City Council or any questions that you would like for us to pay attention to, or to help address in terms of the master plan and its implementation, we'd be more than happy to answer it at this time. Thank you.

Thank you so much for the presentation. I will open up for public hearing at the moment. Is there anyone who would like to speak at this time? And seeing none, I will turn it over to members of the commission. Is there any other member of the commission that has any comments or anything they'd like to add?

If I may, Madam Chair, just a couple of questions. Thank you, Mr. Vallotta, for your presentation. Always appreciate the thoroughness and all the detail you put into all of your work, and it's always so comprehensive. I just wanted to ask you, on page 11 of the annual report, you've got a note about environmental justice, and then we also talked about urban heat mitigation and urban forestry. And so I just wondered if When you talk about environmental justice, does that include the excess heat in some of our urban areas and the impact that that has on lower income folks and their energy bills? And I don't know if that's something you can talk about a little bit.

Mark of a lot of for the record through the chair to you Commissioner yes that is in one of the chapters that kind of speaks to another chapter in another section and actually the new urban heat mitigation plan that the Planning Commission adopted they they're intended to work together and yes the focus of a lot of the urban heat mitigation is in West Las Vegas, East Las Vegas, downtown, the Charleston corridor, places where the demographics and socioeconomics are all working either with each other or against each other as the case may be. And heat, in that case, where you have a lot of those factors converging, that's where a lot of the efforts have been focused. So on the urban forestry side, for example, we do have a community forestry grant where we've been providing a free tree or two free trees to homeowners within those areas and now expanding it up to additional residential property types. to plant and to provide some shading into coverage. Some of the other recommendations from this section and from the heat mitigation section will focus on the building stock and things like shading. That is something that has been brought up at the RTC's heat summit where we have a heat after action Report that's coming up with the county and a couple of other jurisdictional partners Later this month I would expect that from that will be reporting on what are the cool infrastructure? Investments that need to be made and the focus is going to be in the the urban core for sure And then I have one other question Madam chair will indulge me

When you were looking at sort of some of the housing stock and inventory and housing more broadly, has there been any analysis, given that we are landlocked, given that we do have limited opportunities for the MLS, you know, for properties to be on the MLS, about what the percentage is of when we have multifamily, are we having, what is the percentage of multifamily that is rental apartments versus multifamily that has got an opportunity for ownership? because that's a question I've been asking because it causes me concern. And I have not been able to get an answer from either the development community or really staff because I know it's a lot of work. But as we look at projects that come forward that are apartments or rentals, what is that doing to opportunities for ownership within the community because we are giving up that land for rentals? So I don't know if you have any numbers on the percentage of what we have that's multifamily rental versus multifamily owned. But I would really appreciate that. And I do think that is something that the city needs to take a look at. I know there's been just a push to get units because we need them. But I don't know that it isn't worth taking a look at that next iteration and saying, should we always be pushing for units if it means that we're taking away land that could go for ownership?

Mark of a lot of for the record so in terms of housing tenure the amount of rent people who rent has been on the decline as you might suspect and that has happened year over year for the last five years we're roughly at a forty to forty to fifty eight percent division in terms of rental versus owner across all property types. And then when you segment that down and you look at individual areas all across the city, yeah, that number has started to decline for the rental share throughout. About 60% of the city's housing stock is single family residential and the rest of it is multifamily. And within that, yes, we do get into individual components of how much. And as you've heard over the last couple of updates on this, that has been declining in terms of those opportunities to own versus renting to own for some of the reasons like institutional investing, things to that effect. The federal act that just passed, that's supposed to help curb some of that. I think, I don't want to speculate too much, but Congress's intent was to get a little bit more in the weeds on that, and what ended up passing was a lot broader. So we're going to have to take time, and they might have to come back to revisit how that particular policy worked. But I would suspect in the 2027 legislative session, you might see more efforts from our legislators themselves to get at that particular problem to increase the either on the rental side or on the home ownership side to increase the amount of opportunities there are for first-time home buyers and for renters who are just looking for something that's affordable and attainable to live in.

Okay, thank you very much. But within the 40% that's multifamily, do you happen to know a number of rentals, like apartments, versus what used to be that initial ownership opportunity, which was condos?

I'd have to do the math on it.

Yeah, I know it's like a dig into it kind of number, but thank you so much.

Seeing no other comments on the commission, Vice Chair, can I have a motion?

Yes, Madam Chair, on item number 40, move to approve.

Aye. Aye.

Commissioner Taylor?

Aye.

Motion carries.

Madam Chair, that item will move forward to City Council on October 21st. Thank you.

Thank you. And with that, we are also going to take a few other items out of order. The reason for that is I know we have a lot of children in the audience for certain agenda items and in the interest of Trying to make sure that they can go home soon. We are moving them up, so I will be pulling forward agenda item 27, 29, 31, and 36 to the front of the agenda.

And Madam Chair, may I?

Oh, sorry, we have to correct a motion.

Yes, Madam Chair, I'm going to retract the motion on the housekeeping items. Make a motion to retract it.

Commissioners Taylor. Aye.

Motion carries.

Okay. And Madam Chair, I'm going to correct this item and Nancy is number 20, right? Okay. So I'm going to make a motion to hold items 16, 17, 20, and 38 till the October 13th, 2026 plan commission hearing.

Commissioner Semple. Aye. Commissioner Taylor. Aye.

Motion carries. And with that, I open up the agenda item number 2726-0323, applicant Keisha Gray. Okay. owner Gray Family Revocable Trust for possible action of the following land use entitlement project requests at 1924 H Street, 27A 26-0323 VAR 1 to allow two parking spaces where four are required, 27B 26-0323 SUP 1 for an existing individual care group home child care use with waivers of Title 19.12 minimum lot size and vehicular access requirements. Staff, can I please get the report?

Yes, Madam Chair, this is Christian Gates, Department of Community Development. For the record, no unique or extraordinary circumstance has been presented in that the applicant has created a self-imposed hardship by providing insufficient on-site parking for the existing child care facility. Additionally, the requested waivers of Title 19-12 requirements demonstrate the incompatibility of the use with the surrounding area. As such, staff recommends denial of all requested entitlements subject to conditions if approved. Please note, additional documentation of protests has been received since publication. Thank you.

Thank you.

Please state your name for the record. Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Keisha Gray. I reside at 1924 H Street, and I am the owner of Keys Kids Child Care. I have operated for 25 years, and I am the only nationally accredited in-home daycare in Las Vegas. I have a five-star rating with QRIS and recommended by the Better Business Bureau. These accomplishments represent years of dedication, training, and accountability and commitment for the children and families that I serve. I am here because I want to continue to provide families with high-quality care that they have trusted for many years. I do understand the importance of protecting the character of the neighborhood, maintaining the safety, safety and addressing concerns such as traffic, parking, and noise. I am committed to being responsible and professional. And since then, those signs have been removed. I respectfully ask the commission to consider my 25-year history, my proven records, my professional accomplishments, and the families who depend on me. My goal is to serve the community and help provide a safe, stable, and high quality place for children to grow and learn. I have documentations from families and neighbors in my community, and I also have records to support all my accomplishments over the 25 years of my experience. I thank the commission for considering my application and thank all the families and the neighbors and my colleagues that support me here today.

Thank you so much. And at this time, I will open up for public comment. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak at this time? Please come forward and state your name for the record.

My name is Beth Hart, and I am the accreditation chair for the National Association of Family Child Care. And I've been in the child care industry for over 30 years. And Miss Keisha has a very good business. She runs it very respectfully. She has children that she watched when they were young are now bringing their own children to her. And she... is a good steward to her neighbors. She has an elderly neighbor on one side that doesn't get around much and she always brings him food, checks on him and makes sure he's doing okay. She is very active in her community and the historic west side is part of Keys Kids and they do acknowledge the parking but the parking isn't really a big issue because The parents drop off, they leave, they're there for five, maybe 10 minutes, and then they move on. They stagger the drop-offs and the pickups, so there's never really an issue with parking.

Perfect, thank you. Is there anyone in the audience at this time who would like to speak on this agenda item? Please come down and state your name for the record. And anyone else who would like to speak, you're welcome to come down and line up at the microphone.

Hi, my name is Wanda Beckett. I'm also an employee of Key's Kids since I've retired and so forth. I think I want to bring up the fact that we're living in a society right now where the feds are putting all these rules and policies into place, and they're not taking into consideration the end result of what of how it's impacting the community and us economically. And I think we're all feeling that. And this is a situation where these businesses, these daycares have been in business all this time. For her, it's been over 25 years of serving the community. And now you're coming up with these new rules for her to follow when she's complied with everything. Your county, your state comes in and uses her to train their staff, and yet you're going to come in and now subject her to this economic impact. And not only impacts the people that are working there, it also impacts the parents. Because if she's subjected to this, she might have to reduce the number of kids that she's going to have in our center, which means who's going to have to go? What parent is she going to have to say, I cannot provide this service to? It happens all the time. The federal funding has been cut. The state funding, as far as subsidizing the services the poor that are trying to work and get out of that situation. And now you're coming along with this 25-year-old business that's been there all this time, serving generations, okay? And you're subjecting her to these new changes which make no sense for where she is. you haven't taken into consideration or even looked at her facility to see what she is providing in that community. And so that's why we're here, to tell you how she has impacted those people. And you need to take, I would expect, that if they're not doing it at the federal level, but at least at the city level, that you'll take into consideration how this is going to impact the working poor. Because you're telling them she cannot watch their children now because of these economic impacts that you have placed upon her. And so they're looking at her and say, I can't go to work. So there you have an impact on that. So now you have another family that can't go to work to get out of their situation because you've passed these rules and not totally looked into the feasibility of what you're doing. This is what's happening at the federal level. And it has to stop somewhere. Because it's not right. It's not right that we're being subjected to this by the federal government and having to live through all this. And now you're doing it at the city level and passing policies and not looking into the total aspects of what this is gonna put, what strain this is gonna put on the businesses themselves that have been run successfully, and I mean successfully, the impact on the parents that are gonna be turned away because they can't be served, okay, which affects the economy. And basically, that's all I have to say. I totally support her. I don't think this is fair, what you're doing here. And I don't think you did a feasibility study to see the total impact all the way down the line, to look at how this is going to impact even the parents in this situation.

No, we appreciate your comments at the time. And they are noted for the record. Just in the interest, because I know we have quite a few people in the audience, I will be setting a timer for two minutes for public comment. But please state your name for the record. Each one can have two minutes. Thank you.

Good evening, my name is Sydney Whiteman, and I am here to support Miss Keisha with her daycare. My daughter recently began attending Keys Kids, and I chose this program because it provides affordable, high quality care within our community. I also work in the historic west side. I currently pay around $300 per week for childcare. Before going to Keys Kids, I was quoted roughly between $450, $500 a week for a quality daycare, such as kindercare in those places, and for the same quality care, if not better at Ms. Keys' facility, I'm able to afford. Finding quality care at that price is almost unheard of in Las Vegas, and for working families, having access to dependable care that is both high quality and affordable is incredibly valuable. Keys Kids is also a QRIS accredited program, demonstrating her commitment to maintaining high standards and supporting children's development. I am an assistant principal in the neighborhood, and I know firsthand the impact of quality early childhood development. And without quality care, there is an impact when students enter kindergarten that is extremely stressful on teachers. Over time, programs like this can strengthen student achievement in the schools serving the surrounding neighborhood, especially increasing star ratings. I also want to speak directly to the parking and traffic concerns. During the past several weeks that my daughter has attended, I have not experienced any parking difficulties or traffic congestion. There's always an open space for a parent to drop off and pick up. I can't remember who said it was about five to 10 minutes per parent. I would say it's even less than that. I have personally observed the two parking spaces not interfere with the daycare's operations in the neighborhood. And if the commission still has concerns about parking, traffic, or access, I do respectfully ask that those concerns be addressed through a reasonable operating conditions rather than denying the application. Keys Kids offers a safe, personal, and affordable early learning environment. Is that the time? Thank you.

Please state your name for the record. Good evening. My name is Glenisha Mullet. And I am owner of Children's Development Center, which is literally walking distance from Keys Kids Daycare. And I'm just here to support Keys Kids Daycare and to just let the commission know that I too love Keys Kids. I'm very fond of the quality when it comes to early childhood development. And I have been working one-on-one with Keisha to hopefully one day get my center to the level of quality care that she has her center now. So I'm truly grateful for the networking opportunity that I have had with her and would like to keep that going with her if she remains and you guys can consider the accommodations that she's asking for today. Thank you.

Thank you. Please state your name for the record.

Kenneth Wilkins. So I'm just coming to support, also use Keisha's services. I'm a single dad. So before I found her, was that another place? They were $1,800 a month. So the Urban League was hoping to supplement that. Then they cut that. And then that posed an issue because of limited income. So then found Keisha's place. And believe it or not, it's like I trust her with my son, right? This other place was like it had all the bells and whistles, but they had way too many red flags over there. And they're making hand over fist money. Way too many red flags over there. I would come pick him up. and it would just be like snot, just dried all on his face. It was a trip and it was just too many children with not enough caregivers that were there. So anyway, I trust Keisha with my son. I think it's impressive that she's been here 25 years, not one single complaint. Not one. She has the accolades. She has the things, the recognition. And as far as the traffic, I don't know where you guys came up with that from. There's hardly even any traffic really rolling down that street. And that's even during traffic hours at 5 o'clock. It's not a problem that's over there. So even to use that, I mean, I would just say that you would consider that. Thank you for You know, hearing me, I just wanted to speak on that.

Thank you.

All right, I gotta go.

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

Good evening, council members. My name is Shania Wade, and I am a PhD student in early childhood education at UNLV. And I just wanted to come out and show my support for Miss Keisha at Keys Kids. When I started doing QRIS, she was one of the first providers who let me come in her house to learn the quality rating scale. And so I have that firsthand experience on how professional, how safe, how interactive. And if you guys aren't familiar with the Fikker's book, please look it up, because she's the only five-star provider in Nevada and also the only accredited provider nationally in Nevada. And I think that's like a huge accomplishment, especially where her location is and how long she has been in her location. Another thing that I wanted to point out is that we have family childcare facilities that are licensed up for six kids. And the only difference between family childcare and Ms. Keisha is the amount of kids that she's licensed for. I don't know if you've ever been to her daycare. Let's go fast. I don't know if you've ever been to her daycare, but she uses the entire room. She has a small space for her own living quarters, the entire house. Also... I forgot what I wanted to say. Just to let you know, again, family child care, licensed for six, do not require special use. This group that is coming up, she helps more communities, and now we're trying to hold that against her. I mean, helps more family in the community, and now we're holding that against her. So I just wanted to bring that to your attention as well. Thank you, Ms. Keisha.

Just in case there are questions from the Commission, I'll have these stay up. But with this at that, I will be closing public comment, turning over to members of the Commission, starting with Commissioner Walters.

Hello. Hi, Keisha. I just want to say you are providing a much-needed service to this area of the city, and thank you for your 25 years of serving. You have very supportive neighbors and community. I also drove by there, and I don't see any issues with the parking scenario, and I want to say thank you for maintaining your high standards through accreditation status with QRIS. So if there are any other comments, I'm ready to make a motion. Okay, I move to approve the item 260323, subject to staff conditions. Do you agree with staff conditions?

Yes.

Yes.

Motion carries.

Madam Chair, that item is final action unless appealed to the city clerk within 10 days.

Thank you.

Thank you. And with that, we will open up the agenda item 29, and that is 29-26-0335, applicant owner Ricardo Coraz and Norma Alanis-Canas, for possible action on the following land use entitlement project request at 9140 Bay Singer Drive, 29A-26-0335, VAIR 1, to allow three parking spaces where five are required. 29B26-0335, SUP1, for an existing individual care group home child care use with a waiver of Title 19.12, minimum lot size requirements. Staff, may I please get the report?

Yes, Madam Chair. Due to the requested parking variance, staff is not able to support the requested entitlements and recommends denial of both. If approved, they will be subject to conditions. Thank you.

Thank you.

Please state your name for the record. Yes, my name is Norma Alanis. So I can say a little bit, right? Okay, just try to, I don't speak English very well, but I'll try to explain myself. I've been open since the COVID, since April 1st. I used to be a food server. So I have a passion and a big house to share. And I decided to go for the daycare. So I've been open, but this is not only, I don't want to repeat all that these special people say. It's all that truth. It's only five minutes for parents to pick up and drop off the kids. These kids are not only kids. This is like our kids. We are the family. This is a second home because they come since they're four months, five months, a year, and they're living when they're five years old. So this is a home for them. This is very important place for parents. Believe me, when they told me about closing, I wasn't even thinking of me. I wasn't thinking on all these kids. You love your kids. You want your kids being taken care. This, telling a little bit different, my friends tell, we feed the squid with the homemade food. Tell me who else have it. which big daycare, which school have able to give a hug for the kids. When they have 18, 20 kids per person, here with only one person for every six kids. So we able to provide equality, love, food, patience. Our new era, our new era, it's about ADHD. It's about autistic kids. Big place is what they do. They cannot handle it. They have rules. We welcome them. Half of my group has these conditions that might not be addressed, might not be diagnosed, but I can notice it very easily because I'm one of them. So I just ask please, I'm not planning to be that long because this is a very hard job, but it is a very great and special job and we put our heart in it. The kids love us. Obviously they don't know they pay us, but this is a great opportunity for us to make a change on these kids' and families' lives. So please give us approval. Now I know I'm in front of important people. I know. So I ask you, you can do it. You can handle it. Open more places like this. Support our employees. We need insurance. We need support to our employees. We give as much as we can, but we need help. These kids deserve it. These families deserve it. So that's all I'm asking for. support us, help us, know a little bit more in person what we're living on, what we're doing. For kids, it's not a number. It's our kids. It's our family. So that's all that I have to say. Thank you very much.

Thank you. And with that, I will open it for public comment. Is there anyone in the audience at this time who would like to speak on this agenda item? Please come forward and state your name for the record. Brittany Buda.

Hi. I just actually met her and have been listening to what's been going on with the pre-K or the kinder or the young early childhood facility issues. And while I'm totally not well versed, I would like to just put it out there. As an educator myself, these programs are so detrimental to our students. We have first graders coming in who have never even been to school, have no socialization. simply because the parents cannot afford it. Smaller facilities like this and like hers, they're the only thing keeping our community in any way, shape, or form together so that by time they do get to public education, they have some kind of standing to stand on. I do work with special education more directly, and I would totally agree. Our students who come in who are low functioning, high autism, they need as much support as early as humanly possible to get. Thank you.

Keep her in business.

We need her. As educators, we need businesses like this.

Thank you so much. And with that, is there anyone else in the audience at this time? Seeing none, I will close public comment at this time and turn it over to members of the commission. So this is ward four. This is my ward. And I completely agree with some of the prior comments. I do think it's a necessary use. The parking variance, I have no issue supporting. So at this time, if there are any other comments on the commission, I am happy. Commissioner LeBeau?

Yeah, I just, I wanted to say that, you know, personally, I have a staff member that is a single young mom and has really struggled to find, you know, quality childcare that she can afford. And she lives in the central part of the valley. And I've personally helped her try to locate facilities, and it's nearly impossible. So I want to say I support everybody who's on this mission and doing this work, and it's definitely something that we really need in this city and to continue it.

No, absolutely. Thank you so much. So at this time, if I share, can I have that? Thank you. Thank you. I will just make the motion to support agenda item 29, 29A, 29B, subject to staff conditions. And you do agree with staff conditions? You can nod your head. Yes. Thank you. Motion carries.

Madam Chair, that item is final action unless appealed to the city clerk within 10 days. Thank you.

Thank you. And with that, we are opening up agenda item 31, 26-0345, applicant Shantai Peterson, owner Otis T. Hammer, for possible action on the following land use entitlement project request at 5909 Iris Avenue, 31A, 26-0345, year one, to allow two parking spaces where four are required. 31B26-0345 SUP1 for an existing individual care group home child care use with a waiver of Title 19.12 minimum lot size requirements. Staff may please get the report.

Yes, Madam Chair. Due to the requested parking variance, staff is not able to support the requested entitlements and recommends denial of both. If approved, they will be subject to conditions. Please note additional documentation of support has been received since publication. Thank you.

Thank you. Please state your name for the record.

Good evening, my name is Shante Peterson and I am the owner and operator of Tiny TLC Child Care at 5909 Iris Avenue. Otis Hamer is my father, he's here, and the owner of the home. We are requesting, or I am requesting, a formal waiver or variance or alternative approval for the special use permit. I am supported by my community, my direct neighbors, as well as my surrounding neighbors are in support via the petition I have signed from our open house we completed on July 18th, 2026. The facility has and will continue operating safely while maintaining concurrent active licensure with the Nevada Department of Health and Human Services, an operational health permit with Southern Nevada Health District, and in compliance for non-structural fire and life safety with the State of Nevada Office of the State Fire Marshals for over a decade without neighborhood disruption. BEEN IN BUSINESS AT THAT LOCATION FOR 13 YEARS. I PROVIDE VITAL PRE-K, PRESCHOOL, AND WRAPAROUND CHILD CARE SERVICES SUPPORTING LOCAL WORKING PARENTS AND THE WORKFORCE STABILITY. WE HAVE PARTNERED WITH UNITED WAYS PILOT PROGRAM FOR PRE-K AND PRESCHOOL TO SUPPORT CCSD SCHOOLING OVER THERE IN MY AREA, CULLEE ELEMENTARY. WE ARE CURRENT MEMBERS OF THE NAFCC AND ON THE LIST FOR QRIS. We also accept subsidy for low cost families and majority of my families are low cost. Disrupting the service or subtracting my numbers from 12 to six will put us at risk for forcing parents into unstable or unregulated childcare alternatives and loss of quality care, of course. This put also a strain on my employees. I currently have one full-time employee, as well as myself, one part-time, and four on-call quality teachers, all of which have our associates in child development, or our CDA. We are seeking the planning and zoning approval to operate a small professional in-home child care facility backed by state business license, my number, NB20161063662, and a state child care licensing unit. The request for a special use permit waiver is to prevent unnecessary administrative burdens, ensuring the uninterrupted, high-quality operation of essential community child care resource. We utilize three-quarters of my home, the entire living room, the entire dining room, and an entire bedroom for child care in my home. We use a very small portion for myself and my children. I am open and operate licensed Sunday through Saturday from 5 a.m. to 10 p.m. And I'm closed majority holidays. Parking is not an issue. Kids come in less than five minutes, unless we're having a family engagement, which we do monthly. Currently, I'm only providing service from 6.30 AM to 5.30 PM. We minimize traffic, of course, according to our drop off and our stagnant times. Did we have any questions?

No, if that is all, thank you. And I'm going to open it for public comment at this time. Is there anyone for this agenda item that would like to speak at this time? Seeing none, I will close public comment and turn it over to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Schlottman.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. I've reviewed this. There's very little traffic on your street, and there's no opposition. So I'm ready to make a motion on this one.

Please do.

On item number 31, move to approve subject to staff's conditions, and you agree to all staff's conditions have approved?

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Motion carried.

Madam Chair, that item is final action unless appealed to the city clerk within 10 days.

And with that, I am opening up agenda item 36, 26-0354, applicant 26. I'm sorry, Taya Da Silva, owner Neith Diaz, and Taya Da Silva, Wicker Messing, Iraq 2K, for possible action on the following land use entitlement project request at 5817 Alta Drive, 36A 26-0354 VAR 1 to allow two parking spaces where four are required, 36B 26-0354 SUP 1 for an existing individual care group home child care use, With waivers of Title 19.12 minimum lot size and vehicular access requirements, staff, can I please get the report?

Madam Chair, due to the requested parking variance, staff is not able to support the requested special use permit and recommends denial of both. Please note additional documentation of protest was received after publication. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Please state your name for the record. Hi, I'm Teddy Silva. Take care. Hi, can you please come closer to the mic and repeat your name? Tanya De Silva.

Tanya is going to speak. I will speak on behalf of her.

Perfect. Can you please also spell the name for the record?

Yes, sure. Thank you. Good afternoon to everybody. I'm Tanya Joakim. I'm working with her. She's Tanya De Silva, the owner of Little Kids and Me Family Child Care. I respectfully ask for your consideration and approval for a special use permit, which is extremely important to the future of our childcare facility and the families we serve. She has seven years experience in teaching childcare, but we started the business in March 29, 2024. We have taken the necessary steps to operate responsibly and meet the requirements of the agencies that oversees childcare. We have obtained our license through Children's Cabinet, and we have completed required fire and health inspections. We are also proud to have received a four-star rating through QRIS. which reflects our commitment to provide quality care and continuously improving the service we offer to children and families. A family childcare home, little kids and me, is more than simply a place where parents have their children while they go to work. It is a second home for the children in our care. Many of the families we serve are working parents who depend on reliable, safe and affordable childcare so they can go to work, attend school or provide their families. When parents know their children are safe, cared for learning, eating properly and receiving individual attention, they can go to work with a peaceful mind. For the children, a smaller family childcare setting provides something very special. Children receive personal attention and develop strong relationships with their caregivers and other children. We help them develop social skills, independence, communication, confidence and early learning skills. We want every children who come through our doors to feel valued, respected and loved. We also understand the responsibility that comes with caring for young children. We take safety, cleanliness, supervision, nutrition and the children's emotional well-being very seriously. Our goal has always been to maintain a professional and welcoming environment while still providing the warmth and professional attention to family child care. Obtaining this special use permit is extremely important to us. Without the approval, it becomes very difficult for us to continue operating the business in the manner that allows us to serve the families who depend on us. We have already invented our time, energy, resource and hearts into building Little Kids and Me. We have worked to meet the standards required by the appropriate agencies and we have demonstrated our commitment to quality through our licensing inspections and four-star ratings. We are not simply asking for permission to operate a business. We are asking for the opportunity to continue providing an essential service to children and working families in our community. We couldn't bring our parents. We didn't know that. But I could read you two letters.

No, that's okay, but please submit the letters to one of our staff members and then we can add that to the record, but certainly appreciate you coming down. And with that, I will open up for public comment. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak on this item at this time? Seeing none, I will close public comment. I will open up to members of the Commission, starting with Commissioner Schlottman.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. I've reviewed this item as well. Only concern that I have on this particular project is that it's on Alta. And it's not that I don't feel that it could operate on Alta. I would just like to make sure that the drop-off and the pickup is safe. And I'd like to offer a particular condition of the staff members or your personal vehicles park on the street when kids are being dropped off and picked up? And then I would like to see the parents pull into the driveway to drop off their kids. Would that be something that you would be open to?

They currently do that. The parents pull into the driveway and drop off their children, and the owners of the house park in their garage.

Okay. And then I just want to make sure that that's operating properly, so if we can have a one-year review just to make sure that everything's going smooth and that we don't need to make any adjustments, would you all be fine with that as well? If I can get a yes so it's on the record. Thank you. Okay. If I could ask through you, Madam Chair, for Ms. Eddowes to read a couple of conditions into the record.

Madam Chair, the first added condition would read a one-year administrative review shall be performed one year from date of final approval. The applicant shall be responsible for the application submittal and associated fees. And then the second condition of approval shall read childcare staff members shall utilize street parking for personal vehicles and childcare drop-off and pickup shall occur within the driveway. Thank you.

Okay, and do you agree with both of those conditions? If I can get a yes on the record in the microphone?

Yes, yes, yes.

Okay, thank you. I don't have any other questions, Madam Chair. Okay, on item number 36, that's 26-0354, 36A and B. for 26-0354 VAR 1 and 26-0354 SUP 1. Move to approve subject to staff's conditions and the added conditions as written to the record by Ms. Eddowes.

And that would be for the SUP, the added conditions?

Madam Chair, through you, yes. I apologize. Added to the SUP.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. That is my motion. I'm sorry. No, I have a motion. We haven't voted. I just now voted.

Motion carries.

Madam Chair, that item is final action unless appealed to the city clerk within 10 days. Thank you.

Thank you. With that, we will return. Yes, congratulations. With that, we will return to the regularly noticed agenda. So that starts with agenda item 14, abeyance 26-0228, applicant owner, the Howard Hughes Company, LLC, for possible action of the following land use entitlement project request on the west side of the Park Drift Trail alignment approximately 2,500 feet north of the intersection with Twilight Run Drive and Lake Mead Boulevard, Ward 2. Staff, may I please get the report?

Madam Chair, no evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance has been presented in that the applicant has created a self-imposed hardship by requesting to alter the issued addresses for 45 lots within the residential subdivision. Therefore, staff recommends denial. Thank you.

Thank you. Please state your name for the record.

Good evening, Madam Chair. Stephanie Gronauer, 1980 Festival Plaza Drive, here on behalf of the applicant, Howard Hughes. Thank you.

Also, real quick, just... For purposes of housekeeping, I just want you to confirm real quick before your presentation that the agenda items 26-0228-VR1 through 26-0228-VR45 are correct. If so, then we don't have to read them all into the records.

Yes, that's great. Wonderful. Appreciate that. Thank you. So if I could just quickly direct your attention to this aerial. This is as far west in Summerlin as you can get. So Lake Mead is right here. The Little Red Rocks are located here. So we're basically as far west as you can get. To the west of it is actually Red Rock Conservation Area. This is a planned custom lot community that Howard Hughes has underway actually already. We were before you a little less than two years with phase one of their custom lot community. And in fact, you all approved this map and this set of variances previously. So this was a couple of years ago, kind of the first set of it. You can see off of Twilight Run, There's a gated entryway here. We made a street name change to Astra Canyon that will continue to go up into the second phase that we're here before you with tonight. So this is that second phase of lots. In their custom lots, Howard Hughes has had success with a different numbering with the low digit numbers starting at one. for each of their custom lot communities. So that is consistent with other communities they've done and the reason for the request today. We did hold it to meet with fire. So we very much appreciate fire meeting with us. And my understanding is they have no concerns with this understanding that it is a gated community and that the sequence will continue in those next two phases as well. So there shouldn't be any confusion with the addressing. I do have one request that we would like to change in the conditions of approval. Condition number two on each one of those variances puts a two year expiration on these variances. We'd very much appreciate a four year expiration if possible. The reason is it takes a long time to sell custom lots and so we'll probably be back with an extension of time on that first set I just showed you because those were approved almost two years ago and my understanding is the trigger is the building permit. We'll probably need an extension on those. To avoid that for this set, we'd very much appreciate a revision just to four years so that we don't have to keep coming back before you. But other than that, we very much appreciate your staff working with us and would ask for your approval this evening.

Thank you so much. With that, this item has been noticed for public comment. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak on this agenda item at this time? Seeing none, I will close public comment. Turn it over to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner LeBeau.

Thank you so much. I don't really think that we have any issues as far as the new numbering system goes. I know the fire team has worked on this quite a bit and the prior portion of the site was already passed, like you said, a couple of years ago. So I'd like to go ahead and make a motion to approve.

I am madam chair real quick if I may go ahead and make that correction for the Approval period So we would amend condition of approval number one on all variances variants 1 through 45 So that condition of approval number two would read this approval shall be void four years from the date of final approval and unless exercised pursuant to the provisions of LVMC Title 1916, an extension of time may be filed for consideration by the City of Las Vegas. Thank you.

Okay. With that said, I'd like to motion to approve items A1 through 14A45 subject to all amended conditions.

And you agree to the conditions?

Yes, thank you very much. Motion carries. Thank you very much.

Madam Chair, that is final action unless appealed to the city clerk within 10 days.

Thank you.

Thank you. With that, we move on to agenda item 15, abeyance 26-0259, applicant owner, DIV LLC, for possible action on the following land use entitlement project request at 7610 Osa Blanca Road. 15A, abeyance 26-0259 EOT1, third extension of time, variance BAR 78669 to allow 55 parking spaces where 74 required. 15B, abeyance 26-0259 EOT2, third extension of time, special use permit SUP 78665, major amendment of a previously approved special use permit SUP 65961 for proposed 6,769 square foot liquor establishment tavern alcohol on premise full use. 15C, abeyance 26-0259 EOT3, third extension of Thai special use permit, SUP 78666, major amendment of a previously approved special use permit, SUP 65962, for a proposed 6,769 square foot gaming establishment restricted license used with a waiver to allow such use within 330 feet of a single family detached dwelling, 15D, abeyance 26-0259 EOT 4, third extension of time site development plan review, SDR 78667, major amendment of a previously approved site development plan review, SDR 72415, for a proposed 5,551 square foot two-story tavern with 444 square feet of outdoor dining area, a 774 square foot rooftop dining area, and a 38 foot tall green silo. Staff may please get the report.

Yes, Madam Chair, while the project as proposed remains compatible with the adjacent commercial and residential development, the applicant has had six years under the current approvals to resolve site-related issues and move forward with the project and has not presented a final site design. Staff therefore recommends denial of the requested extension of time applications subject to conditions if approved. If denied, these entitlements would be deemed expired as of June 9th, 2026. Thank you.

Thank you, please state your name for the record.

Andrea Carroll, 1980 Festival Plaza Drive. Madam Chair and Commissioners, thank you for your time this evening. I'm here with the applicant, TIB LLC Lorena Godfrey. And today we would like to kindly request a three-year extension of time in lieu of a two-year extension of time as listed in the condition. The staff report and the letter that we emailed to you all last week outlined the evolution and challenges that we had for this project over the last few years, but more recently is what has been going on with the current NDOT review. Just to give you a little bit of backstory and a little bit of overview of the site, about 40% of the current site is actually buildable. Right now, the remainder of the site is currently an NDOT easement, which allows for just a very narrow sliver of the site, which we did put a building on and a parking garage on so we could accommodate the parking. About four months ago, though, our client and their counsel engaged NDOT to see if they can relinquish a portion of their easement, which any bit that would be relinquished would be a huge benefit to this project as it's already very constrained. This end-op process is a two-year process, and that's the request for the three-year extension in lieu of the typical two. Sago's Tavern is our client, so they've been around for 20 years next month. They have been working diligently on this site. It has been a long time, but there have been a lot of challenges, as you can see. And our clients have worked really, really hard, spent a lot of time, a lot of money. We went through even the building department process. purchased water meters, the whole bit. But this would allow a little bit more time to see if we can make this project a little bit more usable. And we have met with Commissioner Taylor. We have met with Councilwoman Bruni. And we welcome your comments and questions and would greatly appreciate your approval. Thank you so much.

Thank you so much. And would you like to add anything to the record at this time? OK. Wonderful. So this item has been noticed for public comment. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak on this agenda item at this time? Seeing none, I will close public comment, turn it over to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Taylor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks for meeting with me. Thanks for coming down. I know that this has been a challenging project. And as we talked about, as a former state agency employee, I know that that can be very tricky trying to navigate through the state bureaucracy and the approval processes. I know we've talked about the three-year process, and I'm very interested to hear what my fellow commissioners say, but I'm just concerned that we're already six years in and what the precedent would be setting it for three years. And so I'm... My inclination right now is to do the two-year, you know, motion to approve the two-year extension. Again, because you've already been six years down the path. And I know you've had, like, challenge after challenge after challenge. And I want you to get this project up and get steel in the ground and provide another great place for Ward 6 residents to dine and hang out. But I... That's kind of where I'm sitting right now. And so I would welcome, especially any of my colleagues who've been on for a while and have seen these EOTs and what their thoughts might be. I guess I'm looking at you, Commissioner Schlottman.

And I apologize. They're asking for how many years?

They're asking for three years now because they are sort of stuck with NDOT trying to work on this easement. And they're trying to get trying to get another easement or try to get the easement established so that you don't have So that you don't have that constraint on your parking But yeah, that's correct.

Just try to extend the Relinquish a part of the existing easement so they can build on it.

Yeah I have to say I've worked with in dot several times in the past and it's probably the slowest entity that I've ever worked worked with and so I do see why they're asking for the three years versus two years, just because if it comes down to that last little bit and then they have to come in and ask for another extension time, we're going to be looking at them saying, why didn't you ask for enough time? I'd be inclined to give them three years, but that would be your call.

Can I, I'm sorry, I know this seems like a sort of simple issue, and I don't want to beleaguer and drag out the meeting, but to staff, to Mr. Lowenstein, have you, I guess my concern, again, is just that we are now on the third extension of time, which means it's six years, and then we'd be giving them another three years. Have you seen anything like this before? Have you ever granted anything at that level?

Through the chair, so... It is at the Planning Commission or the Council's discretion for extension, so I have seen them. It's not frequent. Certain considerations in doing it. If they get an NDOT easement, does that give them additional property? Then they have to revise their site. Will they be back for a revision to their site? Versus if they don't get the easement, they have their current site configuration, and they go forward with the building permits that have been sitting since 2021, 22. So it's really under consideration of Give them the three just on the chance that they will have it and hopefully it will be an administrative amendment versus coming back to Planning Commission for a redesign of the site anyway. I just don't know how much property they would be benefiting from a vacation of an easement.

Just again, if you can tell us how much would you be getting from the vacation of that easement? What kind of impact on your current site design would it have?

We don't have it drawn here but as I recall it's about a portion about this big which we would hope would hopefully alleviate some of the parking garage, maybe even make the building bigger possibly but construction costs in the past have just risen ever since we planned this parking garage, the parking garage like has pretty much tripled in cost. So yeah, the whole project has tripled really.

And your client owns this parcel, purchased this parcel. It's not just trying to get the entitlements in order to purchase.

Yeah, they've owned this parcel since 2016.

Okay. I just want to make it, I don't know how I make it clear for the record, but like, this is really, to me, very extraordinary because of everything you went through with all of the construction delays and now that you're sitting here waiting for NDOT, and I'm sure Commissioner Schlottman would also wish you luck in trying to expedite that process, but can we have you come back for public hearings once a year until the third year so that you can give us a status? so that at least we know that there is movement, that you're being active, that there's no more delay on your side, and that anything that is causing further delays is sitting with the state.

That would basically be a one-year extension of time, and then they would just keep approving one years to get your status update.

We can't just have them come and check in with us.

I'm sure you could have the council member or yourself reach out personally, but to condition it would.

All right. Then let me do this. As much as it's not sort of where I want to go, I'm going to make a motion for the two-year. And then let's see where we are. Just you can check in with me.

Oh, yeah.

As much as you want. And hopefully NDOT will be a little more speedy than normal. So I'm going to make a motion on item 26-02594 to approve the third extension of time on items A through D for two years. And that's subject to all conditions and you agree to all conditions?

Yes.

And I know you've got great counsel working with NDOT, so I'm going to keep my fingers crossed.

Aye.

Aye. Motion carries.

Madam Chair, that item is final action unless appealed to the city clerk within 10 days.

Thank you. Thank you all very much.

That brings us to agenda item 18, abeyance 26-0300, SDR 1, applicant Las Vegas billboards, owner 1837 Charleston, LLC. For possible action on the land use entitlement project request for the proposed reconstruction and structural modification of an existing non-conforming off-premise sign in addition of digital LED electronic message illumination to the east and west sign faces at 1837 East Charleston Boulevard. Staff, can I please get the report?

Madam Chair, the existing off-premise sign is non-conforming with respect to overall height, distance from residentially zoned parcel, location on a parcel that contains a residential use, distance from another off-premise sign, and the requirement for a special use permit. Additionally, the sign is within 200 feet of property zoned for a residential use. It is generally the intent of Title 19 to not encourage the continuance or intensification of non-conforming uses and structures. Therefore, staff is recommending denial of the site development plan review. Thank you. Please state your name for the record.

Greg Esposito. Good evening, Madam Chairwoman and members of the commission. Representing Las Vegas Billboards on this item, they are a locally owned company. and they're very interested in making sure they work in the community, work well within the community. So this is the billboard in question right here. It's an old double H or H-style double I-beam design. It's not a full-sized billboard. You can see that it's probably a little bit less than half of what a typical billboard is. And just for perspective, this is the surrounding area, businesses, this is an apartment building, and the nearest house, homes are over here across the alleyway. I'll go back to this picture because it has some important information on it. You can see that the billboard is currently lit by two halogen bulbs. If you'll remember, I was here at the last meeting, or maybe it was two meetings ago, discussing a similar billboard that had three halogen bulbs illuminating it over off the 95 in Rancho. And as I have many times, I've talked about light trespass. It's a term used in the outdoor lighting industry. to describe light that falls outside of the area that's primarily intended to be lighted. Um, that is, you know, one of the concerns that staff has is that it's very close to residential. I want to point out that it is significantly higher than the residential. Uh, and so once changed with the directional louvers and blockers, uh, that we're going to go over, uh, Not a lot of light is going to reach down there, and I'll go over the details of that, but you can see that this is set so much higher than the nearby residential that it's probably not going to affect the residential at all. Once again, as I've gone over before, the Outdoor Advertising Association of America commissioned a study in 2008 to recommend criteria for brightness levels on digital billboards, and a 0.3-foot candle was the maximum illuminance level that was recommended based on that study. And so brightness on this billboard, but any of the billboards that Las Vegas Billboards is trying to convert, will never be any more than 0.3 foot candles above ambient light. That's not just nighttime, it's also cloudy days. Digital will be limited to 7,500 nits during daytime hours and 250 nits at night. So it's a significant drop off. I'm sure you can appreciate the difference in numbers there. Digital billboards operating at the luminance levels recommended in the report that I mentioned produce much fewer lumens into the night sky and light trespass than conventional bottom mounted lighting systems like this one. As you can imagine, this lights up the entire area and anything that's advertised here just reflects that light. When you change it to a digital billboard, the billboard itself is the light and therefore it's much more controllable and creates much less light trespass. Elimination of bottom-mounted exterior luminaries, commonly used for conventional billboards, play a very significant role in the reduction of sky glow. In one scenario that they studied, the halogen lights on a billboard produced 31,535 sky lumens, and when they converted it to a digital billboard, it only produced 2,260 lumens, which is 8% or 92% reduction in light trespass. So like I said, with nothing to reflect off of, the digital billboards definitely reduce how much light invades the neighborhood. As I've also talked about before, the streetlights along Charleston put off 0.3 to 1 foot candles. So the light that this digital billboard will produce produces less, equal to or less than the street lights that are along the street that it's on. In addition, one of the things that we agreed to with the last application was to put barriers on the side and underneath the billboards. So as I showed, the residential is off to the north. And so we're willing to put this three-foot barrier on the north side of the sign in order to reduce the amount of light that makes it over to the neighborhood. And we're also willing to put a two-foot barrier underneath it to reduce how much light makes it down from the billboard to the neighbors. I want to thank Commissioner Schlottman for meeting with us late last week. One of the things that we discussed was how these billboards don't have to immediately change. There is a setting on them where they can blend slightly. It's not a slow blend. I'm not going to try and represent that there won't be any noticeable transition, but there is a setting where the signs as they rotate every 10 seconds It goes a little slower so that you have less of a flashing effect. Another thing that the commissioner mentioned was what was just gone over earlier in the night was 2050, Project 2050 for Las Vegas. And I wanted to talk about that. This request advances the innovation guiding principle of the Las Vegas 2050 master plan by modernizing an existing commercial communication structure through current electronic display technology. The master plan specifically recognizes the role of smart technologies, emerging markets, and flexible regulations in accommodating changing economic and technological conditions. The sign is nonconforming because of its location relative to residential development, but we are not asking to move it closer to residential, enlarge the faces, or construct an additional off-premise sign. The underlying physical relationship already exists. If you don't approve this application, the billboard's not going anywhere. It just won't change from this older, outdated, as I said, H-style structure to a more modern monopole. Our request allows an established commercial structure to utilize contemporary display technology. This approach is consistent with the 2050 master plan's emphasis on modernization, flexibility, innovation, and removal of outdated barriers where appropriate. The city describes one of the 2050 plans as implementation objectives to encourage reinvestment and redevelopment in strategic areas and revitalize corridors. The proposed conversion represents private reinvestment in existing infrastructure along the Charleston Boulevard commercial corridor. Rather than constructing an additional billboard or consuming additional land, the applicant proposes to reinvest in and modernize an existing structure at its established location. This is consistent with the 2050 Master Plan's emphasis on reinvestment in existing areas, modernization, and revitalization of established corridors. Electronic message technology allows an existing sign structure to serve multiple businesses and changing commercial needs without constructing additional signage. We've all been here and at other hearings where strip mall owners, representatives, commercial center owners have come in and asked for more signage because the tenants are complaining that the signage they have is too small to be properly represented. This sign is going to present an opportunity to remedy that for nearby businesses. I'll go over that in a second. The conversion therefore improves the economic utility of existing commercial infrastructure while maintaining the sign's established physical footprint. When we were discussing this with the Councilman's office, she mentioned how the businesses along Charleston by the Five Points had really been hit by the recent construction of the drainage. Charleston had closed and reduced traffic for years, and it really took a toll on them. AS PART OF BEING PART OF THE COMMUNITY, YOU KNOW, IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT THIS BILLBOARD, WHICH IS RIGHT HERE, COULD BE USED TO HELP THE NEARBY SMALL BUSINESSES AND MOM AND POPS, LOCAL OWN, LOCAL RUN BUSINESSES ADVERTISE. SO INSTEAD OF THIS, THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY COMING IN AND NEEDING TO REDO THIS SIGN BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SEE WHO'S THERE, At a discount, Las Vegas billboards would offer the nearby residents from Eastern to Bruce a discounted rate to where they can utilize the billboard and improve, hopefully, customer traffic. Also, it was suggested that when their public service announcements, such as Hey, first Friday is this weekend. Come on down and check out these local artists. There's going to be construction along Charleston, plan alternate routes, things like that. Las Vegas billboards would be more than willing to help the city with its announcements using not just this billboard, but other billboards it's worked on in the area. So I appreciate your time. I wanted to go over quite a few points. And hopefully you're able to approve the application.

Thank you. This item has been noticed for public comment. Is there anyone who would like to speak at this time? Please come down and state your name for the record.

Michael Ganson, 1100 South 6th Street. I'm concerned about the appropriateness of the signage. There's been a new sign on the corner of Las Vegas Boulevard in East Charleston at the old Walgreens that is hideously flashing the Soho lofts on a continual basis. My house is about 1,000, 1,200 feet away, and it's flashing my house. And it's just sort of the tackiness of how this is being operated. It goes from black to white, and it's maybe like a metronome or something that goes on in the idea of this pollution in the community with the flashing of this type of signage. Also, I'm concerned about the power consumption going from two halogens to whatever they're going to require there. and then just the overall look for the community to have this digital billboard come in and sort of take away the character of the community. I've always kind of enjoyed the sort of the funkiness of East Charleston for what it was, so that's totally cool for me, but the idea that we wanted to have it look like the strip or some big flashing billboard in the neighborhood, I don't think is appropriate. You know, we want to kind of maintain the character of our neighborhoods, and we don't want to have this continual bombardment. I mean, you can't even turn your TV set on now without the audio or the visual or something's going on with the people that are in control of this trying to get us to do something, whatever it is that they want. So I would like to have it looked at I don't mind them making the improvement I would like to be I'm concerned about the PSAs public service announcements whether that's just an offering or whether whether they've even done one That would be a question whether they've been offered one Or something in writing or as a condition that they will dedicate so much time per month, whether it's the public employee of the month, the student of the month, or some kind of community recognition. I would be for that as long as we as the community get something out of this other than being aware of whatever, being flashed all the time. So thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak at this time? Seeing none, I will close public comment, turn it over to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Schlottman.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I'll make a disclosure that I do live in the notification area, but I'm not great or affected any greater or lesser than anyone else. Maybe a little bit less because I'm going to be moving in about two weeks, so it's really not going to affect me. But still, that doesn't mean that this isn't important to me and I appreciate you coming out and meeting with me. I see you went back and did a little homework. And so I appreciate you actually getting out there and trying to see how this sign could actually fit in. My problem is with this particular sign is, and I've been a big supporter of Las Vegas billboards in which you represent a lot of, because I have to say that they're probably one of the leading or leaders in technology for these signs. But we also got to take them, you know, carefully and look at these carefully and take them seriously when they're in a residential neighborhood. Honestly, I dislike billboards, especially digital billboards in a residential area. or on any of the surface streets because of the same thing that Mike Jansen was saying. And I remember I was going down the road with a former planning commissioner, Steve Evans, and constantly getting hit with these bright lights as they're changing. And I know we can go from like seven seconds to 10 seconds on changing the message, but the fact is it's still a changing message. I also understand that it could be a brighter sign when you have the halogens on it. But, you know, I live at the Fremont Street Lofts right behind here. There's, I mean, we have lights from street lights. We have lights on the Odyssey Pizza. We have lights on the apartments. We have lights all over the place. And I have a big eight foot by eight foot window in my bedroom with a shade on it. But at the top, I have a two foot by eight foot window at the very top. And all that light just floods in my bedroom. But I can close my eyes and I can fall asleep at night. It's when the fire department gets called out to one of the apartments or the hotels or last night when one of the hotels got surrounded by a whole bunch of police officers and cops. And it was the flashing lights, and I could see that even with my eyes closed. And that's one of the things that I'm concerned about if I'm trying to fall asleep and I have something that's changing every 10 seconds, 8 seconds, whatever it is. And then ultimately we've got to look at what are we trying to achieve. I've been here since 2005 in downtown, and, you know, I'm – I've been working on trying to redevelop downtown Las Vegas. And I've constructed over 200 projects down here, not including the lofts. There's another 100 right there. So it started with one project. And it moved to Sam Cherry's project. And now the arts district's booming. And what kind of things can we do to help facilitate the redevelopment of downtown? And I have to look at everything that we bring down here. Is a digital billboard going to help facilitate the redevelopment of downtown? And I keep coming back to the same answer. No. What that digital billboard is going to do is allow... your billboard to stand out over all the other sign spam that's on Charleston, which we can't wrap our hands around. Eastern is just polluted with signs. Charleston, the worst part of Charleston from is from Eastern up to like Maryland Parkway. I mean, it just makes me sick every time I go up and down Charleston Boulevard and I'm looking at every one of these signs and businesses. Now, I'm not saying that you're sign spamming because you're a billboard. You're allowed to have a billboard. You can have 100% coverage on your billboard. But really what we're trying to do is stand out above and beyond all of the other sign spam that's out there so your message can be seen where somebody else's couldn't. From a purely business standpoint, I agree with what you're trying to achieve here. From a redevelopment standpoint and from just a community standpoint, I can't get behind it. But if any other planning commissioners have any comments, I'll allow you all the opportunity.

I see no other comments at this time.

Okay, well, I appreciate all your time meeting with me on this particular item, but based on my comments tonight, I'm gonna have to follow staff's recommendation for denial on item number 18. Aye.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Thank you. Madam Chair, that item is final action unless appealed to the city clerk within 10 days.

Thank you. And with that, we go to agenda item 19, abeyance, re-notification, 26-0243, applicant Panther Acquisitions, LLC, owner, International LLC, for possible action on the following land use entitlement project requests on the east side of Schaumburg Road, approximately 1,990 feet north of Ann Road. 19A, abeyance, re-notification, 26-0243, GPA 1, from SC, service commercial, to M, medium density residential. 19B, abeyance, re-notification, 26-0243ZON1 from C1, limited commercial to RTH, single family attached. 19C1 through 19C97, 26-0243VAR1 through 26-0243VAR97 to allow proposed residential lot that does not conform to Title 19.06 development standards for lot size and setbacks, lots 1 through 97. 19C9826-0243VAR98 to allow private streets without a gate that do not conform to Title 19.04 Complete Street Standards. 19D26-0243 TMP1 Chambra and La Mancha for a proposed 97-lot single-family attached residential subdivision with a waiver of Title 19.06 Development Standards for landscape buffer requirements. Staff, can I please get the report?

Yes, Madam Chair. With respect to the general plan amendment and rezoning, the proposed general plan category and zoning district are compatible with the La Madre Foothills special area plan and master plan. Staff recommends approval of the general plan amendment and rezoning requests. While the overall development plan supports the goals of the master plan of providing more housing stock, the requested 98 variances and two waiver requests of Title 19 requirements demonstrate the unsuitability of the proposed development. As such, the proposed development is incompatible with the surrounding area and staff recommends denial of the remaining applications subject to conditions if approved. Please note, additional documentation of support and protest has been received since publication and a revised staff report is in your supplemental packet. Thank you.

Thank you. Please state your name for the record.

Good evening Madam Chair and Commissioners my name is Nancy Amundson representing the applicant on this project. As was noted these are generally four different applications the first is a general plan amendment from service commercial to medium density residential staff recommended approval of this as it meets the code requirements and does fit in with the La Madre foothills The second item would be the rezoning from the C1 limited commercial to the RTH single family attached and again staff recommended approval. We thank staff for both those recommendations. The area where this is as was noted is north of Ann Road. It's not at the intersection so therefore it's more into the residential area and it makes more sense for it to be residential. the last two items item three are all of the variances of course the first 97 of the variances had to do with every lot every lot is is not going to meet the standards one of the reasons for that of course is because there's an acre of property to the rear that is excluded from being developed because of an nb energy easement that's where we are proposing to put in a dog park some um in addition and of note the northern beltway trail is adjacent to this property and we are hoping to be able to provide access to the residents in this area to that trail. Again that would be something that we would have to work out with the city but that is one thing that we would like to propose but again we have an acre of land that is not usable for this and that's one of the main reasons for the reduction in the lot sizes we are proposing all of the uh... necessary landscaping we are requesting variances to reduce the size of the roadways we are not gating this community we wanted this to be an open community In addition, we're providing a pool, a pool house, and two cabanas. This is a needed project. It's being developed with assistance from the Nevada Housing Access and Attainability Act, which is providing a very low-cost loan for the development of this project. At this time, there's a mortgage partner. It's skilled mortgage. In addition, a builder has been identified, and we're working with the builder. This is a local builder that they've grown up in, Clark County in Southern Nevada, and they do a lot of development. low cost housing not necessarily low income but lower cost housing but they also build market rate houses but I don't want to put their name out there because again we're not in contract with them as of yet. The homes will be based on this loan available to qualified buyers up to 150% of AMI. If you saw the RJ on the 31st you'll note that they were talking about the fact that people cannot qualify because of the cost of housing as related to what they are making. The AMI is around $80,000 right now. So this would allow families of up to $120,000 or thereabouts to buy these houses. The houses have to be bought to live in. They cannot be rented out. The project is similar to others in the area. Again, we are having smaller lots because of the acre to the east. is not usable for anything but our passive open space. The homes will be 1,351 to 1,500 square feet in size, have at least three bedrooms, but there are some models that have an option up to four bedrooms. And for that, I won't get into long monologues because it's been a long night. I'm open to any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. This item has been noticed for public comment. Is there anyone who would like to speak at this time? Seeing none, I will close public comment and turn it over to members of the commission, starting with myself. This is award four. I think this site is harmonious and compatible with the rest, especially on the 215. We see several developments like that from Cliff Shadows to Alexander. And I can understand how difficult sometimes it can be to work with certain easements on a property. So I understand the need for the variances. So with that, I'm ready to make a motion for approval. No other comments from the rest of the Commission? Commissioner LeBeau?

I actually have a question. When you mentioned that these cannot be rented out, is that being recorded on the deed for sale of each of them, or is it an HOA that's maintaining that?

It will be in coordination with the lender, and it will be in those documents, my understanding is, yes. Okay, thank you. And that's part of the requirement of getting the low-cost loan. Okay.

Wonderful. And with that, I'll make a motion to approve subject to staff conditions. And you agree with staff conditions?

Yes, I do.

Aye.

Aye. Yes.

I just heard the last part, and I would like to comment on that. That was a good thought.

Sorry, public comments for this agenda item has already been closed. There is citizens participation at the end. Thank you.

Madam chair. This item is going to move forward to city council on October 21st, 2026. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Excuse me. And that motion carried.

That brings us to agenda item 21, 26-0253, SDR1, applicant owner, the MENA Trust, for possible action on the land use entitlement project request for the proposed conversion of an existing two-story, 2,900-square-foot single-family residence into a building maintenance service and sales development with a proposed 336-square-foot building addition with a waiver of perimeter landscape buffer requirements at 5640 North Rainbow Boulevard. Staff, can I please get the report?

Yes, Madam Chair, the proposed building maintenance service and sales development is consistent with the surrounding area and the requested waiver and exception of landscape requirements will have minimal impact to the surrounding developments. As such, staff recommends approval of the requested site development plan review subject to conditions. Please note additional documentation of support and protest has been received since publication. Thank you.

Thank you. Please give your name for the record.

ZACHARY KATZ AT 1950 EAST WARHAM SPRINGS ROAD. THIS DEVELOPMENT IS LOCATED OFF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF NORTH RAINBOW BOULEVARD AND WEST AND ROAD. IT IS ZONED C1 LIMITED COMMERCIAL. WE ARE REQUESTING THE USE OF BUILDING MAINTENANCE SERVICE AND SALES PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WHICH CONSISTED WITH THE INTENT OF C1 ZONE. THIS PROJECT PROPOSES REUSING THE EXISTING BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY WITH SITE IMPROVEMENTS TO SUPPORT THE OWNER'S BUSINESS as well as aligning the site with the use building maintenance service and sales. We are proposing a 336 square foot addition and exterior modifications to the building's elevations to accommodate the intended use. There is no public access on the site. The site's operations outside will be parking for 12 service trucks and two office staff only. Inside operations will be used as an office for the staff and storage for equipment. There would be no outdoor storage. We are requesting waivers for parking trees for the ADA stalls at the west of the site, for stalls at the east of the property, and then an end cap landscaping trees for six stalls at the south of the site. We are also requesting a landscape buffer, partial buffer for five foot, six feet to allow for our 20 foot forward drive. At this point, I'll answer any questions you guys may have. Thank you.

Thank you. This item has been noticed for public comments. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak at this time? Seeing none, I will close comment and turn it over to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Taylor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for coming out and presenting this project. I have actually been on this site and spoken with the owner. And I think that what's being proposed will be an incredible improvement to that lot and to that corner. Normally, I am not a big fan of ever eliminating trees in parking lots. However, given the fact that you are basically encircling the entire property with trees and creating that landscape buffer and that shade to kind of mitigate your parking lot. I'm going to be okay with it this time. It's not to set a precedent in Ward 6 about parking lot trees. So unless any of my fellow commissioners have any questions on this, I'm prepared to make a motion. Okay. So I would like to make a motion on item 26-0253 SDR 1 for approval subject to all conditions and you agree to all conditions. Yes.

Aye. Yes.

Yes.

Motion carries.

Madam Chair, that item is final action unless appealed to the city clerk within 10 days. Thank you. Thank you.

With that, we move on to Agenda Item 2226-0268, SDR 1, Applicant Clark County Real Property Management, Owner Clark County. For possible action on a land use entitlement project request for a major amendment to an approved site development plan review Z0086991 for a proposed 35,729 square foot outdoor recreation area and a parking lot reconfiguration in conjunction with an approved government facility at the southeast corner of Brooks Avenue and Torrey Pines Drive. Staff, can I please get the report?

Madam Chair, staff finds the proposed amendments are compatible and harmonious with the surrounding area and further the goals of the City of Las Vegas 2050 master plan by creating more accessible parks and open space. As such, staff recommends approval of the site development plan review. Please note additional documentation of protest was received after publication. Thank you.

Thank you. Please state your name for the record. Hello, Simona Stevens, 1950 East Warm Springs, on behalf of the applicant. The site is located on Torrey Pines and Brooks. It's a big Clark County campus that they're proposing to make several improvements or changes. One of them would be the existing solar field is being removed and being replaced with the sports field, with the trail to walk around and the picnic area. Another improvement would be actually removing one of the existing drives and widening this one and providing additional landscape here. And then since the solar field is being removed, they do need to put more solar panels somewhere. They're not being removed. They're not being relocated, but the new solar panel is going to be replaced to recreate the same amount of energy being provided. So they're proposing to put a parking canopy over an existing parking lot and to house the solar panels. And those are the improvements.

Perfect. This item has been noticed for public comment. Is there anyone who would like to speak at this time? Please come forward and state your name for the record. And if there are multiple, you're welcome to line up at the podium.

I don't know if I need that or not.

And we do have supporting documents for the council if you'd like.

Yes, for the supporting documents, if you'd like to hand it in to a member of staff, we'll add it to the record. Thank you. And we will have timer for public comment of two minutes each, but please state your name.

Not a problem, my daughter wrote very quickly for me. My name is Karen Buda, I live at 2935 North Maverick, which this proposed project is here. This proposed project, I live right here. I've lived in Las Vegas over 60 years and I've spent the last 47 years living in the same home in the Twin Lakes and I object to the site development plan. I've watched this valley grow exponentially from nothing but dirt, as you can see, and I've come to understand that change is inevitable. I'm not here today to advocate for a complete stop to this development, but to amend it to better serve the residents. It is deeply disheartening and concerning that this development is being allowed to be built mere inches from my own backyard. Notices were not well given and unclear, and I'm glad to at least see It said there were 488 notices sent and I'll probably guarantee you the one that was returned was from myself. I have neighbors in my cul-de-sac who've been out for the Labor Day weekend. These notices arrived on the first and the meeting being here today the eighth. Some of them when they open up their mail They'll find out that notice is there. The city of Las Vegas accurately describes Twin Lakes as a quiet, steady, and full of long-term residents. featuring larger yards and kids that still ride bikes safely. Neighbors know and look out for each other. This current proposal erodes that very suburban character that defines our neighborhood. By placing a high traffic walking trail directly behind our property lines, it strips away our privacy and compromises the daily safety of our families, our children, and our homes. Back in September 1st, 2000, the city council approved site development plan review Z-006-99 which established a binding six foot planter buffer along our eastern boundary specifically to keep residents protected. Removing that buffer breaks a long standing promise to our community. And have I got about two more sentences to go if that's all right? To align with the 25 year goals of the master plan 2050 we must practice proactive infrastructure planning today so the city isn't forced into costly, frustrating retrofits tomorrow. We have a practical layout reconfiguration that keeps the solar farm intact for EV use, handles future parking demands, and can maintain the feel and safety to our homes. By shifting parking to the perimeter of the residential houses, we can create fully operational barriers and setback. Based on basic sightline geometry, Distant naturally creates ground-level blind spot that blocks direct lines of sight over an eight-foot wall, preserving neighborhood privacy without sacrificing project utility. We ask that you honor the original binding buffer condition, prioritize the safety of our established neighborhood, and adopt a solution that balances community progress with the protection of the safety and value of our homes. And thank you.

Please state your name for the record.

Hello, my name is Stephanie Buda, and as well, I've lived in Twin Lakes for 39 years. To put it plainly, I also object to this development plan. The NRS 40.140, a nuisance, is legally defined as, quote, anything which is injurious to health or indecent and offensive to the census or an obstruction to the free use of property so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, end quote. When the solar panels originally were installed, we were terrified as to what was being built behind our property. The uncertainty can be overwhelming as we got to experience once more having to wait nearly two weeks for clarity on this project. When the city told us they were installing solar panels, we were quite relieved. We were elated. This meant... that the spacing and privacy between our home and the campus would be upheld and the fear that strangers would be lurking behind our wall was subsided. The current plan to remove this array and erect a recreational park is repulsive and appalling. I am advocating for a relocation of the park to the southern border of the campus in favor of keeping the seemingly functional solar panel array and upholding our property buffer from the campus. Beyond the loss of privacy, this proposed park introduces severe long-term environmental and safety hazards right against our property lines. As a long-term resident facing real fire risks in our dry climate, an unmonitored brush trail packed with foot traffic directly against our property poses an immediate fire hazard. These fears are grounded in painful history and direct real experience. Three years ago, people setting off fireworks in this adjacent undeveloped land accidentally launched one toward our homes, causing substantial fire damage to multiple residences on my street. My own backyard has been set ablaze in the past in the scorch marks on my palm trees. are still there as proof. Beyond fireworks, valley winds whip through the current area of the solar panel array like a funnel, slamming doors shut and creating treacherous wind gusts. The location of this park is between homes and a large building, creating a perfect catalyst for tunneling winds. We see this firsthand every time the wind kicks up. As the National Fire Protection Association warns, high winds can instantly push grill flames into nearby structures, and a single moment of human carelessness with park barbecues or lighter fluid can trigger a disaster. To protect the safety, structural integrity, and lives of everyone in our neighborhood, we urge you to move these high-risk recreational zones away from our property lines and the building and adopt a safer layout. In conclusion, I know we can come to a solution that upholds the city's original promises to our community, protects our families, keeps our neighborhoods safe, and allows for development of community resources for the city of Las Vegas' Master Plan 2050. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Please state your name.

Brittany Buda, and what my mother was trying to point out earlier, and it moved. Our property right here is 2945, which is not our property. That is my next door neighbor. Right here is 2935. And as you can see, most of the developed area is right in my backyard. So with that being said, good afternoon. I have been a resident of Twin Lakes for 34 years. The planning document became available on Tuesday, September 1, giving me less than seven days in order to review, form, and submit a proper appeal. I do apologize for the pamphlets that were handed out. If there are any errors or miscorrections, I was making notes as I was going and rereading it. This was a very hasty document that was put together. My family and I all work full-time jobs, and I have spent the past weekend and several nights researching what I could in order to present you with not just an appeal, but options to potential solutions for our residents and our community. If we want this to work for the community, then the residents should have the strongest voice in its development, be it residents of the county or the city. I have reached out to my county commissioner who informed me to contact you guys directly. That was on Wednesday night, and I got a response from her on Thursday. I have provided decently detailed supporting document that outlines our residential concerns with real facts and supports that offers a preliminary layout for solutions for your consideration. This document, again, is not complete and is missing key points, specifically the property values which I wish to address. My property and 2935, so right here, 2935 and 2945, my apologies. are facing an immediate devastating financial burden caused by this development. As of now, we are the only homes with any development happening directly behind them and up against my property line. In my research, I have found that abutting homes to recreational parks can take a 10% to 20% decrease in their property values. The National Association of Realtors claims that an installation of a simple pickleball court directly behind a residence causes a depreciation of 10% to 20% duly and solely due to noise pollution alone. This is not including light pollution, kids, et cetera, or any of the risk factors in this document. While this may not be a pick-a-ball court, the noise from the park, the uptick in foot traffic will weigh heavily on the value of our homes and potential future buyers. So I ask you, would you buy my home knowing that a recreational park with barbecues will be built against your property line as close as you are to the commissioner next to you? Before you answer, please also take into consideration another wonderful feature of my home. I will try to finish this in 30 seconds. that is 2945 Maverick. While I am not here to advocate for them nor stand in their place, this is the other home directly affected by this development. However, this development is a halfway house. You are placing a recreational park for children within arm's reach of a halfway house. I've grown up with drug addicts, child molesters, elderly dying from both natural and unnatural causes, animal cargases thrown over my back wall, all kinds of people without and with clothing on running around our neighborhood. And do not get me started on the amount of calls to the fire in the police department that have to go to that house. The amount of times that we are blocked going to our own home for the residences, their families, people dropping them off, be it Ubers, buses, or anything else. ALONG WITH MY MOTHER AND OUR PREVIOUS NEIGHBOR FOUGHT VERY HARD TO GET THE ORIGINAL OWNER SHUT DOWN AND DID SO A LOT OF THOSE NUISANCES WENT AWAY HOWEVER THEY DID NOT END. JUST LAST NIGHT 9-7 OF 26 I CAME HOME TO A HALF NAKED WOMAN SITTING ON THE FRONT PORCH WITH NO SHIRT. both exposed mostly and then on Wednesday night I came home to one of the residents screaming into the sky as if somebody was strangling her while wearing tattered homeless looking clothing. Last Thursday our cars were broken into, culprit unknown, however the residents of 2945 have found their way onto my property a plethora of times. I wanted to make it clear to you as to what you are building next to you and what is proposed to have built next to it. You are building, yes, next to a residential home that all I do is seek to keep the little piece that I have. That solar panel array has been the best build any homeowner could have, straight up, best build. We want to keep our value intact, our safety upheld, while supporting and working with our local government officials to come to a functioning solution for our entire community. You are, however, also building right next to a group home with people with mental disabilities, illnesses, and drug problems. This is a daily issue in my life. We see it all over the street. They do not manage their people. You are putting those children at that recreational park at risk. So tell me, are we allowed to build a recreational park so close to a businesses that manages people with such mental disabilities and issues and worries towards children, let's just be real. I ask knowing, now that you know a little bit more of the challenges of my home and my community already faced, a park being now evidently built directly behind my home, that leeway of six feet no longer being upheld, which was something that the city promised us when they built behind us. And we only had the one church building. We did not have all three. We only had the one. When they decided to put the other two in, we talked with the city and that was an agreement that was had, that was a promise. It is also, as you go through the document, because I will wrap up because I know I've gone over time, I apologize. As you go through the document, there is, it's a picture, I promise it's a picture. Two potential alternatives that I have come up with, again, in the very short time that I have been able to. Let me move that so you can see it. By simply keeping and utilizing your solar panel arrays, you can move your electric charging stations right next to them. You do not have to have any allocations of more funds to rebuild and destroy an already existing solar panel array. Sounds like a waste of time and a waste of money to me. And also, when you break apart solar panels, you are automatically damaging the, well, you're already damaging it when you put it in, but you are also damaging the earth as you take it out. So the removal of functioning, as has been proven, solar panel arrays to input new ones kind of sounds dumb. When you're moving a park with a barbecue and kids, that's my wall. That property line is my wall. That is not an easement. We have our wall, and then we have, because we were built, as you saw by my mother's photos, well before anyone else was out there. That easement was found when they were going to put in the other two buildings that we actually misread our property lines. So our property line is right here, where you are planning to put in, where they are planning to put in this park. It is unreal to imagine that a simple, I'll show you the other one, a simple redesign of keeping a surrounding wall around all residences, not just mine, allowing parking for future, we're thinking 25 years out, all the way around those residences as well in order to keep the noise down and the space away, to keep the park in the central area as well as the future development that the YMCA wishes to have Yeah, we have proposals on how we can change this. So thank you for your time. Sorry I went over. Please do not approve this because you are killing my property values. Thank you.

Thank you. Please state your name for the record. And sorry, just as a reminder, we are trying to keep it to two minutes per comment. Thank you.

Understood. My name is Justin Perez. My home directly borders the east boundary of the property involved in the application. My primary concern is the proposed reduction of protection specifically established for the adjoining residential properties. The original approved required six foot wide landscape buffer along the east property boundary. The proposed plan reduces the buffer to only zero to two feet because outdoor recreation would occupy the protected space. The plan also provides only two buffer trees where 22 would normally be required. That is actually directly from your proposed plan. An eight foot tubular steel fence is proposed but an open fence does not provide privacy, noise reduction, protection from lighting or any meaningful visual separation. I request that a full landscape buffer be preserved and that the eight foot solid decorative masonry will be installed along the entire east residential boundary and other boundaries as well for that matter. A tubular steel fence is just not sufficient. The applicant should be responsible for constructing and maintaining the wall, mature trees, landscaping, and other necessary protections. Neighboring homeowners should not be forced to pay for improvements needed to mitigate the effects of this development. There have already been events at this existing facility where parking has overflowed into adjacent neighborhoods. I am concerned that organized sporting events with this new field will become a routine problem rather than an occasional one. Meeting the minimum parking requirement does not necessarily demonstrate that the property can accommodate peak demand during games, tournaments, or special events. The applicant should be required to provide a parking and traffic management plan addressing peak event attendance. Event size should be limited to the available on-site parking and the surrounding residential streets should not be used as overflow parking. The application should also establish enforceable operating hours. I request that outdoor activities be prohibited from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. with all filled lighting turned off no later than 8 p.m. These restrictions should apply to practices, league tournaments, and special events.

Thank you. Sorry we're hitting time, but appreciate it. Are those comments that you're reading something separate than has already been submitted to staff?

I have some pictures from my backyard that I took earlier today.

If you would like to submit to a staff member for the record.

Yeah, absolutely. Thank you.

And do we have any other members who would like to come? Please come forward and state your name for the record.

Michael Ganson, 1100 South 6th. I think this project's missing something that the city planning commission should adopt is a homeless mitigation study that these much needed open space is needed in a place, but you're really not addressing the viability here that you're going to say, let's move here. You know, let's do drugs, let's break into the houses. And there's nothing been done to address the homeless mitigation for this project. I think it's just careless, careless design behavior. And I think we need to have a homeless mitigation design review for just about every public space so that we don't turn over our property to this out-of-control, spending millions of dollars on these people. And what? You know, we don't get any benefit other than dealing with them on a daily basis. Anyway, thank you.

Thank you. And with that, I will close public comment. Are you coming down? Sorry, please state your name for the record.

I already did that.

So with that, I'll turn it over to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Walters.

Hi, yes, thanks for your presentation and for the comments. So I do think that this property brings a lot of recreational... areas and parks to this area in this community, which is lacking. And I do tend to agree with the staff recommendation, but I want to ask a few questions. Are the solar panels, how old are they?

They're from 2013. They're out of warranty and they're not doing, that's why they're being replaced for something that's more efficient.

And there are plans to move them and recreate a solar array on the property?

It's actually going to go right here. This is all existing parking. We're not providing any new parking here. This is all existing. It's going to go over existing parking area. For covered parking.

Okay. So... I do want to say that I do think I hear a lot of the concerns about things occurring on this property and around this property. And generally, if we have development of property, especially as it is now, it's a dirt lot. If we have that development of that, then I think that will help to reduce some of the misuse of the properties and also have more participation in public utilizing those spaces. But there is, I see some of the suggestions. There are also some concerns with those, especially parking around the outside perimeter will create a traffic pattern for pedestrians and walkers. But I do wanna ask about the buffer around the edge of the property. In the drawing, You probably have them to reference. I want to ask, is there a buffer that currently exists, or are you using this path around the sports field as the buffer currently?

So our understanding was that the previous condition when development was built here, that the six foot buffer was a condition, which the current owner inherited not meeting that condition. We're not touching anything here where the condition did apply. This is all artificial turf with the little trail that goes around it. Wouldn't this be like a buffer already?

So there's nothing being built in that buffer zone. And yes, so I do hear the concerns of the residents, but I do think that this is a public good for that area and will serve a larger community. And so if there's any other comments from other commissioners here, I...

At this time, public comment has been closed for the item. And we have, I know, a few other comments from members of the commission. But if you would like to speak at the end of citizens participation, you are welcome.

Yeah, can I, I'd like to comment. Commissioner LeBeau. Thank you. So I have a couple of concerns with the site plan. One is that there are pole light fixtures all along that property boundary line. It says typical of 16, but they don't locate where those are actually going to be located on that site plan. And so I'm concerned that the light fall off is going to really affect impact those homeowners along that east side. And then I also have to agree that I just don't think that the tube steel fencing at eight feet is an appropriate boundary wall for the use. I think that there could have been more consideration given to the impact along that Eastern boundary. Um, there's a lot of different, um, you know, solutions that could have been implemented here, um, to avoid the impact. So unfortunately how this is, is presented. I just, I just can't support it.

Commissioner Taylor.

Thank you, Madam chair. Um, I, I recognize that this is a sort of quirky parcel the way it's laid out, but given the concerns of the neighbors, is there anything you can do? I know you just described this sports field as having sort of a little walking trail around it, but what else can you do if you're taking out the solar panels to create more of a buffer around near where the neighbors are? Can we put in some trees, my favorite botanical thing to do, to create some visibility, like some visual offsets to create a little bit more shade and maybe replicate some of that larger buffer zone that you have from the solar panels. I mean it just, it feels to me like maybe there is enough of, and this is Commissioner Walters, but it feels to me like there's enough concerns surrounding this project that maybe it needs to sit for 30 days and go back to the drawing board and try to address some of the concerns with the neighbors and I know that some of the things they're suggesting are problematic as well. But I frankly was not expecting this level of concern and opposition for this item and now that I have heard it, I personally am not sure I can support it because I think it needs a little bit of work. And maybe again trees, just a suggestion.

Can I also address some of the comments that they had about events and all of that? This is not something that's going to be hosting events or large masses of people coming. This is strictly for people that are in here and kids that are already there for the after school programs. This is not something that's going to be advertised or any of that. There is a boxing gym inside, and the trail actually is a running track specifically for the boxers, so they can actually do their warm-up.

So this isn't even open to the public? Is that what we're saying right now?

Public comment has been closed. Thank you.

Justin Sanders, Clark County Real Property Management, so I represent the owner. So we are willing to... THIS PARK IS NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

HE IS A MEMBER OF THE APPLICANT. THIS IS OUR POLICY. THANK YOU.

THIS PARK IS NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. THIS PARK IS BEING UTILIZED FOR THOSE THAT GO INTO THE BUILDING THERE. IT'S BEING CONTROLLED AS TO who enters and exits the property. We are open to, we have heard the public comments. We're open to finding a way to work with the public. As far as, I've heard some talk about a six foot buffer. That's something we're willing to look at. Yeah, landscape buffer.

The comments have already been noted for the public record. Please refrain. Thank you. Is there any other comments from the members of the commission? Commissioner Schlottman?

Yes, Madam Chair. So are you saying that it's going to be controlled access? Only the people that are within the facility will be able to access this facility? Yes.

That is correct, yes. It'll be fenced off. So to enter into this property, you're going to have to go inside the building and go through the building and come out the side door there.

OK. I'm just a little confused. And what do you have to do to be able to visit this facility?

Like I said, so let's see, let's go. Yeah, so you're gonna have to go through, enter through the building here. You go through the building. And I'm not 100% familiar with the interior of the building, but yeah, you find your way back. And then there's some side doors right here. Come out of those side doors. Like I said, there's gonna be a gate right here.

Can you move your mic to the side so I can see where you're pointing?

Oh, let's see. Sorry. Thank you. There's going to be a gate right in here to stop public access from coming back in here. So as I said, you're going to have to come through the front door, go through the building, come out the side door here, enter in, and enter into the facility here. The whole facility is gated off. And like I said, there's going to be a gate right here. So the only access into this park area is through the building and out the side door.

And what's the hours operation of the park and the building?

That I'm not aware of.

Okay. I think maybe, you know, I'll let the commissioner speak for herself on what she wants to do tonight, but, I mean, maybe if we come back with the hours of operation and, I mean, that's just a potential. I mean, I can. Come back with hours of operation, come back with how you're going to buffer between the neighbors and this park, if it's bigger trees or if it's Japanese blueberries, cherry laurels, or however you want to do that. And also, if you could look at potentially finding, you know, showing us where the light poles are going to be and how that would be shielded from the neighbors.

Yes, I can address that, actually. I mean, we're very aware that... We do not want the light to encroach upon the neighbor's property. LED lights have come a long way in the last few years. And it's amazing what they can do with LED lights to... What's the word I'm looking for? What's that? It's going to be shielded. Yeah, to be shielded and to mitigate. So I just did a ballpark and you... The light will stop right at the end of the ballpark, right at the edge of the ballpark. They can control light pretty well with LED lights. So yeah, that's one thing that we are aware of and do not want to encroach upon the neighbors with the light.

Thank you. Well, I guess that would be what I would like to see. I'd like to see it just held for 30 days to consider this. And I would recommend that maybe you reach out to the residents that are here. I'm not opposed to this use. I mean, and I know nobody wants this in the backyard, but sorry, I don't think this is the worst thing to have in your backyard. The things that I have in my backyard, I would love to have this. I understand the concerns about having a vacant lot and going to a park and hearing noises and stuff, and that could be concerning. But at the end of the day, from my standpoint, I feel that I can get behind this and support it. I do want to see a few improvements. I would like to see the neighbors try to give you as much improvements. If they don't want to give you any input, then I will work with you with the rest of the commission and we'll try to do the best we can. But I really hope that they can, you can listen to the residents so we can get their feedback and try coming up with a better plan. That's my comments.

Thank you. Commissioner, I would support an abeyance for 30 days. I do think that there is additional details that should be provided. It's also Commissioner LeBeau's concerns, but Commissioner Taylor, did you have any comments or?

But no, I mean, I, my inclination, I recognize that this is an important recreational facility to provide to the community, but I also want to make sure that it is a good neighbor to the community. Um, and I, you know, I know that, that there, I just feel like there's some work to do and I would agree with commissioner Schlottman, but also it is. in Ward 5, and I want to make sure that Commissioner Walters feels like she's doing what is best for her ward.

Commissioner Walters? Yeah, I think maybe we can spend the next 30 days, if we obey this, and get together and meet with some of the neighbors and try to come up with something that works a little better for everyone. Does that sound like it would work for you?

Sure, yes.

Okay. Then I'll move to obey. Obey this... till October 13th. Thank you.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Motion carries. All right. We'll see you back in 30 days. Thank you.

And with that, we will open up agenda item 23, 26-0275, VAR 1, applicant owner Leopoldo Garcia and Mabel Diaz, for possible action on land use entitlement project request to allow an existing residential accessory structure shed that does not conform to Title 19.06 development standards for setbacks and aesthetic compatibility at 4016 Ronda Drive. Staff, can I please get the report?

Yes, Madam Chair, the subject site is located within the Rural Preservation Overlay District, which is intended to ensure that the rural character of each rural preservation neighborhood is preserved. The existing residential accessory structure does not align with the intent of the district. Additionally, no evidence of unique or extraordinary circumstance related to the physical characteristics of the property has been presented to warrant the requested variance. As the hardship is self-imposed, staff recommends denial of this variance request subject to conditions if approved. Please note additional documentation of support has been received since publication. Thank you.

Thank you. Please state your name for the record. Yes. Good afternoon. My name is Mabel Diaz and this is my husband.

Leo Garcia.

Yes. Dear Planning Commission, we respectfully request approval of a setback variance for our existing detached structure that is located on the corner of 4016 Rhonda. The structure was installed in March 2023 Our rear setback complies with the required five foot setback. However, because our property is a corner lot, the side street setback requirement is 15 feet and the existing structure is located five feet from the side street property line. No expansion, enlargement, or Additional construction is proposed. We are requesting approval of the variance so that if it is approved, we may move forward with the City of Las Vegas to complete the required permitting process, inspections, and exterior improvements, including painting to match our existing home. The structure is well maintained and to the best of our knowledge, it has not created traffic, safety, or other impacts to neighboring properties. The existing five foot setback has been in place without any known safety concerns. The structure is located behind an existing block wall that does not obstruct visibility from the street or interfere with the corner visibility area. We've also spoken to our neighbors and we do have statement of support and some written letters that we would like to provide to you here today, including those that are adjacent to our structure, to the front of our home and the side. They too have determined that they have no issues with our structure, its placements, the setbacks, or even the overall appearance. It doesn't negatively affect their privacy or their safety or the personal enjoyment of their yards and properties. So we have those statements and letters for you today to provide. We are fully aware that our lot is not... We don't have a hardship. We have come to realize through planning that our lot is not a hardship. Our lot is pretty rectangular, however, I do want to show if it's here. I didn't print this out, but through my phone, we are a corner lot. And this is what I mean. It doesn't interfere with traffic, whether you're going up or down this street. You can see our structure is behind the wall. It's five feet setback when it should be 15. We understand that. But there's no... no concerns to our knowledge of safety, traffic, or even people making a right turn coming down this way. There's no obstruction to that. We're open to your consideration of allowing it to stay where it is without us having to move it. We even suggested with planning that, hey, we are more than welcome to move have it match our neighbors behind us or even match our property somehow. I did go into Google and played with the color versions of our structure. And then again, you can see, yes, we understand it's not a 15 feet setback here. But then again, to our best knowledge, it's not interfering with traffic. our neighbors are okay with it. So with that said, we respectfully request the approval of the setback variance to allow the existing accessory structure to remain in its current location so that we can continue to complete the proper permitting process. If you have any questions for us today, we'd be more than happy to answer them.

Thank you. This item has been noticed for public comment. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak at this time? Seeing none, I will be closing public comment, moving over to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Walters.

Yes, hi. Thank you. We've spoken a few times, and I know that this began as a code enforcement case. So that means that some neighbor was concerned about the property and that there was a permit that was stopped prior to the build of it that had been initiated and stopped. And so there was some knowledge of the rules. But for me to provide a variance, I have to show that there is some hardship. And I just can't find any hardship for this neighborhood or to provide that variance by statute, I need to provide a hardship. But the other thing is that as I drove the neighborhood, there are many neighbors in your rural preservation neighborhood who have accessory structures, but those accessory structures most likely meet the setback and also meet the aesthetic requirements. Many of them look, are built in the style of the home. And you live in a very nice neighborhood. And so, you know, I think that this building looks materially different and is more visible than any of the rest in the community. And so for that reason, I'm not inclined to, you know, to grant this variance on this property. Are there any others that have any comments? All right, so I motion on 260275-VIR-1 for denial. Yes. OK.

You don't need our supporting letters. It's complete.

You can still submit the letters if you'd like to, member of staff. Thank you. Thank you. Motion carries.

Madam Chair, that item is final action unless appealed to the city clerk within 10 days.

Thank you. And with that, we will move on to our next agenda items. I will be hearing a, I will be conducting a joint hearing for agenda item 24 and 25 as they are both linked. So anyone who would be like to speak on both of the, any one or for both of these agenda items, public comment will be your opportunity to do so. So with that, I opened the agenda item 2426-02930 and one applicant P and two Inc owner United States of America for possible action on a land use entitlement project request from RE residents of states. To RD, single family residential restricted on the north side of Anne Road, approximately 340 feet west of Egan Crest Drive. And agenda item 25, 26-0293, applicant PN2, Inc., owner, United States of America, for possible action on the following land use entitlement project request on the north side of Anne Road, approximately 340 feet west of Egan Crest Drive. 25A1, 26-0293, the error 1, to allow no off-site improvements, curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lights, where such are required. 25A2 26-0293 VAR 2 to allow private streets without a gate that do not conform to tile 19.04 complete street standards. 25A3 through 25A58 26-0293 VAR 3 through 26-0293 VAR 58 to allow a proposed residential lot that does not conform to tile 19.06 development standards for setbacks lots 1 through 56. 25A, 59, 26-0293, VA 559, to allow proposed perimeter and retaining walls that do not conform to Title 19.06 development standards for height. 25B, 26-0293, TMP1, and in Alpine Ridge for a 56 lot single family residential subdivision. Staff, can I please get the report for both items?

Madam Chair, in 2015, the subject site was annexed into the city as part of a larger request and it was designated RE residence estates. In 2018, a portion of the overall annexed area was rezoned to RD. However, the entire area was designated as RD in the city's GIS database instead of just the portion. This error has resulted in the applicant being required to submit the rezoning associated with the tentative map. Regardless of the error, the subject site is located within planning area A2 of the interlocal agreement, which outlines a minimum lot size of 18,000 square feet. Therefore, staff is not able to support the rezoning and associated tentative map with proposed lot sizes less than 18,000 square feet. In addition, the applicant is requesting setback variances for the residential homes and do not meet complete street standards which staff is not able to support. Therefore, staff recommends denial of related variances one through 59. Please note additional documentation of protest was received after publication. Thank you.

Please state your name for the record.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioners, my name is Tony Sless. I address 1980 Festival Plaza Drive here on behalf of the applicant, Pulte Homes. So you can see from the aerial site is highlighted in yellow. It is about 20 acres. It is located on the north side of Ann Road and just east of the 215. You can see it is bisected along the western edge by Alpine Ridge and also along the eastern edge, which is Michele Crest Way. This application has two major components to it. It is a conforming zone change and then a tentative map with the related variances. I appreciate staff's acknowledgement about the reason for the zone change. We were not aware of the required zone change until less than two weeks ago. About 12 days ago, we were informed that in addition to our tentative map, we would have to process A zone change, we had meetings, one large neighborhood meeting and then several shoot off neighborhood meetings with various neighbors about this and the whole time I had represented to them that there was no zone change. that this site was zoned RD. And I do want to spend a few minutes just outlining kind of the basis for that, why I did represent that. First, you can see the site is actually planned mixed use, which in and of itself identifies that several uses should be on this property, commercial, more intense, apartment type uses, et cetera. One of the allowed zoning districts is RD, which is now WHAT WE ARE ASKING FOR. AS YOU CAN SEE RIGHT HERE, THIS IS NOT A MISPRINT. THIS WAS WHAT WAS PUBLISHED UP UNTIL LESS THAN TWO WEEKS AGO. IT SHOWED THE SITE RD. THIS IS WHAT I HAD SHARED WITH THE NEIGHBORS. THIS IS WHAT WE HAD BEEN WORKING WITH THE CITY OF LAS VEGAS ON WHEN WE BEGAN THIS APPLICATION PROCESS BACK IN JULY. JUST TO SHOW YOU SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AT THAT TIME, THIS the county's open web system. You can see right here highlighted, it might be difficult to see, but you can see it does show it's RD zone. You can see the date stamp down here, September 1st. Again, just eight days ago, it showed it zoned RD. Again, when you go to the city's own zoning interactive map, again, it showed it as of August 25th, that it was zoned RD. So we relied on these publicly available information at the time that we did submit this application and when we were meeting with the neighbors and why I was very clear that this was a zone change, not a zone change, that it was zoned RD, but nonetheless I'm here talking about a zone change. Even more important is, as I mentioned, this is a property that IS CURRENTLY OWNED BY THE BLM. POLTY IS THE WINNING BIDDER OUT OF THE MOST RECENT BLM AUCTION. OF COURSE, THE BUILDER RELIES ON ALL THE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATA AS WELL AS APPRAISAL REPORTS THAT ARE PUT TOGETHER WHEN PROPERTIES GO OUT. YOU CAN SEE THIS APPRAISAL REPORT WAS DATED DECEMBER 30TH OF 2025. And in this report, it clearly states that the site is zoned RD, which allows minimum lots of 20,000 square feet, as well as the mixed use designation, which would allow much more intense type of commercial and residential uses. So it was based on this information that was publicly available, including what the maps showed, and then the appraisal showing that this was all zoned RD. Based on that, Pulte did become the successful bidder and did have to deposit a $3 million non-refundable deposit on this property based on what we thought would be some more type of density between 2.1 to 2.9 units to the acre. Unfortunately, I'm here now asking for a zone change along with these items. You can see right here, this is the site. Again, we have some items. Everything in color is in the city. Everything not in color, just for clarification, is in the county island. So that's why you see the two different colors on here. So you can see, again, our site at the time showed it zoned RD. And what you have directly to the north of us are two DR Horton properties that are in the city of Las Vegas. Those went through not only a zone change, but a general plan amendment. Again, to remind you, we do not have a general plan amendment, only a zone change that conforms to our master plan or general plan. You can see this most recent one was approved in 2018, certainly within the timeframe that the interlocal agreement was in place. The city felt at its discretion that three units to the acre, or up to three, this is All 10,000 square foot lots density of somewhere between 2.7 and 2.8 units to the acre felt that that was an appropriate zoning district and was harmonious and compatible with what the city was planning on doing in this area here. You can see immediately to the east of it is again additional property zoned RD and also located in the city of Las Vegas. So notwithstanding the reliance that we used to when we bidded this and submitted this and did not have an original zone change attached to it. Notwithstanding that, you can see it is still harmonious and compatible with all the properties located in the city of Las Vegas. We are basically matching a lot of this development to the north and then also to the north but east of the DR Horton development. These lots are all zoned RD. Density is less than three units to the acre. Lot sizes range from 10 to about 15,000 square feet. And as I will show you in our site plan, we are doing the same thing. So that is with respect to the zone change. The next item, as I mentioned, is our tentative map-related variances. I'm going to go through a sequence of plans here. It'll help establish how we ended up with the site plan that is now before you. As I mentioned, we had one main neighborhood meeting and then have had some meetings with other neighbors throughout this as we lead into your to tonight. This was one of the original designs that we were contemplating. You can see we have Alpine Ridge again along the western third of it, Michele Crest along the eastern third of it, and La Mancha located to the north. We had essentially, it was one development, but three components within it. We had the western edge, the middle portion, and then the eastern edge. A couple of the neighbors immediately to the north did approach us, or a meeting was arranged for us to meet with them about how can we design this to have less impact on our immediate adjacent neighbors here. The discussion was to potentially vacate and abandon La Mancha Road in this area through here, as well as remove Michele Crest. Just as a technicality, Michele Crest is actually not a right-of-way right now. It is a grant of easement by the BLM, which is in favor of Clark County, obviously for vehicular purposes. So we went through this exercise of trying to determine could we vacate and abandon La Mancha as well as ask to remove the relinquishment of Michele Crest in this area. What that does is it triggers another jurisdiction to be involved. On the north side of La Mancha here, as you will see from this aerial, is Clark County. You can see right here. La Mancha is actually dedicated today, so in order to not put La Mancha in on the city side, we would have to request a vacation and abandonment of the north side of La Mancha. Essentially, we coordinated with Clark County with respect to the likelihood of having that vacated and abandoned, and it was determined very quickly that was not going to work and that the county did want the right-of-way through this area. So we had to abandon that route. Basically, the reason the neighbors wanted it was to reduce or mitigate as much as possible any traffic that would be coming up towards them down Michele Crest as well. So this was the plan that we tried to go with. Again, it showed us not dedicating the southern half of La Mancha. This is Michele Crest that would be removed. La Mancha right here would continue and then elbow and go north on Michele Crest. However, this site plan was not going to be attainable, so we did have to abandon this one. What is now before you is the site plan I'm showing you here. can see we show the full dedication of La Mancha, although we are asking for waivers with respect, waivers or variances with respect to the offsite improvements, although we do agree to a condition that we would have to provide the related infrastructure for street lights, should at some time the city request those street lights to go in and we're fine with that condition. Also in working with some of the planning commissioners and neighbors, We are more than happy to put in, you can see we'll have our wall, landscaping, and then just on the other side of landscaping, happy to coordinate with Public Works to place a four foot wide asphalt walking path along this area. Since we do go to City Council, it will give us additional time between now and City Council to coordinate exactly what that would look like and provide a site plan or a cross section. to public works and plannings, but I'm here to commit that we, whatever condition would be crafted, we would continue to work with public works prior to city council to put that cross-section in should that be something that you would want a walking path in this area. Of course, we are also agreeable to withdrawing that waiver if wanted to be full of offsite improvements. With respect to the site plan, you can see we basically have two areas. We have 12 lots on the western side of Alpine Ridge and we have 44 lots on the eastern side of Alpine Ridge. We are, as I mentioned, dedicating La Mancha. We are still asking to relinquish the Shelley Crest in this area. One of the things that we did was reorient all 44 lots to go off and access Alpine Ridge. Again, trying to protect or mitigate additional vehicular traffic that would go down Michele Crest or La Mancha. Obviously, traffic is somewhat like water. It'll find its way to however it wants to get there. But at least this site plan helps mitigate, does not encourage traffic to go along La Mancha and really impact these neighbors' roads. right here. Additionally, we believe that the relinquishment of Michele Quest, excuse me, Michele Crest Way is important. It will help also reduce traffic that is going up and down Michele Crest today. Michele Crest, unlike Alpine Ridge, is only a 60 foot road. It is a local street. It does not have off-site improvements, meaning it just has, I think, about a 32-foot wide paved area, allowing for two-way traffic only. But other than that, it does not have curb, gutter, sidewalks. And we think having additional traffic, especially School traffic during the school year, going up and down, I'm not going to say unapproved, but not a street with full off-site improvements is the safest route to school. Alpine Ridge, however, is the opposite. Alpine Ridge is a collector street. is an 80-foot-wide right-of-way. It is a street that has four lanes of traffic, two going either direction. It is a street that has curb, gutter, and sidewalks. It is also a street that does not have, with the exception of this neighbor right here, does not have any front yards that face out towards Alpine Ridge. There is no front yards there. Almost all the developments... are similarly designed like this where you have an enclosed development with one access point leading to alpine ridge so we think for those reasons it's very compatible and that is why we are asking not to put in michelle crest and that's why you see this design here in addition to that we worked with some of the neighbors to limit where we would place two-story homes this will be a mixture of one and two-story homes We have starred the lots, which are basically along our western property line and our northern property line, where we would agree to a restriction at single-story homes only on those lots. I did provide that information to our neighbors. I have provided a proposed condition related to the same to planning to restrict those 17 lots to single-story homes only. In addition to that, we will agree to, as you will notice in our landscape plan, in particular the perimeter landscaping, we do not have the kind of the new policy that has been moving forward by this planning commission that we do the three inch and six inch calipers and that we have no palm trees and no pine trees as well. So I have provided that as well to planning, and we are perfectly agreeable to that. One of the things I did want to note is in your own staff report here about Alpine Ridge. I know this is definitely going to be a topic of discussion from the neighbors. There are some neighbors that wanted La Mancha and Michele Crest to go through, limit access to Alpine Ridge. Some that wanted... La Mancha and Michele Crest gone. What I'm showing you is La Mancha going in and asking that Michele Crest not go in and I point to this finding in the staff report right here about street capacities. You can see right here according to the city's own traffic counts, Alpine Ridge is only at 13% capacity and that our SITE, THE 56 LOTS WOULD ONLY ADD AN ADDITIONAL 1% OF CAPACITY TO ABOUT 14%. VERY SIMILAR TO ANN ROAD. ANN ROAD IS AT ABOUT 16%. AND OUR CAPACITY, OUR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WOULD ADD MAYBE ANOTHER 2% TO ANN ROAD AT ABOUT 18%. SO AGAIN, THIS IS WHY WE THINK ALPINE RIDGE IS THE APPROPRIATE STREET TO HAVE TRAFFIC GO DOWN, NOT MICHELLE CREST. Again, Ann Road, I failed to mention it, but Ann Road will be fully dedicated. That'll include curb gutters, street lights, et cetera. With respect to a couple of the variances in particular, as you can see, we do have 56 variances related to setbacks. Those setbacks are so that we can accommodate a one-story house on just about any parcel. That's very important in particular for the 17 lots that I have added here. That would apply to the front yards in these areas. Our backyard is plenty deep and does not intrude in that setback there. We do also have a request along this cul-de-sac not to gate it, but we are gating this side. Again, here's some pictures of the elevations of the home. It'll be a mixture of two, one and two-story homes, except where I noted where we would do single-story only. We are agreeable to all the if approved conditions as well as the two additional conditions I met about restricting the one-story home locations as well as the landscaping. And of course, if a third condition related to the asphalt walking path along La Mancha, we are happy to include that and then to work with Planning and Public Works on the cross-section and have that submitted prior to our City Council hearing on October 21st. That concludes my presentation for now, and I'll come back up later.

Thank you. At this time, this item has been noticed for public comment. If you are coming down, please line up at the microphone and state your name for the record. Thank you.

Good evening, Chair and members of the Commission. My name is Marcy Henson. I'm at 10360 Galena Springs Court. AS YOU HEARD TONIGHT THE PROJECT IS AWASH IN WAIVERS ASKING ALSO FOR A ZONE CHANGE AND AS A NEIGHBOR ONE BLOCK AWAY FROM THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT I COULD PROBABLY FORGIVE ALL OF THOSE, AGREE TO THE ZONE CHANGE AND THE WAIVERS. So one of the things that Mr. Celeste did not share was the impact that this will have on access and transportation to Centennial High School. McKellie Crest, for the record, has been paved and been used by the neighborhood and to transportation routes to the school since 2005. It gets traffic. There are two stop signs, one at Tropical, one at Azure. What is proposed for the closure would mean that all of that traffic goes on to Alpine Ridge. We've been told as we talked to various representatives of the project that it's no problem because Wallapai goes through. Wallapai does not go through. Egan Crest goes through. Egan Crest does not go through. And one person associated with the project was surprised that there's even a high school there. I just think in general there's not been enough attention paid to the impact that this will have on transportation to and from Ann and Centennial Parkway, particularly to the high school. That school has over 2,900 students and 120 staff. And so putting all of that traffic on Alpine Ridge, I'd want to correct the record also, Alpine Ridge is not two lanes each way. It's one lane each way. There are no stop signs on Alpine Ridge. So I also am a little confused about the outreach that occurred. It seems like some neighbors were talked to, a lot of neighbors were not talked to. We share a property aligned with the neighbor who wanted La Mancha closed. Those routes have been on transportation plans within the county for decades. There's a reason why La Mancha was laid out as a transportation route. There's a reason why McKellie Crest was laid out as a transportation route. So it asks that the commission hold this item so that we can get on the same page about the impacts to school traffic, or ask for changes so that McKellie Crest can be reserved. Thank you.

You can go to the one with the green light on. OK.

This one works too. That's why we have three. Bridget Salvi, member, president current of the Northwest Rural Preservation Association and the current chair of the County Rural Advisory, Rural Alliance Advisory Committee. Marilyn Kirkpatrick started that. This project, I'm a researcher, kind of my niche. I find it, a real failure of a very well-known firm to not do their own homework. When I could find the documentation that this has never been zoned other than when it was annexed and Stavros Anthony seated on city council way back when in 2015 strategically said this property will remain an RE equivalent. going forward and then I found other documentation and brought it to the attention of staff in planning who did some further research and said, oh my gosh, we have to start pulling things and going back and checking because one plan, Clark County Open Web said one thing, City Interactive Map said another thing and I find it appalling that I can discover that on my own and I'm not an attorney firm. So that's a failure that doesn't fall to anyone other than the attorney to go forward and create this whole plan of a density RD when it specifically says this parcel is located within the interlocal agreement. Staff has indicated and has rightly said it should not be supported for anything greater than two dwelling units per acre. There's a reason that the interlocal agreement was agreed and has been upheld, although there's much contention between city and county. This property is within an area that is mapped as staying two dwelling units per acre. It's encroaching upon the rural area too far. I think that it's incumbent upon this developer and the attorney to rightly develop a plan that reflects what the density should be. We've got documentation that now is easily available, because I can find it, of the annexation bill, of the proper zoning, of what the interlocal agreement says, and there needs to be a condition, not even a condition, there needs to be a consensus from this planning commission of the city that this item as a zoning, the first item, should be denied. And therefore, it would subsequently fail the tentative map. Because this is too dense, it is not zoned correctly, and it is no fault other than other people, a well-known attorney firm, and others that can't find the proper zoning. I request that you would deny everything before you on these two items. Thank you so much. Please say your name for the record.

Herman Henson, 10360 Galena Springs Court. I'm just going to read into the record and give you guys a record of I've been in contact with Mr. Whipperman, who is the principal at Centennial High School. His statement is, thank you for taking the time to hear my thoughts on this project this evening. Although I am glad to see the area growing and adding more housing, I have legitimate concerns about closing off the street from Anne to Centennial Parkway. The street is a major entrance and exit to the already congested area. Additionally, with major construction coming to Centennial Parkway in the next year, I am concerned how this will affect the students. Thank you, Keith Wipperman.

Please submit it to a member of staff. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Katrina Goodman. I live caddy corner to this lot that is the proposed. And I want for the record for you to know we received no notice of any of those neighborhood meetings. I simply received your postcard. But otherwise, unless I had spoken to neighbors, we were not informed. So we've got a lot of misinformation out there. I back on to the road Egan Crest, which is one over from Michellie. So what that means is, as has previously been discussed, we are one mile from Centennial High School. I'm a retired Clark County School District Administrator. I know exactly what that means. It does not go through, but that doesn't mean the children are not going to try. 56 homes is a third more than we are supposed to have been zoned for. We just moved in, we've only been there 11 months, and we were assured that there are two homes to every acre. This is three homes to the acre. 56 homes, according to Clark County School District statistics, will equal approximately 30 to 50 children. That means school buses. That means kids driving to school. You can't park school buses on the road on Ann Road, so that means they're going to go down the side roads. That's even more traffic on those side roads. It's just we're not built for that. That little area is semi-rural. We have people going around on horsebacks. Some of those roads are not properly finished deliberately because we like it like that. That's why there are two homes to every acre. I won't overrun.

Thank you. Please state your name for the record.

Teresa Norman, 10321 Mystic Ledge. First of all, I am with her. I don't know what neighbors got notified. I'm only eight homes north of the property and I've got no notification for anything. And he's also have a misconception of the area. Yes, he is correct. There has been development that are RD, and they are DR Horton, but he neglected to tell you that they are not in the land preservation area. They are outside of it. This property is just at the edge. Alpine Ridge is not part of the land preservation, but on the east side of Alpine Ridge is, and the developments he's talking about are not in that area. There is so much growth in the area, tons of it, But they are all conforming to the half acre rules. There's plenty of DR Horton homes. I'm in a DR Horton home, all half acres, and I encourage you to Please go drive the area. I've been here since six o'clock and you have been driving the areas. And I encourage you to drive this area north of this property and see that we are rural. Michele Crest is a rural road, Alpine Ridge is not. There is no sidewalk when I walk my dog and there are high school kids zooming down Michele Crest and do not get over and almost kill me and my dog plenty of times during the school season. it's not made for all that traffic. And if this does go through, I don't want Michele Crest to go through. I want it to be a dead end because the traffic, high school traffic going through there will be insane. If it has half acre lots, that will at least help the traffic on Michele Crest. But I am definitely opposed to doing this RD work And I feel that they are not correct with the zoning at all. And like I said, I encourage you to go and drive the area. And you will see no sidewalks, no street lights, and we like it that way.

Hi. My name is Mike Rivney. And first thing, I've got a letter from James Suarez I'd like to put in. He's also against this.

Please submit to a member of staff. Thank you.

AGAINST THIS PROJECT.

AND SO MY, I'M ALSO AGAINST THE, I DON'T WANT A ZONE CHANGE. THERE'S REALLY NO GOOD WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT, OKAY, SOMETIMES YOU CAN HAVE A ZONE CHANGE. WHAT'S THE GOOD JUSTIFICATION FOR IT? THERE'S NO HARDSHIP. IT'S NOT GOING TO BE AN ASSET TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. But there is a reason why they're requesting this. And the lawyer Tony, he already admitted that they misunderstood what the zoning was. So that's a misunderstanding. There's a misrepresentation. That's not the means to remedy to do a zone change. I hope you agree with me on that. This is a legal matter. What would you do if you're a lawyer or if you're a developer, would you go ahead and try to fix the matter way up where it started, or are you going to ask for a zone change? Now, if this thing goes through, I'm really against the Machelly Crest Way, the vacating of. They're going to at least get four more homes out of this, maybe more than that, for free. And that's going to set a precedent. We don't need any more streets blocked off. Thank you.

Please state your name for the record.

Hello, my name is Reagan Stokes and this is my husband Kurt Horak. We live at 6085 Egan Crest. We just learned about this via Facebook group not that long ago. So I'm not as educated as some others that spoke and we're newer to the neighborhood we've been in for about two and a half years. But the reason that we chose and many of our neighbors chose that neighborhood is because of the protection of the lifestyle that we were looking for. There are horses, there are chickens, there are all sorts of elements that don't deserve to have traffic interfering with it. And it does sound like there was an error made and a correction of that isn't to just add additional homes. the infrastructure of the streets of the homes of the lifestyles does not support having this type of community so we just wanted to to state that the impact doesn't seem positive to anybody except for a builder if this were to go through as stated thank you anything

Please state your name for the record.

Christopher Darling. Good evening. Could staff put that first picture that they put up there of the neighborhood on this overhead so I could point something out on it, please? Thank you. Okay. So you see the property, or I guess there's no way for me to really point to it, but to the east of Egan Crest here on the very east of it, you have, and Ruffian, you have Toll Brothers building half acre lots there. You have, I developed five of those lots there. I did 0.83 of an acre. I developed another four acres, four lots that back up to the east side of Egan Crest that also are half acre lots. and one of them is actually three quarters. And then to the south of Ann Road, all those are half acres. D.R. Horton did a bunch of them over there. You also have a little further to the east, you have American, Richmond America, Lenar, all have done half acre lots there. Yes, there are D.R. Horton lots that are to the north, but those are outside the intersection. What's the word I'm looking for? Interlocal agreement. So, but inside the interlocal agreement, the lots should, which these are, should conform to the two lots per acre in there. I ask that you, deny the applicant's request for the two lots per acre, just because it can be done in the area. And at the moment, I can prove that it can be done in the area, it's been done in the area just recently. And Michele Crest, that is a paved road. I just paved per county standards, Egan Crest, and it's the exact same size. No curb, no gutter, no sidewalk, and it's all the same width. So thank you for your time.

Thank you. And seeing no other members of the public who wish to speak, which please come down. Please come down and state your name for the record.

Dustin Molenski. So these projects are always contentious and it's your decision. And the problem is a lot of people spend a lot of time and a lot of money thinking about this. They work together. Certainly Pulte Homes has been a good neighbor in their efforts to work with the general neighborhood and try to devise a plan that would be acceptable. But who's at fault? Do you make a mistake and then you reward somebody? And so it's hard to say what the solution is because we all try to work together, right? But what do these rules mean? They're not even really your decision. We're just here to hear this for the first time. And so a lot of neighbors do have valid concerns, and everybody wants to get what they want. But when you reach into the barrel of personal interest and you pull out a stinky sardine, that's never good for anybody, is it? Especially when you work hard to work with people, including the developer, so that everything can be in everybody's best interest, not just one person's. And so somebody's at fault. And this is a problem, and it's not the developer. And I think the thing we have to reconcile with is that this does affect how we move forward. And we do have options, and our hands aren't tied no matter what we do. This isn't the first time something like this has played out, although this is very unusual, highly unusual, almost unbelievable. At this point, I'm not even sure what the answer is because I didn't fail. But if you were the one that failed, what would the answer be? And so there's a great deal of neighbors who have strong opinions about this project, many of which I've led and assured that this was going to be in everybody's best interest. And so I don't know.

I'll give it a few additional time, but we are past the time limit. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Because if time's up, that's fine. We just walk away. But again, whose fault was this? OK. And so we'll leave it to you. But certainly, this isn't the right way to do it. It's not fair to the developer. It's not fair to the neighbors. Nonetheless, we need a solution. Thank you.

I'm sorry, sir. Did I miss it? Did you spell your name for the record?

D-U-S-T-I-N. Is that good, or do you want the whole thing? Last name, please. B-E-L-I-N-S-K-I, 104 Laurel Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada. Thank you.

Thank you so much, sir.

And with that, is there any other members of the public who would like to speak at this time? Seeing none, I will be closing public comment and turning over to members of the commission. Um, and I also allow the applicant to come down and if there's any rebuttals, um, but while you were coming down, I will say that this is, this is a unique item. Um, I understand that there was some errors in the, and how it was presented for the zoning. And so for that, I'm just going to say kind of right off the bat that I will be supporting to obey this for 30 days, given especially some conversations I know that have already happened with Centennial High School and continue to do so. I think that is just the best course of action for this time. But I would like to give opportunities to the rest of the commission to also input their concerns at this time to see if in the 30-day abeyance that we will be able to kind of work through some of the plans. I think for me personally, My biggest heartburn is the vacation of Michele Crestway. I think there's a few questions and a few things to address on that issue. But at this time, I will turn it over to members of the commission to give their input. And then I will give it back to you for rebuttals to any of the neighbors' concerns as well as to the commission concerns. Thank you. And Commissioner, I'll start with Commissioner LeBeau.

Um, so just looking at the overall bigger picture of this whole area, um, I think there was a mess in, um, vacating wall of highway where Centennial high school is at. If you look at where the streets go through the next, you know, street that goes all the way through to Centennial would be grand Canyon drive. And in my opinion, I think that it causes. That in and of itself causes people to be more aggressive on the streets when they don't have an easy way to get where they're going. People are late. They're trying to get to school. They tend to speed more. I think that if you give people easier access to where they need to go, I think it helps people calm down. So that's just my overall thought on that.

Commissioner Taylor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have... Quite a few questions for Mr. Celeste. So I will say that I am not in favor of relinquishing the easement on McKellie Crestway. I have not, Michele Crestway. I have not heard a compelling reason. What I heard from you, Mr. Celeste, in our multiple conversations was that to some extent this was being driven by just a handful of neighbors north of the property. What concerns me is that when I look at the public input, I see 17 oppositions through the city. I see multiple oppositions in social media. You had 20 attendees at your neighborhood meeting and we just had nine or 10 people oppose. A lot of the people that put in oppositions through the city are on Alpine Ridge. You say Alpine Ridge is an 80 foot, there are pieces of it that are not improved and in fact you would like to have an exception to not improve it and put in the 50% deferral.

Alpine, if I may respond to it. Please. Not on Alpine Ridge, no. We are dedicating both sides because we have both sides of it. So it will be 80 foot right of way. It will be curb, gutter, and sidewalks. The only thing that would be deferred is the street lights on Alpine Ridge. because of the night skies in there but we certainly could put street lights in okay but alpine ridge we we're doing full off-site improvements except deferring street lights and we can of course do street lights if that is an issue okay and i think that it was worth noting that um the centennial high school principal did indicate he was not

in support of that relinquishment of easement. I wanna get it right, because I keep wanting to say vacation. So you also heard a lot of people here say they didn't get any notice, but yet again, when we talked multiple times, you kept saying it was being driven by these neighbors, and I'm guessing it's these three neighbors to the north between Michele Crest and Alpine Ridge. I also wanna point out that those are county neighbors, And you and I have had many conversations, or your firm and I have had many conversations on many other projects where there has been opposition from county neighbors, and I have been told, meh, it's just county neighbors. So I just want to put that on the record because it Again, it sort of vexes me that we're getting both of these things. So from a procedural, oh, when you and I talked this afternoon, when you were talking about the walking trail, which I think is potentially a great idea, and I really do respect Pulte's products and what they do. They do a great job. But you had said decomposed granite, and now you're saying asphalt.

Yeah, so thank you. Quick clarification, did have an opportunity to meet with Public Works before this hearing, as well as planning about weighing the option between decomposed granite and asphalt. It seemed like asphalt was their preference, but we're, again, we're amenable to doing whatever this commission would want us to do. So that's why I said asphalt. But If the DG or decomposed granite, we can do that as well.

Right. And decomposed granite is clearly not going to have the same urban heat island impact that asphalt will, and that's my concern.

That's fine with us.

I mean, that's just my concern. So I am supportive of Commissioner Kusama's inclination to put this on a 30-day abeyance. I would strongly suggest that you get contacts from every single person in this room and that they all be included in the discussions and not just the three neighbors to the north. I appreciate you fixing the tree sizing. I would also note that there are trees missing from the requirements, but for once that is not my primary concern. My primary concern is vacating Michele Crest. There are three miles from Alpine Ridge approximately to Grand Canyon, the next through street. So you are going to be pushing 2,900-ish, 3,000-ish people potentially all up Alpine Ridge, Grand Canyon, or the 215 and then around. And it just seems to me that that's insufficient. And looking at what, and I know this is Ward 4, but there are similar patches up in Ward 6. And setting this sort of precedent of creating this zigzag patchwork way to drive through places I agree with Commissioner LeBeau. When you start cutting off options, it makes people drive more aggressively because they're going to be jammed in. And so that is one of my concerns. You've got the traffic study. you pointed out the 13%, 16% capacity. Yes. And maybe I'm not reading it correctly, but it does say that note this report conservatively applies all traffic, bless you, generated by the development, regardless of other routes are available, projected capacities. shown maybe higher than a technical traffic impact would show. So the way I read that was just because a hypothetical traffic analysis is done doesn't reflect necessarily reality. And I think that that is again a big concern because perception is kind of reality, and if I'm hearing that there is already a lot of traffic on Alpine Ridge, what is closing another through route gonna do? And so I want you to really think about that. Let me make sure I understand you're also asking for no off-site improvements within the space of the subdivision, correct?

We are, the only place where we're asking for the no off-site improvement would be on the north property line along La Mancha. Okay. So that would be, we would do our paving, I think it's 16 feet of paving on our side of the street, and then it would transition into non-improvements, which we'd have our, at a minimum, our landscaping, and in front of the landscaping to either, you know, depending on the discussion here, DG or asphalt walkway. Okay. But everything, all the infrastructure for streetlights, et cetera, would be provided to it should, in the future, the city determine that it needs those improvements, including streetlights. It'll be there and ready to pull from.

Okay. Okay. And then on your variances, you noted that those were to support single-story house footprints, correct?

That is correct. The two stories, all footprint meet the required setbacks.

Right. And you're doing that by pushing the houses further to the front, correct?

Yes, that is correct.

But you are also asking for less setback in the back.

So those are on, so let me show you. Those would be on, let me show you where they are not to make it easier.

Okay, because there were so many variances, I'm sorry that I did not memorize every lot and every variance.

So I want to stress that the rear setback would not occur, and we can agree to a condition of approval on that as well. These 17 lots are would not need a rear setback. These homes would be pushed forward. These are all the ones, these are the single story homes right here that are asterisked. Those homes, we would likely still need a front yard setback, but not a rear. So these ones would be single story adjacent to existing residential development here, and we would comply with the rear setback, but would need the front setback on that. So we can... Yeah. agreed to some condition related that the rear setback does not apply to these 17 lots.

Okay. But your lots on the east side that would abut Egan Crest.

Potentially we would need, you're talking about on this side, Commissioner? Correct.

Yep.

Potentially, I'd have to look closer at a lot fit there. Potentially, we'd need the front and rear on those.

Okay, but you don't have any other existing residences that are abutting that? Because my concern is you're asking for a rear yard setback, but you're also asking for two stories, thus creating an additional concern of privacy, view shed, those kinds of impacts. to the neighbors that exist, but it looks like I was looking a little bit too far north, so you don't really have anybody to the east off of East West.

These look like these, in all fairness, looks like these pads, these are pads that have been at least, there's at least pads. I can't recall if there's anything built there, but I would say these do look vacant.

There we go. Okay.

Fairness, I pointed out that there was pads for sure.

Yeah, so we've had discussions. I generally am not supportive of two-story houses in rural areas. I asked if you would be willing to add a lot more single stories. This is great starting point, but I think on the east side, you need to also consider the single stories, especially if you're asking for... compressed rear setbacks. I also was sort of like, meh, I guess the rezone's okay, until I heard them talk about the fact that this is, again, in the interlocal, in the rural preservation area. And I know from Ward 6 that there are some amazing products that are two per acre. Like, you can just go cruise down Roussell and see what Richmond's done. So I don't know, again, if that's a product Pulte has, but in this potential 30 days, I think it is really worth having that discussion about how you can still have a great project that maximizes what Pulte needs and still makes Pulte a good neighbor. And I think that is the end of my quasi-deposition. So let me just make sure here. And I'm sure there will be also multiple meetings and conversations in the 30-day abeyance as well. Sure. I just wanted to get all of my issues out and on the record. So, I mean, like, as this stands, if we did take a vote on this, I do not believe that either 24 or 25 are harmonious and compatible, and I would not be able to support it. So I am hoping that we can get to an abeyance so we can get to a win-win on this project for you guys. Thank you so much, Madam Chair, for indulging me. Not a problem.

With that, I don't see any other commission members that have any comments. I will be making a motion to obey both agenda item 24 and 25 at this time.

I do have a question about 24, if I may, before the motion's made. On 24, it's the zone change. I was wondering if we could bifurcate that. I know the zone change has to go up to city council for sure on October 21st. I think if we held this to... If we held the tentative map application for 30 days, that would put us on... basically close to 30, you know, around October 8th. I'm sorry, I don't have the, maybe October 7th is the date. And that way maybe we have, you know, we'll have a determination on the tentative map and that would, could be final. And then the zone change would still go up to city council. I want to see if that was something we could have a discussion on. Madam chair, sorry.

If to me, I understand what Mr. Celeste is asking. But if there's going to be a broader discussion about the tentative map and the project writ large, it does not seem logical to me to vote on that. And it seems that this should go and move as a package. And, you know, after the 30 days when he's had a chance to talk to the neighbors and make some decisions about what's going to

Let me make it easy. I don't want to overcomplicate this. We can agree to a 30-day hold and be sure to get neighbors that we do not have contact information from to get a listserv, get a neighborhood meeting scheduled for sure within that 30-day timeframe, whatever revisions. are going to be needed. Hopefully we can get back to planning in time. I can't, hopefully we can get a little leeway on that. We will definitely get it to them prior to the hearing. Not sure we can get in to the backup in time, but hopefully we can have a little forgiveness on that if we kind of are able to move this on to something that is closer to a resolution. Not sure we're going to get there, but certainly we can make efforts to see what we can do and bring it back forward to you in 30 days, both of them. And we'll go from there.

Perfect. With that, I'm ready to make a motion. I will be making a motion to obey agenda item 24 and 25. Excuse me, Chair.

The clerk's office would request that you take separate motions. Thank you.

So at this time, I'll be making a motion to obey agenda item 24 to the October 13th Planning Commission meeting. Yes. Motion carries. And then I will be making a separate motion to obey agenda item 25, and that is 25A1, 260293, VAR 1, and 25A2, 26-0293, VAR 2, 25A3 through 25A58, 25A59, 260293, VAR 59, and 25B, 260293, to October 13th Planning Commission. Yes. Motion carries.

Excellent. We'll see you on October 13th with hopefully some resolutions for you guys. Thank you.

With that, I'll be opening up agenda item 26, 26-0312, SUP1, Applicant-Owner Use of Limited LLC. For possible action on the land use entitlement project request for a proposed motor vehicle sales use with a waiver of the minimum site area requirement at 1961 East Charleston Boulevard. Staff, can I please get the report?

Madam Chair, the subject site is within the Founders District and Redevelopment Plan Area 2, with the goals of providing a historic neighborhood augmented with transit-oriented mixed use that reflects a high level of concern for architectural, landscape, urban design, and land use principles. The proposed motor vehicle sales use does not support these goals by utilizing a potential redevelopment site for an automobile-oriented use, and staff is recommending denial of the requested special use permit. Thank you.

Mack McKnight, 4310 Plumeria Mist, being a representative, but this is the owner, he's also, he goes, well, hey, I want to talk. I go, well, okay. But I did, Commissioner, I keep calling, I just, sorry, man. We talked earlier about this and he would like to meet, or if we could obey it, even as we're sitting up there talking more about just all the discussion, is there a way we could obey it to the next planning commission so we could talk more? Because he would like to talk to you also. Is that permissible?

Thank you. I will still have to open up for public comment, and then we can, yes. So at this time, I will open up for public comments. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak on this agenda item? Seeing none, I will be closing public comment, and I will turn it over to members of the commission. Commissioner Schlottman.

Yes, Madam Chair, through you. I don't mind obeying it. You kind of heard some of my comments earlier about the redevelopment and how that sign played an effect. This is within that same area. I shared a lot of comments with your representative today, but I don't mind. I'd like to meet with you. I'd like to see you do something on your site. It's been a popular site. Your family has run that, and many people that I've talked to ever since this one come up have said, I've used that car wash, I've used that car wash. But, you know, we've got to talk about this particular item because it's not necessarily meeting the goals of our 2050 master plan, our redevelopment plan, and our... downtown 2045 vision plan. So anyways, let's get together and talk. Madam Chair, through you, I'd like to go ahead and hold this in advance until the October 13th planning commission hearing. Okay. And you have my contact information. Y'all can reach out.

Yeah.

Sure thing.

Yes.

Motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you. Appreciate it. By the way, appreciate all your guys' time.

Thank you. Major OT on this. And with that, I will open agenda item 28, 26-0333, SUP1, applicant Blue Sky Therapy, LLC, owner, Freenal & Son, Cheyenne, LLC, for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for proposed 1,155 square foot massage establishment use at 7350 West Cheyenne Avenue, Suite 102. Staff, may I please get the report?

Madam Chair, staff finds the addition of massage services to an established day spa can be conducted in a manner that is harmonious and compatible with the existing surrounding land uses and staff recommends approval of the requested special use permit. Please note additional documentation of protest was received after publication. Thank you.

Please state your name for the record.

Eva Chappelle.

Anything you'd like to discuss on your agenda item? No. I've been waiting a long time. No, not a problem. I understand. So with that, I will open it for public comment. Is there anyone who would like to speak at this time? Seeing none, I will be closing public comment, turning it over to members of the commission, starting with myself. This is a word for item. I think that it's perfectly fine and suitable. I have no objection to this agenda item. I don't see any other comments from members of the commission. So with that, I'll be making a motion to approve agenda item 28, 26-0333, SUP 1, subject to all staff conditions. And do you agree with all staff conditions?

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Aye. Yes. Motion carries. You can go.

Madam Chair, that item is final action unless appealed to the city clerk within 10 days. Thank you.

And with that, I open up agenda item 3026-0336, SDR 1, applicant owner Matlock Holdings, 25 LLC for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for proposed five-story, 16-unit multifamily residential development with waivers of Title 19.09 form-based code development standards on the south side of Harrison Avenue, approximately 160 feet west of D Street. Staff, may I please get the report?

Yes, Madam Chair, the proposed housing development is consistent with the 2050 City of Las Vegas Master Plan and Vision 2045 Downtown Las Vegas Master Plan goals for the historic west side. As the proposed development meets all development standards except for the requested parking deviation, which is minor in nature, staff recommends approval of the requested site development plan review subject to conditions. Please note a revised staff report and revised site, floor, elevations, and landscape plans are in your supplemental packet. Thank you.

Please say your name for the record. Good evening. My name is Danita Olsen. I'm with KME Architects. We're here to present this project, and I do just want to make a note that we did send an updated set of site plans and elevations, drawings that were not shown on here, but they do reflect some of the changes that happened since the previous submittal. So we are proposing a 407 Harrisons as a residential development that will have 13 units. It will be four stories. The units would be a studio, one bedroom, and two bedroom apartments, as well as an amenity and an open courtyard space on the upper level. We have had the opportunity to meet with Commissioner Walters, as well as Councilwoman SHUNDRA ARMSTRONG AND TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE CONCERNS THEY HAD AND THIS IS WHERE WE MADE SOME CHANGES TO THE DESIGN AS WELL. THERE ARE TWO BUS LINES OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION LOCATED AT and this development is considered a high-low zone and we intend to follow the form-based code parking requirements to meet what is required per code. We're also proposed to utilize a high bonus offer as part of the general plan for the transit zone to increase the height of this development to a total of four stories and we're gonna be providing a minimum of 10% of these units that will meet the attainable housing requirements. We are open to and welcome to any questions or comments, and we kindly request that you approve our proposed project.

Wonderful. I'll be opening this item for public comment at this time. Is there anyone who would like to speak at this time? Seeing none, I'll be closing public comment and turning it over to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Walters.

Hi, hello, thank you for these updated changes. Can you just confirm then for me how many units there are in this now?

Yes, there will be 13 units.

And then instead of the five story, it's now four? That's correct. And the number of parking spaces you've included?

It's seven. Seven, okay.

Yes. Great, I appreciate those changes. And you said obtainable housing is 10%, so-

It will be a minimum 10% but what is required is minimum 10%.

I'm sure they will do higher than that. How many are you proposing?

I will have to check with development. I know that's something that they clearly made a comment that they want to make sure to provide that.

That's fine. Okay, and then the trees on the property, I think I had mentioned, I just want to make sure that they are conforming to our general standards we include. So 26, can you? So we often utilize language for 24 inch or 36 inch box. large, fast-growing SNWA trees. So on the list, three-inch caliber, six inches above grade. Are you amenable to that?

Yes, absolutely.

So I just want to make sure that can get put in the conditions.

Yes, Madam Chair, through you, we can go ahead and add that condition to application 260336-SDR1. That added condition would apply to the SDR in Chal State. The applicant shall provide fast-growing large shade trees with the minimum 3-inch trunk caliper measured 6 inches from the base of the trunk in accordance with the Southern Nevada regional plant list within the perimeter landscape buffer areas. Thank you.

Otherwise, I just want to say we're excited to have more housing in this area where it's desperately needed. So if any other commissioners have anything... Okay. Then I'd just like to make a motion on item 260336, SDR1, to approve subject to staff conditions. Do you agree to staff conditions? Yes. Thank you.

That would mean amended conditions?

Subject to staff amended conditions. Yes. Absolutely.

Yes. Motion carries.

Madam Chair, that will move forward to City Council on October 21st, 2026. Thank you.

Thank you. That brings us to Agenda Item 3226-0347, VAR 1, applicant owner Christopher Allen and Tricia Stowell, for possible action on land use entitlement project request to allow an existing patio cover, RV cover, and residential accessory structure shed that do not conform to Title 19.06 development standards for setbacks, height separation, and aesthetic compatibility at 8425 Royalston Falls Court. Staff may please get the report.

Madam Chair, no evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance related to the physical characteristics of the property has been presented to warrant the construction of an RV cover or shed that do not meet standards for separation, setbacks, height, or aesthetic compatibility. As such, the hardship is self-imposed and therefore staff recommends denial of this request. Please note additional documentation of support and protest was received after publication. Thank you.

Hello, my name's Christopher Stowell and my wife is Tricia Stowell. We are the property owners of 8425 Ralston Falls Court. I understand the concerns raised by the staff, but I'd like to give you a little bit more context about our property and why we're asking to keep the RV pergola and shed as they are today. Our home sits on half an acre lot in a cul-de-sac that our fee covers. is on the street side basically where you see next to Durango so there is no actual houses next to it. Just a four lane public right of way. There is landscaped area between our property and the public roadway and because of that the RV cover really has very little impact on our neighbors. It has also limited visibility from our neighborhood. You primarily only see it from our property, the home directly in front of us, or while traveling along the said public roadway. We also talk to our direct neighbors and they have no concerns or objections to the structures. Our HOA has even reviewed and approved the structures as well. We have support letters from our direct neighbors that we could submit. that show the support of the structures. The city, the height of the RV cover simply is what is needed to safely clear the roof line and protect the RV itself. It is an additional living space or enclosed building. It is an open-sided structure and specifically for RV parking and protection. The city staff also visited the property in July. They observed the RV cover and noted Noted in the report there were no other concerns during that visit. We understand that the RV cover and shed don't meet all the current setback height and separation requirements. However, we're asking the Commission to consider the property as a whole and the actual impact of allowing the structures to remain. Nothing extends onto a neighboring property or into the public right of way and there is no neighboring home directly beside the RV cover. Given the location of the structure and the landscaped area along the street side of our public, we believe allowing them to remain will not negatively impact the neighborhood or public safety. Thank you.

Thank you. With that, is there anyone in the public who would like to speak at this time? Seeing none, I will be closing public comment, moving it to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Taylor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm actually going to... pass the mic to Commissioner Walters because she had, I've been out, I came out this afternoon, saw your site, saw the RV park, the RV shed, shade structure, which really looks like a big gazebo, but Commissioner Walters had some questions.

Yeah, I just wanted to ask on your plan, it has something labeled a casita.

Yeah, we have a separate casita building that's behind the shed in the back corner of our property.

Okay. So that is not one of the sheds being.

No, we have a 10 by 10 shed that sits behind the pergola area. If you go back to the site plan. Yeah. I don't know if you could do that on the screen.

Okay. Yes. I see the pergola and then that, so the shed immediately south of it. Okay.

Yep. It's right behind the existing pergola and that shed is just a 10 by 10 structure right there.

And the casita structure you've previously permitted.

Yeah, it's permitted. It's all allowed and everything. All right.

Thank you.

Um, thank you. So, um, like I said, I went out there, it is a very tall structure, but to me it fits in with the neighborhood and the landscaping and because it abuts Durango, And because you're at the end, you know, in a cul-de-sac, I didn't have any concerns with it. I thought that the design of it, the construction of it looked harmonious and compatible. So unless anybody else has any concerns, I'm prepared to make a motion. Okay. I would like to make a motion to approve item 3226-0347BAR1. and that's subject to all staff conditions, and you agree to all staff conditions?

Yes.

Thank you.

Yes. Motion carries.

Madam Chair, that item is final action unless appealed to the city clerk in 10 days. Thanks. Thank you.

Thank you. With that, we move on to Agenda Item 33, 26-0350, VAR 1, Applicant Owner Steve Parks. For possible action on a land use entitlement project request to allow an existing patio cover and residential accessory structure, shade cover, and shed that do not conform to Title 19.06 development standards for setback, separation, and aesthetic compatibility at 7733 Wedlock Lane. Staff, can I please get the report?

Yes, Madam Chair. This variance request is the result of an open code enforcement case. No evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance related to the physical characteristics of the property have been presented to warrant the requested variance. As the hardship is self-imposed, staff recommends denial of the requested variance subject to conditions if approved. Please note additional documentation of protest has been received since publication. Thank you.

Please state your name for the record. Steve Parks, 7733 Wedlock. When I bought the house two years ago, the patio next to the house, which I covered, was established. There's not a whole lot of yard. There's a pool in the back. On the other side of my house I have some pool equipment that's established by a four foot block wall that was built around it. It also is up against the property line. There was an existing shed in the yard also. Everything is painted tan or white and it's pretty much color coordinated with the neighborhood. I have several letters from my neighbors and my neighbors immediate neighbors have no problem with it I've spoke with them before I put the awnings up and I've this is about my third meeting I Have support I think from Frances Allen Polanski on on it. I've talked to her before can you please submit?

You're welcome to submit any of your document documentation to a member of staff.

Okay. Here's the letters Some of them have been submitted with the original planning commission meeting that I had. And I've submitted pictures, photos, and a lot of things when I started this case.

Wonderful. Thank you. So at this time, I will be opening up for public comment. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak at this time? Seeing none, I will be closing public comment, turning it over to members of the commission. Starting with myself, this is Ward 4. I've taken a look at the neighborhood as well. And while generally speaking, we don't like if the neighborhood does not already have these popped up, we don't like to necessarily prove it. However, I do see it in several of your neighbors, several other homes in this community. It is a common thing to have these structures. And so with that, especially since some of them were grandfathered in since when you bought the property, I have no issue with it. So I'll be making a motion to approve unless there are any other comments from members of the commission. Seeing none, so yes, there is a motion to approve agenda item 3326-0350VR1, subject to staff conditions. And do you agree to staff conditions?

Sure. I don't know what they are, but.

It should be in the staff.

I agree.

You agree? There you go. All right. And so with that, there's a motion. Yes. Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Technical difficulty. So everyone is in support. This is taking a while.

I'm sorry.

It's a yes from me.

Schottman?

Aye.

Taylor?

Aye.

Walters? Aye. LeBeau? Aye.

Yes. Thank you. Motion carries.

Madam Chair, that item will move forward to City Council on October 21st, 2026.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you.

And with that, we move on to Agenda Item 3426-0351, Applicant Las Vegas Billboards, Owner Stewart Plaza, LLC. For possible action on the following land use entitlement project requests at 321 North Mojave Road, 34A26-0351BR1 to allow an existing 65 foot tall off-premise sign to be raised to 85 feet and to a height that is 62 feet above the elevation of the roadway surface of an elevated freeway where 30 feet is maximum allowed. 34B26-0351SDR1 for proposed 20 foot addition to an existing 65 foot tall off-premise sign and extension of the sign 48 feet above a noise abatement project. Staff, can I please get the report?

Madam Chair, staff maintains that the elevation of the subject property relative to the freeway does not constitute an extraordinary characteristic and every other physical characteristic of the site is within the realm of the ordinary. Title 19 allows off-premise signs to be constructed 30 feet above the elevated freeway and the applicant was previously granted a variance to construct the site at 42 feet above the elevated freeway. As such, the hardship is self-imposed and staff recommends denial of the variance and site development plan review. Thank you.

Please state your name for the record.

Greg Esposito representing Las Vegas Billboards again. Did you know that in 1999, NASA crashed a Mars orbiter because one set of rocket scientists used it in imperial measurements and another used metric? And so they lost the entire project. Well, it sort of happened here a little bit. This is what you approved a couple months ago. And while the numbers, you know, you approved the numbers, but you also improved what you were looking at. THIS IS WHAT WE PRESENTED. WE PRESENTED A BILLBOARD THAT WAS ABOVE THE SOUND WALL AND YOU FELT THAT IT WAS A GOOD APPLICATION, YOU FELT IT WAS WORTH IT TO ALLOW US TO BUILD IT THIS HIGH IN ORDER TO HAVE PROPER VISIBILITY. UNFORTUNATELY, DUE TO A MATH ERROR, THIS IS WHAT YOU GOT. IT DOESN'T MATCH THE PICTURES THAT WE PRESENTED. SOMEBODY MESSED UP THE SURVEY This is actually the installed billboard. So this is what you got. And so we simply need to fix the math please to actually go get what it is that you originally approved visually.

Thank you. Is that the end of the presentation?

Yes.

Oh, good. Well, with that, I will open for public comment. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak at this time? Seeing none, I'll be closing public comment, turning over to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Schlottman.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I didn't realize measuring signs was rocket science, but it sounds like there's a mishap in it. I did have a chance to meet with the applicant, and what they presented previously on that Elevation is pretty much what we would be seeing today. This does raise it up even higher away from the future residential multifamily that will be down below, I mean, directly below the signs of a gas station. And then there's multifamily, which we put the blades on and everything. So since this isn't directly related facing a surface street, it's facing the highway. I feel better about this one, so I can get behind it. There's no other questions. And I think we might see if staff has any other comments before we move forward with a motion. You know, one of the issues that I have also when these come up on the service street is just, you know, people walking on up and down Charleston, those service streets, and, you know, when you have something flashing in your eyes. it's easier to lose track of what's going on and accidentally hit someone. We're not actually seeing people walk on the highway. And so hopefully, you know, this won't be as big of a issue there. And I'm just rambling on right now, just trying to give staff as much time as they possibly can. Don't give them too much time. I won't change any lines. Dead air is the worst thing that we could have up here. So... You know, the latest, if you submit your application later, as late as possible to the deadline, you actually end up at the end of our agenda versus the beginning, you know. So just public service announcement. Put it on earlier and, you know, you can, oh, we're ready.

We're ready. Okay. I think staff has some additional comments on the agenda.

Madam Chair, through you, yes, through the conditions of approval, they are required to comply with the previously approved site development plan review and special use permit. Only the previous height variance will be expunged with this approval. Thank you.

Yes, we can agree to that.

Okay. And that was a condition change. Just a clarification. And you agree to all conditions have approved? Yes. All right, Madam Chair, on item number 34, 34A and B, move to approve subject to staff's conditions.

Yes. Motion carries.

Thank you very much for your time.

Madam Chair, that item is going to move forward to City Council on October 21st, 2026.

Thank you. With that, we open up agenda item 35, 26-0352, applicant owner, THB Nevada LLC, for possible action on the following land use entitlement project requests bounded by Eastern Avenue, 25th Street, and Fremont Street. 35A, 26-0352, VR1, to allow private streets on private lots where common lots are required. 35B, 26-0352, VR2, to allow private gated streets that do not conform to Title 19.04 complete street standards. 35C, 26-0352, BAR 3, to allow proposed perimeter retaining walls that do not conform to Title 19.06 development standards for height. 35D, 26-0352, TMP 1, Eastern and 25th, for a proposed 48-lot single-family attached residential subdivision. With a waiver of the perimeter landscape buffer requirements, staff, can I please get the report?

Yes, Madam Chair, the proposed development, while introducing a diverse housing type, which is much needed in the periphery of downtown Las Vegas, requires multiple variances and waivers of Title 19 requirements, which demonstrates the development's incompatibility with the surrounding area. As such, staff recommends denial of all requested entitlements. If approved, they will be subject to conditions. Thank you.

Please state your name for the record.

Jeff Thompson, 6030 South Jones Boulevard, with Tanny Engineering on behalf of the client. HERE TODAY WHAT WE HAVE PRESENTED IS A PROJECT THAT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED THAT HAD TWO PHASES ON IT. PHASE ONE INCLUDED 31 UNITS OF ATTACHED PRODUCT AND THEN PHASE TWO ACCOUNTED FOR 48 MORE. PHASE ONE WAS BUILT AND CONSTRUCTED AND HAS PLANS BUT PHASE TWO DIDN'T GET TO THE FULL PLAN APPROVAL SO THE ENTIREMENT LAPSED AND WE'RE HERE TO ASK FOR THE SAME THINGS AND COME BACK AND RENEW THAT ENTIREMENT FOR THOSE 48 LOTS. AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE PROJECT ON MY SITE PLAN, THE 31 EXISTS ALONG THE 25TH AND THEN THE Western half of the project is the additional 48 for Phase 2. The couple of waivers I'm wrestling for, one of them is a waiver wall height of 7 feet, and that exists between Phase 1 and Phase 2 within the subdivision. I can go through a little bit more of these waivers, but I know it's pretty late. I'll answer any questions you guys have and move from there.

With that, I will open up for public comment. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak at this time? Seeing none, I will be closing public comment, turning over to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Schlottman.

Thank you. And question for step, because I see there's like a variance for Title 19 is requested to allow 1.10 connectivity ratio where 1.30 is required. but I don't see that actually listed here as 35A or B or C, and those are the three variances.

Yes, Madam Chair, through you, that variance which addresses connectivity would be covered under 35B-260352 under Title 1904 Complete Street Standards, which also highlights that connectivity ratio.

Okay, and... I don't expect you to recalculate connectivity ratios tonight, but if just going off of your, uh, experience, if we were to add a additional gate off of, uh, Eastern, a pedestrian gate, would that help out the connectivity ratio?

Madam chair, through you, uh, that additional pedestrian gate could, um, increase the connectivity ratio. Um, however, we would need to look at an amended site plan to determine if it meets that 1.3 that's required.

Okay, so Mr. Thompson, I think we spoke on the phone. Well, I know we spoke on the phone earlier, and you seemed open to adding that additional pedestrian gate. So if I could ask planning staff to queue up some kind of condition to add a pedestrian gate, and that'll help out your connectivity ratio. And they'll see if it resolves it or not, but we'll still go ahead and move forward with the variance. But with the understanding that we're probably going to be closer to meeting that connectivity ratio. And thanks for your explanation of the retaining wall. You're saying it could go up to seven feet. You just don't know until the engineering is finished.

Correct.

And with full disclosure, I worked for a company, went to work for a company 26 years ago called Urban Lofts and moved out here and started building a few projects for them. Stopped working for them nine years ago. And they started this project a few years back, well after I was finished, went belly up. But I was successful. involved with the original designs of this project whenever I did work for that company. So I know this project pretty well. And, you know, it, it kills me to go down the street and seeing this project just sitting there. And, you know, I've had plenty of, uh, conversations with rick rosier over here about this particular project and you know i live in the fremont street loss where uh the the community went up in flames and caused one of the biggest fires we've seen the past 20 years and you know uh so i'm really looking forward to getting this project constructed as soon as we get them in we get the fire sprinklers um and you know they're just bundle of kindling right now for the most part, the ones that aren't wrapped in stucco. So I see what we're trying to achieve here. We'll make that one little tweak. If I can ask staff, do we need to put a condition that they'll add that additional gate?

Yes, Madam Chair, through you, staff could go ahead and add a condition to application 260352-TMP1, which shall state that A pedestrian gate shall be provided to allow access outside of the residential subdivision, if that's okay with you. Okay. You're okay with that?

Absolutely. Thank you.

Commissioner Walters? Yes, thank you. The private streets on private lots where common lots are required, what does that mean for the homeowner when the street is on their lot?

Can I address that? Yeah, go ahead. Okay. So basically what happens is the property line extends out to the middle of the street, and then there's a common lot that goes over the top of the street. Now, we've done this on many of the communities in Dallas and Vegas when I was building residential townhome projects. Basically what it does, it just allows you to – have a little bit more square footage for those particular lots, even though it is covered by an easement. Regardless, the HOA is going to cover the private streets if it's just a common lot or if there's an easement going over the top of each of those. The HOA still maintains the complete driveway and landscaping over the top. It's just the way that it shows up on paper. Do you have 2,200 square feet or do you have 2,000 square feet for that lot?

But the HOA does the repairs?

Correct. It's all in the CC&Rs that the HOA will maintain all those common space elements of the property underneath those easements.

Is it common, though? You're saying it's common even though it's on the private lot, and there's variance for it to be a common lot.

Correct. It's underneath an easement that is under the property for private access, but it's all within the CC&Rs as place in which the HOA fees go towards for maintaining purposes.

Okay.

It could also have different impacts on building code and, you know, utility placement. Right. If you read the footnotes of the building code, it says that you can measure out to the center line of a street. We used to extend it off the front of the building so we didn't have to put the firewall on the front of the building and have to have fire glazing. But now the building code allows us to measure from the center line of the street, so that's not even an issue anymore. But there's a lot of little... technical issues that you get into with where it can help you out having that at the center line of the street. All right. Madam chair, um, on item number 35, uh, that would be 35 a through 35 D moved to approve subject to conditions and subject to the attic condition that Christian read into the record, which we're going to apply to which item? 35 C. D. All right. And you agree to all those conditions and the added conditions?

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Motion's on the floor.

Yes. Motion carries.

Madam Chair, that item is final action unless appealed to the city clerk within 10 days. Thank you.

Thank you. That brings us to agenda item 37, 26-0355, WVR1, applicant owner, CMA7, LLC, for possible action on land use entitlement project request to allow an existing building addition to an existing hotel that does not conform to Title 19.08 development standards for setback and residential adjacency area 2 at 700 North Main Street. Staff, can I please get the report?

Yes, Madam Chair, this waiver request is the result of an open code enforcement case which cited an unpermitted addition within the required setback area. The proposed development is not compatible with the adjacent single-family residential development in the area as evidenced by the multiple waiver requests to address insufficient building setbacks. Staff therefore recommends an eye of the requested waiver subject to conditions if approved. Thank you.

Please state your name for the record.

Nazgul Balakcheev. HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, VEGAS STRONGER. THEY ACQUIRED THIS PROPERTY IN unfortunately inherited an unpermitted structure in the back of the property. So as you can see here in this diagram, there's an existing masonry structure that was built sometime before the current owner and my client purchased the property. And unknowingly, they extended that with a shade structure just to the northeast. HIRED A CONTRACTOR THAT STATED THEY'RE GOING TO FOLLOW ZONING AND GET THE PROPER PERMITS, ALSO UNFORTUNATELY DIDN'T DO THAT. SO WE'RE HERE TO REMEDY THAT ISSUE AND HOPEFULLY GET A VARIANCE REQUEST TO AT THE VERY LEAST KEEP THE EXISTING MATIONARY STRUCTURE BECAUSE THAT WAS THERE BEFORE THE CLIENT PURCHASED THE PROPERTY AND THE PREVIOUS OWNER DID NOT DISCLOSE THAT THAT'S UNPERMITTED STRUCTURE. understanding that the shade structure has caused some issues, we're willing to remove that at my client's expense. So that's where we are. I'll open it up to questions.

Perfect. At this time, this item has been noticed for public comments. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak at this time? Seeing none, I will be closing public comment, turning it over to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Walters.

Okay, can you show me the document on bottom with the masonry structure, the image, the photo?

It's right there.

I think it's underneath. I want to see the inside, please.

Oh, the inside, yes. Yes.

So before I ask about that, I just wanna say, as far as I understand, there's a setback, it's supposed to have a setback from the neighbors of 20 feet. And this building was built with only 16, right? Which was allowed, it's totally fine. But then the shade structure spans that entire perimeter. Is that correct?

It stops a little bit short of the building.

So I know that there have been some concerns from the neighbor and you discussed that about water and other things coming over. I was unable to see the masonry structure. Can you describe that briefly?

Yeah. So right here where I'm pointing, you can see it from the southern property line. So that's the masonry structure. And then here you can see it just past the shade canopy. Okay.

So it's a wall or it's a room?

It's a room. It's basically a storage room with a roof on it.

Yeah, okay.

So it's built well, just never permitted. And as the retained architect, I'm here to help them properly permit with the building department if we're to get this variance approved.

And how would you resolve the water runoff from... The shade structure, unfortunately, I am not in support of. But how would you resolve the water runoff issue for the masonry structure?

I don't believe there's a water runoff issue with the masonry structure. It does have a proper roof that drains properly. I could see the problem coming from the metal canopy that's kind of pitched towards the neighbor's lots. So we're willing to get rid of that, like I stated.

Yes, I think the shade structure is predominantly the issue for the neighbor in the runoff. So are there any other questions?

And for the record, we did get some letters of support from all of these adjacent highlighted properties that are directly impacted by the shade structure.

So I am inclined to allow the masonry structure, but have you removed the the shade structure overhead? Okay, we're okay with that Can we ask staff to stop can you cross an amendment, thank you I

Yes, Madam Chair, through you. I'll just need a minute to craft that condition. Thank you.

Do you know when the masonry structure was built? I know you said you purchased it.

Just looking on Google Maps, it appears to have came up like 2022, 2023, so not that long ago, but somehow stuff still flies under the radar.

What kind of things do you store inside of that?

Any sort of things you would need for the hotel, so... I don't know the exact contents, but. Okay.

Yeah, it was very difficult to get around or to see it from any angle. Sure. It's well hidden, so. I think that'll be it.

Okay, Madam Chair, through you, staff would like to add a condition to application 260355-WVR1, which shall state the existing patio cover shall be removed within 30 days of final approval.

If I could request a little bit more time for the owner to just select the right contractor for the removal of the structure, or would this be 30 days from city council?

It would be, Madam Chair, through you, it would be 60 days from city council, which would be the final approval. Okay.

30 days.

Are you okay with that?