Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, good evening. We are 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 backslash 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 the roll?

Chair Taylor? Present. Vice Chair Kusama? Present. Commissioner Schlottman?

Present.

Commissioner Rogan?

Present.

Commissioner Walsh?

Present.

Commissioner DiSalvio?

Present.

Commissioner Munford?

Present.

You have a quorum.

Thank you. 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 next portion of the agenda must be limited to matters on the agenda for action. If you wish to be heard, please 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? Okay, seeing none, thank you, and we will move on to item number five. May we have a motion to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of August 12th, 2025?

Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve the minutes from last month's meeting.

Thank you. There's a motion on the floor. Please cast your vote. Please post. And that motion carries. Let's move on to our housekeeping items. Are there any items that commissioners, staff, applicants, or members of the public would like to pull forward for action?

Madam Chair, Nicole Eddowes for the record. The applicant is requesting to hold item number 13 to the October 14th Planning Commission meeting. The applicant is requesting to hold item number 14 to the October 14th Planning Commission meeting. The applicant is requesting to table item number 15. Staff is requesting to strike item number 16A. The applicant is requesting to hold item number 17 to the October 14th Planning Commission meeting. Staff is requesting to hold item number 27 to the October 14th Planning Commission meeting. And staff is requesting to strike item number 33B. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Does anyone wish to speak on any of these items?

Madam Chair, Commissioners, Bob Gronauer, 1980 Festival Plaza Drive. I'm representing the applicant on items 18, which is 18A and B. We'd like to hold that matter for 30 days so we can continue to work with the Commissioner and the Councilwoman on some of the elevations.

Okay, thank you very much. Any further comments? Okay, seeing none, Vice Chair Cassama, would you like to make a motion on these housekeeping items?

Chair, I'd like to make a motion to obey item 13 to the October 14 Planning Commission meeting, to obey item, sorry, item 13 and obey item 14 to the October 14 Planning Commission meeting, to table item 15 to strike 16A, to obey item 17 to the October 14 Planning Commission meeting, To obey item 27 to the October 14 Planning Commission meeting to strike 33 33 B and to obey Agenda item 18 a and B to the October 14 Planning Commission meeting Thank you, there is a motion on the floor, please cast your votes Please post and that motion carries I

All right, moving on to consent items. These 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. Great, seeing none on this, can I have a motion, Vice Chair Kusama?

Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve the consent item agenda.

Thank you. There's a motion on the floor. Please cast your vote. Please post. And that motion carries. and that item is final action tonight unless appeal to the city clerk in seven days thank you we'll move on to one motion one vote the following ir 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 opened at one time Any person representing an application or a member of the public or a member of the planning commission not in agreement with the conditions and all standard conditions for the application recommended by staff should request to have that item removed from this part of the agenda. Number eight, 25-0215, applicant, Southern Nevada Water Authority, owner, Las Vegas Valley Water District, for possible action on the following land use entitlement projects requests at 6930 West Oakey Boulevard, Ward 1, Knutson. 8A, 25-0215ZON1 from RE Residence Estates to CV Civic. 8B, 25-0215SDR1 for proposed one story, 2,373 square foot pump station building and equipment addition to an existing water reservoir facility. item 9 25-0299 vac1 applicant greystone nevada llc owner drp solaris nv1 llc for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for a petition to vacate a portion of a public drainage easement generally located at the southeast corner of alta drive and wallop highway ward 2 seaman Item 10, 25-0319, SUP 1, applicant owner, the Owens Family Trust for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for proposed residential accessory dwelling unit use at 5075 Arrow Ranch Court, Ward 6, Bruny. Item 11, 25-0320, SUP 1, applicant ADT LV LLC owner, the BLVD Series 1 LLC et al. For possible action on the following land use entitlement project request for a proposed 4,505 square foot alcohol on premise full use with a 927 square foot outdoor patio area and alcohol. off-premise ancillary full use at 1130 South Casino Center Boulevard, Suites 110, 130, and 140, Ward 3 Diaz. Item 12, 25-0341, Applicant Schulman Development, owner Union Pacific Railroad Company, for possible action on the following land use entitlement project requests at the northeast corner of Charleston Boulevard and Grand Central Parkway, Ward 1 Knutson, 12A, 25-0341 SUP1 for a proposed nightclub use. 12B, 25-0341 SUP2 for a proposed valet parking use. 12C, 25-0341 SUP3 for a proposed 208,000 square foot alcohol on premise full use. 12D, 25-0341 SUP4 for a proposed for proposed 250 foot tall building within the 200 foot airport overlay district 12e 25-0341 sdr for proposed 21 story 312 room hotel development with waivers of appendix f interim downtown las vegas development standards area one 12f 25-0341 tmp1 for a one lot commercial subdivision including condominium units and with that i understand public works has a condition to correct thank you chair taylor yes public works has a minor correction on item number 12 e 25-0341 sdr1

Condition number 29 relates the retaining wall required in condition 31, but it should say the retaining wall required in condition number 32. That's it. Thank you.

Thank you. These matters were noticed as a public hearing. Would anyone like to be heard on any of the items read forth in our one motion, one vote section? Come on down. And if everybody wants to just line up at microphones, then we can just move through everybody.

You know, we can hardly hear you. Really? Over there, yeah.

That is not normally something people say. Okay, yeah. So if you can just each line up at a microphone, please give your name, your address, and if we can just give everybody two minutes on the clock.

Okay.

my name is victoria richester and i'm at 1550 montessori street this is about the rezoning on the oki for public water for the water district to rezone from residential to civic and we are against it and that's for item number eight

Okay. Where do I put this? You can hand it to the clerk. Anybody else wishing to speak on this item? Please come up to the microphones and line up.

I'm Kathy Taplet-Austell. My husband, I'm representing myself and my husband. We live at 1510 Montessori Street. He's unfortunately not here, which is probably a good thing because he is a little long-winded. We are here to represent also the neighborhood that backs up to that water district. And we're just concerned about the changing of the zone from residential estates to civic. The all current development standards in 19.08.040 must be brought up to current standards to include but not limited to, as cited by the staff in the paragraph E of the proposal about the interior screen walls. So what we're saying is if we have to be rezoned, they need to come up to the standards of um what is required in 2025 compared to 1977 when it was originally the fences were originally built against our properties we right now have um we do have uh barbed wire and uh um fencing that the along the the properties so um what we're we're looking at is if they're going to rezone and it's not stated anywhere in the proposal that they will be building a wall along that uh that portion of um the the water district and we're concerned about that so we we're trying to say In short, is that they must remove the chain link fencing, replace with decorative walls and or landscaping as outlined in the codes of the civic codes. Current plans are insufficient and must be updated to all stated requirements before rezoning can be approved. That's it. Thank you.

Are you here for that item as well, sir? Yes. Okay. My name is Warren E. Kane. I live at 1580 Montessori. And I wish to speak against the rezoning. Okay.

That's it for now. Okay. Thank you, sir.

Chair, if I could just be heard. Is the SNWA here tonight to speak on that issue? Could we pull that so the SNWA can give a presentation and we can hear from staff on the staff report as well? Then we could just cross-reference the comments to the items.

That'd be great. Thank you. All right. Thank you. So we will pull item 8 out for the public hearing portion of this. Anybody else on any other items? From one motion, one vote. Okay, seeing none, I will ask the Vice Chair to make a motion on items, the one motion, one vote items, numbers eight through 12.

Madam Chair.

Yes.

Luta Salvio. Oh, sorry. I want to abstain on item number 10 out of abundance of caution due to the fact that I'm also on the ARC Committee for that HOA that would still need approval.

Okay. And Madam Chair? I'd like to abstain on item number 11 as I'm under contract on that particular project.

OK. Thank you. All right.

Chair, with that, I'd like to make a motion to approve the one motion, one vote agenda items. And that would be agenda items 9 through 12, since we are pulling agenda item 8 for public hearing.

All right, thank you. There is a motion on the floor. Please cast your vote. And please post. And that motion carries.

And Madam Chair, each of those items is final action tonight unless appealed to the city clerk in 10 days. Thank you.

Okay, we will move on to our public hearing items. And if we could just make a request that folks keep their presentations to around 10 minutes, that would be great. If there's something needing longer than that, let us know. But otherwise, if we can keep it to around 10 minutes. So I am going to first pull forward item number 34. And that is 25-0321 DIR-1, 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. All wards and staff recommends approval.

Madam Chair, Seth Floyd for the record. My stunt double will be doing the presentation tonight.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Planning Commissioners Marco Vallada, City of Las Vegas, Department of Community Development for the record. Tonight is our fourth annual update on the progress of implementation of our 2050 Master Plan. Before you, you have a report that details a lot of the outcomes and their status that we've been tracking. We've done this every year as one of the requirements as part of the master plan implementation ordinance and that of revised statutes. I'd like to do this to help inform the city council, and this is your opportunity as planning commissioners to provide any recommendations regarding implementation of any of the aspects of the plan. We also have another opportunity with respect to our citywide strategic plan. We've had our strategic plan in place since 2020 with the aspects of public safety, healthcare, economic diversification as kind of the core tenants. We're in the process right now of undergoing an update to that strategic plan, but with this report and the ones that precede it, any of the information here that you would like to advise the city council on, as part of the strategic planning process which is taking place now and will conclude with a special council meeting at the end of this month. We can certainly provide that information to our strategic services staff about that. I'll get into this a little bit from a higher level. Again, we're trying to show how our progress is with respect to different parts of the, the master plan itself, whether that's implementing specific policies or zoning actions or things to that effect, we're starting to show progress over time. And right now in that report, we're about half and half in terms of positive outcomes, positive trends. There are some things that are not going as well for different reasons and they are all outlined there and we'll have additional information over our entire plan in different aspects of implementation on our master plan dashboard at masterplan.vegas. Some of the things that I did want to highlight, I mean, we have done a lot of investment in downtown Las Vegas, and we just had the ribbon cutting and the the opening of Civic Plaza across the street. We've seen a lot of economic development, especially in Symphony Park, a lot of new things that have been under construction for a while are now wrapping up and will soon be operational. We've seen a lot of progress with respect to infrastructure, a lot of schools that have been replaced. Historic Westside Education Training Center also has wrapped up. We've done a lot of special area planning. I've been in front of the Planning Commission and City Council on a number of these, most recently for Kyle Canyon, La Madre Foothills, and Charleston. And that has also been one of those tools that we've used to help implement the 2050 plan and get into a little bit more granular detail. for different neighborhoods across the city. And as you can see, a lot of the development that has occurred over the past year has been in the suburbs. We have had some of those infill projects, as mentioned, in downtown. But really, again, to stress the importance of this longer term vision that we have, We're trying to, we're at the point where we're reaching our western boundaries, our northwestern boundaries, and the concentration going forward is gonna be infill and redevelopment. And I'll return to that here in just a second, but again, a lot of that activity is out there. I won't belabor it. I mean, we've seen a lot of the reports in the media, national and local, about some of the recent economic trends that have been going on. As we I'm sure we've all heard and we've all seen, you know, just domestic and international visitation has been down. Traffic through the Harry Reid International Airport is down about 6% at Interstate 15 and state line. It's been down about 4% hotel occupancy on the strips down is about 80%. And yes, this is a summer lull. We're going into into the holidays and we have NFL and NHL that they're about to start back up again. We'll likely see some of those numbers tick back up. But again, the underlying message here is that with our tourist-dependent economy and despite our diversification efforts, With an economic downturn, we see that further impacts on other sectors of the economy, the higher cost of living for residents, less consumer discretionary, non-discretionary spending, and then that translating into higher unemployment and impacts on the city's tax revenue. If you look at, If you look at it across the city, it's different in different neighborhoods. You have lower unemployment rates in the suburbs and higher unemployment rates in rural. And why is that? I mean, it's a combination of factors, of course. Inflation, national economic policies, changes in business practices in the tourism industry. There are a lot of different things that feed into this, but it's something to be aware of, and the council has been aware of it as part of the strategic planning process as well. In terms of our housing market, similar narrative we have. We hit some of those major increases in terms of prices over the last year. The median price of a single family home in June 2025 reached a peak at $485,000. and average monthly mortgages and rental rates in different parts of the city have also been seeing those steadily increase. And you can see differences in different neighborhoods based on geography. The underlying theme here is that, of the total housing units that were built in the last year, 4100 total units only about 1.4 percent were actually built affordable whether those were single or multi-family we had 57 affordable housing units that were completed and that's well below where the pace that we need to be on but we do have 200 units that are under rehab 48 new apartments that are under construction and about another thousand that are under planning right now, including Marble Manor and some of the other projects that are immediately around downtown Las Vegas. Add to that, you know, some of the land and housing dynamics that go on. We're working with RTC on Southern Nevada Strong and their update of the, of the comprehensive regional plan. And again, there's this inflection point that we've been at, and a lot of it has been talked about, especially as the one big beautiful bill was being debated. We have possibility of continuing to expand out. Is that federal land that goes up for sale, is that for affordable housing? Do we continue a march towards PRIM and the state line along the I-15 corridor? we concentrate our efforts on transit-oriented development, infill development, and what we've been doing in downtown Las Vegas. And because we are landlocked, we kind of have a direction, a clear signal. I mean, Summerlin West will develop itself out. The Northwest will develop itself out in the next 25 years. But we have another strategy that we need to focus and double down on, and that is on our major corridors. Because our land supply is finite, and as a result, housing costs and property costs have gone up. Add to that, it's the water supply situation. And we're at the end of the interim agreement that's been in place between the basin states. The lake levels are, for both Lake Powell and Lake Mead, are at a critical point. We do see tier two cuts at below elevation 1050, and we're slowly approaching that. And this water year, The projections are that we'll probably get right into that realm. We have seen what that can do. Our allocation of 300,000 acre feet can get further cut. But if you factor in housing, where does new development go? The new development outside of the Las Vegas Valley requires infrastructure to pump back to Lake Mead. to get return flow credit this is an important thing that we need to be cognizant of going forward southern nevada water authority has been our steward for this and again they they have been at the at the table talking with the other basin states and the other water purveyors other the other municipalities that are stakeholders in the process both in the upper and lower basin so what can you do as planning commissioners um you know in terms of the most direct impact we've been working with you as staff on amendments and updates to title 19 and that's in the form of the zoning code or other or other titles of las vegas municipal code with housing and infill development we'll bring back after getting some comments from uh from from the commission specifically that TOD overlay zoning standards. That item will hopefully set the stage for that infill and redevelopment to make more housing available at different price points, as well as the affordable housing incentives There were some provisions from Assembly Bill 540 of this last legislative session that increased the thresholds for area median income and the incentives that can be made available to different income level thresholds as a result of that. We'll also bring forward parking standards. We've done an in-house parking study to, again, right-size some of our dated parking standards for different uses. That will require a pretty comprehensive update of many of the uses and parking standards in our zoning code. And then tree and landscaping standards, we're wrapping up an urban forestry management plan, which recommends some changes in light of the drought and urban heat island effect. to try to get more tree canopy for both residential and commercial uses. So in terms of the upcoming strategic plan, we have heard through that process, there was a community survey in which we had a very high priority placed on maintaining our existing infrastructure economic development and quality of police services, so essentially public safety. That was something that the public wanted the city to pay most attention to when that survey was conducted. Our directors and management group, Team Las Vegas as we call it, held a summit over the summer, and in terms of the staff priorities that shook out of that, really came back to public safety, addressing homelessness, addressing affordable housing, education, and healthcare. Very much in tune with the 2020 strategic plan. And then with that, strategic services kind of filtered down a little bit more what some of our strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats were. Again, some of the same themes I kind of covered already, making that diversification effort to the economy happen, continuing our conservative fiscal and financial management, and then our public service delivery, and making sure that we make good on that. However, we have to be cognizant of the housing, land, and transportation limitations that we have, because we are landlocked. We do have the opportunity to continue on with our workforce development efforts, both locally and at a statewide basis, but we need to maintain our uh our our oversight on on revenue making sure that we're we're in line with uh with revenue that's coming in and in any change in the economy can certainly uh be a threat to that so with that um that is the the uh annual report on the master plan But as mentioned at the beginning, we do have an opportunity here to take in any recommendations or anything that you would like to pass on to city council for their consideration as they embark on their strategic plan. Because again, these two are related to each other. And if there are some things that we want to pass to them in terms of policy change or things related to master plan implementation, this would certainly be the time and mean to do that.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Vallotta. This item has been noticed for public hearing. Are there any members of the public wishing to be heard? Okay, seeing none, I will pass this back to the commission. Anybody have any questions, thoughts on Mr. Vallotta's report? Commissioner Walsh.

Good evening. Was anything addressed about the communications increases in technology and some of the futuristic things that have come up that may be more advanced during the time that the project starts? Have you looked at that, I guess, as communications and, like, the technology is moving so fast it can't even keep up?

Mark of a lot for the record. If I follow what you're asking, Commissioner, I don't think in terms of technology like AI or communication, like telecommunication, can you give me?

Yeah, telecommunication is mostly cell phone towers going in that will reach, you know, in certain parts of the city and that kind of items.

Okay, as far as specific communications changes or anything like that, we took a look at broadband access and access to small cell, things like that, where that's available. But that really hasn't been so much of a focus. not one of the things. I mean, we touch a little bit about it on the master plan, but I mean, if there's something that we can address.

It would be interesting to see the companies, the cellular companies that provide services already to the city, if they have any futuristic plans they're looking at 10, 20, 30 years from now as a recommendation. The other one is that you addressed water. What about gas, natural gas?

So, again, Mark for the record, I mean, in terms of our overall energy consumption, I mean, natural gas is the primary driver for a lot of power generation locally. It's also, you know, something that we use, you know, domestically for the, you know, residential purpose for heating and cooking and things to that effect. We have one major uh natural gas supply pipeline current river that um that really serves the entire las vegas valley and you know wyoming utah is really the end point for that i mean you know the supply is uh what it is um we do have You know, we have had previous concerns about that. Again, that's something we've worked with through the Public Utilities Commission. But really, in terms of big, major infrastructure intertying us to other regions, there really isn't anything on the table.

Yeah, because one of the developments out in Summerlin, they had to bring in propane tanks, gigantic ones, and for the use of the development, and a couple of the houses converted to it until the pipelines got in to service that development. I'm just wondering if that infrastructure is going to hold projects up. That's something else I would recommend to take a look at. And that's it. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Rogan.

Thank you, Marco. Your wealth of knowledge never ceases to amaze me, and I know we've had offline conversations on many of these subjects. So I thank you for your presentation tonight. I think you did an excellent job in conveying sometimes difficult concepts to us folks who are not in the planning and strategic development world. I like the fact that you're addressing the form-based code. One of the things I wanted to discuss is we did the form-based code years ago and we're still not, we haven't seen full implementation of the form-based code and whether we're proceeding with that or not in the remainder of the areas that we intended that to go I would like to just see some movement forward or just some information if you could come back and let us know whether we're doing something different in those areas we initially planned for form-based code. And then a few of the recommendations from the Charleston Area Plan. that i think are worth looking at i think was the simplification of the residential zoning classes that might be something that i think deserves a second look as well as its relationship to the multitude of of overlay districts that we now seem to have as we've discussed privately I like the fact that, or I don't like the fact that we've only had 57 affordable housing units put forward. I think that's something that the city really should address. And some of the recommendations that did come from the Charleston area plan was the community land trust or revolving fund for the development of affordable housing. And I think those are worthwhile pursuits to take a look at and see if we can accomplish that like other jurisdictions. And then also, I mean, you don't have to answer the question now, but I'm just not sure whether our affordable housing incentives for density bonuses and height bonuses are actually working. I mean, we only see a portion of what comes through for development. So I can't say that our perspective is accurate, but it doesn't seem as though it is. And so I don't know whether there's something that we can do to incentivize even further in that regard. If not, what other options we have to either require or induce affordable housing demands. And so those are my comments.

Thank you, Commissioner Rogan. Commissioner Casanova. Okay. All right.

I'm sorry. I missed the opportunity to ask a question.

Okay. So let's let the commission wrap up, and then I will briefly reopen. So you are here to make a comment on this? Okay. So hang on one second. Stay up here. It's okay. I just have a couple questions and comments. Commissioner Rogan actually took some of the questions or comments that I was going to have, which is again that the density and height bonus just does not seem to be effective. We've had projects come before us that seem really appropriate based on where they are to meet workforce housing needs and we've been told by developers that they're that they're not taking advantage of the density in the height bonus so I don't know again what we can do to further incentivize that I know that in for what it's worth in Vancouver and it is British Columbia but It's basically not a, you may take advantage of this incentive. It is a, if you want this density and you want this height, you shall put this many units in that are affordable. Again, totally different country, but that's how they do it up there. I'm excited that you are actually putting in, working on some additional urban forestry language, and we'll look forward to seeing that because you know That that is something that's near and dear to my heart Which is the you know urban heat islands and want to make sure we can do everything we can to mitigate those And I don't know if it's worth Looking even at the landscaping standards increasing, you know the requirements You know increasing the requirements so that we're not coming in with waivers and variances, especially in like parking lot islands um because that's again where you've got the heavy pieces the heavy coverage of asphalt that is going to lead to that urban heat island impact and then i i'm curious mr volada like when you look at the affordable housing when you look at the i guess the multi-family housing that's coming in what i am curious about and i don't know the answer is what we seem to see is a lot of apartments and again a lot of those apartments are not for workforce housing they are high-end fantastic complexes, really neat amenities. But what we're not seeing are those smaller, like those multifamily units, condos, and the ability to come in and use that as an entry level for purchasing. And so I don't know what analysis maybe you guys have done about lost opportunities for folks to be able to do entry level purchases by incentivizing multifamily for purchase rather than apartments. So maybe that's something that could be analyzed. Then I think if you could pull up It's right after the major accomplishments and trends. It's that next slide where you highlight recent regional economic trends One more I think yeah, I'm really curious about the slide on the right. Mr. Vallotta I'm not sure why you chose to put up a screenshot of the Las Vegas Raiders losing to the broncos i just wanted to highlight that that maybe next time you could analyze your shots a little bit better it's a great example of a legion stadium but i just think that the score is maybe not the best optics so just throwing that out there for further consideration for the record i would also add our master plan has pete carroll still coaching the raiders in 2050 so i just wanted to point that out so we'll keep reporting on that Oh, thank you. I think that's going to be really important. Oh, and actually one more substantive comment. Harking back to former chair Sam Cherry, when we went through this last time, he did talk about, you know, are there opportunities to better define what we look at for workforce housing? And so just wondering if you had done some of that work as well and that, you know, that could be something that we continue to refine. And also, you know, don't be putting Broncos scores up, beating the Raiders. Okay, so with that, I will, like I said, open it up really briefly, ma'am, for comments.

Thank you. My question is, though, affordable housing is very important because housing is becoming unaffordable, especially for people who cannot put hundreds of thousands of dollars into purchases. Do you plan on restructuring current neighborhoods or developing it in new neighborhoods? So if it's in current neighborhoods, then all of our property values are gonna go down. And that's really not what we bought our houses for. not to lose because we have a homeless shelter on the corner or we have a other affordable housing with a lot of crime in it in the city so that would be my question is where is it being developed through you thank you um sure

And that seems to be the challenge when we do affordable housing projects where you have surrounding residents. One thing I might suggest that we look at doing is educating educating people about the effects of affordable housing coming into their neighborhoods. I've been in real estate for quite some time, and a lot of times I don't agree that when you bring an affordable housing project in there, I had an affordable housing project come before me, and one of the things that I talked to him about is having proper property management and maintenance and screening of the people that are coming in and to educate people about those projects that are coming in. Because it doesn't mean all the time that property values will go down. When we do comps in residential, we actually go into that particular residential neighborhood, that community, and do comps on similar properties. So if there's another development across the street, a lot of times it doesn't even affect the price of that home inside of that community. Just something I wanted to say, because sometimes the public, there's a stigma with affordable housing, and that's probably one of the biggest challenges we have.

what you're saying. From my experience, and I have been in all kinds of neighborhoods all over the country, if there's an apartment building across the street from a residential one family house neighborhood, the property values go down automatically. That's why no one wants apartments in a residential street. And you can educate people all you want, I was a kid, as you probably were a child before. Who listens to the rules? Rules are made to be broken by teenagers. And the crime to break into cars, the trash on the streets, that all has to be addressed before the neighborhoods are being restructured to bring affordable housing. And I'm all for it. I'm for affordable housing. it's needed it just needs to be addressed and well not addressed it needs to be put strategically in a place so we don't wind up with a bottleneck like we have charleston closed we have okie closed we have sahara closed all in the same area and we cannot even get east to west yeah if you can please wrap up and just give your name and address for the record please yeah My name is Victoria Rochester. Yeah, thank you. And your address? And please spell your last name for the record. R-E-C-H-E-S-T-E-R 1550 Montessori Street.

Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Okay. Any other comments from the Commission? Seeing none, Okay, I'm going to go ahead and make a motion to approve the Planning Commission 2025 Annual Report, dated September 9th, 2025, item 3425-0321DIR1. Motion on the floor, please cast your votes. Please post. That motion carries. Thank you, Mr. Vallotta, for your continued fantastic work and, again, your wealth of knowledge and innovation.

Thank you. And, Madam Chair, that report will move on to City Council on October 15th.

Thank you very much. Okay, going back to the top of the agenda, we are going to go to item number eight, 25-0215, applicant Southern Nevada Water Authority owner Las Vegas Valley Water District for possible action of the following land use entitlement project requests. At 6930 West Oakey Boulevard, Ward 1, Knutson. So that's 8A25-0215ZON1 from RE Residence Estates to CV Civic and 8B25-0215SDR1 for proposed one-story, 2,373-square-foot pump station building and equipment addition to an existing water reservoir facility. May we have the staff report, please?

Madam Chair, staff has determined that the proposed rezoning to Civic is appropriate for the site and surrounding area. As it will allow the proposed expansion of the existing reservoir and pump station as a conforming use. Furthermore, the proposed expansion of the reservoir and pumping station will improve the existing water supply and will have a minimal impact on the existing site and the surrounding residential and commercial land uses in the area.

Therefore, staff recommends approval. Thank you. Thank you very much. Good evening, ma'am. Can you please state and spell your name for the record and give us your address and tell us about this project?

sure my name is robin rocky southern nevada water authority the applicant good evening planning commissioners thank you so much for letting us provide a brief presentation on our request for reliability improvements to the las vegas valley water district's rice reservoir and pumping station site we also wish to thank staff for their recommendation for approval And we appreciate the comments from the community as well, but we will defer to you for the appropriateness of the zoning concerns right now. As the regional water wholesaler, the Southern Nevada Water Authority initiates infrastructure projects and programs with member agencies like the Water District to strengthen water delivery. These are known as reliability projects. Tonight we're requesting approval for a new water pumping station at the Rice site near Oakey and Rainbow. Your green light will allow the water authority to establish redundancy and reliability of this area's water delivery system. In the world of heavy civil engineering, reliability and redundancy is our Hippocratic oath, if you will, kind of our do no harm. Our reliability projects are the keystone of our robust and world-class water system. We achieve these goals by providing looped connections between large diameter laterals and service lines. We have a beautiful looped water system throughout the valley so that water can be directed to other areas of the valley in the event of emergencies or unplanned outages. To give you the big picture, we're planning to make a new loop via future pipeline between the existing Rice Reservoir and pumping station and the existing Spring Mountain Durango Reservoir and pumping station. To push this water through the new connection between Rice and the Spring Mountain site will require a new 30 million gallon per day pumping station at the Rice site, which is the focus of tonight's approval request. The existing rice reservoir, this is mentioned by the neighbors, and pumping station became operational in 1978 to consistently and reliably meet customer needs in the area. The new pumping station will protect, enhance, and even go beyond that ability. The new pumping station will be co-located at the existing site, and that's shown here. This is the entire rice reservoir and pumping station site. uh... the new projects include an open air uh... pumping station and which is also the current format at the site by the way and enclosed operations building and surge control. And I also just want to point out that our proposed new facilities are at the far east side of the site. Our Montessori neighbors are on the west side of the site, over here, I believe, off the map. So I just wanted to point out the entire site and then where our proposed facilities would be going. I think you had this one up already, but I'll show it again. The buildings will match the aesthetics of the existing facilities at the site. Landscaping, site access, security walls, and the boundaries will remain unchanged or will be replaced in kind following construction. Once complete, the site will continue to be unmanned with periodic visits by the Water District for operations and security personnel. It will be operated only as necessary to meet planned or unplanned water deliveries. Construction is expected to start in May of 2027 and be completed by May of 2030. Lastly, this project is part of the larger Horizon Lateral Program. That's a package of transmission and storage projects currently in design to protect our regional water distribution network so that when you turn on the tap, your needs are consistently and reliably met. And that concludes the presentation. Thank you. Now you know everything that I know about this project, but I do have experts here who can answer any tough questions that you might have.

OK, thank you. This item has been noticed for public hearing. If there are members of the public who wish to be heard, please come down. However, if you have already spoken on this, please, anything new, let's not repeat ourselves from the original public hearing. And we're going to keep this to two minutes per person.

The question I have is, why can't we leave it as a residential estate instead of zoning it to civic? What we are afraid of is that in the future, with the way government moves, other projects will be put on this property. And we do have a view of the strip. We do not want our property values to drop if something else is put on there. So we don't trust civic zoning. That's why we would prefer to have estate uh zoning okay thank you oh absolutely i'm so sorry ma'am did you stay and spell your name for the record and give us your address i'm sorry uh kathy taplet ostel and i'm at 1510 montessori and just spell your last name for the uh it's uh t-a-p-l-e-t-t-a-u-s-t-e-l-l okay thank you ma'am thank you

I just want to add to what Kathy said and to what we said in the opening that we're not against water. We are against rezoning. Why can't they get variants? Why can't they act on the same laws and rules as they are acting now? We don't mind the construction. We mind the rezoning. So that's what I had to say.

Victoria Richester, 1550 Montessori. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Anybody else for public comment on this item?

Would I be able to read what my husband had put on his card or explanation of what we're... sure is it it's a there is absolutely no reason to rezone for small building none all buildings proposed must rezoning must meet rezoning requirements as you have 24 resident estates zoned properties that directly abut or are adjacent to this facility we currently have and demand the right for the city and snwa to be good neighbors by complying with current codes, regulations, and any required variances. To rezone this property is an extreme government overreach to usurp all adjacent property owner's rights on this and all future building projects. This proposal will potentially severely affect our property values, which are driven by the aesthetic value of unobstructed city and strip views. More importantly, any rezoning could potentially destroy the enjoyment of our properties that one resident has enjoyed for nearly 50 years. we cannot state this more emphatically the planning commission must say no to rezoning please make this very easy cost effective and simple decision to say no the last thing we as residents of las vegas need is more protracted legal battles within our city okay thank you very much ma'am anybody else for public hearing on this item okay seeing none i'm going to close public hearing call the applicant back up for any uh comments

Do I have any comments? Yes, it is your turn to- I'll defer to you on the zoning issue.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. With that, I will turn it back to the Commission, starting with Commissioner Rogan.

Thank you, Chair. Ms. Rockey, thank you for your presentation. I'm sure you didn't expect to have to give this tonight, and I thank you for coming up and doing so. I think a couple of the concerns that the neighbors have had, I think I can address, and they're addressed in the staff report. But the one thing that I can't is there were some comments about the existing wall that may be in need of repair or in future enhancement. So before the evening's over, I'd like, if you don't mind, to exchange your contact information with the folks that are here tonight. Absolutely. because for the folks that are here from the neighborhood, this is just a recommending body. We don't make the final decision. The city council will make its decision next month on this application. And so there's still time to talk about it with the water authority and with Councilman Knudson. Tonight is not the final decision. It's just a recommendation. But with regard to some of the comments that were made, the staff report indicates that even though it's a rezoning to Civic, the adjacency standards for buildings that are built still applies so it's a three to one ratio for every foot in height that a building is going to be placed on there it has to be three feet from your property line that's no different than any other commercial development that exists today so your views will not be affected by this change from its existing zoning zoning to civic zoning And if I'm wrong about that, if staff could correct me. And then I think also the wall standards as indicated in the staff report also continue to apply. And to the extent that you need those walls updated, Ms. Rockey will be happy to address those concerns before the next city council meeting. With that being said, I think that the rezoning is appropriate. It's a civic use under our code. This is just a pro forma update to match the zoning that exists under our current code as opposed to what we did in 1977. I think the site development plan review is appropriate, but I would make the recommendation that, again, Ms. Rockey work with the neighbors to see if there's any updates that need to be done to the rest of the facility. Does anyone else, Chair, if anyone else has any comments?

Madam Chair, Fred Solis for the record. Just a quick point of clarification, Commissioner, through you, Madam Chair. So Title 19 does require the adherence to the wall and landscape standards for this property. However, once it becomes a public hearing, then what's shown on the site plan is what is approved. So that's the clarification. Chair, if I could.

Yes, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Solis. But ultimately, city council will make that determination. It's not us tonight. So there's still time to amend that or put conditions on it between now and city council.

And Madam Chair, I'd also like to make a clarification on the rezoning. This is a conforming rezoning to align the general plan designation of this property is public facility. The civic zoning is meant for government quasi-government, schools. So this will remain a water district facility. There will be no homes, no commercial, no nothing built. Anything else built on this will remain. This is just strictly a conforming rezoning that will bring it into conformance with the general plan designation. Thank you. Thank you.

Anybody else? Okay, seeing none, go ahead and make your motion, Commissioner Rogan.

Thank you. And subject to my comments this evening, I make a motion for approval to agenda item 8, 25-0215, subparts A and B.

Thank you. There's a motion on the floor. Please cast your vote. Please post. And that motion carries.

And that item will move on to City Council on October 15th.

Okay, thank you. Next we have, item 16 abeyance 25-0208 applicant owner grind mode 2 llc for possible action on the following land use entitlement project requests at 2901 north rancho drive ward 5 summers armstrong staff recommends denial on the land use entitlement project and the subparts for this are 16b abeyance 25-0208 sup1 for a major amendment to an approved special use permit U012896 for an 818 square foot reduction of an existing 3,600 square foot car wash or auto detailing use and 16C abeyance 25-0208 SUP2 for a proposed 4,931 square foot alcohol off premise full use. May we have the staff report, please?

Madam Chair, the applicant submitted revised plans to staff which eliminated the need for the parking variance and staff finds the proposed development is able to operate in a manner that is harmonious and compatible with the surrounding area and is recommending approval of both special use permits. Please note the revised plans and the staff report with the updated date stamp are in your supplemental packet tonight.

Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, ma'am. If you could please state and spell your name for the record, give us your address, and tell us about the project.

Sure. I'm Simona Stevens, S-T-E-P-H-E-N-S, 1950 East Warm Springs. I'm here on behalf of the owner. The owner wants basically take the portion of his existing store and convert it into a liquor store, 818 square feet of it. Original site plan, as mentioned, was short of parking. And so we really appreciate working with staff and with the commissioner and revising the site plan. So it all meets all the requirements.

Okay, thank you very much. This item has been noticed for public hearing. Are there any members of the public wishing to be heard on this item? Okay, seeing none, I will close public hearing. I will turn it back over to the commission, starting with Commissioner Munford.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So can you just kind of show us the changes on the parking and any addition that you added?

Sure. A portion right here, so this used to be a car wash area, so the owner's going to be removing the canopy, so these two stalls are going to be converted into regular ones. And then this area right here, it's technically already being used as a parking area, so we'll just basically restripe it and make it official parking because the cars are already parking there.

Okay. And we kind of talked about the U-Hauls up front. Are they going to maybe move those or adjust them so there's a little bit better parking?

Yeah, owner can answer that question. Yeah.

Hello, yes, we will be moving those U-Hauls from there, so they're totally out of the way, and they will be on the top left-hand side there that you see, so they won't even be...

Here? Yeah, right, right up here.

So it'll be away from all of this stuff right here.

So he's saying it's going to be away from all of this.

He's going to be moving them further down. Yes. There will be no trucks or trailers in that area at all.

Okay. Yeah. Cause I get gas there once in a while. And that's, that's a kind of a congested area. And if people are going in for, you know, to your store and for the liquor and stuff, it just be better access for, for that whole area. Yes, sir. Okay.

Sir, could you please state and spell your name for the record, please?

First name is Manu, M-A-N-N-U. Last name is Bains, B-A-I-N-S. Okay. And your address? 7025 North Eula Street, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Okay.

Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Anybody else have any comments on this item? Anybody else? Okay. Seeing none, Commissioner Ronson, I'll let you make a motion.

All right. Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve subject to all conditions. You're fine with all the conditions? Ma'am. Yes, sorry. And move for approval for item 16, abeyance 25-0208, 16B, 16C.

Thank you. There's a motion on the floor. Please cast your votes. Please post. And that motion does carry.

And those items are final action unless appealed to the city clerk in 10 days.

Awesome, thank you. Thank you. Item 19, 25-0181, Applicant Clark County School District Owner, School Board of Trustees. For possible action on the following land use entitlement project requests on the north side of Washington Avenue, approximately 620 feet west of Valley View Boulevard, Ward 5, Summers-Armstrong. Staff recommends approval on the Land Use Entitlement Project 19A-25-0181-SDR1 for a proposed three-story, 170,640 square foot public primary school development and 19B-25-0181-MSP for proposed signage in conjunction with a public institution school. May we have the staff report, please?

Good evening, Madam Chair. Steve Swanton, senior planner with Community Development, for the record. Staff finds the proposed school to be appropriate for this site. The school building and parking areas are well buffered from residential development. Minor deviations from Title 19 standards will not affect the compatibility of the proposal with existing adjacent development. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the site development plan review subject to conditions if approved. The proposed master sign plan provides a unified sign design for the school, is compatible with adjacent commercial recreation and residential development, and conforms to residential protection standards. Therefore, staff is recommending approval subject to conditions. Please note there were additional documents of support received after publication. Thank you.

Thank you. Good evening, sir. If you can please state and spell your name for the record, give us your address, and tell us about the project.

I'm Chris Dingell with the Clark County School District, D-I-N-G-E-L-L, 1180 Military Tribute, Henderson, Nevada. This is the replacement of the Robert Gibson Leadership Academy. It's a middle school. It's currently located, if I can, right here. This is Washington. It's on two sides. It is a mini golf course and then there's some residential here. So the school was built in 1953. It's past its useful life and we're proposing to replace it. So one of the things I wanted to point out was right now there are two parking areas. The buses come in here, they mix in the parking lot and they turn around here and there's one way to get into the school right now and there's no parent drop off or anything like that. So what we're proposing to do is flip the site And what you'll notice down here is this driveway now becomes exclusive for buses only. They come in, they drop off in the back, there's a turnaround for them that segregates them away from all the other traffic. Since we are in Washington, we are going to have it so there are three parent drop-offs right here. So people will be able to come off of the street onto the site, drop off, there'll be two parking areas. Now I'm gonna turn this over to our architect and he's gonna finish up the presentation.

Good evening. Wade Simpson, Simpson Culture Studio, 151 Warm Springs, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89119. We held a public neighborhood meeting where we had some good turnout and good discussion with the residents on the other side of Washington and on the other side of our of our new drive right here. And so I just wanted to point out the way we've designed the school are most all of the school building windows are north-south to get the right natural daylight. So we don't have any windows here except for one up, three up high in the library and we're 185 feet away from the property line with a landscape buffer and then there's the drainage channel. This part here is three stories. This part right here is the gymnasium, so one story. Working with staff, with public works, getting the design of Washington or redesign of Washington down. We went back and forth a lot and I think we've got something that everybody's happy with. You know, just trying to do the best we can with traffic and mitigation and just making it a nicer facility. So once again, the new school will get built and then we'll demo the old school and build the ball fields where the old school is in general. Yeah, we are putting in a new 10 foot multi-use trail along Washington as part of the development and agree with staff recommendations and here to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. This item has been noticed for public hearing. Are there any members of the public wishing to be heard? OK, seeing none, we'll close the public hearing. And we will turn it back to the commission, starting with Commissioner Renfrew.

Thank you for your presentation. I'm very familiar with what we call the Gibson Middle School back in the day. And I've actually coached a few youth teams over there. And the school is very, very old. and i'm happy that the uh that this community is going to get a new a new addition uh for the for the school um you know i i and i like i like how you uh one of the biggest challenges because i drive by there from time to time is the traffic when school gets out so i like i like what i see with with your traffic flows in and out of the property that's That's probably, I'm sure the residents and people that commute that way are gonna really appreciate that. And it'll be more safer for the kids as well and the parents. So I like this project. Is there any other comments?

I just was going to say I just think it's really exciting everything that's kind of going on in that area with the big mixed-use development that we approved a few months ago. So I think it's fantastic that that new community is also going to get this new, you know, newly built school and have sort of a vibrant little hub right there for the kids that might be in that development as it goes up. But that was my comment. Anybody else? No? Okay. Commissioner Runford, if you're prepared to make a motion.

Yeah, I would like to make a motion for approval subject to all conditions. And you said you were fine with all conditions. This is for 25-010 or 25-0181. Also 19A and 19B would like to motion for approval. Thank you. There's a motion on the floor. Please cast your vote.

Okay, please post. And that motion carries.

And those items are final action tonight unless appealed to the city clerk in 10 days. Thank you.

Thank you. Item 20, 25-0279, applicant Barbara Fuentes, owner, Care Access NVI LLC, for possible action on the following land use entitlement project requests at 3117 Piedmont Avenue, Ward 3 Diaz. Staff recommends denial on the land use entitlement project. 20A, 25-0279VAR1, to allow two parking spaces where four are required. And 20B, that's 25-0279SUP1, for proposed individual care group home use. May we have the staff report, please?

Madam Chair, due to the subject site's inability to meet minimum parking requirements, staff is unable to support the requested variance and special use permit and therefore recommends denial. Please note additional documentation of protests have been received since publication. Thank you.

thank you good evening ma'am if you can please state and spell your name for the record give us your address and tell us about your project good evening my name is barbara fuentes f-u-e-n-t-e-s and i live at 3117 piedmont avenue las vegas nevada 89102. And I am respectfully requesting a special use permit and parking variance to obtain my licensed in-home childcare business, which is called Barbara's Babies Childcare. I moved to Las Vegas from Connecticut, where I began my career in early child education. And I came with an associate's degree in the field. And while I worked my way up in the career ladder to a director and finished my education to obtain a bachelor's degree in early child education, I have worked in several different licensed childcare center-based settings, including Head Start. In total, I have almost 30 years experience working with children and families. I noticed that there was a severe lack in licensed in-home child care programs in my community. So in October of 2019, I stepped out in faith and quit my job to partner with the Las Vegas Urban League as a family friend and neighbor provider. As I provided child care services To low-income families, I embarked on this journey with Care of Nevada to own and operate my own in-home state licensed child care program. I love living in Las Vegas. I love my neighborhood. I love being a child care provider. And I am dedicated to this field and the children and families that I serve. High quality, licensed in-home child care programs like mine support working families and contribute to the broader economic health and livability of our community. The program that I will be operating will be licensed by the state. The property is guaranteed to pass inspections conducted by the Southern Nevada Health District and the state fire marshal. My licensing paperwork, which details all of my business processes and procedures, as well as the curriculum I will use and various emergency preparedness plans, is completed and approved by the state child care licensor. Once licensed, an assistant and I will be able to care for no more than 12 children at a time. The children will range in the ages from infants to five years old and school age children when school is not in session. And there's actually a school right down the street. The state outlined strict ratios for the ages of children that I will be allowed to have on-site at any point in time, and I will use both indoor space and my backyard for childcare, which are designated for this purpose only. My childcare program will only be open from 6.30 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday. Within those program hours, I am flexible to drop off and pick up time to make sure that parents have just what they need to accommodate their work schedule. This is one of the reasons that families choose in-home childcare, because our enrollments are more flexible for parents who have non-traditional hours. and jobs or have multiple shift schedules in their households. This means that while I am requesting a parking variance for this use, I do not expect that the number of cars parked at or near my home will typically exceed three for any significant period of time. Parents tend to drop off and pick up their children very quickly and at varying times throughout the day, which is why the vast majority of the time the only cars parked on the site will be mine and my assistant's if she chooses. We will do everything within our control to ensure that drop off and pick up times have a minimal impact on the neighborhood and my fellow residents. In addition, the house is located on a corner, so there is street parking available as well, although drop off and pick up routines are very quick. Since moving to the property in April of this year, I have been able to communicate and speak with many of my neighbors who have shown a approval and support in me operating my child care out of this home I appreciate your consideration for this request and I am confident that with your approval Barbara's Babies Child Care will provide safe nurturing and much-needed child care services for Las Vegas families thank you for your time thank you very much ma'am this item has been noticed for public hearing are there any members of the public wishing to be heard

For facing none, I'm going to close public hearing and pass it back to the commission, starting with Commissioner Schlottman.

Thank you, Chair. Through you. A couple of questions for the applicant. This is just child care. This isn't for adults or anything of the sort. Is that correct?

Correct, they're just gonna drop off their kids so they can go to work, and they'll come back and pick them up when they're done for the day.

Are you fine with conditioning this to have it for children only? Absolutely. Okay, and I mean, looking at the parking, I mean, you have a really deep driveway. We can't count that as more than, you know, whatever, two parking spaces, whatever, but if you and your assistant are parked all the way up the front, you could have two other people parked behind you, and you do have parking out in the street. I doubt all of these parents are going to be showing up at the same exact time. I don't really have a big issue with this. Chairwoman, if there's no other comments.

Okay, thank you. Any other comments from the commission?

Okay, seeing none, if you're, oh. Oh, Madam Chair, I'd just like to read that condition into the record. That would be added condition for 25-0279-SUP1, and the condition would read, the facility shall provide care for children only. Thank you.

And you agree to that condition. All other conditions have approved.

Yes, I do.

Thank you. Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion. So I move on item number 20, 25-0279. 20A25-0279VAR1 and 20B25-0279SUP1 with the added condition as written to the record and agreed to by the applicant. My motion's for approval. Thank you.

Thank you. There's a motion on the floor. Please cast your vote. Please post. And that motion carries.

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

Thank you. Thank you. Okay, item 21, 25-0281SDR1, applicant Buddy Narciso Kenga-Guitierro, junior owner, the Buddy and Nina Quintero Nevada Trust, for possible action on a land use entitlement project request to allow an existing one-story, three-unit, multifamily residential development with waivers of Appendix F interim downtown development standards, Area 2, at 519 South 8th Street, Ward 3 Diaz. Staff recommends denial. May I have the staff report, please?

Yes. Good evening, Madam Chair.

Excuse me one second. Madam Chair, this request stems from an ongoing code enforcement case regarding unpermitted structures. The previous entitlements that accommodated the existing three residential units have expired. Staff does not support the requested Area 2 waivers and recommends denial of the site development plan review subject to conditions if approved. Thank you.

Thank you. Good evening, sir. If you can please state and spell your name for the record and give us your address and tell us about this project.

Good evening, Madam Chair and the rest of the panel. My name is Buddy Kitorio and I'm the owner, along with my wife, Nita Kitorio, owner of 519 South 8th Street. I'm just here to reapply for the variance in approval and request for approval for its existing use. And if you have some further questions, I would be happy to answer.

Thank you very much, sir. This item has been noticed for public hearing. Are there any members of the public wishing to be heard on this item? OK. Seeing none, I will pass this back to the commission, starting with Commissioner Schlottman.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I had an opportunity to talk to the applicant prior to this meeting. I read this one. And at the beginning, I had a lot more concerns. But this was originally approved back in 1975 for two dwellings. Back in 2016, it was approved by city council with all the waivers and variances for this third one. Seems like buddy didn't realize that he needed to get building permits after he after he got the Entitlement so I spent the first part of this before this hearing started started Going through every one of those conditions to make sure that he understood what each one of those conditions means and and buddy is it Correct representation that you understand every one of those conditions if this is approved tonight.

Correct. And I will try, of course, to comply with all of the requirements.

Okay. And you took pictures of that and I also showed you how to get to the city website to pull up those conditions. Correct. So, you know, you have two years, but don't wait two years because, like I said.

Yes, at this time, since I learned my lessons, I won't. I will go immediately as soon as I can.

In two more years, we'll have you tear down one of those structures if you don't have it. I think you can get it done, but I'm telling you, you're about to go out in town for five months. You need to get this into the city and get it processing prior to you leaving. That way, by the time you get back, you can call for your building inspections because it's not as simple as going down there and just saying, hey, we're getting our building permits. And then they'll have to come out and they'll have to do some inspections. So you'll have to open it up and let your tenants know that the city is coming in there to do some inspections. So just trying to give you as much warning as you possibly can. And it sounds like you're aware of what needs to happen now. Totally understood. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else on the commission have any questions on this item? OK. Seeing none, Commissioner Schlottman, are you prepared to make a motion?

Yes. Madam Chair, through you, based on the testimony tonight and based on this already being approved by city council back in 2016, I move to approve subject to conditions. And that's for item number 21, 25-0281, SDR 1. Move to approve.

Thank you very much. There's a motion on the floor. Please cast your votes.

Thank you.

Commissioner Munsford? Please post. Okay, that motion does carry.

And that item will move on to City Council on October 15th.

thank you very much okay item 22 uh 25-0289 var1 variance applicant owner landy molero fonseca for possible action on the land use entitlement project request to allow existing residential accessory structures chicken coop and carports one and two and a front yard wall fence that do not conform to time 19.06 development standards for height separation setback size and aesthetic compatibility at 7208 grassland circle ward 4 alan palenski staff recommends denial may we have the staff report please

Madam Chair, staff finds the requested variance to be a self-imposed hardship and is recommending denial. Please note additional documentation of support and protest has been received since publication. Thank you.

Thank you. Good evening. If you could please state and spell your names for the record. Give us your address and tell us about the project.

Hi, good evening. My name is Landy. I am the owner for 7208 Gaslown Cirque. When I buy this property two years ago, it's already built. Everything in the meadow is already built, and the chicken coop is already built. Normally, I don't break the rules. When I make any change in my property or something, last time from my garage, I make everything legal. Corporate inspection pass and everything pass. I use this corporate because I buy the RV. I buy RV for the weekends and the, sorry, I have to say.

Okay, so his name is Landy Moledo Fonseca. So I'm his wife. We bought this house two years ago, and everything was already there. So we didn't know at that time that we need to get permit, because it was already there. We just bought the house. And two years ago, we get a permit for a garage conversion. We pass every permit and nobody told us that the carpet or the terrace is, it wasn't, it didn't have permit. So we are here to get the variance approved or reapply. I don't know if you guys have condition for us.

Anything else, ma'am, right now?

That was all.

Okay, thank you. This item has been noticed for public hearing. Are there any members of the public wishing to be heard on this item? Come on up.

get up please state your name um state and spell your name and give us your address sure good morning good afternoon good good evening let's try again my name is lori farina f-a-r-i-n-a i live at 7209 grassland circle 89129 i've lived in that my house for 21 years um the property next door has had many, many tenants and owners. And I can vouch for the fact that The backyard was done in 2018 and the metal roofing was done in 2019. And the reason I know that is because when they were doing whatever they were doing in the backyard, they knocked down my brick, my block fence. So I, you know, we had to get into a whole thing about getting replaced and everything else. They didn't move in until 23. So they shouldn't really be held responsible for something that the prior owner did and didn't get the proper permits for. but i um you know i have my little card here i support them they've been great tenants i mean great uh neighbors um i just hope you guys will be kind and give them the option of keeping that all of that uh work that was done on their property

Thank you very much, ma'am. Anyone else on this item? Okay. Seeing none, I will close public hearing. I will turn it back to the Commission, starting with Vice Chair Kusama.

Thank You chair and this item is is difficult because you know, I did confirm that all of these Accessory structures have been you know predate you're moving into there in 2023 I don't have an issue with You know approving the chicken coop as well as the front yard wall and fence The carports one and two are very they do stand out. They are quite in excess of our code and so I would suggest if there's any other members of the Commission that do have any comments I do I feel comfortable with the yard with the fence, but if there's any suggestions perhaps Deny the carports one and two and then you are welcome to bring back plans For another accessory structure of that nature that is conforming, but I also defer if there's any other members of the Commission I

Commissioner Horgan.

I agree with you, Commissioner Kusama. I think that the chicken coop is fine. I think the block wall, as staff noted, is needed. It is just the RV carport is out of character for the neighborhood. It's not aesthetically compatible with the house, and it needs to be. So I think like Commissioner Kusama was suggesting, if you want to come back because you have an RV and you want to park it underneath a carport, go get a design for something that's aesthetically compatible with your house and bring it back. And if variances are needed, then we can consider those at that time. But I can't support the structure as it exists now, consistent with what Commissioner Kusama said.

Indeed.

Thank you. Anybody else? OK. Are you prepared to make a motion, Commissioner? OK. Oh, sorry. Any response? I just wanted to give you guys one minute to have any other comments.

So we need to remove. The carport or what is, I didn't get it.

Yes, so you would have to remove the carports one and two. All the other structures can remain that are part of this, and then you would have to reapply for a permit and have new designs that are harmonious and compatible.

Okay, when you say one and two, what do you mean? The terrace.

It's just the RV carport structure on the left side of the house.

On the left side, just that? Mm-hmm. Okay, got it. So we have to remove at all, or can we just lower down, or?

I think what the idea is, is there are multiple elements on your application. And so the commissioner is going to make a motion related to the specific elements. And then if there are elements that are not approved, you can come back with, and staff can correct me if I'm misstating any of this, you can come back with some suggested designs for what you would like to do. So for example, for the two rv car ports that are to the left because it looks like there's one and then there's one behind it if you wanted to suggest lowering them as an option to make it more harmonious and compatible with your cul-de-sac then you could bring that back as a suggestion and we would review that does that make sense did i get that right staff okay um so i think with that go ahead and let the commissioner make her motion

madam chair with that we do have conditions of approval that directly address the carports that i would need to edit before that motion was made okay please do so for the condition of approval starting with we would have to change number condition number one number two number three number four number five and number six to read a variances hereby denied and then conditions of approval seven eight and nine would remain approval and those would address specifically the chicken coop and the wall thank you okay thank you miss eddos i will pass it to commissioner kasama

Thank you, Chair. So with that, I'd like to make a motion to approve, and staff, you can correct me on this motion if I mess up, but to approve the chicken coop and the front yard wall fence items. So that's subject for approval, but deny carports one and two, subject to the staff conditions that were read on the record. And do you agree with the staff conditions that were read?

Yes. OK, there's a motion on the floor. Please cast your vote. OK, it's opposed, and that motion carries.

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

OK, thank you.

10 days. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, item 23, 250291, Applicant New Life Solutions, LLC, owner KNK Property Management, LLC, for possible action on the following land use entitlement project requests at 1502 South Las Vegas Boulevard, Ward 3 Diaz. staff recommends denial on the land use entitlement project 23a 25-0291 sup1 for proposed single room occupancy residency use 23b 25-0291 sup2 for a proposed facility to provide testing treatment or counseling for drug or alcohol abuse use may we have the staff report please

madam chair the proposed uses are located within the gateway district which is undergoing efforts to encourage infield redevelopment by promoting higher density transit oriented residential developments within the gateway and other neighboring downtown districts similarly The revitalization of commercial areas along Las Vegas Boulevard, which is a major thoroughfare linking the city's commercial and cultural attractions, is a major component of the Vision 2045 Downtown Las Vegas Master Plan. Based on these efforts and approved development in the area that include a six-story mixed-use development, and a parking garage with commercial space, staff finds the proposed uses cannot be conducted in a way that is harmonious and compatible with development in the area and is recommending denial of both special use permits. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, sir.

If you can please state and spell your name for the record, give us your address, and tell us about the project.

Yes, good evening, Madam Chair and members of the commission. My name is Jim DeFiore of DeFiore Consulting and Business Services at 8550 West Charleston Boulevard. I apologize for not coming forward with this sooner, but we'd like to request an abeyance until the October 14th, 2025 meeting, if possible.

Okay. Hold on. Can you just give us a little bit more detail on what the basis of your request is?

We have a few items that we were preparing for tonight, but we have not concluded that, and we need a little bit more time to do that.

Okay. I'm going to pass that over to Commissioner Schlottman for any other questions or concerns.

Chair, if they would like to hold and not present to us because they don't have all the information, I have no problem making a motion for an advance.

Okay. If you would like to make that motion.

Yes. Madam Chair, what is the October 14th planned commission hearing? Yes. On item number 2325-0291 move to approve I mean move move to obey until the October 14th 2025 planning commission hearing.

Thank you very much. There's a motion on the floor please cast your vote. Please post. And that motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Item 24, 25-0296, applicant owner Canyon Walk, LLC. For possible action on the following land use entitlement project request located at the terminus of Centennial Parkway west of Clark County 215, Ward 4, Alan Polanski. Staff recommends approval on the land use entitlement project. 24A, 25-0296MOD1, to amend the Sky Summit Design Guidelines Master Land Use Plan, Master Phase Map, Master Trail Plan, Master Street Section Exhibit and Park Agreement, and to modify the park triggers. 24B, 25-0296TMP1, For a 17-lot subdivision parent tentative map, APNs 12626101005, 12623301001, 12623301002, 12623699002, and 12623799001. May we have the staff report, please?

Madam Chair, the proposed major modification to the Sky Summit Master Plan community documents conforms to the La Madre Foothills Area Plan of the Las Vegas 2050 Master Plan and will not have a material effect on the overall plan development. The proposed tentative map will expunge and replace the previously approved tentative map for the area of Sky Summit that it affects. A final map of phase one has already been recorded and is not part of the requested parent tentative map. Staff therefore recommends approval of the requested items. And please note there were additional documents of protest and support received after publication. Thank you.

Thank you. Good evening, sir. If you can please state and spell your name for the record, give us your address, and tell us about the project.

Good evening, Madam Chair, Commissioners. My name is Bob Gronauer, 1980 Festival Plaza Drive. I'm here representing the master developer in this master plan community. You're very familiar with this. This was approved within the last year. This is Sky Summit. We're asking to do a major modification, which is somewhat some housekeeping items that are before you. We appreciate staff's recommendation for approval, and I'm here to answer any questions that you may have on these two matters that are before you.

Thank you very much. This item has been noticed for public hearing. Are there any members of the public wishing to be heard? Okay, seeing none, I will close public hearing. I will turn it back over to the Commission, starting with Vice Chair Kusama.

Thank you, Chair. This item is, to your point, pretty routine and a cleanup. It is subject to the master plan. It's conforming to it. And with staff recommending approval, I have no issue. And I'm ready to make a motion to approve unless there's other comments by the rest of the commission. Thank you. Are there anybody else on the commission wishing to make comments on this item? OK, seeing none, please make your motion. Great. And with that, I'd like to make a motion to approve item 24, that is 25-0296, and that is 24A and 24B. Thank you. There's a motion on the floor.

Please cast your vote. Please post. And that motion carries.

Thank you. And those items will move on to City Council on October 15th.

Okay, item 25, 25-0300, SUP1 applicant, Your Space Banquet Hall owner, 95 LLC. For possible action on a land use entitlement project request for a proposed banquet facility use at 6818 West Cheyenne Avenue, Ward 5, Summers Armstrong, staff recommends approval. May we have the staff report, please?

Madam Chair, staff finds the addition of full alcohol to an existing banquet facility that already serves beer and wine can be conducted in a manner that is harmonious and compatible with the surrounding area and is recommending approval of the requested special use permit. Please note additional documentation of support and protest have been received since publication. Thank you.

Good evening, sir. If you can please state and spell your name for the record and give us your address and tell us about the project.

Madam Chair, Nathan Taylor, 8414 West Farm Road, representing the applicant. This should only take me about 30 minutes or so to go through. First, I'd like to orientate you with where we're at real quick. This is Cheyenne and Rainbow. We're all familiar with this. This is the famous olive garden that most of us have ADAT. THIS IS A VERY SMALL AREA, BANQUET FACILITY WITHIN THE SHOPPING CENTER. I WOULD LIKE TO THANK COMMISSIONER MUNFORD FOR TAKING THE TIME TO DO A SITE VISIT. THESE ARE CONDITIONAL USES OBVIOUSLY IN C1. IT'S ALREADY A BANQUET FACILITY. THEY JUST OBVIOUSLY NEEDED A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SO THEY COULD EXPAND THEIR OPERATIONS. WE JUST ASK THAT YOU FOLLOW STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

Thank you very much, Mr. Taylor. This item has been noticed for public hearing. Are there any members of the public wishing to be heard? Okay, seeing none, I'm going to close public comment and pass it back to the commission, starting with Commissioner Munford.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, I did a site visit, and... And I think this is a good project. I have no problem with approving it. If there's any other comment from the board.

OK, thank you. Anybody else on the commission have any other comments? OK, seeing none, Commissioner Munford, if you're prepared to make your motion.

Yeah, I'd like to make a motion for approval subject to all conditions for item 25. So item 25-0300-SUP1.

Thank you. There's a motion on the floor. Please cast your votes. Please post. And that motion carries. that is final action tonight and let's appeal to the city clerk in 10 days thank you commissioners have a good evening thank you okay item 26 25-0302 var1 applicant tony musso owner anthony musso 2003 revocable living trust for possible action on a land use entitlement project request to allow a seven foot side yard setback where ten feet is required for proposed home addition at three zero zero nine astoria pine circle ward one knutson Staff recommends denial. May we have the staff report, please?

Madam Chair, no evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance related to the physical characteristics of the property has been presented to warrant the requested variance. As such, the hardship is self-imposed, and therefore, staff recommends denial of this variance request subject to conditions if approved. Please note there are additional documents of support received after publication. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Good evening, ma'am. If you can please state and spell your name for the record, give us your address and tell us about the project.

Rebecca Chiriboga, C-H-I-R-I-B-O-G-A, 6030 South Jones Boulevard, representing the applicant. The request here is very simple. There's an existing home. They're looking to remodel and expand their south property, the south building wall, by about just over a little bit, two feet. The request in the... The setback request was modified to be a whole three feet for a round even number. The property to the south is a Catholic school. It sits higher than the existing property and there is a series of planter walls that actually face the subject property instead. There's no, we agree with all the staff's conditions and I'm happy to answer any other questions.

Thank you very much. This item has been noticed for public hearing. Are there any members of the public wishing to be heard? Okay. Seeing none, I will pass this item back to the commission, starting with Commissioner Rogan.

Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Ms. Chiriboga.

Chiriboga.

Chiriboga. I'm sorry for your... meeting with me the other day. I don't really have a problem with this. If anyone's looked at Google Maps, you can see the church has a bunch of sheds that are right up against the property line that this would be immediately adjacent to. And as the applicant has stated, there's a for some reason they they put some planter walls that actually face out that unfortunately means that the homeowner has to take care of because otherwise they would make his neighborhood or his property look terrible if they were not cared for so i think it's a fair trade for a couple feet and i have no problem with it and so i'm ready to make a motion okay anyone have any other questions or comments on this item okay seeing none commissioner rogan please make your motion With regard to agenda item 26, project number 25-0302VAR1, I make a motion for approval subject to staff's conditions, which the applicant said she agreed to.

Thank you very much. There's a motion on the floor. Please cast your vote. Please post. And that motion carries.

And that is final action tonight unless appealed to the city clerk in 10 days.

Thank you very much. Item 28, 25-0313SDR1, Applicant Owner, KLA Capital Series, LLC, Series 7. For possible action on a land use entitlement project request for a proposed one-story, 6,324 square foot commercial development with waivers of Appendix F, Interim Downtown Las Vegas Development Standards Area 1, Entitle 19.08 screening standards for collection areas and dumpsters on the east side of Casino Center Boulevard, approximately 100 feet north of California Avenue. Ward 3 Diaz, staff recommends denial. May we have the staff report, please?

Madam Chair, the requested waivers are evidence of the applicant attempting to overdevelop the site by proposing a structure that covers approximately 90% of the subject site, leaving no room for a trash enclosure or utilities to be contained on site. Therefore, staff is recommending denial of the requested site development plan review. Please note additional documentation of protest has been received since publication. Thank you.

Thank you. Good evening, sir. If you could please state and spell your name for the record. Give us your address and tell us about the project.

Yes. Good evening, Planning Commission. My name is Adam Fulod. My address is 7980 Castle Pines Avenue. I'm the owner and also the developer. Do you want me to go ahead and tell you about the project? Yes, please. Okay, so the plan is that we do a lot of projects in the Arts District. This is one of the newer ones. The plan is to do restaurants and bars, things to serve the community with all the apartments coming to the Arts District. I understand the issue regarding the trash enclosure. I do intend to enclose it. I talked to Commissioner Schlottman earlier today regarding that. With this initial submittal, we didn't show the exact details, but we will do something with ornamental metal. We've done a lot in the area, like Esther's Kitchen, Nevada Brew Works. We just finished one at the Corner of Commerce in Wyoming. We do all the metal work in-house, so I do intend to do something to keep vagrants from getting into our trash enclosure, also to contain it on-site. Regarding the building it will be straightforward we will be putting some patio in front it'll be a CMU structure approximately 6,000 square feet plus so we get about two tenants in there okay thank you very much this item has been noticed for public hearing are there any members of the public wishing to be heard

Okay, seeing none, I will close the public hearing and pass it back to the Commission, starting with Commissioner Schlottman.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair, and through you, Mr. Fallad, thanks for taking the time to call me this morning and go through this project. I think at the beginning, we thought that there might be big RPDAs on the city sidewalk and the Water District doesn't allow it to go behind the building because they changed state law. years ago, not allowing these devices to go where they should go, like out of public view, where you want to put it and where you show it on your plans. Unfortunately, it's not going to be able to go there. And, you know, I don't think there's water in Casino Center, so you're not going to be able to put it there. So what we've been doing, and Fred Solis and Mike Jansen and Doa from the Water District and Tom Burkhart and a lot of us got together years ago and DOA come up with the idea of alley but like close to the public street and then and hopefully here within the next 60 days we'll have agreements drafted between the Las Vegas Valley Water District and the city. to start sharing these RPDAs amongst multiple businesses down there. So they'd stop being an eyesore, and so we stopped having to put one in on every project that we're building down there, which is just becoming a nuisance. And we've been working on this for 10 years, and I think we're We're just about there to have the final solution and I'm going to have one of these projects built out by the end of the year. I was able to talk to Adam. He was unaware of putting these in the alley, but give me a call. I want to bring you around. I want to show you a few of them that we put in already. One of the concerns was where he was showing his trash. It was right where there's the egress doors. I just wanted him to look at that. And now that we're moving that, he's getting that RPDA moved. He's gonna be able to put that trash in. And he did agree to putting in like a decorative a decorative fence around it. And if you go through anywhere downtown, you know when Adam and his dad have worked on a project because they do the best job with their decorative metal facades and their fences. And so I'm sure it'll look great. I know our code only says that you can put in CMU and a metal like a roof structure. I'd like to change that, Director Floyd, at some point. Because I think that a masonry trash enclosure with the roof is not always the best thing. If we want to screen these from people getting in and pulling out trash, there's a lot of ways to do that. And I think that this is actually more appropriate for this particular project. I like the project. I like what you're doing. We're going to start seeing a lot more ground up projects down here. And so you'll see my support. And give me a call this week, next week. I'd be happy to take you around and show you some of the ways that you can put in some of those utilities that will make it look better for our arts district. Thank you. Thank you for all those comments. I appreciate it.

Thank you. Commissioner, anybody else have any comments on this one? No? Okay. No pressure on your decorative metal. Okay. If you're prepared to make a motion, Commissioner Schlottman.

Yes. Through you, Chair, on 2825-0313, SDR 1, moved to approve, subject to staff's conditions. And could we get a staff condition for the new enclosure?

Yes, and we're doing that enclosure with no trellis on top, no roof structure. Is that correct?

For right now, I think we'd like to proceed with doing the ornamental perimeter for it. Okay, yes.

Okay, then we would need to edit condition of approval number six, and that would read a waiver from title 1908.040 is hereby approved to allow a metal enclosure with no roof or trellis structure where required for a trash enclosure. And then we would add a condition of approval that would read a decorative metal trash enclosure with gates shall be provided.

Thank you. Thank you. That's perfect. And you agreed to that? I agree to that. And all standard conditions? I agreed to that as well. Thank you. So my motion stands with the added and modified record condition as read into the record by Ms. Eddowes. Moved to approve.

Thank you, Commissioner. If there's a motion on the floor, please cast your votes. Commissioner Rogan. Oh, great. Okay. Please post. And that passes.

Thank you so much. That is final action. Let's be able to city clerk in 10 days.

Thank you very much. Have a great night. Thank you. Item 29, 25-0314, VAR1, applicant owner, Nancy Cothran, for possible action on a land use entitlement project request to allow a proposed residential accessory structure casita that does not conform to Title 19.06 development standards for size and coverage at 8252 Cimarron Ridge Drive, Ward 2, Seaman. Staff recommends denial. May we have the staff report, please?

Madam Chair, no evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance related to the physical characteristics of the property has been presented to warrant the requested variance for size and coverage. As such, the hardship is self-imposed and therefore staff recommends denial of the variance subject to conditions if approved. Please note there are additional documents of support received after publication. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Good evening, gentlemen. If you can please state and spell your names for the record, give us your address, and tell us about this project.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Commission. My name is Daniel Witt, D-A-N-I-E-L-W-I-T-T. This is Eric Wagner, E-R-I-C-W-A-G-G-E-N-E-R, located at 304 South Jones Boulevard, 240, representing the homeowner, Nancy L. Cothran, located at 8252 Simmerin Ridge Drive. looking for a variance pursuant to Title 19.06.080, referencing the maximum square footage of an accessory structure, which is at 50% of the main dwelling unit. We are asking for a variance of increasing that to 8%. Super accurate, it would be 7.4%. How that math works is the proposed accessory dwelling unit is actually 702 square feet. The home is 1659 square feet. The issue is that the main home has a covered patio, which is an accessory structure and then has to be included in all of the accessory structure in there, right? So obviously it's a nice covered patio. Shade is a premium in Las Vegas. Tearing down a nice patio covered patio area just to remove that 250 square feet that has to be included in in ours is what's causing the issue so when you take the 702 square feet of the accessory dwelling unit and add the 250 square feet of the pa of a covered patio that's 952 feet and our max 50 percent is 829 feet so that extra 7.4 percent is 122.5 square feet This is supplying a real need for a family member. Nancy, who's not here tonight, is aging, and her daughter and fiance, who are here in the building or here in the room, are there to take care of her. accessory dwelling unit at 702 feet is for them to live in and take care of the mother. When you take that cover patio and add it in, it takes us over that square footage. Related to the 50% coverage of the rear area, so the rear area is, the rear yard is 1,764 feet. And we are, so the 50% max coverage is 882 feet. So again, we run into that, we need an extra 70 feet, which is 4%. So instead of 50% max coverage, we need a variance of 54% to meet that. We hate to reduce the size of the accessory dwelling unit, which is what the daughter and fiance will be living in because that's actually at 702 feet, which is just barely big enough to kind of get two bedrooms and a bathroom and a kitchenette. It's not even a full kitchen. So it's not a reduction of the square footage. And the only other option would be to remove a very nice covered patio um when shade is at such a premium here in southern southern nevada right so um those are those are what we're we're requesting um is an increase of 7.4 percent to the structure especially structure and an increase of four percent to the max rear area the other that we might wanna mention is just how the rear yard is figured. So we're not getting any of the side yard, which is behind the gates on either side of the home. None of that side yard is calculated in the rear area.

if any of the rear yard was calculated in that rear area we would not be needing to request a four percent increase in the rear yard um max coverage of fifty percent okay great thank you very much uh this item has been noticed for public hearing are there any members of the public wishing to be heard okay seeing none i will close public hearing i will pass it back to the commission starting with commissioner walsh

Thank you, Madam Chairperson. Yeah, there was no other information that got updated in the office, and we didn't receive any complaints or negative things that came back. We think it's reasonable to request, so I'm going to recommend for approval, based that you will follow the conditions that are related to it.

Yeah, the other conditions were laid out, removal of the stove and removal of the 220. We're good with that. We had a couple of neighbors that came out with support. They wrote letters. But, yeah, no complaints.

Yeah, that's pretty much what we were hearing back, too. And you won't really see the visual impact of the way it works. So unless there's no other comments from the commissioners, I'm ready to make a motion.

Any other comments from the commission? Okay, seeing none, Commissioner Walsh, go ahead and make your motion.

Yes, I'd like to make a motion to approve item number 29, that's 25-0314-VAR1 for the variance.

There is a motion on the floor. Please cast your votes. Please post. And that motion carries.

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

Thank you. Item 30, 25-0315VAR1, applicant owner. I'm going to butcher this, and I'm sorry. Inadar Misidonis, Herida Martinez, for possible action on a land use entitlement project request to allow an existing home addition with a patio cover and existing residential accessory structure shed that do not conform to Title 19.06 development standards for setbacks and aesthetic compatibility at 10 Diamond Circle, Ward 1 Knutson. Staff recommends denial. May we have the staff report, please?

Madam Chair, staff finds the requested variance to be a self-imposed hardship and is recommending denial. Please note additional documentation of protest has been received since publication. Thank you.

Thank you. Good evening, sir. If you can please state and spell your name for the record. Give us the address. Give us your address and tell us about the project.

Good evening, Madam Chair, good evening, Commissioners. My name is Jaime de la Vega, address 6944 Erin Circle, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89145. And I represent the owner. And this is the thing. According to the owner, well, I was told that the addition, this addition, was built before they acquired the property. But he built this patio cover and the shed structure that is here. And they did not comply with the setback here and right here for the patio covers. But I believe in... It's 100% architectural compatible with existing. And obviously, the owners are willing to do any improvements or any changes because they really want to keep the addition. The addition basically is this. They have a... This is the existing residence. This is an existing door, and they have some kind of a living area here in a master bedroom. Bathroom and little walk-in closet. This is the patio cover. probably the only thing that is not 100% compatible is the shed. The shed needs to be repainted, it needs to be re-roofed, but if they get the approval, they are willing to make all the improvements.

Okay.

And I'm willing to answer any questions.

All right, thank you very much, sir. This item has been noticed for public hearing. Are there any members of the public wishing to be heard? Okay, seeing none, I will close public hearing. I will pass it back to the commission, starting with Commissioner Rogan.

Thank you, Chair. Mr. De La Vega, just to be clear, your client is willing to make the shed aesthetically compatible with the principal dwelling unit? That's correct. Okay. Did you speak with the neighbor to the south at 14 Diamond Circle? To the south? No, no, we don't. Or the immediate next-door neighbor at 14 Diamond Circle?

Right.

Okay. This is what I'd like. This is my proposal to you is that I need to see specifically how you're going to make that shed aesthetically compatible. I do want to see that carport and how close it is to that neighbor. And I'd like for you to try and knock on that neighbor's door and see how they feel about these things. There was someone that made a complaint. I don't know who it was. I presume that it's someone that is immediately affected by these structures. I'm going to be asking to continue this to next month for that reason, and I'm happy to share my phone number with you so that you and I can meet and then hopefully see this project or this property together to see what can be done.

Okay?

Does that work for you? Oh, yes. Okay.

Anybody else have any questions? Okay, great. If you'd like to make your motion, Commissioner.

Thank you. With regard to Agenda Item 30, Project 25-0315VAR1, make a motion to continue this to the October 14th Planning Commission meeting.

Thank you. There's a motion on the floor. Please cast your vote. Please post. And that carries.

Thank you so much. Yeah.

okay uh item 31 25-0317 applicant c n kashat inc owner of smoke ranch plaza llc for possible action on the following land use entitlement project request at 66 71 66 73 and 66 75 smoke ranch road ward 5 summers armstrong staff recommends approval on the land use entitlement project 31A, 25-0317, SUP 1, for a proposed 1,869 square foot alcohol off-premise beer wine use. 31B, 25-0317, SUP 2, for a proposed gaming establishment restricted one to five machines use. May we have the staff report, please?

Madam Chair, the applicant is proposing to relocate an existing convenience store with on-premise beer and wine sales and one to five gaming machines. Staff finds the proposed uses can be conducted in a manner that is harmonious and compatible with the surrounding area and staff is recommending approval of both special use permits. Please note additional documentation of support and protest have been received since publication. Thank you. Thank you.

Good evening, ma'am. If you can please state and spell your name for the record. Give us your address and tell us about the project.

Good evening. Laura Drea, D-R-E-J-A, 520 South 4th Street, here on behalf of the applicant, who is Ed Kashat at Supermart. I'll give you a small background. Ed opened his grocery store and market on Smoke Ranch upwards of 20 years ago. Due to upcoming lease-related matters, Supermart would like to relocate to a building nearby. In fact, the proposed location, the proposed space is less than 500 feet from where the market currently operates. Ed chose the subject location to allow him to stay with the clientele that he's cultivated and established over the decades. This comes to you with a favorable recommendation from staff, and we ask for your approval as well.

OK, thank you very much. This item has been noticed for public hearing. Any members of the public wishing to be heard? Come on down.

Hi, my name is Beverly Prock, P-R-O-C-K. I represent the owner. He has made a statement he is out of the country. I am the owner of Smoke Ranch 2560 Silver Shadow Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89108. I would assume you're aware of the attached. This outlines a proposal for liquor and gaming establishments in our area. I am strongly opposed to these measures. There are enough places in Las Vegas for people to drink and gamble. We do not need another one in our area, which will only result in more traffic and more people and make Smoke Ranch less of a desirable place to live. The questions that they have, is the association involved in this? And has something been sent to the owners? He has not received anything. And then what action can an owner take to oppose the proposal?

Okay. Thank you very much for your comments. I'm going to go ahead.

Okay.

All right. Thank you, ma'am, for your comments. And anybody else for public hearing on this item? I'm seeing no closed public hearing. I'll pass it back to the commission, starting with Commissioner Munford.

I just had a question. Did you want to respond to what she said or?

It's difficult for me to respond because I don't know if she's representing the owner from the existing location versus the proposed location. However, relocating this store from 400 feet away doesn't increase the amount of this use in the area. It just simply transfers it from one place to the next and has no impact on the neighboring community more or less at all. Oh, and also to clarify, people don't drink on the premises. It's off-premise beer and wine only.

But you do have a couple gaming machines in there?

Currently, at our current location, we have seven machines, which was allowed under the licensing in 2007 when we first obtained a gaming license. Moving to this location would reduce the amount of machines to five.

That's because there's a 7-Eleven on the corner and they have gaming machines too. So is that what?

It's more because prior to 2022, gaming was a function of business licensing. And then 2022 and after it became a planning use permit, a different structure. I don't know if you want to clarify more than that, Seth.

Thank you, Madam Chair, through you. So yeah, that basically covers it. We did change how we do our entitlements for gaming in 2022. One to five machines have no distance separations anymore. So the fact that there's a 7-11 nearby wouldn't have any impact because this is the lowest number category for gaming that we have under the current code.

All right, is there any other comments from?

Yep, any other comments? Nope, okay, if you're prepared to make a motion, Commissioner.

All right, if there's no other comments, I'd like to, you know, I'd like to make a motion for approval. If this business was already existing in the area, I can't see where it's gonna be a major impact to that area if it was already there and it's already been approved. I'm gonna make a motion for approval subject to all conditions. That's for item number 31, 25-0317. Motion to approve. Thank you.

There's a motion on the floor. Please cast your votes. Please post. And that motion carries.

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

Item number 32, 25-0323SDR1, Applicant, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. Owner, United States of America, City of Las Vegas lease. For possible action on a land use entitlement project request for a proposed two-story 95,984 square foot government facility emergency services communication center at the northeast corner of Rome Boulevard and Schaumburg Road. Award for Alan Polinsky. Staff recommends approval. May we have the staff report, please?

Madam Chair, this proposed public facilities project is designed to be unobtrusive to neighboring properties, and the primary building and communication towers are set back far into the interior of the property. The development is generally in conformance with applicable cliff's edge design standards, and the requested deviations are minor in nature. Staff therefore recommends approval of the site development plan review subject to conditions. Please note there were additional documents of protest and support received after publication. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Good evening, gentlemen. If you can please state and spell your names for the record. Give us your address and give us a summary of the project.

Certainly. Good evening, Madam Chair, Commissioners. My name is Rich Hogan. I'm the Chief Financial Officer of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, located at 400 South Martin Luther King Boulevard. With me is Mike Enns. I'm with Patrizai Nevada.

My address is 10548 North Country Club Drive, Mequon, Wisconsin.

I'm just going to give a brief introduction of the project and turn it over to Mr. Renz for a presentation of the details of the project in general. What you see is a flyover representation of what we're proposing the project design to be. Essentially, as background, there are two participating entities, essentially, that will be housed out of this facility. For those of you that may be interested, all 911 calls in the city of Las Vegas and Clark County come to one place, and that's on Russell Road. And whether they be police, fire, or medical related, If it's a fire or medical call, those calls are then transferred to the Combined Communications Center, administered by the City of Las Vegas for the fire departments of North Las Vegas, the City of Las Vegas, and Clark County. and they then dispatch to the respective location based on the need of the call for service. That location, as you might imagine, represents kind of a single point of failure for all services, 911 services in Southern Nevada, regardless of the nature of the issue, it does represent a single point of failure. Some years ago, we set about to design a secondary center, which will kind of essentially serve as our primary center, and co-locate both the Metro 911 Center as well as the Combined Communication Center for Fire. This will represent a huge enhancement to the public safety of the citizens of North Las Vegas and Clark County as well as North Las Vegas by providing not only a Combined Communication Center where both police and fire are in one place, providing an ability for us to respond to emergencies, especially big emergencies that cross both entities in one place, but will also be a secondary facility. So the Russell campus will stay open and fully staffed, and both locations will be entirely redundant and geodiverse. So with that as background, I'll turn it over to Mr. Ince.

Give me one second. Sorry.

Oops.

Sorry, give me one second.

Houston, we have a problem. Okay.

I'm just going to go off this. I'm sorry it's not cooperating right now. So the project is Red Rock Communications Center. I'm going to go through this fairly quickly. I'm not gonna, Rich already kinda addressed who the clients are. Some of the project information and data, it's a seven day a week facility, 365 days a year, 24 hours a day. There's roughly 300 people assigned to the facility. However, that's not how many people will be there at a typical time. There's nine overlapping shifts, depending on volume, what's going on. The highest spot occupancy will be around 172, and ironically it's at Wednesday morning. uh... each week but that there's a lot of the shifts do not come in on the same time it's just how things are staffed uh... As far as the traffic, it's gonna be low impact to the area. It's gonna represent roughly 1% increase to the actual road traffic volume on Schaumburg, roughly 95 additional trips per day in that location. Just to go through the site, there's a public side, there's a private side. We're separating who has access to the site, public and members of service. Really, public does not go to this location. It's typically, not something that's actually encouraged. It's not a police station, so they're not taking reports. So it is, honestly, because it's such an important center, there's a lot of features that are designed to the site for security and other reasons for that. And this is a bird's eye view of the site. You know, the separations between the public and private, and that's just kind of how we're looking at it. There's three entrances to the site. There's the public entrance to the north, which also functions as an employee entrance. There's an employee entrance to the south, and then there's an emergency entrance on the far east side of the facility. We think most of the traffic is going to go through the north for the employees. We'll go through the north and then the actual south. entrances. We have gates throughout the entire property so the public side will remain open unless there are reasons to close it down due to current events and things like that. And then there's a lot of separations and gates on the site so that traffic can be managed on the site effectively and allowing for a secure facility. And this is what one of the gates looks like. This is the gate off Deer Springs Road, or way, excuse me. This would be off Rome Boulevard. So these are all set back. They're not off Shamba Road. We did that as an intentional purpose. And so a lot of the design on the project has been intentional. It's to provide a lot of features that the police need and the users of the facility, but then also to provide security, but also to be really gentle to the actual surrounding neighborhoods. So that's one of the things that we looked at. was how do we create a low impact to the neighborhood. And so we're showing day and night renders, and we'll kind of go through this. This is the emergency entrance on the backside of the facility. And so again, security, but low impact to the site. There are two turns into the site. If you're coming south on Chambord into the site, it's a left in. You can do a left out. If you're coming north on Chambord, it's a right in and a right out. So we, early on in discussions with the DPW staff, we probably would not be able to get a left in in the middle of the site. So we just kind of used what was there. And I think due to the volume of traffic and things like that, I think it made a lot of sense. We will have a perimeter fence around there. We would prefer, we are asking for a slotted wall to go through the public areas, which would be on West Deer Springs Way, Schaumburg, Rome, and then Larry McBride Street. And we really want observation in those areas. We don't want to create alleyways on the backside of the property or against some of the other areas, which could be theoretically problematic. There's a lot of illegal dumping in the area, and we don't want the project to kind of contribute to that. going forward, so that's kind of how that looks. This would be off Schaumburg Road. I'll talk about the landscaping and other materials, but again, we're trying to, and you can see the facility is set back quite a ways. Depending on where you're at, it's between 400 and 700 feet off the property line, so again, The site is gently sloping, and I'll show this a little bit more in depth, but we tried to make it present but not overly present to the neighborhood, being respectful of the houses and the surrounding areas so that it kind of makes the area. We didn't want to stick a 20-story building up on top of the hill. So you're seeing some of the renders with the different fence types on the back side of the fence. We are looking to do a training fence. Just simply we want security and observation in those areas. A key component to any communication facility are the towers. So we have 200 foot communications towers. They will be on the rear of the site facing Highway 215. That is essential to this facility in order for it to operate. We spent a lot of time looking at the heights. We tried to go as low as we possibly could. During our community meeting, we actually received no comments whatsoever on the towers. We were prepared to have a lot. But as you can see here, it's roughly 16 feet higher than the actual communications building roof. It's roughly 16 feet higher than the actual building, and it's 30 feet lower than the actual power lines that are line Chambord. This gives you an idea, if I'm a resident across Chambord Road, I'm at a two-story level looking in, there's power lines looking into it, and then you'd see the towers in the background. So again, we tried to be minimal impact to the area. This is a different view, similar area, again, day and night. That's kind of what we're looking at. We have two enclosed mechanical areas on either side of the building. That's for redundancy. And it basically follows the aesthetics of the actual building. We have a trash enclosure also on the rear of the building. So if you're thinking of the project, we have a public side and we have a private side. We have front of house, back of house, and that's how we're looking at that. And we're hoping that blends into the site. We do have an exterior video. If you'd like to see it, it shows the perimeter of the facility.

I think, I'm looking at your deck, and since you are the second to last item, and this is an item on for approval, and you're on slide 34 of 75.

Oh, no, no, no, this is just render. So what I was gonna do is I was gonna show the video. It does have music in case anyone wants it. And then if there's any questions, I can show images. So I'm not gonna go through 75. But if you'd like to see the video, more than happy. If you want to stop, more than happy. We are here to kind of do whatever makes you most happy. But this kind of hopefully shows a little bit of the site. And I can stop anytime you want. But this shows the perimeter with all the landscaping There is a whole landscaping presentation. There's a whole solar array because one of the questions that we've asked is the reflectivity. We took a lot of time to look at the solar. We did a lot of solar studies. The front of the building is going to be in shadow most of the year, summer or winter, and I can show that, what the studies actually show to demonstrate that. But again, all the landscaping on the exterior conforms to either Cliff's Edge or City of Las Vegas, when our landscape architect made the selection, it's usually to make it a more hardy selection so it didn't die. All the trees are at 36 inches, which we know is something that was very essential and concerning. But again, if the species selection is not something that would be approved, we would just go back to the Cliff's Edge. The decision we typically try to make were for a better reason. This is going down Schaumburg, looking at the site. So again, we want kind of the building to poke. It's roughly 30 to 40 feet below, depending on where you're at, below actual Schaumburg. It's kind of in a bowl, but it's a gently sloping site. It's a beautiful site, by the way. It's an absolutely gorgeous site. The vegetation strategy on the public way is to follow all the rules for the city of Las Vegas or Cliff's Edge. And then interior, we're going to do native restoration, native revegetation. So we're going to go with a lot of like vegetation that does not require a lot of watering, but we have a lot of, you'll see a lot of bouldering in there. That's for many reasons, one of which is aesthetic, but it also provides some security features on the site as well. So I'm happy to show any of the solar studies or any of that. I can stop this and take any questions if there are any. I'm happy to proceed however you would like.

Well, let's take a break from the presentation. We'll open up public hearing, and then we'll see if the commission has any questions related to some of those other elements. So this item has been noticed for public hearing. Any members of the public wishing to be heard? Seeing none, I'll close public comment. I will pass it back to the chair, the commission, starting with Vice Chair Kusama.

Thank you, Chair. Regarding this item, staff recommends approval. It meets the requirements that it needs to. And furthermore, I just think that it's a wonderful addition to the community. I think it's part of the critical infrastructure, what we talk about with our public safety goals for the 2050 master plan. You've done a fantastic job with the design and the landscaping and also doing your best to make sure that the communication towers are harmonious and compatible with surrounding area and helps with the elevation changes as well. With that, I am happy to make a motion to approve unless there are other comments from the rest of the commission.

Anybody else have any comments? No? Thank you for all of the really great detail in the presentation. And it's a gorgeous looking project. Thank you. Mr. Kusama.

perfect with that i'd like to make a motion to approve item 32 that is 25-0323 sdr1 subject to staff conditions madam chair so as not to overly complicate this process but

A revised staff report was provided to the commissioners in your supplemental packet, and it had a number of conditions that were either amended or added. And I'd like to go through those first, and then one in particular, Mr. Enns mentioned about the reflectivity that you may want to amend. So condition number six was revised to read, and this is for item 25-0323, SDR1. Condition number six was revised to read reflective glass shall not be permitted. So if you so choose to amend that condition, we would read a different condition into the record that allows reflective glass. So it's not a percentage, it's... Just a straight prohibition. Straight prohibition.

Okay. And that's the current condition is the straight prohibition of reflective glass? Correct. Okay.

The second condition, which would be a new condition, was added to be placed after condition six to read a waiver from section 6.2.8 of the Cliff's Edge design guidelines is hereby approved to allow chain link fencing along the north, east, and south perimeter where unfinished or painted concrete block, wood, vinyl, and chain link fencing are not permitted for product walls. And then a new condition was added to be placed after that previously added condition to read a waiver from Section 8.5.3 of the Cliff's Edge Design Guidelines is hereby approved to allow zero parking lot trees in uncovered parking areas where eight trees are required. And finally, condition number seven regarding perimeter walls for commercial industrial properties was removed.

OK. Thank you. Gentlemen, can you come back up for one second just so we can get some affirmations on those conditions? And then I will let Commissioner Kusama walk through the conditions and see if there's anything she wants to change or amend.

I don't unless there are any other comments from the commission. I would just ask staff, do I have to withdraw or can I just say that, you know, make the same motion to approve subject to the revised staff conditions I read on the record?

Correct. And then if you wish to approve with the reflectivity that they are showing on their plans or requesting, then I can read another amended condition into the record that replaces the one I just read in. It will allow the reflectivity.

So just to clarify, the plans as submitted have a certain level of reflectivity. Your current condition says no reflectivity.

That is correct. Okay. So they would have had to change their plans to conform to that.

To conform to the no reflectivity. Okay. Gentleman, are you okay with no reflective glass on the building?

We would prefer to have reflective glass if that's possible.

My thought on that is to not have reflective glass. on the building, but I'm not an architect, I'm not a designer, I would focus on this commission that have more experience with that, but it seems to me that you're trying to keep it all kind of blending with the environment, so you wouldn't want reflectivity.

So what's interesting about this statement, it's partial architectural and there's some other reasons why we did this. There's a high thermal mass wall behind this. We can't hear you. Oh, I'm sorry. We have a high thermal mass wall behind. So there's part architectural, but we were trying to create, if you have reflective glass on a site like this and it's sloping down, it's going to reflect back the site. It's going to be very interesting on the site. So it's going to look more or less like you're looking at a desert scape kind of in in the windows. Yeah, I think it's going to be really kind of a nice effect. Secondly, behind that window, there's a high thermal mass wall. There's reasons that I prefer not to say here. I can tell you offline why that is, but it also helps. We would have to go to a different type of solution. There's ways of doing that, obviously, with the glazing. but you know, we also have a smaller space. We'd like to keep it as open as possible, but we'd prefer to have reflectivity if possible. It's not a deal breaker, obviously. I wrote Steve today, we will not fight city hall on this. If you say no, obviously. So we want to, it's not critical, but it's interesting part of it. It makes it look nice.

Chair.

Yes, sir.

Can I just ask staff what the big deal is about the reflective glass and why it's prohibited?

Madam Chair, reflective glass can create a solar glare and it can concentrate heat as well. So it does pose an issue in our desert climate. So we prefer not to see the reflective glass in new structures.

I think maybe the uniqueness of this particular property would be that it's far enough away from the street. I mean, if we're dealing with other properties that are on city sidewalks and things where that heat would radiate back down on the particular individuals. It may be more important and I might be missing the fact here, but I feel that it's far enough removed from the street that it's not going to be blinding the people or really it's just going to be creating heat for themselves if it does create any heat.

And I guess my only other question then is with that and the idea of like having that reflective heat, then you're also not having landscape trees in the parking lot. And so then you've got like additional asphalt radiated heat, urban heat islands there. So, I mean, I guess that would be my only other, my consideration for the reflectivity versus not reflectivity. Sure.

Yeah. The visitor's parking is the only area that would be affected. It's offset for security purposes. So there is a kind of a buffer between that. We also spent a lot of time looking at Schaumburg and then Highway 215 to make sure that we're not putting reflected light into those spaces. So if you're thinking of Highway 215 from the bottom side of the site or the front, so let's say we, I'm not sure we're gonna go with reflected glass in the back so that we'll have some reflectivity, but it's roughly 50 feet inset off the actual, it's 71 feet from the first floor lower level. I mean, it would be almost impossible for that window to reflect into 215. And then on Schaumburg, conversely, it's, Schaumburg is roughly, I think it's 40 feet above the actual bottom first level, and then we have the wall and the trees. So there's a lot of buffers before it hits Schaumburg, and then to your other point, creating a heat island's gonna reflect right into the desertscape, which is gonna get, you know, it's, there is something to that, but it's, you know, we're trying to be delicate and respectful in that regard as well.

If that matters. Any other questions or comments?

Yeah, I just had a quick question, kind of switching gears to the chain link component. If you could just kind of walk through on the site plan where the chain link fencing would go in.

Yes. Can I show it to you?

Yep, that would be welcome to.

Okay. So the chain link goes across the Beltway Trail, and then on the back sides, basically the purple you're seeing here, that would be your community wall, and then Rome Boulevard around. So the non-public areas are gonna have the chain link. And I would say this is a budget constrained project, so that's part of the reasoning behind it. And again, trying to be respectful to the public areas and putting good use of public dollars and funds.

It's also important for us to have a visual line of sight out there for security reasons. It's extremely important for us not to have that area blocked. We need to see what's coming at us.

Chair, can I ask a follow-up question real quick? Sure, and then we'll go to Commissioner Schlottman. I can defer to Commissioner Schlottman.

Have you considered doing a beta fence or something along those lines where it's actually kind of like chain link, but it's just not chain link. It's just the wire fencing. And it goes up, and then it has the little curves. And it's just a lot more decorative than the chain link. Still, it doesn't bust the budget like a block wall.

Yeah, that would be considerably less than a block and slotted fence. I worked in Europe. That's very common in Europe. We do that quite a bit, actually.

It's very common out here in the United States, too, on nicer fences. I don't know.

We don't have a problem with that. That's something we would consider absolutely.

Okay. I know it has a beta fence, but that's just a manufacturer. What would you call this?

We should call this anti-climb. Honestly, you'll make me happy on a security fence. If you call it a beta fence, I know what you're saying.

Maybe we could say like a... like a wire fence that is similar to what beta fence manufacturers? I don't know.

So the only thing I would say that as part of the, we have a security team that assesses this through Metro has a, I don't think they're going to have a problem with it because it's at a higher level of security. No problem. So they'll probably be happy. But we are, a lot of the fencing requirements, that's a lot of careful coordination with their AT, anti-terrorism force protection people. Yes, I have a force protection person, but I think it would be fine. So that's my way. I'm okay.

Staff, are there any issues with that? I was going to say, I think Commissioner Rogan, you're good. Commissioner Schlottman?

Yes, I just looked it up. It is a welded mesh panel fence.

Okay.

Yes. Yes. It's harder to climb. It's actually, it's good.

Do we need, Commissioner Krasama, do you need to have them kind of like walk through the conditions again so we can sort of like condition by condition make sure that it's what you want in your motion?

Yes, I would just say that the only change I have is from the chain link to the welded mesh panel fence. The reflectivity has no change on my part. Sorry, I would like to allow the reflectivity so there would be that revised staff condition as well to be read on the record.

Yes, Madam Chair, through you. The amended condition would be number 6 of 25-0323, SDR 1, and it would read, a waiver of the Cliff's Edge design guidelines is hereby approved to allow reflective glass where such material is not permitted.

and then we would add a condition with regard to the chain link fencing that sure go ahead we can we can create a condition such as a fencing material similar to beta fence shall be used in lieu of chain link okay all right and so then gentlemen you agree with all the

existing conditions and those that are then revised as discussed tonight.

Correct. Yes.

All right. So with that, there is a motion on the floor to approve item 25-0323, SDR 1, subject to the revised conditions and the prior drafted conditions. So please cast your vote. And please post. And that motion carries.

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

And item 3325-0324, applicant, the Kalita Group, owner, Palm Fund, LLC, et al., for possible action on the following land use entitlement project request on the south side of Alta Drive, approximately 420 feet west of Rampart Boulevard, Ward 2, Siemens. Staff recommends approval on the land use entitlement project. Item 33A, 25-0324, MOD 1. to amend the Queens Ridge Towers Development Standards regarding land use, building setbacks, building height, parking screening materials, and finishes and exterior colors, item 33C, 25-0324, SDR 1, for a major amendment of an approved site development plan review, SDR 4206, for the addition of a proposed four-story, 332-unit multifamily residential building, to an existing 18-story multifamily residential development, 8.17 acres on APN 13832210007. May we have the staff report, please?

Madam Chair, the proposed amendments to the Queens Ridge Towers development standards include adjustments that apply to the proposed phase two only, leaving the phase one language as previously approved. As the office building is no longer proposed, standards that applied to it are proposed to be removed. Proposed reductions in the requirements for perimeter landscape and parking are minor and will not compromise the compatibility of the phase two development with phase one or the adjacent properties plan for future residential development. Staff therefore recommends approval of the major modification. The proposed development will be adequately screened from the existing adjacent condominium towers and sufficiently set back from planned single-family residential development to the south and to the west. Staff therefore recommends approval of the site development plan review. Please note there were additional documents of protest and support received after publication. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Good evening, sir. Can you please state and spell your name for the record? Give us your address and tell us about the project.

Good evening Madam Chair, Commissioners. My name is Bob Gronauer, 1980 Festival Plaza Drive. I'm here representing the Kalita Group. As many of you may know, the Kalita Group is a multi-family high-end luxury developer who's been developing in Southern Nevada and Las Vegas since about 2007. This project that's before you is one of these exciting projects up in the Queens Ridge Badlands area. I'm going to give you where this property is actually located, and then I'll get into the project that we're proposing here. So as you can see on the overhead, this is Alta Drive, which is north of our property and adjacent to our property in this area here. The Suncoast is just north of Alta Drive in this area here, as I'm showing you. We have the existing Queens Ridge Towers, the two towers that are located in this area that I'm showing you on the overhead. And this is Rampart Boulevard. Just to the northwest of us is the Tudor subdivision, which is an existing single-family residential subdivision. And just to the west and the south of us, as you can see in this area here, this is the proposed Lennar Homes development that was just recently approved in the Badlands area. So what we are proposing here is on this is approximately eight acres of property. We are asking for a high end luxury multifamily development, which will have approximately 332 units on the property. As staff has mentioned, this is phase two of the initial development that was approved back in 2004. In 2004, there was approved for four towers, which was these two towers that are located here that are 18 stories, and then we had a 14 and 16 story tower that was also located in this area that was a proposed phase two. What has been built four years later after 2004 of those approvals were these two towers that are existing here. In 2014, about 10 years after initial approval, There was an amendment to the there was a major modification to phase two, which was to approve a 22 story tower for residential units along with an office complex was just shy of about 18,000 square feet. That tower was supposed to be 266 feet in height. The amendment that we have here for the major modification tonight. is to come in for a high-end luxury development. It's gonna be a four-story development. Then I'll go and walk you through the site plan here. It's about approximately 60 feet. As I'll show you on the overhead here on the site plan, I'm gonna walk you through the proposed development. The theme of this is going to be a health and fitness type of theme and planned area. And I'll go through some of the amenities. This is highly amenitized development. If you're familiar with the Elysian product that's already existing here in Southern Nevada, it's similar to that. This is what we call the Ainslie development. We are going to have our main access is going to come off of Alta via the Clubhouse Drive in this area, where we would have ingress and egress coming out in this area. The building would be located, as you can see, as I'm showing you on the overhead. Our amenities start here at the main building entry, and then you have a full-size pool, Olympic pool, excuse me, pool and spa area. We have a yoga area, which is located in this area here. We have a zen garden and other type of amenities that would be used in here. And as you go through the walkway in here, you have a sports court area along with other amenities. like a 20-foot tall LED TV. We have some red light therapy that would be used within the property here. We have saunas. We have a cold plunge. These are all type of those uses to meet that theme of a health and fitness type of living scenario here that we are proposing. Rents in this area. are going to be on an average of just shy of twenty five hundred dollars a month is the average uh the range is going to go from anywhere from eighteen hundred dollars a month all the way up to about sixty eight hundred dollars a month for the penthouses we have about 14 penthouses that we're proposing within the project itself to give you an idea of the elevations that we're proposing here you can see these are the four stories that is the ainsley project our product that we have so this is going to be a similar product that we are proposing to locate on the property here Excuse me. That being said, what we did is it wasn't required to have a neighborhood meeting. Because we know this area very well, and there's been a lot of discussions with developments. As a matter of fact, Kalita has built an Elysian project just on the other side of Rampart within Boca Park. So we are aware of some of the concerns of development in this area. So what we did is we had a voluntary neighborhood meeting on August 26th. We actually had the neighborhood meeting in our Elysian project that's just across the way on Rampart. And we had about 30 to 35 neighbors in the area that showed up for the neighborhood meeting. I think I could report to you the meeting went fairly well with respect to the product. Because the neighbors got to see an existing product of what Kalita builds, their luxury type of amenities and the building that they have just across the way. So we can show them exactly what you're going to get from a similar type of development here. One of the issues that came up and I want to address tonight and I have a proposed condition is with respect is to traffic in the area. And that's why I went back to the site plan here. One of the concerns and especially from the Tudor neighborhood, which is located here, Their concern is for future traffic in this area, because what you have here today, it essentially dead ends here, the property, and you only have ingress and egress for the Tudor subdivision, which comes out to Alta Drive, which you have a signalized light section here. However, things have changed over the last couple of years. Matter of fact, just recently, as I mentioned to you, you had the Lennar project that's approved here, which has about, I think, four ingress and egress areas throughout the development. In Badlands, in one of those areas is going to be located here, as you can see, a little roundabout in this area, but you're going to have ingress, egress coming out of here of that Lennar development, although you also have ingress, egress coming out of here on Rampart for that Lennar development. But the concern is that you have 332 units coming out in this area along with the existing residential that's there. So as we discuss with the neighbors at the neighborhood meeting, we have a concern also because we want to make sure that our future tenants are going to be able to have easy access into the property and out of the property because if you don't have easy access i say like just like if you don't have enough parking you're going to have a failed project and when you put in this much money in a project like this you want to make sure it's successful so the good news is the neighbors that had some concerns with traffic are similar to us because we want to make sure we can make things work so one of the things that we mentioned at the neighborhood meeting that we're going to look at potentially getting access out onto alta drive so we've sent in a proposed condition working with staff and public works i have something i want to read into the record if you're inclined to approve the application because i believe i i did speak to a couple neighbors that were here earlier they just left because it was late uh for the meeting and one of the representatives is located here in tudor and he was I'm surprised and happy that our commitment of looking at ways to solve the traffic in this area for future traffic is having some type of exit here out on the altered drive. So because of that, I want to just read a proposed condition here because that's our commitment as we go through the traffic impact analysis. I don't think so much the development as far as what is being built here as quality definitely fits this area. It's to make sure that we could have that traffic circulation. The condition, if you're inclined to approve the application, would state that a construction of a secondary driveway on Alta Drive may be approved subject to all Public Works conditions outlined in the Traffic Impact Analysis Approval Letter. If allowed by the traffic engineer, these conditions may include exit only or other limited access, including the possible construction of a restricting median in Alta Drive, and then the proposed driveway public right-of-way accessibility guidelines. And that's a condition that I believe my office was working with Public Works earlier today. I believe that's sufficient enough to address that issue and that traffic in the area. Your staff is recommending approval, and I want to thank your staff that we put a lot of work into this to get to where we are today. And we appreciate their recommendation for approval, and I'm here to answer any other questions that you may have.

Thank you, Mr. Grunauer. This item has been noticed for public hearing. If there are members of the public, come on down and take a microphone. Please be sure to state and spell your name for the record and give us your address.

Good evening. Honorable members of the Planning Commission. I serve in a volunteer role and I know what it takes. My name is Mike Riando, R-E-A-N-D-E-A-U. I own the property at 9164 White Kirk Place. I'm also serving as the president of the Queens Ridge Owners Association. Queens Ridge part of it is this development here we call Tudor Park. I'm here tonight speaking for myself about the proposed Ainslie development and its potential impact on our community specifically concerning the traffic on Clubhouse Drive. The developer's attorney, Bob Gronauer, noted that a new traffic study for the project will be required. Our primary concern is the existing and future traffic flows on Clubhouse Drive, which is a two-lane street. The Ainslie development with its proposed 332 units is one of three developments that will be using Clubhouse Drive. The other two are Queens Ridge's existing Tudor Park, 166 units, and Lennar's planned development project named The Preserve and its hundreds of homes clustered in this area. We believe that future traffic demand will exceed what the street can safely handle. Imagine rush hour with hundreds of cars coming and going each hour, at times gridlocked, waiting for the light to change. Murphy's Law and there's a medical emergency. With the current street configuration in one of these high volume moments, fire and medical access can be limited. With 332 units proposed for Ainslie and two other large developments sharing the same roadway, the estimated number of drivers will be significant. The developer's belief that traffic demand won't exceed the previously approved study is not reassuring, especially since that study was completed years ago. To truly accommodate the planned luxury experience the developer intends to provide and to ensure the safety and convenience of all residents, we ask the developer to redesign Clubhouse Drive, a four-lane street with two lanes in each direction and a dedicated center turn lane would be a safer and more efficient solution for all residents and visitors. Expansion will help traffic flow issues, help prevent traffic flow issues on Clubhouse Drive, which had been a point of concern for many residents One attendee at a recent meeting even requested a traffic signal at the tower's entrance to facilitate lift turns, which highlights the existing problems. Thank you for your time, for considering the safety and wellbeing of our community, and I'm open to discussing this further with the developer and the commission.

Thank you very much, sir. Seeing no one else for public comment. Nope. Okay. I will close public comment. I will pass it back to the commission, starting with commissioner Walsh.

Thank you. Madam chairperson. There has, um, as a point of note, 33 B has been stricken out of this, out of this portion of the two or the three. Is that correct? Yes. Yeah. Okay. I just want to, just want to clarify that and make sure that everybody knows that. Um, There's been so much discussion and things on this one, but I don't see any further problems. The applicant will probably have to reach out. to a certain person, you can read that. So with that and accepting the conditions and the removal of item 33B, I have no problem, Madam Chairperson, to make a motion.

OK. Let's see, does anybody have questions or comments on this item? I have a question, if nobody else does. There is a lot going on on Alta now. You have a Kalita project going basically kitty corner from where this one is. You have all the Badlands project going in. There's just a lot going on. And so I wanted to ask Public Works kind of what the status of the traffic study is because to me that proposal of trying to expand Clubhouse Drive doesn't seem unreasonable. And so just wanted to get your input on where you guys are and what you're thinking right now.

thank you chair Alta Drive is currently at about 23 capacity and with this project it would be increased to 28 percent of capacity which is okay the driveway on Kalita or the private the driveway leading leaving from there is currently private property so it could be it is not infeasible the the proposed exit from Alta Drive would also help with traffic around there The traffic impact analysis study will come up with options around that area and there will be recommendations made from that which our condition that Bob read in earlier will require.

Okay, thank you. Anybody else? Oh yes, Commissioner Rogan.

Just a comment, Mr. Gronauer. It seems to be a lot of ingress and egress if you added that additional entryway onto Alta. That's also the Neon to Nature bike lane that runs up and down Alta. And that's a pretty decent hill right there. And a lot of bicyclists, they fly right down it just to hit that light. And so if we're going to have Entrance entryway after entryway after entryway right at that point. I just would hope that Public Works takes in that into consideration Yes, we have something to say. So yes, you would like to go ahead and make any comments.

Thank you chair through you the Proposed driveway is proposed to be exit only so that would help with traffic flow and then the bike lane is taken into account. I

Okay, thanks. That hopefully will deal with my concern. I just want to be very protective of those folks that are, if there's going to be a lot more traffic because of the development, that any change in that traffic element, that the bicyclists be protected from any kind of injury. Thank you.

Okay. Anybody else? All right. Commissioner Walsh, sorry, if you'd like to go ahead and make your motion.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I'd like to make a motion to approve item number 33, 33A, 33B, will be stricken, and 33C. That is item number 33, item 25-0324, This particular one with the other two remain. That's the motion.

And I believe that's with the added condition that I mentioned? Correct. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. There should be a motion on the floor. Even though we have it recorded on the record.

Mr. Gronau, can we get a copy of that condition for the clerk?

I have a copy of the condition, and I can read it in for the record.

Madam Chair, through you, I have the correct wording.

You see, look, everybody has it, okay? But you.

And Josh has it.

Everybody agrees that what Mr. Gronau read into the record is an accurate depiction of the condition to be included.

yes i can read it in to the record just for yes i think we're good please add the condition for item 33c on 25-0324-sdr1 as follows condition 15 construction of a secondary driveway on alta drive may be approved subject to all public works conditions outlined in the traffic impact analysis approval letter If allowed by the city traffic engineer, these conditions may include exit-only or limited access, including the possible construction of a restricting median in Alta Drive. The proposed driveway shall meet public right-of-way accessibility guidelines, or PROWAG. Thank you.

And since it has been read into the record, Mr. Grunauer, do you... Wow. you concur you agree with that condition yes okay all right thank you sir okay there is a motion on the floor please cast your vote uh commissioner rogan commissioner munford yay Yay. OK, great. Please post. And that passes. Thank you, and have a good night.

And that will move on to city council on October 15.

OK. And finally, citizens participation, number 35. Public comment during this portion of the agenda must be limited to matters within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. No subject may be acted upon by the Planning Commission unless that subject is on the agenda and is scheduled for action. if you wish to be heard come to the podium and give your name for the record the amount of discussion on any single subject as well as the amount of time any single speaker is allowed may be limited do we see anybody here for citizens participation okay seeing none we'll close that and we will call this meeting adjourned and i will robustly gavel it out great thanks everyone