Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you. do

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. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. City Clerk, would you please call the roll?

Chair Taylor? Present. Vice Chair Kosama? Excused. Commissioner Schlottman?

Present.

Commissioner Rogan?

Present.

Commissioner DiSalvio?

Present.

Commissioner Mumford?

Present.

Thank you, Chair. 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 portion of the agenda. Public comment must be limited to matters on the agenda for action. If you wish to be heard, come to the podium and give your name for the record. The amount of discussion as well as the amount of time any single speaker is allowed may be limited. And I will just preview for everybody that because tonight is a very long agenda, We will be trying to keep comments brief and efficient. And if you hear your item and you are here for public comment, please, please, please come down, sit in the front row and be prepared to come up to the microphone expeditiously. So thank you in advance for your help getting us through this agenda. So are there any members of the public who wish to speak under this portion of the agenda?

So Madam Chair, Seth Floyd for the record. I normally don't obviously speak at public comment, but we and our staff were made aware this week that some of the applicants, maybe some of you in this room, received what appears to be a scam email purporting to be from the Planning Commission and asking you to wire money. That is not from the city of Las Vegas. That is a scam. We're investigating that. If you haven't already reached out to us to let us know that you received one, if you can come down at some point during the meeting and let our staff know, we are investigating that right now. So we would appreciate your help in doing that and apologize for you receiving those, but those were not official city emails.

Thank you, Mr. Floyd. And we will now move on to item number five. This is for possible action approving the final minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of September 9th, 2025. Commissioner Schlottman is sitting in as my vice chair tonight. May we please have a motion to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting from September 9th, 2025?

Yes, Madam Chair, I move to approve.

Thank you. There is a motion on the floor. Please cast your votes. Please post, and that motion carries. Let's move on to housekeeping. 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. Staff is requesting to hold item number 11 to the November 9th Planning Commission meeting. The applicant is requesting to hold item number 20 to the November 18th Planning Commission meeting. The applicant is requesting to hold item number 21 to the November 18th Planning Commission meeting. Staff is requesting to hold item number 23C25-0286 TMP1 to the December 9th Planning Commission meeting. The applicant is requesting to hold item number 27 to the November 18th Planning Commission meeting Staff is requesting to strike item and number 30 C as the waiver is no longer needed the applicant is requesting to hold item number 41 to the November 18th Planning Commission meeting and The applicant is requesting to hold item number 42 to the November 18th Planning Commission meeting. The applicant is requesting to hold item number 44 to the November 18th Planning Commission meeting, and the applicant is requesting to hold item number 50 to the November 18th Planning Commission meeting. Thank you.

Okay. Chair, through you, Deputy City Clerk Yvette Lozoya for the record, the first item, item 11, is that correction for November 18th Planning Commission? It was stated November 9th.

Madam Chair, yes, November 18th. I apologize. Okay. Thank you.

That was on number 11. I thought you said that was gonna be November. Okay. All right, so November is going to be a nice, thick agenda as well. Can we please get a motion, oh sorry, of all those items, is there anybody that wishes to speak on any of the items identified? Okay, if not, hearing none, Interim Vice Chair Schlottman, would you please make a motion on these housekeeping items?

Yes, Madam Chair, on items number 11, 20, 21, 27, 41, 42, 44, and 50, move to hold those in advance till the November 18th Planning Commission hearing. And then on item 23C, make a motion to hold that one into, that particular item into abeyance till the December 9th Planning Commission hearing. And then on item 30C, a motion to strike 25-0322WVR2.

Thank you, there's a motion on the floor. Please cast your votes. Please post. And that motion carries. Consent items are next. These are considered routine by the Planning Commission and may be enacted by one vote. However, any item may be discussed if a commission member or applicant so desires. Mr. Vice Chair, do you have a motion on consent items?

Yes, Madam Chair, through you on the consent item number seven, a move to approve subject to staff's conditions.

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

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

Thank you. I'm moving on to one motion, one vote. The following are items that may be considered in one motion, one vote. They are considered routine, non-public, and public hearing items with a staff recommendation of approval. All public hearings and non-public hearings will be 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. So number 825-0338VAC1, applicant owner Century Communities, Nevada, LLC. FOR POSSIBLE ACTION ON A LAND USE ENTITLEMENT PROJECT FOR POSSIBLE ACTION ON A LAND USE ENTITLEMENT PROJECT FOR POSSIBLE ACTION ON A LAND USE ENTITLEMENT PROJECT FOR POSSIBLE ACTION ON A LAND USE ENTITLEMENT PROJECT FOR POSSIBLE ACTION ON A LAND USE ENTITLEMENT PROJECT FOR POSSIBLE ACTION ON A LAND USE ENTITLEMENT PROJECT FOR POSSIBLE ACTION ON A LAND USE ENTITLEMENT PROJECT FOR POSSIBLE ACTION ON A LAND USE ENTITLEMENT PROJECT FOR POSSIBLE ACTION ON A LAND USE ENTITLEMENT PROJECT FOR POSSIBLE ACTION ON A LAND USE ENTITLEMENT PROJECT FOR POSSI For a petition to vacate a portion of a public drainage easement generally located west of Van Hoy Creek Street, south of Prindle Brook Avenue, Ward 6, Bruny. Item number 10, 25-0340, SDR1, Applicant Jones Media, LLC. Owner, 1205 East Sahara Avenue, LLC. For possible action on a land use entitlement project request. for the proposed addition of digital LED electronic message illumination into the east face of an existing off-premise sign at 1205 East Sahara Avenue Ward 3 Diaz. Number 1225-0350 SUP1 applicant Zira India Catering Inc. owner Mercado 888 LLC for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for proposed 1,510 square foot alcohol on premise full use at 1118 South Rainbow Boulevard Ward 1 Knutson item 1325-0353VAC1 applicant owner Northland LLC for possible action on a land use entitlement project request For a petition to vacate a portion of an existing Bureau of Land Management right-of-way grant for sewer drainage and roadway, generally located on the southwest corner of Brent Lane and Eric Lloyd Street, Ward 6, Bruny. Item 14, 25-0354, SUP 1, applicant... for a proposed 53,480-square-foot alcohol off-premise full-use grocery store at 5051 East Bonanza Road, Suite 120, Ward 3 Diaz. Item 15, 25-0361, BAC1, applicant Stone Land Holdings LLC owner, Clark County vacant series of the cab, properties LLC for possible action on land use entitlement project request for a petition to vacate U.S. government patent easements generally bounded by Alexander Road, El Capitan Way, and Juliano Road. Ward 4, Alan Polensky. item 16 25-0374 mod1 applicant owner the Howard Hughes company LLC for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for the proposed modification of the Summerlin West Village 22 plan to amend the special land use designation of parcel B1 from VC-MF3 Village Commercial High Density Multifamily to VC Village Commercial and Parcel AA from VC-MF3 Village Commercial High Density Multifamily to SFSD Single Family Special Lot Development at the northeast corner of Sunset Run Drive and Scurry Bend Drive, Ward 2, Kelley. Item number 17, 25-0384VAC1, applicant Taylor Morrison, Homes of Nevada, LLC, owner Holy Trinity Eritrean Orthodox T. Wahado Church et al. For possible action on a land use entitlement project request for a petition to vacate a public drainage easement generally bounded by Oakey Boulevard, Mohawk Street, El Parque Avenue, and Edmond Street, Ward 1, Knutson. Number 18, 25-0408, SUP1, applicant Hung Nguyen, owner, Y Properties, LLC, for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for a proposed 2,496 square foot alcohol on-premise full use with a 115 square foot outdoor patio area and alcohol off-premise ancillary beer wine use at 353 East Bonneville Avenue, Suite 115, Ward 3 Diaz. Number 19, 25-0434, SUP, applicant owner Sticky X, LLC, for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for a proposed 6,356 square foot alcohol on premise full use at 1412 South Main Street, Ward 3 Diaz. These items were noticed as public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to be heard on these items? Okay, seeing none, I will close public hearing. Oh.

And while they're coming down, Madam Chair, through you, on item number 19, Sticky Tin LLC, I don't have any ongoing business with them on this particular project, but I have other projects going, other properties that they own, so out of abundance of caution, I'll be abstaining on item number 19.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Good evening, sir. If you could please go ahead and state and spell your name for the record, give us your address, and we will put two minutes on the clock for your comments.

Hi, I'm Victor Jordan, V-I-C-T-O-R, Jordan, J-O-R-D-A-N. I wanted to speak. I'm a resident at 353 East Bonneville Avenue in Las Vegas. This is about 25-0408, about a proposed... uh, alcohol on premise site business. I've never done this before, so I don't know if I'm doing this correct, but I just wanted to make a comment. Um, and I don't know how this works, but, um, I am opposed to anything like this simply because, um, I live in the building and there is an existing nightclub already. the Jewel nightclub, and there's so much noise at certain times. It's a great business, owner's great, but at times the decibels are so exceedingly high that the building thumps and rattles up until late hours, often one in the morning, maybe more. And I just think it's unfortunate to have another nightclub when there's already no restrictions. And my understanding is the existing nightclub has no restrictions, so I can only assume, I don't know how this works, that when a new business comes in, there may be no restrictions. It's like once it's approved. I did ask the manager of the condos, aren't there restrictions once a business comes in? And they said once the city approves it, there are no restrictions. So that's my concern. I think the noise already is so loud. I think having another business there with alcohol and noise and music is just going to make it worse unless there are some type of restrictions. And that's it.

Okay. Thank you, sir. Anybody else? Okay. Seeing none, I will close, um, public comment and, uh, we'll turn it back over to the vice chair for a motion.

Yes. Uh, madam chair on the one motion, one vote items, uh, number eight through 19 moved to approve subject to staff's conditions. Note in my abstention on item number 19.

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

Madam Chair, through you, just for clarification, except item 19 or item 11, since that was previously abate.

Yes. With the amended motion that item number 11 is not included within my motion. Okay, thank you. Please post. And that carries.

And Madam Chair, Items 8 through 10, 14 and 15, 18 and 19 are final action tonight unless appealed to the City Clerk in 10 days. Items 12, 13, 16, and 17 will move on to City Council on November 19th.

Thank you. All right, we'll move on to our public hearing items. Number 20, abeyance, oh, it's an abeyance. Sorry, let's go to number 22, abeyance 25-0186VAR1, applicant owner, Javier Patino Ochoa, for possible action on a land use entitlement project request to allow existing residential accessory structures, shade structure, and shed that do not conform to Title 19.06 development standards for setbacks, distance separation, and aesthetic compatibility at 6701 Buckskin Avenue, Ward 5, Summers-Armstrong. Staff recommends denial. May we have the staff report, please?

Madam Chair, no evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstances been presented in that the applicant has created a self-imposed hardship by constructing residential accessory structures that do not conform to Title 19 development standards for setback, separation, and aesthetic compatibility. The structures were built without building permits and could be redesigned to comply with code requirements. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the requested variance subject to conditions if approved. Please note that no letters of protest or support have been received since publication. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Is the applicant here? Mr. Ochoa? Okay. Why don't we go ahead and trail...

22 for a minute, if that's okay, Commissioner Munford.

Okay.

All right. Excuse me. I'm sorry. Staff, I just had a question for staff. Were they planning to withdraw this? You haven't heard anything? Okay.

Okay. Okay, all right, so item 23, abeyance 25-0286, applicant City of Las Vegas, owner United States of America. For possible action on land use entitlement project requests on approximately on the north side of Moccasin Road, approximately 1600 feet east of US Highway 95, Ward 6, Bruny, staff recommends approval on the land use entitlement project. 23A, abeyance 25-0286ZON1 from you, undeveloped, TND, traditional neighborhood development, general plan designation to TD, traditional development. 23B, abeyance 25-0286VAC1, petition to vacate portions of BLM right-of-way grant easements on the north side of Moccasin Road near the North Sky Canyon Park Drive alignment. 23D, abeyance 25-0286DIR1 regarding the adoption of the Monument Hills Development Agreement between the City of Las Vegas and Monument Hills Partners, LLC. 23E, abeyance 25-0286DIR2 regarding the adoption of the Monument Hills Parks Agreement between the City of Las Vegas and Monument Hills Partners, LLC. May we have the staff report, please?

Thank you, Madam Chair, Fred Solis for the record. This project is accumulation over eight years of planning, outreach, and negotiations. The project began to take shape with the adoption of the Upper Las Vegas Wash Vision Plan in 2017, followed by the City Council's selection of Olympia Companies as developer partner in 2019. Since then, considerable efforts have been put forth to engage our regional partners and stakeholders, including the Las Vegas Paiute Tribe, the National Park Service, the protectors of Tule Springs, the Bureau of Land Management, Clark County School District, Las Vegas Metro Police Department, as well as the U.S. Air Force. At the core of the project are two components the city council has affirmed as priority for the city. Those being the development of a community within the larger master plan community, specifically for military members and their families. And secondly, the establishment of an economic driver within the community that will bring highly skilled jobs to the area. The plan before you accomplishes these goals, as well as others outlined within the Las Vegas 2050 Master Plan. The proposed development emphasizes sensitivity to the surrounding natural environment, housing for local workforce, and promoting economic development. The subject site does not encroach into the Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument, and buffering will be provided adjacent to both the monument and tribal lands. The proposed rezoning to the TD Traditional Development Zoning District is in conformance with the underlying TND Traditional Neighborhood Development General Plan land use designation. The Associated Development Agreement and Parks Agreement are in conformance with the Nevada Revised Statutes 278.0201 and accomplish the goals and objectives of the Upper Las Vegas WASH Vision Plan and the Las Vegas 2050 Master Plan. Staff therefore recommends approval of the project. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Good evening. Sir, if you could please state and spell your names for the record, give us your addresses, and tell us about this project.

Thank you. Good evening, Madam Chair, Commissioners. My name is Bob Gronauer, 1980 Festival Plaza Drive. With me to my left is Chris Armstrong, who is with the Olympia Companies. We are both here tonight representing item number 23 and all the accompanying items with them. Before I get into the presentation with respect to the applications, one of the things I think is important so you can appreciate how big this development agreement is, FOR THE FUTURE GROWTH OF THE CITY OF LAS VEGAS HERE IS TO SEE WHAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS OF DEVELOPMENT UP IN THIS AREA, WHAT WE CALL THE NORTHWEST SEGMENT OF LAS VEGAS. SO I HAVE ON HERE AN AERIAL THAT SPREADS OUT AS FAR AS REGION UP HERE IN THE NORTHWEST. AND AS I GO THROUGH THIS, BOTH CHRIS AND MYSELF ARE VERY PROUD AS WE GO THROUGH THIS, A LOT OF THESE Master Plan Communities are communities that we've negotiated on behalf of Olympia. And these are Master Plan Communities that are either already existing with existing people who live, work, and play, or the future developments where people will live, work, and play up in this area. So as I'm going to go through, I'm going to go from the south side all the way to the north where this is the location of our property. Down in this area here, as you'll see, this is a Sheep Mountain Parkway that is proposed in some areas that are already constructed in this area. This is the US-95 located in this area here. When we first begin here in this red area, this is a master plan community that you approved within about a year ago. Chris and I were here representing the Olympia companies. That's a master plan known as Sky Summit. So this is 505 acres that will commence construction here fairly shortly, and we're excited to see this come out of the ground for residential development. On the other side of Sheep Mountain Parkway in this area is Sky Hills. That is a master plan community, once again, under the development of Olympia companies. With respect to this development here, This is already under construction. There's already people living in this area. As you go further up along Sheep Mountain Parkway, this once was all a part of Sky Canyon, Master Plan Community. Again, another development by Olympia Companies. Later on, this portion up here was sold off to Lenar, Lenar Homes, who's building Sunstone today. So as you go up in this area here, now you get up to, this is the moccasin to the south of our border here. This is the 940 acres that we're talking about tonight. In this area here is the Tule Springs Monument here. We are not in the Monument Park area. We're adjacent to the Monument Park area, which is to the east and to the north of us. This is the Paiute Reservation property, which is directly to the west of us. As you can see here, this is part of the golf course that's located there. And in this area here, as I pointed out earlier, is US 95. So hopefully it gives you a good idea with respect to the location of where this property is, where we're excited. As your staff has mentioned, they've been working on this for eight years. Chris and I have been working on this for about six years since Olympia was selected to be the preferred developer with the joint venture with the city of Las Vegas. And over the last six years, we spent literally thousands of hours of working with your staff. Chris and his team have met with the representatives from the Paiute Reservation. We've been meeting with BLM representatives, the National Park Service, the Tule Springs representatives with respect to putting this development together. along with all of your city's departments. So if it's from police to fire to parks, planning, public works, city attorney's office, we've met with everybody and had many discussions to be where we are today. So we're excited to stand before you and explain some of the highlights of the development agreement that's before you. So now I want to focus in, as I said in that red area, this is the 940 acres. I will not go through every page of the development agreement or the development standards and design guidelines, although we have, and I know we had Peter do that like about five to ten times over the last six years. So we've done a lot of work in here. But there are some highlights that I want to mention here because I think it's important for you to know and the public to know of what a great master plan community this is going to be. First and foremost, the previous administration when we were coming through for the request for qualifications to be chosen as a developer, the city was requiring in this master plan community to have a military housing concept. which is not only the first in the state of Nevada, but this concept is a first in the nation that's going to be used. So there's some excitement there. And if you're familiar with the issues with Nellis Air Force Base and Creech Air Force Base, they have issues with trying to find housing and have enough military housing. So this was a great idea by the city council several years ago to put this into this proposal as part of this economic development that you're going to see. Because as you know, where this location is, it's not too far north from Creech Air Force Base in Indian Springs there. So we will be building up to 290 units down in this area here that you can see in the pink area here. So this property here is designated for military housing. We will be constructing that. We'll be working with your city, with the city management team, in finalizing the documents that need to be completed there. So I think that's the first thing and foremost I should point out with the development that's going to be coming before you. The second major part that I want to point out is the economic development parcel. The economic development parcel is located here in the purple area. This consists of approximately 36 acres of property. The goal here between the city and the master developer is to find that private company or government entity that is going to be able to come in here and help create a minimum of 1,000 jobs. That's our goal. We may be targeting the Fortune 500 companies, a Fortune 2000 company. Whatever that's going to take, we are using this parcel for that economic development. Our goal is, because you've got about 1,000 employees, we will make sure we have the utilities stubbed and all ready to go for up to about a 250,000 square foot office complex. For those of you in development, that's a fairly large piece of property or a structure to be built there. So we're excited about that and working with our partner with the city of Las Vegas to ensure that this property is going to be a part of that economic piece of what was always and has been discussed for the development of this property. Next that I have in this area is our mixed use area. And this is where the major commercial and potentially some multifamily will be located on this property here. So we look at this as a major hub in here. The commercial development will be coming. As you know, you gotta get through the residential, get some residential in here, and then we'll be coming with commercial. So we presume we'll be coming back showing you our plans with respect to the proposed commercial development. In this area, what's unique here, this is approximately a 10-acre park that is going to be owned and maintained by the city. We will build it. It's going to be three soccer fields in this area and some other amenities that will be accompanying in this area. That is something that was thrown in here over the last couple of months of negotiations and with respect to providing some soccer fields that are going to be programmed in this area. The other thing I want to point out in the development agreement is we've been asked to provide some type of workforce housing. Okay. So the workforce housing, the way it's going to work is it's going to be to make sure that we don't exceed the AMI, I believe 150% of AMI. So what that means is on, as we work this issue out with your staff is we're going to come in with units that could be sale for sale or rent units. Although we've mentioned that they're probably going to end up being rental units. So we're going to have to provide studios, one bedrooms, and two bedrooms to make sure we hit that mark. And there's three properties that we've earmarked for that to happen, which is located here in the M property, which is for median density, which is the only area that we're really planning on true apartments in this area. In this area here, you have some mixed use that also is allowed to have that type of designation and also on the military parcel. However, we developed that parcel out for the 290 units. So that's also unique with respect to having a master plan community that has that concept in there because we're not asking We're not receiving any subsidies to do something like this, where you typically, when you hand this stuff out or require people to do, government gives those subsidies out. In this instance, we're not receiving any subsidies for this type of development. As I mentioned, as you'll take a look at the rest of the master plan community here, one of the things that we're also excited about is this park area here. If you're familiar with Sky Canyon, something that we did together many years ago, the community center is the number one piece or the top piece within that master plan community. It creates the culture, creates that community where people go and use that facility up there. We've had many neighborhood meetings. There's birthday parties up there. The community comes and that's where they go and they interact with each other. So this is in this area here that we foresee that to happen. You're going to have a new generation of a community center of something bigger and better of what we had before that's existing today in Sky Canyon. It's very successful with what's going on there today. We're carrying that on into this community also. So what you see here is a master plan community, another master plan community in the city. This is with mixed uses. This is also with mixed incomes. We're excited to begin construction here. There's some other things we've got to wait for to happen, which I'll leave for another day in another forum to have those discussions. And then the last bit of this is we have a lot of parks and trails with the connectivity here. There's a parks agreement that is part of this that's been negotiated over the last several years. In that parks agreement, it gives you the design of the parks, the timing of construction of the parks, and the construction of the parks of how they're going to be constructed. So that's all in the back up there, along with the development agreement that you have. There is a zone change that allows the TD zoning, which is a traditional development, which is no different than what I was showing you in Sky Canyon. because that allows you to come in with those mixed-use communities, and those mixed-use communities, that's where you create that master plan community. So the TD zoning, staff's recommending approval for the parks agreement and also the development agreement. That being said, Chris and I are here to answer any other questions that you have, but before I wrap up, the last thing I want to say is give a big thank you to your staff. They've put a lot of time and dedication in this. There's a lot of things that go on in government, especially here in the city of Las Vegas. But we've had the councilwoman, Councilwoman Bruni, in probably 98, 99% of these meetings. We've had all your staff management on a weekly basis. So there's a lot of hours that have been committed to this. So when you look at this deal point here, and if you're familiar with negotiations and how these master plan communities go, if you take one of these issues by itself, And you look at it, you may love it or you may not like it, but please understand there's a lot of stuff in here that's a package together. So just because there's something in here that you may think the city should need more for us, we say we need more. There's a lot of give and take in a development agreement like this. It's approximately a $3 billion development agreement that we negotiated here. That's a huge impact for the city of Las Vegas. So there's a lot of stuff in here. It's very complex. It's very technical. But I owe, and Chris, we owe your team... a debt of gratitude, because they put up with us for many times. We've been up on the sixth floor in the economic development room. We know from the security people all the way up to the staff that let us in every day or every week that we are showing up here. So again, there's so many names I want to say thank you to, but the guys and the gals that have been in that room, you know how much we appreciate you. It's not been easy. We've had a lot of highs and lows, but we said we're going to get this development agreement done, and we're standing here tonight with that development agreement done. So that's, that's a tribute to your staff and making sure we can get something done for an economic development such as this.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Grunauer. Um, this item was noticed for public hearing. Are there any members of the public wishing to make comment on this item? Okay. Seeing none, I will turn it back to the commission. Um, and I will start with me since it is my ward. I THANK YOU MR. GRONAUER FOR ACKNOWLEDGING THE STAFF BECAUSE I KNOW I DON'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY HOW MUCH TIME THEY PUT INTO THIS BUT I KNOW HOW MUCH TIME THEY PUT INTO EVERYTHING AND AS DENSE AND DETAILED AS THIS IS I KNOW THEY'VE PUT A TON OF TIME AND THEY'VE GIVEN ME A LOT OF TIME ON A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS I HAD BECAUSE I As an advisory body, I was not necessarily included in any of the discussions, but I really appreciate the time that you and Chris have given me to walk through it as it was in process and walk through some of the issues and concerns. And I'm very excited to see this project go in. I'm really excited about the military housing. I think that's a fantastic piece and so needed for the folks that serve at Creech. I'm really excited about some of the things you didn't get into in the details about how you're going to be treating Tule Springs. I mean, I really appreciate Chris spending time with the folks that run protectors of Tule Springs because the amount of work they put in to just get that monument designation You know, I was part of some of their early efforts, and so I know the work and the love and the passion for this monument and for this project. So really thank you guys for being thoughtful and inclusive of protecting those areas and making sure that it... really enhances this master plan community. So I'm also really excited about some of the different elevations that you've put in here to see things really get modernized. Some of the designations and the diversification of those non-residential, residential mixed-use characters where you have things designated like prairie, contemporary prairie, desert contemporary, contemporary craftsman. So we're not just looking at the same type of architecture we've seen in this valley for so long and I think it's just gonna be fantastic to see that as it gets developed. I do have a couple of questions that I wanted to ask you and maybe The first one I have is, I know that speaking of pots and speaking of the monument, you have been very mindful in terms of the development of this to have, and I also just wanna say, I think of this as a sweater, right? Like you've been knitting this sweater for years and years, and you pull on one piece of thread, and then like the whole sleeve's gonna unravel. So I understand that very much. But in the landscaping, you've got these zones, and you have sort of the streetscape, the parks, the, sorry, streetscape, parks, the neighborhoods, and then this transitional zone that buffers between the development and the natural edge. And my understanding from speaking with staff is that the point of the transitional zone is to kind of, again, protect the monument from any propagation of invasive species of plants because you're now putting all kinds of landscaping right on top of this area. on top of this monument and you've got quite a few trees in here that you have designated as not or that have been designated as not permitted for both the natural edge and the transitional edge and I know that one of the plants, one of the trees we've spoken at length about is pines, pine trees. And I appreciate all the discussion that we've been able to have on that. But I'm a little concerned that as this is a non-native plant, that this is going to be permitted in that transitional zone. There's still, and so I'm wondering if that might be something that you would be comfortable with one recommended change to just remove that, the permission of Mondale Pines from the transitional zone.

Yeah, maybe I can just pull up, do you know exactly where that is in the development criteria, I think? Oh, sure. Like, I know it's, I can pull that up and just make sure that, you know, what you're saying, I think we can agree to, but I just want to confirm, you know, exactly where that is and I can...

It's table 8.4. So if you look at the packet that was printed, it's page 190. And you'll see at the bottom, it's like a set of charts. And it breaks it down by tree species and then subsequently by plant species and has, again, permitted or not permitted in neighborhood, park, transitional, natural edge, and streetscape.

And I believe that transition zone, it's like a, so we've got our buffer along the edge, right, where you've got the sort of native species planting, and then there's a transition zone, I believe, only along the eastern edge, where it's like 140 feet or 150 feet, something like that. Correct. So your request is within that area that there be no pine trees. Correct. Yep, yep, we can accommodate that for sure.

Okay. And then thank you very much for... agreeing with that recommendation. I appreciate that. And then the other question I had, and again, I really appreciate you bringing this concept forward. So we've had this discussion in ward six, um, about the size of trees because we really want to have not just trees, but like quality trees. And that's part of the 2050 master plan, making sure that we have a good urban canopy, urban forestry with a good canopy to for a number of benefits. And so we've kind of been going round and round with this 24-inch, 36-inch. And we started to talk about caliper size. And we had already started talking about it before you brought in the container-grown tree guide from the Arizona Nursery Association. And we talked about that. And what I found when I was going through the development agreement was a lot of references to 24-inch trees. And I'm guessing, you know, and most of that is, well, the 36-inch trees would be those impactful visual sort of entryways, you know. And so you've got this breakdown between 24-inch and 36-inch. And I understand, well, my preference would always be to have trees. Trees that have an appropriate caliper size for a 36 inch box. I understand This is a lot of trees going in and I understand that switching to that larger tree size is going to be incredibly expensive So I reserve my right to continue to push for larger trees, but I understand in this development agreement So my concern my question was when you look at this Guideline And you've got this caliper designation. So, for example, if you look on your very last page, you've got pistache, lentiscus. And it talks about container size being 15, 24, or 36. And you've got height, then you've got width. And I thought that this was the caliper size, but what my concern... Oh, this is not the right... Okay, so actually flip multiple trunk trees. Okay, so actually we'll just pick any of them. Like if you look at the page 352. So if you look at the last, the second to last, the Vedia Peruvina, when you look at the 15, 24, and 36 container size, when you move over to the calipers, If you look at 0.5 to 1.0, that's what they have sort of categorized for 15-inch container sizes. And then the low end of the 24-inch box is essentially a large 15-inch box. Does that make sense? And it wildly varies between how different it is, right? But most of the time what you're seeing are these 24-inch box designations for caliper. If you're on the low end of that, you're essentially planting a large 15-inch box tree. Do you see what I'm saying?

So I'm looking at page 352, and is it the second category down, or just so, I wanna make sure we're looking at the same spot.

Sure, it's the, so see right here, Chris, so you see you've got your calipers on the far?

Yep, yep.

Okay, and then you've got three rows of different size boxes. So as you look at the 15-inch box, you have a range of low to high, smaller to larger calipers, and then the same thing with the 24-inch box and the 36-inch box. And so my concern is, and my question is, about this idea that if you're on the smaller side of one of those 24-inch box designations, you're essentially putting in a 15-inch box. It's not always the case, but for a lot of the ones I looked at, it is. And so was there a contemplation, or is there somewhere we can build in, and maybe this is something that can be discussed between now and city council, language that would designate the larger end of the 24-inch box to make sure that we're... hand pick your trees. You cultivate them, you grow them, you hand pick them. Is there a way to just put some language in that would designate these larger size calipers in the 24 inch box designation to make sure that we're really truly getting 24 inch box and not kind of like bigger versions of a 15 inch box?

So first of all, I think what you're saying, you know, landscaping is a very important part of what we do in our communities. You know, we've developed southern highlands in the southern part of the valley. Went through, you know, southern highlands. I think we've got, you know, 27,000 trees through our initial development on our core streets. And if you go through there today, and we've learned a lot, right? I think that's one thing that's important for us over the course of the last 25 years is we've got some lessons learned that we like to repeat and some lessons learned that we'll never repeat again. So It's been a learning process over the last 25 years, and I think we've really gotten to a point on our tree selection process, as we've sort of really fine-tuned that to make sure that the tree species that we're selecting, we're very comfortable that they're gonna be hardy in the long term. There's something that's going to be sustainable in the long term. The last thing that we want to do is establish, you know, a tree palette that's not going to be successful. You know, in all of our communities, I think that sort of differentiates us a little bit from other master plan community developers is that generally we stick around in the community as well, whether or not we own the commercial assets. So, for example, in Southern Highlands, we own the shopping centers. You know, our ownership owns the golf course that's down there. And so we're not in the development business to develop something and then leave and not really worry about what happens, right? So, for example, in Monument Hills, we will likely develop the mixed-use parcel and the commercial parcel and likely will hold on to that ownership. So we're invested in the long term of these communities to ensure that they're sustainable in the long term. and that they hold their values in the long term as well. So we're going to have a significant investment in the community, so it's super important for us. So we take trees very seriously, right? Like you were saying, we've sat down and talked through and we'll either do a grow program where we'll contract grow and all of those trees will go down and hand select. And then when they come to us, we'll examine them, we'll inspect them as they come off the trucks. And if they don't pass our muster, then they're going back, right? We're not going to accept them. A couple of other things that we do that I think is unique also is that we have fertigation systems. So basically fertilizer systems that go within the landscaping structure. So you've got tanks that are periodic through the irrigation system, and we add fertilizer throughout the year, various times when it's appropriate to do so, so that our trees are generally, they grow faster. So You know, you talk about the caliper size, and you're right. We choose, like we will do in some areas, we'll do 36 at the monuments. We'll do 46s at the monuments, you know, because you need that pow and that welcome to the project. So those are, you know, we will do that for sure. And then throughout the rest of the community, you make a good point. I think, you know, transitioning from doing 24-inch box to 36-inch containers throughout the community, we did a quick examination on a couple of the containers you know, the core infrastructure, streets, and it ends up being, it'll be millions of dollars of an impact, so it's something that, you know, and then unfortunately those dollars would get passed along to the homeowner, right, so we're trying to, you know, it's a balance between providing an amazing tree, canopy, and selection, and sort of, you know, a community that people like to call home, and then balancing that also, you know, this project, I know Bob didn't mention it earlier on, but we've got or maybe you did at the beginning, but we've got 6,000 homes that are contemplated here. The development is gonna be for 6,000 homes. That's 15,000 people, right? We live, the valley right now is starving for housing. Housing is not very affordable, and so we do have that affordable housing component, For us, it's really important, I think, to balance on providing an excellent community, which we feel we've done in the past, and providing amenities, but also making it affordable for people. So getting back, a lot of words just said, but I think we need to focus on all that stuff to say, yes, we're committed to making sure that the landscaping that we put in meets or exceeds what those minimums are. So I think between now and council, if we can come up with some language that we can all agree to that's appropriate, Trees are important.

Okay, thank you. And so, Mr. Solis, are there any sections in this development agreement that would be appropriate to have a better description of that caliber sizing to ensure that the quality of landscaping that Chris has talked about so often is sort of codified in the development agreement?

Yes, Madam Chair. So there is a section that actually refers back to this tree list that we're looking at. So within that section, I don't know it off the top of my head, but within that section, we can go ahead and work with the developer to add some language to accomplish that goal.

Okay, great.

And I think Fred knows those DS and DG better than I do by far, so we'll work together to figure something out.

Okay. All right, thank you for that accommodation as well. Thank you. I appreciate that. And again, thank you for all your time. I don't have any questions right now. I'll pass it to the rest of my commissioners. Go ahead, Commissioner Salio.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to say thank you for following through. Chris, it's good to see you. It's been a minute. I spent five years... of the, I think, seven or eight that you guys have been dealing with it. This has been a vision from the previous councilwoman with the military housing we don't have out there. We don't have the ability to have people work and live in the same location in Ward 6. I mean, I've been out there since just Bob Taylor's Steakhouse in Floydland Park, you know, and that's all that was out there. And to see something like this pop up to accommodate what is, like you mentioned, is unheard of to have housing for military with the two bases so close and to have the ability of people to work and play in the same location and to actually see this come to fruition. I mean, 2050 master plan that I worked on for all those years and hundreds of homeowners meetings to get to where we are today to actually see this. It made me excited to see this on the agenda because the last time I seen it is when The previous councilwoman was in there and there was a lot of work that went into it. So to see this today, to come out to damn near exactly what we envisioned in all the work and all the neighborhood meetings and to see it now is tremendous. So I applaud you for moving it forward and 100% in support because this is exactly what's needed out there because we just flat don't have it. So thank you, Chris. I know you've probably got millions of dollars tied up into this for many years and to actually see it come down to us being able to vote on it and then push it to city council to me is, It's worth its weight in gold, so I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else? Any other comments? I guess just to build off something that Commissioner Salvio said in terms of the investment, can you just speak really quickly, Mr. Gronauer, to some of the timelines? Like when would you expect to see this? Because just side note, my nephew was at Creech, and, you know, I live in Centennial Hills. He had to drive 35, 45 minutes every day to get to work. And so, yeah, this is going to be fantastic. Okay.

Yeah, it's going to be a part of our first phase of development. And I wish I could tell you when that first phase is actually going to happen. Because as I mentioned in my presentation, there's another side issue that we're dealing with right now. So as sooner that we can get that done, we're getting much closer and working with your staff to get this stuff, get shoveling the ground. But it will be in our first phase.

Okay, great, thanks. Okay, with that then I'm prepared to make a motion on this item. So for item number, sorry as I'm taking notes, for item 25-0286, and it's subparts except for,

except for C, I would make a motion to approve.

Yeah, item 23. What did I say? 25-0286, items 23A, 23B, 23D, and 23E. All right, there's a motion on the floor.

Chair, just to clarify, that's subject to conditions as well, correct?

Oh, I'm so sorry, yes. And that is subject to all staff conditions and you agree to all staff conditions?

Yes, yes.

Thank you very much. All right, please post. And that motion carries. Thank you very much again. Looking forward to seeing this get developed and thank you for those couple of accommodations on the landscaping. Appreciate it very much, you guys.

Thank you and have a good night.

And I just want to reiterate what Bob was saying. Just appreciate the efforts of everybody who's in here and the people who aren't in here. It's been a long haul to get to where we are and staff has been extremely supportive along the way. So we really appreciate the efforts of everybody. Thank you.

And Madam Chair, that will move on to City Council on November 19th.

Thank you. Okay, let's move back to item 22, 25-0186VAR1. Mr. Ochoa, are you in attendance? Okay, seeing that he is not, Commissioner Munford, I know this item has been in front of us a couple of times. How would you like to proceed?

I mean, it's been a while. Okay. The applicant hasn't showed up for a couple meetings. I'd like to make a motion to deny.

Well, let's get through some of the procedural items, staff report, public hearing, all that stuff, and then we'll get to that. So we'll go ahead and then open up that item. Can I get the staff report, please, on item 2225, abeyance 25-0186, VA-01? Okay. Oh, we had the staff report. Never mind. Sorry. This is what happens when I try to get cute and get out of order. Okay. So we've had the staff report. This item was a notice for public hearing. Are there any members of the public wishing to be heard on item 22? Okay. Seeing none, I'm going to go ahead and close that item, turn it back over to the commission, starting with Commissioner Runford.

Through you, Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion to deny.

Okay, please do so. And there's a motion on the floor. A motion in favor is to deny. Please cast your votes. Please post. And the motion to deny, item 22 carries.

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

Thank you. Item 24, abeyance 25-0291, applicant New Life Solutions, LLC, owner K&K Property Management, LLC, for possible action on the following land use entitlement project request at 1502 South Las Vegas Boulevard, Ward 3 Diaz. Staff recommends denial on the land use entitlement project. 24A, abeyance 25-0291, SUP1, for a proposed single room occupancy residency use. 24B, abeyance 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?

Yes, Madam Chair, this is Christian Gates, Community Development, for the record. The proposed single-room occupancy residence and facility to provide testing, treatment, or counseling for drug or alcohol abuse uses are not compatible with the surrounding development and is located in an area targeted for high-density transit-oriented development. Therefore, staff recommends denial of both special use permits. If approved, both special use permits will be subject to conditions. Thank you.

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 side? Oh, sorry. Thank you for the staff report. Gentlemen, please, if you could give us your name, spell it for the record, your address, and tell us about your project.

Madam Chair and members of the Commission, my name is Jim DeFiore, spelled D-I-F-I-O-R-E, of DeFiore Consulting and Business Services at 8550 West Charleston Boulevard. With me tonight is Jacob Canto, who is the owner-operator of New Life Solutions. And Mr. Canto does operate several other sober living facilities here in the Valley.

Mr. DiFiore, I'm so sorry. Since we have new technology tonight, can you please speak a little bit more into the microphone so we can hear you? Okay. Thank you. All right.

So with me tonight is Mr. Canto and he is the owner operator of New Life Solutions. He has several facilities, sober living facilities in the county and he has a vast amount of experience in operating these sober living facilities. Mr. Canto is going to give you a presentation as to why he's there and what he would like to do and go over his experience in this type of operation.

Good afternoon and evening, Madam Chairman and commissioners. My name is Jacob Canto, C-A-N-T-O for the record. I'm the owner and operator of New Life Solutions. It's been actually serving the community of Las Vegas here for the last eight years. I have four residents now in the county that we've been managing and running. I just want to make the record clear that I'm not just starting this here in a bad area. I picked this area for a reason. The reason being, one, because it's a bad area, and I feel that I can do some good substance and bring some good things to this area, being that I do got a good track record. And as far as completion and people actually returning with thank you letters and things of that nature as far as what I've done to help them in their life. We've helped over 800 clients throughout the eight years that we've had these facilities going. Some of our statistics are at least 75% of our clients have found housing, jobs, 84% have transitioned into stable housing. Not only do I go above and beyond to try to keep this property safe, it's been abandoned. I know that this property has its history with you guys and I look to clean that up because of that. That's why I chose this property. One, because of the closed corridor that I have that I can keep my clients inside. and only in the back corridor that won't be outside loitering or doing anything that you typically would probably see from a sober living. Our sober living in the last nine years has only had four metro calls to four residents that we've had. We've had zero arrests, nonviolent offenses. So we have a great management staff. Our management has been with us since the beginning that we started this. And I want to just give you a little history of why I started this. It wasn't a money grab or anything. anything like that. I have multiple businesses that make good money in the city. This is the one business that doesn't really do too good as far as financially. It's really where my heart's at because I got into this business because my mother was addicted to alcoholism. And so I put my mother in one of these houses. It was called Life Recovery at the time. And during that time, in 30 years, I've never seen my mom. off alcohol. But I was able to get her clean by putting her into one of these houses. So during that time, she had mentioned to me that they were kind of going under and going bankrupt. So I thought it would be a good investment for me, since it was doing so good for her, that she could actually help people in staying clean and be in management. to the facility. So what I did is I took my mom and I made her a manager of the facilities. And that worked for about two and a half years. After about two and a half years, I ended up losing my mom to alcoholism and the battle of her disease. And that was hard on me. I really wanted to give up on this program. But the fight in her still lives in me. And so I kept going with it. And I hoped that maybe I couldn't help my mom, but I hoped to maybe help someone else's mother. I just wanted to say how we do fit into the 2045 master plan and vision that we do have. Definitely health and human services and how we can have lower income housing services. We do a lot of services for them now. As far as getting them out every week, I provide rides out of my own pocket, drug testing out of my own pocket, breathalyzing on a nightly basis out of my own pocket. I get no funding from the state, and everything is done purely out of my heart and trying to get this program going. Why I chose this, because I have four houses now that are spread out throughout the city, which kind of makes it hard for me to manage things with four different managers, but I know that I... could manage things a lot better and provide a lot more resources in a place that I did have counseling and things that I can provide that I can't provide in my houses now that if you guys found it in your hearts and gave me the opportunity to show what I can provide for the city and what I can do for the city as far as, you know, diversity housing and subsidized housing and lower income housing and actually helping people. And I would love to give you guys statistics on the company on every quarter or every month or whatever you guys would like to see the progress of my company and what it's doing for the community. And every 90 days, even, if I can show you guys when so-and-so comes in on the progress they made, the job resources that we have, the vocational training that we give them. We do so much for the community. Like I said, I've helped over 800, 900 people, and there's no... scholarship, there's no trophy, there's no extra funding. I kind of really do this out of the pureness of my heart and I know with this property I can do things much better with the structure that I can keep in this property versus the houses that I have. If you guys would open your hearts to and minds to allowing something like this here. I know it's not the best area. I know it doesn't have the best track record. But I'm willing to improve that and show you guys on a monthly basis what I can do for this community and the people that I can change in this community as far as finding them jobs, getting them back with their wives and their kids and stuff like that. I've helped so many people that come back and thank me. for what we did for them, you know, and these people may have had a 15-year addiction, and it's not just the house. It's not just, I got a magic house that helps people like this. It's the camaraderie that we have. It's the staffing that we have. It's the people that we have that are involved in really helping people. They don't get paid much. So, you know, a lot of, like I said, we don't have funding and stuff like that, so a lot of people that we have do things out of the pureness of their heart, and that's why it actually works for our clients to help them because most of our clients are not getting paid for by the state. They come out of pocket themselves. They find their own jobs. They police themselves by putting themselves in these communities with us to have this governed over them. And we do find them jobs. We do get them out. We take them out on a daily basis so they're not just going stir crazy sitting there wandering around the neighborhood I have zero nuisance reports from any of my houses from any neighbors having any problems and I know that's not typical of a silver living we are very untypical of a silver living because we run such a tight ship. It's been seven months there now and the building's quote unquote been abandoned, but not me. I haven't left the building abandoned. I've repainted the building myself. I've remodeled the building myself. If I could show a couple of these pictures of what I've done with the building and my own funding. I don't know where the camera's at. Right here. And I can show you kind of that's the side there. And again, To fit more of the 2045 plan, I do have 6,000 square feet underneath me that I can always grow into the plan more so than what I got going now. I know I fit some of the health and housing, some of the things that you guys are looking for in the 2045 plan. master plan, but I can grow into more of the 2045 master plan with some of your ideas or whatever I need to do in the buildings underneath me, whether it be retail, whether it be whatever you guys are looking for in that corner to make the corner everything that you guys want to make it. And as long as I'm not and my clients aren't being an issue, to any of the neighbors or anything going on, I see that you guys would see that this was actually good for the community and see that it was fit for the community if my clients weren't causing problems and we were actually helping people. redeveloping them, and getting them re-entered into society. These are kind of how the rooms are going to look and be set up with a microwave, excuse me, refrigerator, and a single room occupancy. I wanted, you know, I have a couple double beds in the other side of the thing, but I want to show you guys and prove my worth first with a single room occupancy. And that way it's easier for me to manage and it's not overcrowded at the time. And I can grow with you guys as partners in this community and make sure that I can capture everything that you guys are looking for as far as anything that might be something that might be a hindrance of why you would say no to something like this if it wasn't that. And I did prove everything otherwise. All I ask is that every year I can come back here, show you kind of a status report, and be able to go another year into helping people. I thank you guys for your time and listening to me. Here's a few more pictures of the parking lot that I redid. And here's the other side of the building. Of course, it will be modeled a little bit better. I will touch things up. I just wanted to go forward with things. I don't have millions of dollars. I'm not here from a corporate office or anything like that. I'm just a normal guy trying to create something that would help people in the long run. And I did prepare some pamphlets for you guys. I couldn't get them to you guys, but I would like to show you some of the statistics that I have, excuse me, that I have for my last eight years in the community that I have been doing and dealing with and how familiar I am with this program. And thank you again for your time. I guess that's it for me right now.

Okay. Thank you very much. FOR THE INFORMATION. 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 AND I WILL TURN IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION, STARTING WITH COMMISSIONER SCHLOTTMAN.

THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, THROUGH YOU. AND I APPRECIATE YOU COMING UP AND GIVING US A PRESENTATION. I MET WITH YOU AND PRETTY MUCH WHAT YOU TOLD ME WHEN WE MET AT MY OFFICE WAS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME THING THAT YOU SAID TODAY. I appreciate the time that you spent with me. Um, you know, I've been working, uh, and, and developing downtown for the past 20 years. And, you know, uh, been on the downtown design review committee, the planning commission, uh, for 14 years, I've seen, uh, you know, areas come up, go down, seeing social services come in different areas, um, and in all parts of downtown, all across the city. I mean, it's something that we deal with. It's something that we need. And it's not that we're going to say it's not in my backyard because I could tell you I live on Fremont Street and everything is in my backyard. Apartments, pizza shops, drugs, prostitution, everything that you possibly could imagine. And it's not even not in my backyard when it comes to my office because there was a Alcoholics Anonymous and Meetings happened in the parking lot, and it was great never did bother me You know they would get together to bring out all the chairs get in the circle have their meetings and the evenings and and and go on, so never once complained about this. But as we look at the 2045 master plan, downtown Las Vegas master plan and some of the infill and going back on some of the 15 years that I've been on these various bodies with the city and seeing how much effort we've put into trying to promote infill development and commercial uses and trying to create that walkable community from the strip to downtown and getting the pedestrian traffic and everything and we have seen other social service providers on Las Vegas Boulevard and on Fremont Street and I pass them on a daily basis and one of the issues that I find quite often is the number of people that are hanging out around outside and just on the street corner and then it becomes this gathering spot and then makes it uncomfortable for others to pass down the street. could be problematic for our, you know, our scenic byway. You know, both the single room occupancy and also the drug rehabilitation counseling and treatment facility special use permit the city staff has recommended denial on. And I thought about this and, you know, and I don't want to, I mean, we're looking at, you know, more bars and restaurants and multifamily and commercial facilities. And I looked at it from two different standpoints. I looked at it from the single room occupancy that was already there. We know that there was some issues with that in the past. A business license was revoked. That's nothing that we look at as a planning commission. That's strictly up to city council. And so I'm... I'm not going to judge it based on the merits of that because I can't judge it based on the merits of that. I can say that it was a single room occupancy in the past. It was a problem. What's that? It was a problem. It was a problem. But, you know, I... I could probably get behind the single room occupancy again because it's there, it's existing. I got to say that it's not my favorite building, not my favorite looking building. What's your favorite color? Blue, but don't paint it blue.

I can paint the top blue for you.

No, sir. So I could get behind the single room occupancy just because I feel that it It's compatible with what's there, and I'm not going to tell you that you couldn't operate that. But I'm concerned with the bringing in other uses that don't exist, that haven't existed there, that don't meet the goals of 2045. Let me continue to say there are certain areas like the medical district or the Corridor of Hope and other areas where where the 2045 downtown Las Vegas master plan would say that this would be acceptable. And, you know, it's not just those areas in town that it would be acceptable. I'm just saying in downtown. I mean, because in other parts of town, I mean, this could go, you know, in Ward 4 or Ward 6, or it could go in many of residential neighborhoods and where... It does exist in certain residential areas. But it's just with the goals and objectives and everything that the city has set forth for so many years, I don't know if it's an appropriate area. But I'll let you make a quick comment if the chair...

No problem. Please go ahead.

I just wanted to be assured that 85% of our clients all get a ride somewhere else and go to their meeting somewhere else. It's not that we would just be holding a full course meeting center there and counseling center there. For the few people that maybe can't get out and can't walk or something like that, I would bring a therapist in or do a Zoom call therapy or something like that. But like I said, 80, 90% of the clients are all going to work every day, going to meetings every day, being chauffeured there.

Thank you. Thank you. And Madam Chair, through you, just one more second. And I will say that what we are is a land use committee. We're not a business licensing committee. So if I was to approve this tonight, or if we were to approve this tonight, we're not taking a bet on you.

Yeah.

You can get hit by a truck tomorrow, and then whoever else comes in could come in, which might not operate to the same standards as you. So I can't really look at it from the way that you're going to be operating it, but as far as the goals of our 2045 master plan. But let me see if anybody else has any comments.

Yes. Do you work, I was, I knew Judge Kern, He had a court called Yo Court where he worked with young adults. Do you work with any of the judges like that and programs like that?

Yeah, we have a partnership with North Las Vegas Municipal Courts. We have a partnership with Mojave. We have a partnership with Metro as far as house arrest and probation. We don't accept a lot of people that are ex-felons with a violent use or anything like that. So we are screening. We do background checks on who we do take in. And yeah, we have a partnership with a lot of people that find us very credible. for them to give us clients without being on the SAPTA list with them. Most people don't get in there with these court systems or anything like that without being on the SAPTA list. But because I'm a proven product, these people do work with us. And we have about 15 clients from the courts now.

Yeah, and I know that with Judge Kern, he was very strict with the people that he brought into your court. The agreements he made with the people that went through his court is you don't pass a drug test, you don't follow by the guidelines of the court, you're back in facing those charges.

We actually do breathalyzers on a nightly basis and we drug test two to four times a week depending on what your DOC is, that's drug of choice, or what your caliber of alcoholism is or something like that. But when we take you in, and that's all out of pocket costs out of us, but I'm saying... We drug test that client at least three times a week, and we do a nightly breathalyzer. Our schedule is 9 o'clock, and our facility is locked down at 9 o'clock, so nobody's coming or going. We do have a few clients that maybe work until 10 or 11. As long as they have their schedule checked, we let them in at 10 or 11. But 9 o'clock at night, 95% of our clients will be in and in that facility, not wandering, not loitering. They're not allowed to leave the facility after they come in and check in at 9 o'clock is our curfew.

Thank you. I just, you know, I knew Judge Kern, and, you know, a lot of people that went through his program had success. I worked with a young man who had drug issues, and he ended up being a construction foreman.

Oh, yeah.

So I know those programs work.

It really keeps me driven in this is hearing those stories, I mean, and what it can do to save people's lives and what they've done to get their lives back on track.

Thank you, Commissioner Munford. Anybody else? Commissioner Rogan?

Thank you, Chair. I can't support this tonight, and it's no objection to what your program is and the efforts that you put in, and there's obviously, you have passion behind it. It's simply because of where this is located. You're right on the scenic byway of Las Vegas Boulevard and the intersection of 4th Street and Utah and the Gateway District, an area that we're really trying to revitalize, and I'm I'm not quite sure that the use is harmonious and compatible with what the intent of that district is, which is to increase transit oriented developments such as greater intense or more opportunities for housing in addition to retail restaurants and things of that nature. And I just don't think that this type of use is compatible with the intended area that we're trying to build. I think that I think that if you read the staff report, it seems to indicate that nothing, that this type of use can never go in the Gateway District. I don't agree with that. I think these types of uses can go everywhere. It's just this particular spot at that particular corner. If you found a different location within the Gateway District or within downtown like Commissioner Schlottman was talking about, I'd be more than happy to consider it. It's just this one spot where you're at that I have an issue with. Um, I wish it weren't, I wish you were a little bit further in the gateway district. It would have been happy to support it this evening, but I can't support it based upon that.

Anybody else? Okay. Commissioner Schlappman.

Yes. Uh, madam chair, um, well, uh, ready to make a motion on item number 24 bands, two five dash zero two nine one SGP one, um, for proposing a room occupancy residential use as I, uh, indicated earlier. as it previously existed. I would be making a motion for approval of that particular item. Okay. What's that? That's 24A. All right.

There is a motion on the floor to approve item 24. Please cast your votes. 24A, sorry. Okay, please post, and the motion on 24A carries.

Yes, and Madam Chair, on item number 24B, abeyance 25-0291, SCP-2, I make a motion for denial based on the testimony heard tonight. And I wish you luck in finding new location.

There is a motion on the floor. My yes vote is for denial of item 24B. Please cast your votes. Please post. And that motion carries.

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

Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Item 25. 25-0306 applicant VMAB LLC owner sticky 6 LLC for possible action on the following land use entitlement project requests at 1500 South Main Street Ward 3 Diaz. Staff recommends denial on the land use entitlement project 25A25-0306ROC1 to delete condition of approval number 6 of previously approved special use permit 24-0465SUP1 which states trash enclosure shall be provided in conformance with the provisions of title 19.08.040.E. 25B, 25-0306ROC2, to delete condition of approval number 8 of previously approved site development plan review 24-0465SDR1, which states trash enclosure shall be provided in conformance with the provisions of Title 19.08.040.E and 25C, abeyance, renotification, 25-0306ROC2, to allow a refuse collection area that does not conform to Title 19.08 screening requirements for collection areas and dumpsters. May we have the staff report, please?

Madam Chair, I will abstain on this matter as I have, as I'm under contract on this particular project.

Okay, thank you, Commissioner Schlottman. May we have the staff report?

Madam Chair, Josh Nolan for the record. The proposed refuse collection area does not conform to Title 1908 screening requirements, lacks a roof, trellis, and decorative block wall. The proposed trash enclosure is inconsistent with the Title 19 commercial development standards, and therefore staff recommends denial of all three entitlements subject to conditions if approved. Please note that no letters of protest or support have been received since publication. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Good evening, sir. If you could please state and spell your name, give us your address, and tell us about this project.

Good evening, Madam Chair and distinguished commissioners and staff. Thank you so much for hearing me. My name is Paul Nikelski. It's N-I-E-K-E-L-S-K-I. I live at 219 Tower Street, just right downtown. This evening, what we're proposing is to use the common shared trash enclosure that's just south on the alleyway. We have a unique parcel that would, if we had that trash enclosure, it would go right into the right of way. So that's why we are requesting, striking that from number six and number eight on these conditions. Any questions or comments?

Okay. Thank you very much. This item has been noticed for public hearing. If there are any members of the public wishing to be heard, please come down. Okay, seeing none, I will close public comment, and I will turn it back to the commission. Commissioner Rogan.

I've taken a look at the application. We've had a number of these downtown where the dumpster hasn't been fully screened in accordance with code, and it seems to work, and I don't really have a problem with this one. It's behind that. existing metal screen fence and it will be hidden so I'm ready to make a motion chair unless there's other comments.

Okay I see no other comments so please make your motion Commissioner Rogan.

With regard to agenda item 25 project 25-0306 I make a motion for approval of that project and all subparts A through C subject to staff's conditions.

Thank you there is a motion on the floor please cast your vote and you agree to all of staff's conditions?

Yes ma'am.

Thank you. Please post. And that motion carries.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Commissioners. Have a great evening. Thank you, staff.

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

Thank you very much. Item 26, abeyance 25-0315-VAR1, applicant owner. Anadarmis Dionis Herida Martinez for possible action on a land use entitlement project request to allow an existing home addition with patio cover and an 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. Can we have the staff report please?

Yes, Madam Chair, no evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance has been presented in that the applicant has created a self-imposed hardship by constructing multiple structures without permits. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the requested variance subject to conditions if approved. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Good evening, sir. If we could please get your name and the spelling for your name and your address and tell us a little bit about the project, though we did hear a little bit about it last month, too. So anything new in particular you want to highlight would be great.

Yeah. Yeah, good evening, Madam Chair, Commissioners. My name is Jaime de la Vega. My address is 6944 Erin Circle, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89145. And this is a picture of the casita on the backyard. So if we look at the site plan, this is the casita, which is very close to the east property. And right here, the patio cover is also three and a half feet, pretty much. And the owners, they agree that they're going to stacco the casita if they get the approval and to match 100% with the existing residence. The existing residence is just regular stacco. And they're planning to stacco after the approval. And I'd like to present this letter in support from the east side neighbor. this neighbor right here, they gave us a letter that he didn't agree. She said she didn't have any problems supporting these two projects. And Commissioner Rogan was there a few days ago, and hopefully he got a good impression on all this. And they tried to... They tried to put everything in order. And just to mention, the casita on the back, which is a storage in the patio that was built around 18 years ago for the previous owner. On this letter, which is the owner on the east side, she confirmed that that was built way before the current owners They don't build anything that was built already. And we know there is another neighbor on the west side right here that is in opposition. But we tried to do the best that we could. And I guess that's it. They are willing to. to modify the property 100%, make it architectural compatible. And the big problem here is just the setbacks. And it's just on the east part and the north. But we have the freeway. The 95 freeway is right here, so there's no neighbors here. And we don't affect the west side neighbor at all.

Okay, 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'm going to close public comment. I'm going to pass it back to the commission, starting with Commissioner Rogan.

Thank you, Chair. I did go out to the home to visit it, primarily because I was concerned about the addition being so close to the rear property wall. And in past circumstances, as I explained to you, sir, I have had no hesitation in asking people to remove an addition that was built that was unpermitted that really interfered with side and rear yard setbacks to the detriment of neighbors. This one was a little bit different because you do have the interstate behind you. And I just wanted to go out there and make sure that there was really no effect on that neighbor to the west. And in viewing it and examining the property, there really wasn't. Anything that the neighbor to the west could really rationally complain about with the addition. So I was comfortable with that and it looked well built and it was aesthetically compatible with the remainder of the home. The patio cover too that's on the east side, I checked that out. I asked you to get that consent from the neighbor to the east and you've done that. The homeowners actually also planted some oleander along there to minimize the impact of that minor setback variance request on the patio cover. And you've also indicated that with regard to the shed, something you're called the casita tonight, that you're going to make that aesthetically compatible. 100%. Thank you. There were some concerns that I brought to your attention, and I'm sticking with them. And I had staff prepare some conditions. And so these are the three conditions that I'm going to ask you to abide by tonight. Number one was with regard to the shed, you had some sort of strange plywood fence that extended from the back of the shed to the backyard perimeter wall. It was made out of plywood. That would need to be removed. It's already removed. Perfect. The chain link fence, as we discussed, has got to go. And then finally, the porta potty that was in the back. Oh, it's already removed too. Great. So all three of those are going to be conditions, and I believe staff has those conditions prepared and is ready to read them into the record. We accept all the conditions. Thank you, sir.

And Madam Chair, through you, would you like an added condition to ensure that the accessory structure does contain that stucco finish?

Just as long as it's aesthetically compatible.

Okay. Okay, then the added conditions, we would start with A, the use of portable restrooms is hereby prohibited. The existing portable restroom shall be removed within 10 days of final approval. B, the wooden fencing attached to the rear yard accessory structure shall be removed within 30 days of final approval. And C, all chain link fencing shall be removed within 30 days of final approval. And then we would revise condition of approval number three to read a variance is hereby denied to allow an existing residential accessory structure that is not aesthetically compatible with the principal dwelling unit where such is required. Thank you.

Thank you. And, sir, you mentioned that you agree with all those conditions. I just want to make sure you agree with them. Yes, we agree.

Any other comments? Seeing none, Commissioner Rogan, are you prepared to make a motion?

Yes. With regard to agenda item 26, project 25-0315VAR1, I make a motion for approval subject to the added amended conditions as well as the conditions in the project that were already on the agenda item. I make a motion for approval.

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

Thank you so much. You want me to hand this?

And Madam Chair, that item is final action tonight unless appealed to the City Council. Thank you. Thank you.

Item 28, 25-0294, applicant Dave Duque Jimenez, owner, the 2147 North Decatur Series of L&R Future LLC. For possible action on the following land use entitlement project requests at 2147 North Decatur Boulevard, Suite 110, Ward 5, Summers-Armstrong, staff recommends denial on the land use entitlement project 28A25-0294BAR1 to allow 14 parking spaces where 48 spaces are required. 28B25-0294SUP1 for proposed motor vehicle parts sales installation and repair motor vehicle repair minor use. May we have the staff report, please?

Madam Chair, no evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance has been presented in that the applicant has created a self-imposed hardship by proposing to operate a motor vehicle repair minor use. with insufficient parking. Therefore, staff recommends denial of both the variance and special use permit subject to conditions if approved. Please note there were additional documents of protest received after 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.

Hello, good evening. My name is Dave Jimenez, D-A-V-E-J-I-M-E-N-E-Z. I live on 4429 Mossy Rock Court, and I'm requesting approval for a special use permit on an A55 minor automotive repair shop at, like you said, 2147 North Decatur Boulevard, Unit 110. This business will focus on light mechanical work and electrical, such as oil changes, brake services, tune-ups, and general maintenance. We won't be doing any major engine or body repairs. All work will be done indoors and we'll make sure the property stays clean, organized, compliant with all regulations. Our hours will also be Monday through Saturday, 8 to 5 p.m. The shop will operate on a small scale with minimal noise and traffic. My goal is to provide quality and honest auto repair service to the local community. I also plan to follow all city and fire department requirements for fluid and waste storage, All oils, coolants, and chemicals will be kept in sealed containers on spill trays inside the shop. We'll make sure any required safety or warning signage is posted once we know what's needed. When it comes to the parking, any vehicle that we'll be working on, the max already in that unit is pretty small. It would only be like three cars that fit in there. Any car that we're working on will be stored inside. No cars will be stored outside, out of that garage. Let's see. I have a... I don't think I brought it, but basically, this is what it looks like. I did have an outside view of the parking, but yeah, maximum. We won't have a lot of cars there. Everything will be kept inside, but yeah, that's about it.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair, through you. I'm looking at aerial view right now of the site on the county page, and it looks like there's a lot of vehicles. Did you get a code violation, a couple code violations? Is that?

No, I haven't received any code violations myself.

Okay, because I got some information that there was some code violations. The dirt lot across the street, are you parking cars over there?

No, no. So like you see also, there is three other separate businesses next to me. Right here is actually another mechanic shop. But no, us personally, we don't have any cars stored over there. Now you own the whole...

The entire site?

No, no. I would only be renting this bay right here, which would be unit 110.

Okay. From what I understood, the use is for the entire site. Planning department, is that correct for what they're trying to do?

Madam Chair through you he will be occupying one suite but because we have additional businesses in that commercial center the entire site now needs a parking variance and unfortunately with him coming in and proposing to come into this suite the site had previously been granted a parking variance and now he' more intense use that is going to require more than what the previous variance was approved for. So it's essentially intensifying that previously approved variance so we would need a new parking variance to accommodate all the new uses or to accommodate this use with the existing uses within that commercial center.

Okay. Yeah. I'm having... And from my understanding, you're a tenant trying to open up a business in that space.

Yes, sir.

Okay. So... If this goes... If this is approved, it goes on to the... It goes on to the council. Am I correct?

Madam Chair, through you, yes, this would go to city council.

Okay. I mean, for this, I mean, I drive by there. I've seen that auto repair shop operating or that site for a while. It seems like this is an issue for the actual owner of the property. and not really something that, I'm gonna go for, I'm gonna motion for approval for his business. I'm kind of conflicted because it seems like we have the wrong person here in terms of the use of this property. It should be the owner the way I see it, but he's just a tenant.

Okay. Let's see. Anybody else on the commission have anything? Staff have any clarification you want to provide for Commissioner Munford as we get a motion made?

Madam chair he can make a motion to approve if that is his wishes on this one Yeah, unfortunately the original construction of this building it was meant for you know more retail General personal service. It wasn't meant for intense type auto repair. So we have a significant shortage of parking and unfortunately With him coming in last, now it kind of fell onto him to obtain a new parking variance to accommodate his business.

Thank you. Thank you. So you're, if I understood it right, you're doing oil changes? Yes.

Yeah, basically, we're going to be really sticking to minor mechanic work. We're going to try to focus on more electrical work, too, when it comes to any little wiring issues.

You're not pulling engines and doing camshafts?

No, sir. No, this will not be a performance shop. This is just a little tune-up spot, someplace that would just be quick, break changes. I would like to add, too, that next to me is the only other person that has a lot of other parking or cars would be the mechanic next to me, which is right here. Next to us is a window tent shop and a smog. The smog doesn't really take up a lot of cars and parking. Again, with the window tent, too, that is all done inside, Every tenant around here gets along pretty much when it comes to parking, too. We don't have a lot of issues there. It's just all communication, to be honest. The last person, too, is a tire guy. So, again, that's not really something that a lot of cars are going to be in there and staying there. They're just quick in and out.

Okay. Thank you. Not seeing anybody else on the commission. Are you prepared to make a motion, Commissioner Munford?

LET ME THINK ABOUT THIS FOR A MINUTE. I MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS FOR THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, PER PLANNING DEPARTMENT. Yeah, subject to conditions per planning part. I'll make a motion for approval.

Thank you. There's a motion on the floor. Please cast your vote. And Mr. Jimenez, you agree to all of staff's conditions? Yes. Yes. Okay. Thank you.

Just to clarify, this is for parts 28A and 28B, correct?

Commissioner Rutherford, that was your motion.

Yes, it is. I'm sorry.

and we are just waiting on your vote, Commissioner Munford. Okay, please post, and that motion carries.

And Madam Chair, that item will move on to City Council on November 19th, 2025. Thank you. Thank you. Item 29, 25-0304, VAR-1 variants.

Public hearing applicant owner for possible action on land use entitlement project request for proposed residential accessory structure gym that does not conform to title 19.06 development standards for setbacks. On .48 acres at 1540 South Tenea Way, APN 163-03-601-005, RE Residence Estates Zone Ward 1, Knutson. Staff recommends denial. May we have the staff report, please?

Madam Chair, no evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance has been presented. The applicant has created a self-imposed hardship by constructing a residential adjoining accessory structure that fails to comply with Title 19 setback requirements. Therefore staff recommends denial of the requested variance subject to conditions if approved. Please note there were additional documents of protest received after 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 your project.

Good evening chair, all the commission and staff. My name is Man Wong, M-A-N-W-O-N-G, and I'm the representative of item 29. For the address 1540 Tenaya Way, we are seeking an approval of variance to have a room addition on the left side of the corner as gym. It will be used as a storage unit mainly used by only one of the owners with couple spot equipments, no music with minimum disturbance to all the neighbors. We also receive two neighbors right next to the property and two neighbors behind the property consent and approval and submit with the application. John, the structural engineer will explain a little bit more on this.

Hi, my name's John Kubota. I'm at 5985 Hawk Street. I'm gonna be the structural engineer. This building has not been built yet, I don't believe. It is in for approval before it is built, following the rules. As it shows here, the problem is they're complaining it's too close to property line. Part of it is, As it showed in our plans, there's a one-hour firewall on property lines where we're close to property line. We're worried, what would you worry about because we're too close to property line? Usually we're worried that there's a fire. The firemen can't get their lighters up and such. So it has a one-hour firewall that will be built into it to prevent the fire problem. If you need other conditions, we can specify build it out of steel stud walls to reduce the fire hazards and such. But this is a simple building. It won't be used for anything other than storage and maybe some gym work. She says there'll be no music played in it. We think it should be approved as is. But if you have problems, we can negotiate too.

Okay, thank you, 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 comment. I will pass it back to the commission, starting with Commissioner Rogan.

Thank you, and thank you both for being here tonight. Ma'am, as we spoke about on the phone, it's not so much the concern about the fire hazard, it's the aesthetic of this. Usually, this is my view on SEPAX, and I don't know whether other commissioners share this, is If we're squeezing in the project and it needs a couple feet here or there, I'm fine with it. When we start seeing zero lot line variance requests for small buildings on very large lots where there's ample space for you to meet the setback requirements, that's where I have issues. And even when I'm saying we can squeeze in a foot here or there, I'm looking to make sure that if neighbors object, you have ample space to put in some kind of shrub or hedge to shield the impact that that building would have on the neighboring adjacent properties. And you just don't have that with the zero lot line variance request that you're having here for this small building. You can either move it, I think, a few feet closer to the pool. You could move it to the south side of the property where there's, I believe, even more ample space, based upon my look of Google Satellite View. But there's just no reason for you to have this building so close to both the rear setback and the side setback as you do now. It looks like you might have a comment. So if chair lets you respond, I'm happy to hear it.

I'm fine with that, sir, if you want to quickly respond. There's pool equipment. In that part of the lot, he says towards the south side. Instead of the north side of the pool, the south side, there's pool equipment and other usages to the property.

And the property's elevations are a little bit different than the others because it's not like a fat lot. Actually, there's a slope like this. So that's like difficult to really build any additional addition to this side because there's a slope like this down to the very end.

Chair. Yes. Thank you for that information. It doesn't change the fact you've got a huge lot here, a huge backyard. And really in looking at this, Another thing I mentioned I should have mentioned is when I look at Google Street View and Google Maps to see if other neighbors have engaged in this to such an extent that really it's not really something that we should enforce anymore. And I don't see that in this particular neighborhood. There might be one or two within a larger, wider area, probably unpermitted structures. It's not as an extensive violation that we're seeing that I'm saying, hey, it's unfair to impose this restriction on you because others have already violated it. So really, I don't see any reason why you can't move this a little bit to accommodate the minor setback of five feet in both directions. You do have that ample space, and there's absolutely no reason to not comply with code in this regard. So unless there's any other comments, I'm ready to make a motion.

Any other comments? Okay, seeing none, Commissioner Rogan, go ahead and make your motion.

With regard to agenda item 29, project 25-0304VAR1, I make a motion to deny.

Thank you. There is a motion on the floor. Please cast your vote. A motion in favor is to deny. Please post. And that motion carries.

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

Whoop. Thank you. Item 30, 25-0322. Question.

Sir, if you have a question, our staff can answer that for you.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Item 30, 25-0322. Public hearing. Applicant owner, Ramon Hamadani. for possible action on the following land use entitlement project requests on .19 acres at 512 North First Street, APN 139-27-810-031, Board 5, Summers-Armstrong, staff recommends approval on 25-0322ZON1, staff recommends approval on 25-0322WVR1 and WVR2, 30A, 25-0322ZON1 from C2 General Commercial to R1 Single Family Residential, 30B25-0322WVR1 to allow a three-foot side yard as setback where five feet is required for an existing single family dwelling area two. May we have the staff report, please?

Yes, Madam Chair. Before I read the staff report, I just wanted to reiterate that staff is requesting to strike a 25-0322-WVR2 for the parking waiver. So to go into the staff report, I just kind of wanted to note that there is a revised site plan and justification letter which eliminated a parking waiver. Staff finds the requested rezoning to be appropriate and compatible with the surrounding land uses, zoning districts, and the general plan and finds the requested setback waiver is minor in nature and does not detract from the implementation of the Vision 2045 Downtown Las Vegas Master Plan. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the rezoning and requested waiver. If approved, the waiver will be subject to conditions. Thank you.

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

Good evening, Laura Drea, 520 South 4th Street. Drea is spelled D-R-E-J-A. I'm here on behalf of the current property owner. This application is a result of a fire that occurred in a single-family home at the end of a residential cul-de-sac. I'll do my best to condense the many details of the matter that spanned several decades. Following the fire, the building department logged a punch list of items that need to be addressed.

Ms. Drea, sorry to interrupt. But again, new technology. Can you speak more into the mic so we can hear you better?

Sure.

Thank you.

Following the fire, the building department logged a punch list of items that need to be addressed in order for the home to be deemed habitable once again. However, before this can be processed, there are some minor housekeeping items in the planning department that were identified that must be resolved at this point in time. The housekeeping items were unexpected as most were rooted in city sponsored zoning actions and initiatives that were adopted in the 1960s but were more or less dormant in the decades that followed. I'd like to thank Cassandra and Nicole in the planning department for helping me simplify this matter and navigate the situation to the point where I have their recommendation for approval. I accept their conditions and I ask the board to follow their favorable recommendation.

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 pass this back to the commission, starting with Commissioner Munford.

Thank you, Madam Chair, to you. I met with the planning department. They said everything was fine. IN PLANNING WORK TOGETHER, YOU'VE GOT EVERYTHING PUT TOGETHER RIGHT, AND I HAVE NO OTHER ISSUES WITH IT, AND I MOTION TO APPROVE. DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENTS?

I'M NOT SEEING ANY OTHER COMMENTS, SO COMMISSIONER MUNFORD, GO AHEAD AND MAKE YOUR MOTION.

I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO ALL CONDITIONS. YOU'RE FINE WITH ALL CONDITIONS?

Yes. Okay, there's a motion on the floor. Please cast your votes. Please post. That motion carries. Thank you.

And Madam Chair, that item will move on to City Council on November 19th.

Thank you. Item 31, 25-0325, SUP 1, Applicant Adan Castillo, Owner Ingress, and Lopez and Miguel Flores Rodriguez for possible action on a land use entitlement project request. For a proposed motor vehicle part sales, installation, and repair use, motor vehicle repair minor at 1550 Northland Boulevard, Ward 3 Diaz. Staff recommends approval. May we have the staff report, please?

Yes, Madam Chair. The proposed use can be conducted in a harmonious and compatible manner with the surrounding commercial uses. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the requested special use permit subject to conditions. Please note additional letters of protest were received after publication. Thank you.

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

Hi, Adam Castillo speaking. Castillo, C-A-S-T-I-L-L-O. My address is 5468 Fongro Line. We approaching to special use permit for the title shop and the location, the 1550 Land Boulevard. to be able to do and improve the building, the condition we have. We follow the recommendation to do all the work inside and supply the parking, off parking, and we're ready to move forward and get approval from you guys.

Okay. 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 comment. I will pass it back to the commission starting with commissioner Schlottman.

Yes. Uh, chairwoman through you. I don't have any issues with this. Staff wrote a report, said it was, uh, uh, appropriate for the area. And I do agree that it is compatible and harmonious with the area. So. Okay. No other comments.

Any other comments? Uh, seeing none commissioner Schlottman, if you're ready to make a motion.

Yes, Madam Chair, through you on item 31.25-0325, S.U.P. 1, move to approve subject to staff's conditions. And you agree to all staff's conditions, sir?

Yes.

Thank you. Thank you.

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

And that is final action.

Thank you very much. Item 32.25-0326, applicant owner, Holy Cross Missionary Baptist Church, Inc. FOR POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE FOLLOWING LAND USE ENTITLEMENT PROJECT REQUESTS AT 1328 WEST LAKE MOON BOULEVARD, WARD 5 SUMMERS ARMSTRONG STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL ON THE LAND USE ENTITLEMENT PROJECT 32A25-0326ZON1 FROM R2 MEDIUM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO C1 LIMITED COMMERCIAL 32B25-0326SDR1 FOR A PROPOSED ONE STORY 3500 SQUARE FOOT CHURCH HOUSE OF WORSHIP DEVELOPMENT WITH A WAIVER OF PERIMETER LANDSCAPE BUFFER May we have the staff report, please?

Yes, Madam Chair. The proposed church house of worship is compatible with surrounding commercial development. The requested waiver and exception for reduced landscaping will not negatively impact adjacent properties. Therefore, staff recommends approval of both the rezoning and site development plan review. If approved, the site development plan review will be subject to conditions. Please note, there is an additional letter of protest submitted after publication. Thank you.

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

Good evening. Landon Christofferson, CHRISTOPHERSON, 2885 East Quail Avenue, 89120. Here representing the owners and applicant. We had previously brought this before you back at the first of the year. There were some concerns because it was using an existing building. That building has since been demolished and a new design for the church has been in place. It's a 3,500 square foot church with a 1,575 square foot sanctuary. It meets all the parking requirements. We did have more landscaping in the parking lot, but as there was a concern from staff that the trash enclosure would be too close to the residence if we kept it to the north, so we moved it to the south, and that eliminated a parking island. Again, the floor plan shows two classrooms, the pastor's office, a kitchen area, and restrooms. It's a very traditional design for the church. And then a rendering of what it would look like once completed. We concur with staff's conditions, and we're here to answer any questions you may have.

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 comment. I will pass it back to the Commission, starting with Commissioner Munford.

Madam Chair, through you, I have no problem with this. I remember this came before the Commission before, and it was a denial, but I see you made some changes, and you got with... I understand you got with the councilwoman in her office, and everything, I'm glad, is working out. Thank you. Is there any other questions?

Any other comments? Okay. Then Commissioner Munford, if you'd like to make a motion.

Yeah, I would like to make a motion for approval for item number 25-0326, 32A, 32B, I can make a motion for approval. Per all conditions, you're fine with the conditions?

Yes. Thank you. Okay, thank you. There is a motion on the floor. Please cast your votes.

We will have to do an oral vote, so can everyone signify by stating aye if they are for approval?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Anyone opposed, please say nay. That motion carries. Thank you.

Thank you. And that item will move on to City Council on November 19th.

Thank you. Item 33, 25-0327, SDR 1, applicant owner 211 Hoover, LLC, for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for the proposed conversion of an existing office and duplex to to a three-unit multifamily development with waivers of Title 19.09 form-based code development standards at 320 North 10th Street, Ward 5, Summers-Armstrong. Staff recommends denial. May we have the staff report, please?

Yes, Madam Chair. The proposed office to residential conversion does not meet several standards of the T5 neighborhood zoning district and requires waivers related to building type setbacks and parking. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the site development plan review subject to conditions if approved. Please note in your supplemental packet that you have a revised staff report. With the previously requested exception to not provide street trees has been eliminated. Two 24-inch box Texas mountain laurel trees have been proposed satisfying the landscape requirement along 10th Street. Also, please note that no letters of protest or support have 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 your address, and tell us about the project.

Thank you. Tommy Huggins, H-U-G-G-I-N-S, 1017 South First Street, Suite 185. What you see in front of you is an existing property downtown. There are four structures currently built on that property. Our application really revolves around this center building. It was originally constructed as a single family residence and then in the 1960s converted to office. The applicant seeks to restore the structure's original residential use. Because the property was developed prior to the current zoning standards, the application includes several waivers of development standards as it doesn't conform to the new T5N. In working with the councilwoman's office, we have complied with removing an existing parking shade structure that was on the front end of the property. We're also removing a large section of existing concrete flat work and replacing that with landscaping. We think it's a pretty straightforward package, but we're here to answer any questions if you have any.

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 pass this back. I will close public hearing, and I will pass this back to the commission, starting again with Commissioner Munford.

Madam Chair, through you. For that landscaping on the front, does that include any trees?

Yeah, two 24-inch box trees and then eight shrubs.

Okay. Any more trees being added on the property?

Not at this time.

Okay. Yeah, I spoke with the councilwoman's Assistant earlier earlier and it sounds like you guys been working things out I would I would like to motion for make a motion for approval But if there's any questions from the board Just a question first for staff, I guess if they've indicated they're removing the shade structure that's no longer requested waiver then that Is to be included

Madam Chair, through you, the condition of approval number 10 will need to be edited to read a waiver from title 1909 is hereby denied to allow a detached shade structure to encroach into the front yard area where such is not allowed. Thank you.

Okay, I have a question, Ms. Eddowes, for the staff. On the revised staff report and the supplemental information, there's the required street trees, and you've got the note that there's two trees being provided, and then that is compliant, but then in the streetscape standards, It says required trees at 20 feet on center by district pallet and there's zero street trees being provided. So that's not in compliance. And I just wondered if you could clear that up.

So the trees provided in that strip of it is in right of way. So those would count towards the street tree requirement. And then it's 20 foot off center when you discount the driveway from the property. That's how you get to just the two trees.

Okay, thank you. Any other comments? Okay, Commissioner Runford, were you prepared to make a motion?

Yes, Madam Chair, through you. I can make a motion for approval for item number 33, 25-0327, SDR1. Per staff's conditions, you're fine with the conditions?

Yes.

Okay. There is a motion on the floor. Are we able to cast? Okay. Please cast your votes.

And just for clarification, it's subject to amended conditions.

Okay. Motion to approve subject to amended conditions, and you agree with all the conditions, including the amended conditions? Yes. Okay. It is, Madam Clerk, it is not coming up.

I have some showing for a few commissioners, but for Commissioner Schlottman, is that a yay or a nay?

Yay.

Commissioner Mumford?

Yay.

And then Commissioner Taylor, or Chair Taylor?

Yay.

Please post. It passes unanimously. Thank you.

And that is final action tonight.

Let's appeal to the city clerk in 10 days. Item 34, 25-0330, applicant owner DFA, LLC, for possible action on the following land use entitlement project requests. On a portion on the southwest corner of Bonanza Road and Clarkway Drive, Ward 5, Summers Armstrong, staff recommends approval on the land use entitlement project. 34A, 25-0330, ZON1, from R3 Medium Density Residential, RE Residence Estates, and C1 Limited Commercial to C2 General Commercial, APNs 139283110013148 and 13928303-007-009, 34B25-0330-SUP1, for proposed trade school use commercial driver's license training APNs 139283110001 through 148 and 13928302034. And I, sorry, let me just back up for a second because since these are all kind of related, we're going to go ahead and hear 34, 35, and 36 together. We will make separate votes on them, but... Ms. Eddowes, can we get the staff reports on, sorry, let me just read them all into the record. Okay, where was I? 34B25-0330, SUP1 for proposed trade school use, commercial driver's license training, APNs 139283110013148, and 13928302034, Item 35, 25-0331ZON1, applicant owner DFA LLC for possible action on a land use entitlement project request from RE Residence Estates to C2 General Commercial at 1700 Bonanza Road, Ward 5 Summers Armstrong, staff recommends approval. And item 36, 25-0332, applicant owner DFA LLC for possible action On the following land use entitlement project request located on the west side of Martin Luther King Boulevard, 370 feet south of Washington Avenue, Ward 5, Summers-Armstrong, staff recommends denial on the land use entitlement project 36A25-0332VAR1 to allow an 80-foot lot width where 100 feet is required, 0.38 acres on APN 13928304-003 and 36B25-0332ZON1 from RE Residence Estates and C1 Limited Commercial to C2 General Commercial. Now may I have the staff reports on 34, 35 and 36.

Yes, madam chair so for item 34 the proposed use is compatible with surrounding commercial and industrial development and aligns with the city's general plan designations of mixed use and commercial Therefore staff finds the proposed use Can be conducted in a harmonious manner with surrounding land uses and recommends approval of both the rezoning and special use permit If approved the special use permit will be subject to conditions regarding item 35 The proposed rezoning and RE and C2 zoning districts conforms to the existing general plan designations of commercial and is compatible with the adjacent commercial and office land uses. Staff also therefore recommends approval of the requested rezoning. Regarding item 36, Madam Chair, no evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance has been presented in that the applicant has created a self-imposed hardship by proposing to rezone to C2 general commercial a parcel that does not meet Title 19 development standards for lot width for that zone. The lot width variance is not justified by the physical site constraints and therefore staff recommends denial of both the rezoning and variance subject to conditions if approved. Please note that no letters of protest or support have been received since publication for all applications read into the record. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Good evening, gentlemen. Could you please state and spell your names for the record? Give us your address. and then tell us about the projects that are in 34, 35, and 36.

Okay. Lloyd Benson, 7140 Doe Avenue, 89117.

Mack McKnight, 4310 Bloomeria Mist, Las Vegas, Nevada.

You'd like me to speak to all three of them? Starting with 34? Yes, please. Okay, so on 34, there are several different zonings on some of these lots, and so we're just trying to... Eventually, we want to get them all merged into one parcel. And to do that, we have to get them rezoned so that they're all in C2 before we can do that. So eventually, we'll do the merge. But our purpose for rezoning them is that. Number one. Number two, the R3 property is next to the CDL training school, which we need to use as access to that training area back there. So the purpose of the zoning change is for that. The office for this training school was in this building right here. We've since moved from that Bonanza location, the admin office, down to an office at 333 North Rancho. And I didn't know this when I took out the license. Uh, so I found out going through some of my meetings with Seth and his group that there was a special use permit required for, uh, training at a remote location. So we're doing that now. Any other questions on that?

Is that's the summary of all three of them, right? Yes. Okay, great. Um, okay. I'm not at this moment. We're going to open it up for public hearing to start with.

Okay.

So this item has been noticed for public hearing. Anyone wishing to make comments on items 34, 35, or 36? Okay. Seeing none, I'm going to close public comment. I'm going to pass it back to the commission for questions starting with Commissioner Munford.

Through you, Madam Chair. I'm going to have to abstain. I was in discussion with some of the people from from our city offices and we felt this would stop my relationship with Ahern and some of the discussions we had for this site prior to me getting on city council might be a conflict. So I'm going to have to abstain.

Okay. Thank you very much. Are there any other members of the commission that have questions on these three projects? Okay. Yes, sir, Mr. McKnight.

Just speaking out of turn on item number 36. Okay. Okay.

I can speak to 36. I thought we were just talking about 34.

No, all three of them.

All three of them? Yeah, I want to do them all at once. Did you not present all three of them?

No, I did not.

Because 36 was denied. That's okay.

I got the blessing from city attorney to do all three of these at once. I was trying to expedite. So if you want to add some more information on 35 and 36.

I would like to add, yes, if you don't mind.

Please do.

Okay, on 36, the one lot was denied because of the frontage was only 60 feet and I think the code, I think it needs to be 100 feet. So these three lots right here, we're rezoning all three of them so that we can merge them into one parcel. So I think that speaks to the variance that we're requesting.

All right. All right. Since we just did have a little bit of confusion, I will just quickly see if anybody in the audience was here to make public comment on items 35 or 36. Okay. Seeing none, I will reclose public hearing. All right. Can you just quickly tell us So the intent is that you're getting all of this sort of land aggregated and then you're going to have sort of one large parcel with one large use.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, great. Anybody else on the commission have any questions?

I can intake a motion if you don't mind. Sure. I've seen he has to abstain. This is I'm very familiar with this area, too, as well. This is the use that they're asking to do is remotely compatible to what's going on in the neighborhood, especially with all the industrial uses that are around there. So if there's no other comments or question, I would entertain a motion, a blanket motion. Do you want them separately?

That we do have to do.

So it would be a motion for agenda item 34A through B, a motion for approval.

Motion on the floor, please cast your vote for 34. I think you're going to have to do it verbally. Madam Clerk, I'm not getting anything.

Commissioner Schlattman?

Yay.

Commissioner Mumford is an abstention. And Chair Taylor?

Aye. Aye. Okay. And that passes. Okay. Commissioner. Oh, sorry.

Let me just give this since they're separate items that we'll move on to city council on November 19th. Okay.

Thank you. Okay. If we could make a motion, Mr. Commissioner Savio on 35.

I'll make a motion for 35 and you agree to all staff conditions. Yes, sir. All three. Yes.

Okay. Again, I'm not getting anything on my computer for the motions.

There it goes. Chair Taylor? Aye. And Commissioner Mumford is abstention.

Okay, and that passes.

And that will also move on to City Council on November 19th.

Okay, and Commissioner DeSalvio, if you'd like to make a motion on 36.

Madam Chair, yes. Agenda item 36, A through B, blanket motion for approval.

Thank you. There's a motion on the floor. Please cast your votes. Please post. And that passes. And that, again, is subject to all staff conditions on 34, 35, and 36. Okay? Okay.

Madam Chair, that item will also move on to City Council on November 19th.

Thank you, gentlemen.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, guys, for your time.

Item 37, 25-0335, Applicant Integrity, Concrete, LLC, owner, Coleman Street, LLC. For possible action on the following land use entitlement project requests at the southwest corner of Rickey Road and Tom Boulevard, Ward 5, Summers, Armstrong, staff recommends denial on the land use entitlement project, 37A, 25-0335, GPA 1 from O, Office 2, LIR, light industrial and research 37B25-0335ZON1 from O office to CM commercial industrial 37C25-0335SDR1 for a proposed one story 15,000 square foot contractors plant shop and storage yard development with waivers of building orientation and perimeter landscape buffer requirements. May we have a staff report please?

Yes, Madam Chair, the proposed contractor's plant shop and storage yard development is not compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood and does not align with the city's vision for the Rancho area. The requested general plan amendment and rezoning would introduce industrial uses into a predominantly residential area, and the associated site development plan review includes waivers and exceptions that reduce required landscaping and tree canopy, contrary to the city's urban heat mitigation goals. Therefore, our staff recommends denial of all entitlements. If approved, the site development plan review will be subject to conditions. Please note, there is a revised staff report in your supplemental packet. There are also letters of protest received after publication. Thank you. Thank you.

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

Landon Christopherson, 2885 East Quayle Avenue, 89120, here representing the owner and applicant. The original site When we met with staff, as I said, in the military operator headspace, I did not provide the required amount of landscaping. It was an oversight on my part. We have revised the site. We only have one waiver request, and that is to orient the building to the corner. My justification for that was to keep that corner open, provide landscaping, and not narrow that corridor by orienting the building towards that corner. Doing so what it does is moves the insurance for the parcel away from the residents as far as we could Again as stated it's a 10,000 square foot building with Contractors yard in the back this contractors yard is for storage of equipment it Looking at it through, and the discussions that we had with the neighborhood meeting, there was concerns as there is a landscape company to the west, and they have significant amount of traffic with their vehicles. This use, the superintendents take their trucks home. They're not stored on site. So the typical day would be early in the morning, a dump truck would leave the site with the required equipment and wouldn't come back till the end of the day. Looking at this use, if it was developed as an office, the traffic would double using it as an office than using it as a truck. a contractor's yard, the average daily, the peak hours for this use of 10,000 square feet would be about 12 in the AM, 13 in the PM, whereas staff has recognized it as 22 and I think it was 24 in the staff report. Again, the landscaping was increased because I had mentioned that at the neighborhood meeting that we were only asking for the one waiver for the orientation of the building. So we meet all the requirements for landscaping. The building again is 15,000 square feet with the entrances to the building, the roll-up doors to the south. And then again, a rendering of what we anticipate the building to look like at the end of construction. I'm here to answer any questions you have and we concur with staff conditions if approved.

Okay, thank you very much. This item has been noticed for public hearing. Are there any members of the public wishing to be heard? Please come down to the podium. Give us your name and spell it for the record and your address and we can...

Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner Lex Anderson, 3709 Waterhole Street. I'm the historian for our local neighborhood association. I've just got seven quick points I'd like to make from our neighborhood meeting. First one, we've been looking forward to getting this location developed for a long time. But light industrial research qualifies as leapfrog zoning to the benefit of the applicant. and at the expense of immediate residents. Going from office to C1 to C2, and then LIR in itself qualifies as denial. The applicant is across the street from the established 20-year-old RE Zone Rural Preservation Overlay District. It's a residential neighborhood, and by ordinance, overlay districts qualify for special considerations. C1 would be acceptable, as would be C2, with agreeable conditions. Recall the roadkill grill, And Historic Mulls Meats, just two blocks down the street, is C1. We have a recent precedent, January 15th, community application at 6000 Duncan Road that was denied light industrial research for being incompatible with the adjacent RNP neighborhood. Tom Boulevard is a 60-foot wide undeveloped connective street, but with that, it's only 35-foot wide for the right-of-way. This is a horse and trailer. I'm sorry, this is a horse and rider community with RMP identity, and the undeveloped road shoulders are designated as part of the community horse community. trail network the applicant needs to request a complete streets curb gutter and sidewalk waiver to be harmonious and compatible with the adjacent RNP standard neither the historic highway highway tower next door to the south or PRL landscape business next door on Rickey have curb gutter or sidewalks so planning reinforces that the staff report that this commercial industrial zoning district is specifically intended to be located away from medium and density, high density residential development. The bottom line is that an approval for light industrial research zoning at this location will set a precedent that would nullify any standard for criteria for RNP high density zone buffering and fundamentally Impact rule preservation as an overlay district ordinance based on suburban rural lifestyles. Thank you very much.

And this is for the clerk Thank you very much anybody else Okay seeing and no other comments I will close public comment I will pass it back to the Commission starting with Commissioner Munford

Thank you, Madam Chair, through you. We talked on the phone. Yes. So, yeah, I have with industrial in this area, I have an issue, especially with, I mean, literally right across the street from a residential area. Also, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST RIGHT OFF OF RANCHO. AND, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF PROBABLY FURTHER DOWN RANCHO THERE'S A LOT OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT'S HAPPENING AT LAKE MEAD AND RANCHO. AND I'M EXPECTING THAT, YOU KNOW, AT SOME POINT THERE'S GOING TO BE MORE TRAFFIC. THAT WHOLE RANCHO CORRIDOR IS GOING TO PROBABLY NEED PROBABLY BE LOOKING FOR MORE COMMERCIAL IN THAT AREA VERSUS INDUSTRIAL. especially with the commercial development. And then on top of that, we've had some multifamily that has just been opened on the Rancho Corridor across the street from the North Las Vegas Airport. So this whole corridor, I can't really see how we can put an industrial space right there amongst commercial and residential. So my... I'm going to be motioning for denial on this.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other comments? Nope. Okay. Um, if you're prepared, go ahead and make your motion.

And Madam chair, sorry about through you. If I, if I may, um, staff did receive revised plans on October 9th that eliminated the, uh, waivers regarding the perimeter landscape buffer requirements. Um, Along Rickey Road and then Tom Boulevard, so I just kind of want to make that clear that those were blue-sheeted in.

Thank you. Okay, and so that would be in relation to item 37C, correct? Correct, yes. Okay, thank you.

Thank you. I'm sorry, I didn't hear that.

Yes, Madam Chair, again through you. So revised landscape plans were received on October 9th that eliminated the requested waivers or previously requested waivers for perimeter landscape buffer requirements along Rickey Road. So you previously had a 10-foot landscape buffer that was being proposed on the plans that were date stamped on August 25th. Those have since been revised to reflect 15 feet. This is similar to the proposed landscape buffer for Tom Boulevard. which was previously proposed at 10 feet and is now proposed at 15 feet per the date stamp planned on October 9th. Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Munford, if you were prepared to make your motion.

Yes, Madam Chair, through you. I'd like to make a motion for denial, item 3725-0335, 37A through 37C.

So there's a motion on the floor. Please cast your vote. A yes is for denial on 37 and its subparts. Please post. And that motion for denial carries.

And Madam Chair, that will move on to City Council on November 19th.

Thank you. Item 38, 25-0345VAR1. applicant owner Maria Sandra Dimas-Riaz for possible action on the land use entitlement project request to allow an existing residential accessory structure, Casita, that does not conform to 19.06 development standards for setbacks and separation at 400 North Minnesota Street, Ward 1 Knutson. Staff recommends denial. May we have the staff report, please?

Yes, Madam Chair. No evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance has been presented in that the applicant has created a self-imposed hardship by constructing a residential accessory structure without permits and in violation of Title 19 development standards for side yard setback and separation from the main building. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the requested variance subject to conditions if approved. Please note that no letters of protest or support have been received since publication. Thank you.

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

Yes. Good evening, commissioners and staff. My name is John Vargas. I reside at 296 9 Aiden Avenue, 89123. Here on behalf of the owner, the owner of this property has built a small detached casita of 337 square feet with a bedroom, bathroom, closet, wet room, and no full kitchen. However, the casita doesn't meet the side yard setback and main house building separation. The owner would like... to request a two foot side yard setback where three feet is required and a three foot six inch setback where six feet is required. The owner will make sure the walls and roof are one hour fire rated to comply with the minimum three foot fire rated separation from property and or building separation. We understand and appreciate the importance of zoning regulations. However, we believe that in this case, the new casita matches the architectural style. color and material of the primary residence and with the one hour fire wall assembly will be installed in order to have a safe structure from the main house and side neighbors properties. For last the owners have collected some neighbors signatures with no objection for the new casita.

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 public hearing. I will pass it back to the commission starting with Commissioner Rogan.

Thank you, Chair, and through you. Mr. Vargas, thank you for coming tonight. I didn't get a chance to come out and see this particular structure, but I did have an opportunity to look at the photographs. And the structure, although it's requesting some variance, it's aesthetically compatible. It looks well built from the photographs. Obviously, as you've indicated, you'll need to comply with building code, which you said that you intend to do, obviously. I've looked at the aerial map in this area, and there's quite a number of either shade structures or accessory structures that are encroaching into the side yard and rear yard setbacks, all adjacent to your property. So I don't have a problem with the slight side yard setback from three feet to two feet. With regard to how close the building is, as you said, that's between you and the building department. I would note that the walls themselves are six feet. It's just, I think, the eaves that are causing the problem, as we've seen sometimes before when buildings are constructed without permits. So given all those factors, I'm ready to make a motion for approval subject to staff's conditions. And you agreed to those conditions, Mr. Vargas? Yes. All right. Chair?

Thank you. Any other comments or questions on this item? Seeing none, go ahead and make your motion, Commissioner Rogan.

With regard to Agenda Item 38, Project 25-0345VAR1, and make a motion for approval subject to staff's conditions.

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

Yay.

Commissioner Munford.

Yay.

Please post. And that motion carries.

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

Thank you. Item 39, 25-0352, applicant owner Nadir and Sheeta Investment, LLC. For possible action on the following land use entitlement project requests at the southwest corner of Lake Mead Boulevard and Low C Road, Ward 5, Summers Armstrong. Staff recommends denial on the land use entitlement project 39A25-0352VAR1 to allow 12 parking spaces where 24 spaces are required. 39B-25-0352VAR2 to allow a zero foot corner side yard setback where 10 feet is required. 39C-25-0352SDR1 for a proposed one story 3,764 square foot minor auto repair development with waivers of perimeter landscape buffer requirements and to allow bay doors to face the right of way where such is not allowed. May we have the staff report, please?

Yes, Madam Chair. No evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance has been presented to justify the requested relief from multiple Title 19 development standards. The proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site and is not compatible with the surrounding area. Therefore, staff recommends denial of all requested entitlements subject to conditions if approved. Please note, there is a revised staff report and landscape plan in your supplemental packet, and there are letters of protest received after publication. Thank you.

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

Good night, commissioners. Luis Flores, 10438 Skygate Street.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Michael Dahl, D-A-H-L. I live at 2690 Mirabella Street.

The proposed motor vehicle minor repair facility is 3,764 square feet with a walkway area and six roll-up doors. Floor plans include an office area, restrooms, and garage area. The hours of operation are Monday to Saturday from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Repairs and services are limited to electronic tunnels, brake repairs including drum turning, air conditioning repairs, generator and starter repairs, tire repairs, front and alignments, battery charging, lubrication, vehicle emission testing, and other similar activities. That's basically our brief description of the project, and we are glad to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you very much. This item has been noticed for public hearing. Are there any members of the public wishing to be heard? No. Okay. Seeing none, I will close public comment. I will pass it back to the Commission, starting with Commissioner Munford.

Thank you, Madam Chair, through you. I'm very familiar with this site. It's usually used as a billboard for elections most of the time. But the only concern I had is this. It's a small site, the parking, stuff like that. You have other mining keys, or is this your only one?

This is the first one I'm building.

Your first one? Yes.

Okay. Well, he's built. Yeah. Actually, I'm the architect, and we have done, like, we did one in Warren Spring and Durango in Clark County, and actually we are working in two similar buildings in Henderson. One is approved, we are waiting for civil approval, and the other one we are ready to submit. They're pretty similar. And the one in Clark County has just eight parking spaces. I live around the area, and believe me, it works fine. So.

Okay. And I understand you've been in communication with the councilwoman's office That's correct. I think they submitted some conditions to planning. Could you read some of those conditions?

Yes, Madam Chair, through you, staff would like to read in two of the added conditions prior to making a motion. These conditions would be added to 25-0352-SDR1, and we'll read as follows. The first added condition is a perimeter wall shall be constructed from the southern property line along the western property line until the southwest corner of the building, whereupon a return wall to the building shall occur. The wall shall comply with Title 19.08 development standards. The second added condition is prior to or at the same time as a submittal for a building permit, a revised landscape plan shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development Planning Division depicting the following. One, the installation of trees spaced at a maximum of 20 feet on center within the western landscape buffer adjacent to the proposed building. And two, the installation of trees within the eastern landscape buffer. The applicant is to coordinate with NV Energy as to acceptable plant material and proper placement. Thank you.

Thank you. You're fine with all those conditions?

We are, yes.

Added conditions? Okay. I don't have a problem with this. Like I said, my only concern was the parking, but I think this will be a good project for that site. It would be nice to drive by there and not see a bunch of political signs up there and stuff. So I want to make a motion for approval if there's any through you, Madam Chair, if there's any questions.

Any other comments from the Commission? Please make your motion, Commissioner Winford.

I'd like to make a motion for approval for... Item 39, 25-0325, 39A, 39B, 39C. And again, you're fine with all the added conditions and conditions from planning? We are.

They're all good enhancements. Okay. There is a motion on the floor. Please cast your vote. Commissioner DeSalvio. Great. Thank you. Commissioner Munford. Oh, there we go. Okay. Please post. And that carries.

And those items are final action tonight. And let's appeal to the city clerk in 10 days. Thank you, commissioner. Thank you so much.

Item 40, 25-053. Oh, sorry. 25-0356 GPA one applicant, a four builders, LLC, owner Andrew Grosso IV for possible action on the land use entitlement project request from PF Public Facility to M Medium Density Residential at the southeast corner of Wilson Avenue and 10th Street, Ward 5, Summers-Armstrong. Staff recommends approval. May we have the staff report, please?

Yes, Madam Chair. The applicant is requesting a general plan amendment from public facility to medium density residential on a .16 acre site located at the southeast corner of Wilson and 10th. The proposed amendment aligns with the site's existing R3 zoning and is compatible with surrounding multifamily residential development. The change supports the goals of the 2050 Las Vegas Master Plan and the Vision 2045 Downtown Las Vegas Master Plan. Therefore, staff recommends approval. Please note that no letters of protest or support have been received since publication. Thank you.

Thank you very much. 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.

Yes. Good evening, planning commissioners. My name is Susan Florian, last name F-L-O-R-I-A-N, from Taney Engineering, 63 South Jones Boulevard, here on behalf of the applicant. What we have here is a parcel between Wilson Avenue and 10th. Right now the zoning is R3, medium density. The land use right now is PF, which is public facility. We are asking to change the land use to medium density residential. This is so that it will be more harmonious with the zoning designation. We are grateful for staff's recommendation for approval and I'm here to answer any questions that you may have.

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 to the commission starting with Commissioner Munford.

Thank you, ma'am. Chair, through you. Yeah, I think this is a good use in terms of, you know, we definitely need more residential. We need more spaces for people to live. So I have no problem with this. I agree with staff, and I motion to approve.

Okay.

Through you, Chair.

Any other comments? Seeing none, please make your motion, Commissioner.

I'd like to make a motion for approval. item 40 dash or 25 dash 0 3 5 6 GPA 1 like a motion of approval you're fine with all conditions yes I am there's a motion on the floor please cast your votes please post and that motion does carry thank you so much have a good night and that will move on to city council on November 19th

Thank you. Item 43, 25-0367VAR1, applicant owner Grant Braverman for possible action on a land use entitlement project. Request to allow a proposed home addition that does not conform to Title 19.06 development standards for setbacks at 2408 Wimbledon Drive, Ward 1, Knudson. Staff recommends denial. May we have the staff report, please?

Yes, Madam Chair. No evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance has been presented to justify the requested variance from Title 19 development standards to allow the reduced side and rear yard setbacks for a proposed addition to the residential dwelling. Staff finds that the hardship is self-imposed and therefore recommends denial subject to conditions if approved. Please note that no letters of protest or support have been received since publication. Thank you.

Thank you very much. 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.

Good evening. Grant Braverman, G-R-A-N-T, last name Braverman, B like boy, R-A-V like Victor, E-R-M-A-N, 2408 Wimbledon Drive, 89107. I'm here to discuss a 900 square foot addition with potential reduced setbacks in my backyard.

Okay. Anything else you want to share?

Nope. Okay. I'm here to answer any questions you guys might have.

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 on this item? Okay. Seeing none, I will close public comment and I will pass this back to the commission, starting with Commissioner Rogan.

Thank you, Chair. Mr. Braverman, we spoke on the phone, I think it was yesterday, and I asked you to do A couple things. One was to discuss this project with your neighbor to the west. Did you do that? Yes, sir. And is your neighbor in agreement with what you're doing?

Yeah. No issues other than wanting to assure that a tree on that west wall would be removed as part of this.

Okay. So he's in agreement with the project. Okay. And then with regard to the rear setback, you do border, I think it's Mesquite, is that correct? So there's not a neighbor behind you, but I did want to make sure that the visual impact to the street would be minimized by you having a limited rear yard setback. Are you okay if we add a condition about landscaping behind the addition to minimize the visual impact?

Yeah, absolutely.

And I asked staff just a moment ago to draft a condition. If you have it ready, Nicole, could you read it into the record for me?

Madam Chair, through you, the added condition will read, landscaping consisting of trees and shrubs shall be planted and permanently maintained adjacent to the rear property line to buffer the home addition.

Thank you. Thank you. And you agree with that? Agreed. All right. So you've heard me tonight on other things talk about my perspective on these variance requests. They're not significant. Your rear yard one is... Pretty significant, but like the other project you heard tonight, you're back against a street. You're not back against a neighboring home, so I'm not as concerned about it. And with that landscape buffering, I think the addition will be okay. Unless there's other comments, Chair, I'm ready to make a motion.

Thank you. Any other comments? Seeing none, please make your motion, Commissioner Rogan.

With regard to agenda item 43, project 25-0367VAR1, make a motion for approval subject to staff's conditions and amended conditions read into the record this evening.

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 appealed to the city clerk in 10 days.

Item 4525-0378 applicant owner Crabb Holdings LLC for possible action on the following land use entitlement project at 3224, 3228 and 3232 Meade Avenue Ward 3 Diaz. Staff recommends denial on the land use entitlement project 45A250378VAR1 to allow proposed warehouse building that does not conform with the title 19.08 development standards for setbacks 45B25-0378SDR1 for a proposed one story 6400 square foot warehouse building addition and parking lot reconfiguration to an existing industrial development with a waiver of title 19.08 building facade development standards. May we have the staff report please.

Yes, Madam Chair. The requested addition includes variance requests for reduced rear and side yard setbacks and a waiver for the flat building facade. Staff finds the proposed development incompatible with adjacent residential uses and lacking architectural interest. No evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance has been provided to justify the variance. Therefore, staff recommends denial of both the variance and site development plan subject to conditions if approved. Please note there were additional documents of protest received after 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 your project.

Good evening, Madam Chair. My name is Logan Wilson, bar number 14967. I'm counsel for the property owner, business owner, Krabs Holdings. My address is 2580 Sorrell Street. I have the owner of Crab Holdings, Allegra Steinberg here. Steinberg is S-T-E-I-N-B-E-R-G. This project, and we have an image here, this is regarding a 6,400-square-foot warehouse being built. My client operates a wholesale auto sales business, and they are also building up their van conversion business. So my client seeks to build in this property. Their property is the yellow highlighted area. And I'll draw on this paperwork here. They seek to build a warehouse on this portion here to this portion here. So it's on this side. And my client seeks a variance regarding the setback. There's a 50-foot setback here. And given the nature of the property in the existing three buildings here, a 50-foot setback wouldn't be feasible. So my client seeks a variance. As you can see, all of the existing commercial properties off of Meade Avenue, they have buildings along the wall here. And this is a wall, essentially a fence regarding a stationary home or a mobile home community here. So there's a wall going along this line and there's several properties. or buildings here, my client seeks to build along that line as well. Given the 50 foot variance, my client wouldn't be able to build anything based on how the property is built with the three buildings now and given the fences. Along this yellow line is an existing chain link fence for the adjoining property owner. So my client has no ability to build in any direction other than the requested direction. My client wants to build a warehouse so they can build up their van conversion business. They essentially want to start an assembly line system where they can employ more employees who can essentially do multiple tasks depending on the status of the van conversion. They're a small business now, family owned and operated. Ms. Steinberg is the owner, her husband operates it, her son. who's in the gallery. He works there as well. They have two employees and they intend on growing their staff. The second exemption they're seeking is regarding the structure itself. They're seeking to build a warehouse. So we are seeking a flat and plain building facade. Given the nature of the warehouse, their intent is to store cars and vans that they're working on and to operate them in that manner. We appreciate Senior Planner Boyle's work in this manner. I think there were a lot of discussions early on about the parking, and I believe those have all been resolved. So we would request the commission grant the application subject to the conditions provided.

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 pass it back to the Commission, starting with Commissioner Schlottman.

Yes, Madam Chair, through you. We'll see what the rest of the Planning Commission thinks in regards to this, but as I review this and, um, see, uh, the warehouses in, in this area and the, uh, all the cars and, um, you know, the eight buildings to the West of this particular property all line up adjacent to that property line city council, uh, for the past 25 years has, or even greater has approved those, um, you know, for, for those reasons, I feel it is harmonious and compatible and, You know, honestly, this could block some of the noise that's actually going into that residential neighborhood. So those are my comments, unless if anybody else has. It seems like Commissioner Rogan may.

Go ahead, Commissioner Rogan.

Thank you. I just have a question. So on these, for the applicant, these other buildings that are along the property line, are they, Are they visible from the neighboring residential properties or are they just kind of built to maybe six or eight feet tall? And how does that compare? Second part of my question is how does that compare with your proposed warehouse? Is it taller or just as tall as the other buildings?

I'm sorry, I guess I don't understand your question exactly according to this diagram.

He's saying regarding the height. So he wants to know if the height is similar if we're looking at these properties following this line, if the height is similar. going down to where your proposed warehouse is going to be built.

Okay. Um, I do believe the height would be similar. It's roughly, I believe on our drawing 17 feet for the height. I'm sorry, 10 feet for the height on that. So I do believe it would be similar to the existing buildings that are. Okay.

Thank you. I apologize.

Oh, sorry. Commissioner Schlottman. I had a question. Do you know those other buildings that are abutting the neighborhood? Um, What kind of businesses are there? And how long have they been there?

Well, is that directed towards either of you? OK. So the building we're looking to the right here, that one is, as of right now, a publishing printing building for Station Casinos. They've been there for as long as we have owned the property, and we've owned it since 2013. The building to the left is some type of auto mechanic building, and they have always had cars parked like that there. I couldn't go any further down. I apologize.

No, that's fair. I'm just concerned... I have a concern about how close it's going to be to the neighbors and the amount of opposition from the neighbors that have come in. I very much appreciate and respect Commissioner Schlottman's statements about the potential for noise mitigation from your building and that it's harmonious and compatible, but I'm having a little bit of a hard time getting behind this because of the adjacency and the neighborhood opposition.

May I speak to that concern?

Briefly. Okay.

As far as the noise, we personally haven't ever had any complaints from any neighbors to the manufactured homes here ever come to us. We've never had a complaint against our business or the property. And as of right now, it is a dirt lot. So on windy days like today, it's kicks up a lot of dirt. So I, I believe that actually having a building here would mitigate some of that, and they might actually prefer it versus just blowing debris. And if you look, mostly two-thirds of the property that we are proposing or the building that we're proposing to build backs this little triangle here that I believe it's just rocks. There's not actually any home there. And then this line right here looks to me as a wash for water supply. flow, I suppose, when the rains come. So I don't see it terribly as much of a noise or issue for the neighbors on that side.

Okay.

There was a comment about traffic as well in the oppositions. So just, you know, those are the two concerns that were raised and that I can see how there would be concerns. But anybody else have any comments on this one?

No.

All right. I will turn it back to Commissioner Schlottman if you're prepared to make a motion.

Yes. Uh, madam chair, we'll I'll make a motion. We'll see how this goes. I mean, it's something typically I wouldn't support. I mean, just considering that there's so much warehouses and, um, you know, considering city council has approved these, um, to be built on the property line over and over throughout the past 30 years. Um, and this is, uh, much of the same is the only reason why I'm getting behind this particular item, but we'll see where it goes on item 45. 25-037A, 45A and 45B. Move to approve subject to staff's conditions and you agree to all staff's conditions have approved? That's correct. Thank you.

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

Chair Taylor.

Aye. Sorry, I'm just staring at my screen. Continue to not have a voting thing on it. So the motion does pass.

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

Thank you.

All right. Thank you very much. Item 46, 25-0416, GPA 1, applicant owner, City of Las Vegas, for possible action on a request to amend the City of Las Vegas Master Plan of Streets and Highways Map Ward 5, Summers, Armstrong, staff recommends approval. May we have the staff report, please?

Yes, Madam Chair. The City of Las Vegas is requesting a general plan amendment to the Master Plan of Streets and Highways to remove Cultural Vista Avenue and to reclassify a segment of Maryland Parkway from a primary arterial to a collector street. Um, these changes are intended to align with anticipated development, reduce excess right of way and promote safer travel speeds. Therefore staff recommends approval at the request of general plan amendment. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Who, um, I guess I will. Oh, sorry. This item is for public hearing. Are there any members of the public wishing to be heard on 46? Okay. Seeing none, I will pass it over to the commission starting with commissioner Munford.

Through you, Madam Chair, I don't see any problem with this, and I'm going to move for approval.

Any other comments?

No.

Please make your motion, then, officially, Commissioner Munford. There's a motion on the floor. Please cast your votes. And please post. And that motion does carry.

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

And items 47 and 48... We'll do the same thing, we'll hear these two together because they're related. Okay, sorry about that. 47 and 48, we'll hear those together. So item 47, 25-0382, Applicant Greystone, Nevada, LLC, Owner, State of Nevada Division of State Lands. For possible action on the following land use entitlement project requests at the northeast corner of Washington Avenue and Las Vegas Boulevard, Ward 5, Summers-Armstrong. Staff recommends approval on the land use entitlement project 47A25-0382GPA1 from public facility to H high density residential. 47B25-0382ZON1 from CV Civic to R4 high density residential. Item 48, 25-0383, applicant Greystone, Nevada, LLC, owner, City of Las Vegas, for possible action on the following land use entitlement project, generally bounded by Washington Avenue, Maryland, Parkway, Sagman Street, and Las Vegas Boulevard. Ward 5, Summers, Armstrong, staff recommends approval on the land use entitlement project. 48A, 25-0383, GPA from PF Public Facility to H High Density Residential. 48B25-0383ZON1 from CV Civic to R4 High Density Residential. May we have the staff reports, please?

Yes, Madam Chair. For both applications, the proposed changes support the Vision 2045 Downtown Las Vegas Master Plan and will allow for future high-density residential development in a key redevelopment area. Therefore, staff recommends approval of both the General Plan Amendment and rezoning. Please note for item 47, a revised application form is in your supplemental packet and additional letters of protest were received after publication. Thank you. Thank you very much. Good evening.

May we please have, may please state your name, spell it for the record and give us your address and tell us about this project.

Yes, good evening, Madam Chair, Commissioners. Stephanie Gronauer, G-R-O-N-A-U-E-R, here on behalf of the applicant, Lenar Homes. We're excited to be here this evening with two pretty big redevelopment projects. This is step one of the application. It's simply the general plan amendment and the zone change for both properties. The first one you can see on our overhead here is the former Grant Sawyer building that has sat vacant for a number of years. It's located on the north side of Washington, the east side of Las Vegas Boulevard. It's a little over 22 acres. This is item 47. Item 48 is the former Cashman Baseball Field property that's just immediately south of that Grant Sawyer site on the south side of Washington and again on the east side of Las Vegas Boulevard. This is just over 50 acres of land. Both properties are under contract with Lennar for redevelopment for residential housing. As you all know, we're in a housing crisis, and so this is a really exciting opportunity to provide some new housing opportunities in the downtown area. The idea is to reserve some of the property along Las Vegas Boulevard for future commercial as well. But that will need to be parceled off and handled at a later date. The reason the applications that are before you are just the general plan amendment and the zone change is because we've been working really closely with the councilwoman for Ward 4 on her vision for this area. So we're redoing site plans that will follow these applications. You'll see them on either the November or probably more like the December agenda. sharing exactly the vision and the excitement for the project. So tonight, all that's before you is the general plan amendment to allow high density residential on both of those properties and to allow R4 zoning on both of those properties. There's a chance that zoning category may get reduced down based on the project that we'll be bringing forward. But as I mentioned, you'll see that probably in December. We very much appreciate staff's recommendation of approval. We've been working very closely with them and appreciate all the help that staff has given on these projects, and there's still a lot of work to be done, but we're excited to share that in the future weeks or months here. So with that said, I'm happy to answer any questions, and I would appreciate your approval.

Thank you very much, Ms. Groenauer. 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 comment. I will pass this back to the commission, starting with Commissioner Munford.

Madam Chair, through you, thank you. I concur with the planning department. The only question I had when we were talking before is just concern about the retail, possibly some grocery stores, foods. I mean, we have a lot of people coming to that area and there's not much. I think the closest grocery store is over on Eastern and Bonanza. There's Mariana's and And there's another grocery store across. I think it's Gardino's. But yeah, other than that, I think it's going to be a great project. We need the housing. We need more places for people to live. I'm on a motion for approval if there's any other questions.

Any other questions? I just quickly just want to comment. I'm really excited to see the the site development plans come in and the different products. And thanks, Eleanor, for doing another great redevelopment and looking forward to this project. I used to be at Krantz-Sawyer, so it'll be great to see that space be repurposed. Commissioner Schlottman.

Yes, through you. When will we see SDRs come forward on this project?

So we were hoping for November, but I think we're getting close to November. hitting that date. So it probably will be more like December is the anticipated date, but as soon as we can get it done, Lennar's creating brand new product for this. So they've been at the drawing board for many, many months. The iterations that are in your packet took a lot of effort and we're kind of back to the drawing board in a good way. It'll be super exciting and a great project, but they're creating brand new product type for our Valley to make sure that they can offer price points that are affordable in this area, not in the definition of affordable because this is not a subsidized project. It's a market rate project, but they're really focusing on price points that can be for the folks that live in this area.

Thank you. Is that going to be as one site development review for the entire parcel or is that going to come to us in chunks?

It's coming as two separate ones, one for Grant Sawyer and one for Okay.

All right. Thank you.

I'm sorry. I have one other question, Commissioner Munford. So I know that the SDRs aren't here, but I know you're working on product. And so just like with Badlands, is Lenar anticipating doing a multifamily condo style multi-floor project that would be for purchase?

Yes. So all of it would be for purchase. The plan right now is to have Grant Sawyer be mostly single-family detached, smaller lot detached, and for Cashman to be multifamily for sale, but all of it would be for sale, and with a mix of product sizes and prices so that, you know, folks in this area that work in the area will want to stay here and live here, and hopefully it's a real revitalization to the overall area.

Okay. Now, it's great that Lenar has been able to NOW FOR THE SECOND TIME BRING A PRODUCT THAT IS A CONDO ESSENTIALLY THAT IS GOING TO BE A PURCHASED PRODUCT SO GREAT TO SEE THAT LOOKING FORWARD TO YOUR PROJECT SO COMMISSIONER MUNFORD IF YOU'RE PREPARED TO MAKE MOTIONS JUST NEED TO DO IT ONE ITEM AT A TIME.

THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. IF I COULD MAKE THE FIRST MOTION FOR ITEM 47, 25-03

8 5 47 a 47 B motion for approval subject to all conditions fine with the conditions yes there's much on the floor please cast your votes and please post and that motion carries and that item will move on to City Council on November 19th and I also need to clarify item 46 is not going to council tomorrow it is going also on November 19th

And for item number 48, 25-0383, I'd like to make a motion for approval subject to all conditions.

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

Thank you very much. Have a great night.

And that will also move on to City Council on November 19th.

Item 4925-0389 applicant owner Panther Alta 12 LLC for possible action on the following land use entitlement project on the north side of Alta Drive approximately 2115 feet east of Wallop Highway Ward 2 Kelly staff recommends denial on the land use entitlement project 49A25-0389 VAR1 to allow 863 parking spaces where 1018 are required. 49B25-0389SDR1 for proposed two-story, 178,400 square foot medical office development with waivers of building placement and perimeter landscape buffer requirements. May we have the staff report, please?

Yes, Madam Chair. The applicant is requesting a variance in site development plan review for the revised medical office development totaling 178,400 square feet. The request includes a 15% parking reduction, waivers for building placement and landscape buffer width, and exceptions to not meet perimeter landscape buffer requirements. Staff finds the request of variance to be self-imposed on the proposed parking insufficient for the intensity of the use. Therefore, staff recommends denial of both the variance and site development plan review subject to conditions if approved. Please note that no letters of protest or support have 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 your address, and tell us about this project.

Yes, good evening, Madam Chair, members of the Commission. For the record, John Curran, 10801 West Charleston here on behalf of the applicant. If I can first provide a very brief history, my group acquired this 12.23-acre parcel on Alta near Hualapai from the city of Las Vegas about three years ago through a disposition and development agreement. Part of that development agreement mandated us to develop the site for medical with a minimum of 100,000 square feet of office space. The site is also de-restricted for medical and ancillary use by the Bureau of Land Management, so certainly an appropriate use for the site. Before we closed on the land, we had the site previously entitled with a previous design That entitlement, that design, was actually for a much more intense use. It included 20,000 feet of retail. It included three-story buildings instead of two, which is what we're proposing tonight. It had a bigger parking variance and a taller building. So after multiple iterations with really great design teams who specialize in this asset class, we're really proud of the final product that we're presenting tonight. It is four two-story buildings totaling about 172,000 square feet. And these smaller buildings will enable us to phase the development as demand dictates. This project will be medical office condos, for sale condos, which is what the marketplace is telling us is in demand. Doctors want to own. Doctors and medical practices want to own their own real estate. So we're meeting the market there. First, if I can speak to the parking variance, we have about a 15% efficiency here. Again, what was previously approved was about a 17% efficiency. It doesn't do us any good to build a project that's under-parked. I can't sell it. The buyers are always asking about parking counts. And in our world, we don't market the city's parking code. We think about 4 and 1 half to 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of office space is sort of the golden standard. And brokers ask, and institutional medical buyers all know and ask. And we're providing about 4.85 per 1,000 here. We haven't gotten any pushback at all as it relates to parking. Again, it doesn't do me any good. I can't sell this product if I'm under parked. I'd also point out we developed the site about 500 feet west of here on Alta. We call that our Queens Ridge Medical One. Similar parking count, 72,000 foot three-story building, 100% leased and occupied, very busy building, but similar parking ratio. We've never had any sort of parking challenges there. The site design is a very irregular parcel, as you can see. The new design sort of works with the irregular curvature of the parcel. I look back at our previous design, and it sort of seems like we just slapped buildings on the site without really working in symmetry with the site. So we're very pleased about this design. If I can talk about some landscaping issues. I did ask for a few waivers, one of which was we have a five-foot amenity zone, an eight-foot trail, and then a 15-foot landscape buffer is required. On a portion of this side, we asked for about a 10-foot buffer instead of 15 feet. And the reason being is it would just pinch parking further, and we'd lose a whole row of spaces. And then it's just a balancing act in a big site like this. We have really lush landscape provided here. I'd point out that on this Alta frontage, we're required to put 24 inch box trees every 20 feet on center. We've actually gone every 15 foot on center, and we're doing 36 inch box trees. On the site, on the whole, with the perimeter and buffer landscaping, 338 trees are required. I'm only providing 335 in those areas. However, I believe we're more than making up with that elsewhere. I'm providing a total of 420 trees on the site. again where 338 are required, and that's not including obviously the 3,500 shrubs and cacti. So it's going to be a very lushly landscaped site. We're really excited about it. It's been well received in the market. We've had sales efforts really pick up in the last six months, and we're eager to get this project in for building permit and hopefully break ground by Q2 of 2026. ONE LAST ITEM AS IT RELATES TO LANDSCAPE DIAMONDS. I WENT BACK AND FORTH WITH MY DESIGN TEAM. WE CAN MEET THE 49-FOOT LANDSCAPE DIAMONDS SO WE CAN REMOVE THAT EXCEPTION. WITH THAT, I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OF THE QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE, OTHERWISE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR VOTE FOR APPROVAL.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. KERN. 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 comment. I will pass it back to the commission. Currently, Councilwoman Kelly does not have a commissioner, so I just have a couple of comments, and then I can pass it to the rest of the commission. This is a really beautiful project. The renderings are really lovely. I think it's going to obviously fit in very well in this area. I really appreciate all the time you gave me to talk about some of the issues, and I appreciate that that you've worked with sort of my concerns both in this project and in Ward 4. And I really have to highlight and say thanks for that groovy entry sort of planter with a Joshua tree. I think that's going to be fantastic. Thank you for working to get those diamonds to a point where you could just have them sized without a waiver. And then the one thing you didn't mention that we talked about that I think is great for this commission to know is about your berm, so that you've got that nice neighborly buffering for some of the residents, if you just wanted to mention that.

Sure. When we entitled this previously, and it included a GPA and rezone, so I had a neighborhood meeting. And I heard a lot of the comments and concerns of some of the surrounding neighbors, one of which was neighbors to the north of us were worried about cars parked at night here and lights flashing into their homes across this ravine. So we're actually putting a 36-inch landscape berm around that side just to prevent any sort of light pollution RETURNING ACROSS THAT RIVER.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR JUST FLAGGING THAT. ANYBODY ELSE ON THE COMMISSION HAVE QUESTIONS?

I JUST HAVE A QUESTION, CHAIR. GO AHEAD. GREAT JOB. IT LOOKS BEAUTIFUL. I DID HAVE A QUESTION. WHEN LOOKING AT THE LANDSCAPE PLAN IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE PUTTING A LOT OF TREES IN THERE. foot on center along Alta and then there's the eight foot path but then there doesn't be any trees within that 10 to 15 foot setback along the Alta side am I reading that correctly I'm sorry are we pointing here yeah so there's trees there and then is the trail is the path just to the I guess that would be to the north yeah that's right an eight foot sort of uh trail and then then that's the landscape buffer and why no trees within that landscape buffer is there any reason for that

You know, we've got... It's a lot of cacti and succulents. There's trees all around it. I kind of think they would kind of be lost there. They weren't required per code there, and we've just got, you know, tons of trees and landscaping elsewhere.

Okay. I mean, I don't want to impede anything. I just think it would be great...

riding or walking along Alta it's so lush and having the trees just kind of separating the development from that path I think would be great I mean I'll leave it to you and the council woman to figure that out but that's just my one suggestion one comment we also you know view like signage visibility we want the buildings to be featured we think it's a really beautiful building so not that trees are necessarily going to block that but we are mindful of the visibility from the street and want to make sure that the buildings are able to be seen

Understood, but you already got the trees there that are blocking it anyway. So thanks, John.

Madam chair. Yes. Commissioner.

Yeah. Through you. I appreciate the time and a couple of phone calls, uh, back and forth, uh, before I got those staff report. And after I got the staff report, just to make sure I understood, uh, what, what you had going on and, you know, great looking building tons of landscaping. It's going to look beautiful. Um, and the one or two trees is missing from the one buffer zone, but the additional 75 foot or 75 trees or whatever you have everywhere else, nobody's gonna know the difference. Once you build this, they're gonna look at it and just see a nice, beautiful landscaped zone here and property. So anyways, if there's no other comments, I'm ready to make a motion.

Seeing no other comments, please go ahead, Commissioner Schlottman.

Madam Chair, we have an amendment, an amended condition to read into the record for removing that exception for the diamond planters. Okay, please do. So that would be condition of approval number nine on the site development plan review. would be revised to say an exception from Title 19-08-110-C-12 is hereby denied to allow 36 square foot diamond planters inside curbing where a minimum of 49 square feet is required.

Okay. And do you agree to that condition?

Yes.

Thank you.

And you agree to all standard conditions? Yep. Okay. Madam Chair, through you on item number 4925-389, moved to approve on 49A and B, subject to staff's conditions, and the amended condition number 9 on the SDR is written to the record by planning staff. Thank you, Commissioner. There's a motion on the floor.

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

And those items will move on to City Council on November 19th.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, item number 51, 25-0406, applicant owner, Southern Nevada Regional Housing Authority for possible action on the following land use entitlement project requests on a portion at the northwest corner of McWilliams Avenue and 8th Street, Ward 5, Summers-Armstrong. Staff recommends approval on the land use entitlement project. 51A, 25-0406, BAC1, to vacate public right-of-way located along Washington Avenue, generally located on the south side of Washington Avenue, 175 feet west of H Street, 51B25-0406SDR1 for a proposed four-story, 223-unit mixed-use development with 10,389 square feet of commercial space with waivers of Title 19.09 form-based code development standards. May we have the staff report, please?

Yes, Madam Chair. The applicant is requesting the vacation site development plan review and associated waivers to facilitate phase two of the Marble Manor redevelopment project. The proposed development aligns with the Vision 2045 master plan, the 100 plan, and the West Las Vegas plan. Therefore, staff recommends approval of both the site development plan review and the vacation subject to conditions. Please note that no letters of protest or support have been received since publication. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Folks that are in the audience, still, if you're here for this item and you're going to make public comment, if you could please come down and just kind of get lined up. But if you can give us your name, state and spell it, give us your address, and tell us about the project.

Yes, Eric Gross with KME Architects, 5195 South Durango Drive, Suite 103.

And I'm Anna Libby, representing Brinshore Development, and I live in Denver.

Yes, this is the phase two of a five-phase development of Marble Manor. It is a total of 16 buildings, 223 units, a mixture of one through five bedroom units, as well as a couple of tenant spaces for future tenants, as well as a shell space for a future Head Start daycare program that will be part of a separate project. This overall project is a fantastic redevelopment for Marble Manor. We're actually in for plan reviews on phase one of Marble Manor, so we're very excited for that. And this is just a continuation of that overall efforts. all the way from H Street through J Street with an overall complete redevelopment of the overall site. And we actually have several different renderings here kind of showing what that overall space looks like. Again, we have a variety of different buildings that are being developed here from quadplexes, townhome-style rentals, three-story as well as four-story. rental spaces throughout. So it's a very unique and very exciting space that we're trying to help revitalize a rather underdeveloped area of the historic west side. And just, again, a very well thought out continuation of that phase one development as we continue through phase five as we start moving further and further west. So we agree with all of the staff recommendations and ask for your approval.

Thank you very much. Again, this item has been noticed for public hearing. If there are any members of the public wishing to be heard, please come down. Okay, seeing none, I will close public hearing. I will pass it back over to the commission, starting with Commissioner Munford.

Thank you, Madam Chair, through you. Yeah, I think this will be a great project for that area. We need housing. From what we talked about earlier, about a third of the units are voucher income. We have 40% tax credit units and 25% market rate, which I think will be great for that area. And then on that site, there'll be the retail that you mentioned on the corner, but it sounds like there'll be other retail spaces in the next phases as it goes on. The only question I had is kind of about the security issue in terms of some of those units that are ground level. That's the only concern I had with this project in terms of possibly, I don't know if, if some of those units on ground level could have some type of pre-wiring for security for access areas with the windows and the doors. But other than that, I think it's gonna be a great project. I like the Head Start component to that as well. So I know Mel with KME and you guys have done a great job. I'm gonna motion for approval.

Okay. Any other comments? All right. Commissioner Munford's motion is.

All right. I'd like to go ahead and move for motion approval for item 51, 25-0406, 51A, 51B. And you're fine with all the conditions and recommendations of planning? Yes. Okay.

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

Thank you. And that will move on to city council on November 19th.

Thank you. Item 52, citizens participation. 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 have anyone for citizens participation? Okay, seeing none, I will close citizens participation and adjourn our planning commission meeting for tonight.