Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Heat. Heat. Yeah. Good evening. We're ready to begin. This planning commission meeting is called to order. This meeting has been properly

noticed and posted in compliance with the open meeting law. These proceedings are being video recorded and can be viewed live on City of Las Vegas TV on Cox Cable Channel 2. You can also watch the meeting live online and access other city content by visiting Las Vegas.gov/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 to the flag of the United States of America for all. City clerk, would you please call roll? Chair Kasama, present. Vice Chair Schlottman, present. Commissioner Rogan, present. Commissioner Taylor, present. Commissioner Dalvio, present. Commissioner Lebo, present. Commissioner Walters, present.

Thank you. We do 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 must be limited to matters on the agenda for action. If you wish to be heard, come to the podium and give your name for the record. The amount of discussion as well as the amount of time any single speaker is allowed may be limited. All comments made under this item for specific action items will be cross referenced to those items. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak under this portion of the agenda? All right. Then we move on for possible action to approve the final minutes for the planning commission meeting of March 10th, 2026. Vice Chair, may I have a motion?

Move to approve the minutes of March 10th, 2026 PC meeting. Motion carries. We move on to our housekeeping items. Are there any items that commissioners, staff, applicants, or members of the public would like to pull forward for action? Madame Chair, Nicole Edetos, for the record, staff is requesting to remove page one from the supporting documents of item number nine, project number 26-0097-TMP1, as this page is not part of the submitted tenative map. The applicant is requesting to withdraw without prejudice item number 13. On behalf of the applicant, staff is requesting to hold item number 20 to the May 12th planning commission meeting. The applicant is requesting to hold item number 22 to the May 12th planning commission meeting. The applicant is requesting to hold item number 26 to the May 12th planning commission meeting. The applicant is requesting to withdraw without prejudice item number 29. The applicant is requesting to hold item number 30 to the May 12th planning commission meeting. And the applicant is requesting to hold item number 32 to the May 12th planning commission meeting. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone who would like to speak on the housekeeping items? Seeing none, vice chair, may I have a motion?

Yes, Madam Chair, through you. I'd like to make a motion on item number nine to remove page one from the supporting documents. Withdraw without prejudice numbers 13 and item 29. and to withh or to hold an obeyance till the May 12th, 2026 planning commission hearing items 22 26 30 32 and item number 20 Motion carries. That brings us to the consent items. Consent items are considered routine by the planning commission and may be enacted by one motion. However, any item may be discussed if a commission member or applicant so desires. Vice chair may have a motion for approval on consent items 7, 8, and nine.

Madam chair, I move to approve items 7, 8, and nine of the consent agenda. Commissioner Level. Madame Chair, on item number nine, um I need to abstain from voting on that consent item. Uh we're under contract with them. So the other items I'm voting on. Got it. staff, please make the correction. Motion carries.

Madam Chair, items 7, 8, and 9 are final action within 7 days unless appealed to the city clerk's office. Thank you.

That brings us 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. Following items are item 10 26-000014 SUP1 applicant Mason Enterprises LLC owner Highland Industrial Park LLC for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for proposed motor vehicle rental use at 2901 Highland Drive Sweet 10C. Item 1126-000042 MOD1 applicant owner the Howard Hughes Company LLC for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for the proposed modification of the Summerland West Village 22 development plan to amend the special land use designation of parcel X and two from ECMF3 employment center highdensity multif family to VC Village commercial at the northeast corner of Summerland Parkway and Oro Street War I item 1226- 0082 VAC1 applicant Greystone Nevada LLC owner DRP Solaris and V1 LLC for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for petition to vacate public drainage sewer and utility easements and right-of-way grants for drainage and sewer purposes generally located at the southwest corner of Alta Drive and Rampart Boulevard 2. This was noticed as a public hearing. Would anyone like to be heard at this time? Seeing none, vice chair, may I have a motion? Yes, Madam Chair. On the one motion, one vote items 10, 11, and 12, move to approve subject to staff's conditions.

Motion carries. Madam Chair, items 10 and 12 are final action unless appealed to the city clerk within 10 days. in item 11, we'll move forward to the May 20th, 2026 city council meeting. Thank you.

Thank you. That brings us to our public hearing agenda item. And so starting with agenda item 14, obeyance 25-0614, applicant owner Angel Diaz for possible action on the following land use entitlement project request at 11 Prince Lane, Ward 3. 14A abans 25-0614 VR1 to allow an existing front yard fence that does not conform to Title 19 development standards for height. 14B oans 25-0614 STR1 for proposed conversion of an existing single family residential dwelling to an office with waiverss of perimeter landscape buffer requirements. Staff, may I please get the report?

Yes, Madam Chair. This is Christian Gates Community Development for the record. Uh the proposed conversion does not support the 2050 master plan goals and vision for reducing the urban heat island effect as evidenced by reduced perimeter and parking lot landscaping. Additionally, as no unique or extraordinary circumstance has been presented to warrant the requested variance, staff recommends denial of the variance in site development plan review subject to conditions if approved. Please note there is a revised landscape plan and staff report in your supplemental packet. Thank you. Thank you. And the applicant, you can step forward. Please give your name and address for the record. Intas 112 112 112 broke street 9142.

Okay. Uh I already meet the commissioner. So I submit the new plans for the last cap. All right. Thank you. Um so this item has been noticed for public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak on this agenda item? Seeing none, I will turn it over to members of the commission. Starting with Schlottman.

Yes. Uh, Madam Chair, through you. I held this last month because there just wasn't any landscaping and I wanted to have the opportunity to go out and meet with you. I did I seen some of the challenges on the site. If you're looking at this or any planning commissioners are looking at this that it's almost impossible to to see the landscaping that's going in there because you didn't show with real big symbols, but I know it's there. I can see it on the map. They're very very tiny little little check marks. Um, but we we were able to uh plant some plants. I think you said you're going to do trees on the west side, right?

The west side. And uh we can't do trees on Charleston where I originally wanted them because we have overhead power lines that's in in the way, but we do have some shrubs. We're talking about putting more shrubs going all the way down that property line, but it would affect the handicap parking stalls. Um and so, uh we added a little bit more on on Prince Way, so and got a couple of trees on the sides of the gate and right at the radius. So, I think, uh we did the best we can. So if there's no other comments written to make a motion. Please do. On item number 14 A and B. Move to pro uh move to approve subject to staff's conditions.

Motion carries. Madame chair. That item is final action unless appealed to the city clerk within 10 days. Thank you.

Thank you. And so we are going to trail item 15 to 6:30 just to wait for some more people in the audience to arrive. So with that I will be moving to item 16 just temporarily. Item 1626-00008 VR1 applicant owner Jorge Julio de Oliviera Jr. for possible action on a land use entitlement project request to allow an existing home addition that does not conform to title 19.06 development standards for setbacks at 7508 Pinedale Avenue. Staff may please get the report.

Madame Chair, this is Holden Weissman, Community Development for the Record. The requested variance is the result of an open code enforcement case that cited an unpermitted addition to a residential home that does not meet setback standards. Staff finds that no evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance has been presented to warrant the requested variance. As such, the hardship is self-imposed and staff recommends denial of the variance subject to conditions if approved. Please note that additional letters of protest and support were received after publication. Thank you. Thank you. Is the applicant in the audience at this time for this item? Seeing none, I will turn it over to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Rogan.

I'm sorry, Chair, if we could trail this one, too. I did speak to the applicant's representative. I expected him here tonight, so Okay. Not sure why he's not here yet.

No, not a problem. So, not to staff, we will be trailing item 16. So, close temporarily. So, we are moving on to item 17. That is 26-0015 VR1 applicant owner George Murphy and Grace Wong for possible action on a land use entitlement project request to allow proposed residential accessory structure garage that does not conform to title 19.06 development standards for size and coverage at 1513 Binmar Avenue. Staff may please get the report. Madame Chair, staff finds that no evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance has been presented to warrant the proposed garage that does not meet Title 19 development standards. As such, the hardship is self-imposed and staff recommends denial of the variance subject to conditions if approved. Please note that additional letters of protest and support were received after publication. Thank you.

Thank you. Is the applicant in the audience at this time to speak on the agenda item? Please come down and state your name for the record. Hi, John Teamman with JT Contracting representing the homeowner currently lives in San Francisco. And please present on the agenda item.

Uh on the garage, he's looking to expand suit about 265 ft above what's allowed. Um he purchased this home from what I think is going to be his retirement home as he moves from San Francisco to here in a few years. Um, my understanding is he has a small car collection. That's why he kind of wanted the bigger garage. Um, he offered to do smaller. He really wasn't up for it. So, he's going through this process. Perfect. Thank you. This item has been noticed for public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak at this time? Seeing none, I will turn it over to the commission. Starting with Commissioner Rogan.

Thank you, Chair. Um, Mr. time and I don't know if you talked to your client today, but I had a conversation with him. The issue that's going on with this garage is that he had a tenant that was using this location for commercial purposes and having some ConX boxes coming in and out of um that home for a long time. And so there's a little bit of suspicion with regard to the garage that it's going to be used for commercial purposes. I talked to your client. He's agreed to come to Nevada next month and meet with the neighbors in order to um to allay those concerns and talk about his garage. So my request tonight is going to be to obey this to next month so that he can come and um meet with those neighbors and then have you come back again and present at that time um hopefully maybe with some support of the neighborhood at that time. Uh do you have any questions for me?

No, I did meet with one of the neighbors to his left if you face in the front. He was he didn't have any issues with it. The person on the right wasn't home. Okay, understood. So my I'm going to make a motion unless there's other comments right now to obey this to the May 12th planning commission meeting. Please do. That's my motion. Thank you. Thank you.

Motion carries. Item 1826-0024, applicant Tunnel to Towers Foundation, owner Raininey Day Investments LLC at AL for possible action on the following land use entitlement project request at the northwest corner of Rancho Drive and Jones Boulevard. 18A 26-000024 SUP1 for proposed residential multif family use 18B 26-0024 SUP2 for proposed alternative parking standard to allow 120 parking spaces where 168 are required 18 C 26-0024 VAC1 petition to vacate a portion of public drainage easement 18D 26-0024 SDR1 for proposed three-story 118 unit residential multifamily development velment with waiverss of perimeter landscape buffer requirements. Staff may please get the report.

Madame Chair, staff finds that the proposed development is compatible with the development in the area. The development furthers the goals of increased housing options as identified in the 2050 master plan and is designed with urban heat island mitigation elements. The development generally conforms to title 19 development standards as the requested waiver and exception for landscaping are minimal in nature. The application of an alternative parking standard is appropriate given the unique operation of the development. Therefore, staff recommends approval of all requested entitlements subject to conditions if approved. Please note that additional letters of protest and support were received after publication. Thank you. Thank you. And please give your name for the record.

Robert Cunningham, Tanny Engineering, 6030 South Jones Boulevard, representing the applicant tunnel for towers. There we go. Move this out of the way. Our site is located on about five acres off of Rancho and Jones. Both are NDOT rideaways. The Tunnels for Towers Foundation is proposing to put in long-term supportive care or housing for veterans to provide a a significant need for the community on this site. Um what they're proposing is a three-story building in this Lshape located towards the north portion of the site. I'm showing you the landscape plan uh that has all the conformance for code required landscaping located all around it. You can see there's ample trees. Um the parking waiver that we asked for is for to go to 120 parking spots where 168 is required. This building's proposed to have 118 units, all studios. Uh the residents that are here, the veterans, about 65% of them will have vehicles. Uh this is one of uh many facilities that tunnels for Towers Foundation has built across the country. Uh their parking ratio to veterans is about 65% of the the residents will have vehicles. Based on that, the 1:1 ratio is not overparked or underparked for their facility. It it's the adequate amount of parking. Staff has agreed with that concurrence. I just wanted to put that on record uh that we've asked for that. The site has one entrance as ND dot limits our access to one. We've lined it up with the site across the street. Uh the main entrance of the building is located right here in this area. Uh the amenities are on inside the building. There are multiple different amenities, but outside the building on site there's a sports court, a covered pavilion area, a pet area where you can uh um relax with your pet,

therapy garden. There's also a a meandering trail over here in this area. This portion of the site's actually in the flood zone. We're working through a drainage study right now with staff to remove a portion of the flood zone and show proposed improvements to mitigate that. Um they also have a proposed monument with flags located adjacent to the Rancho uh side. The building is three stories in height approximately 46 ft. Uh we have taken attention to where it's located on site meeting the required distance separation from residential property single family residential properties that are located to the south to the building. Uh the majority of the units of the windows of the building are located in a direction where they do not face this direction. To the west of us is multifamily. These are twostory condominium units or apartments. the vacation. There's a drainage easement that comes off of the adjacent property and drains through our property. It's currently 20 ft in width. We're proposing to reduce that to 15 ft in width. Staff is in support of that as well. There are a couple of of minor waiverss for the landscaping and I want to go over them. Uh there's a utility area here for water meters. A pinch point right in here. We only have about 13 feet and uh the requirement the code requirement is 15. So that's one of the ones that staff pointed out. The other one is there's currently a public sewer line that runs in an easement along this side of the property and we're not allowed to plant trees over the top of it. So instead of doing that, we've moved the trees right onto our property all along that property line. Just wanted to show you proposed floor plan uh where there's two wings with all studio units and then in the center of the building is where all of the amenity

areas are located uh such as the lobby um the other we go the lobby area when you enter into the building it's very secured so everyone enters into here if you don't live here you will not be allowed to enter into here without a guest allowing you in. Um the multi-purpose room is located here. The fitness area, everything on the first floor, the second floor and third floors have subsequent amenities for each of the residents as well. I'm going to conclude my presentation and be happy to answer any questions that the board has. Thank you.

Thank you. This item has been noticed for public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak on this at this time? Oh, please come down and state your name for the record. Uh, Phil Stringer, last name S T R I N G E R. Um, can I ask questions?

So, this is for a parking lot, right? and he said he stated that it will not need more than a certain amount of parking spots. What's the backup plan in the event that there are more parking spots that are needed? And how do you guarantee that they'll always be under 65%.

Thank you. I'm not entirely clear. My name is Kathy Lynn Sullivan and I am an owner in one of these areas. So, what I wanted to know is am I able to talk about my concerns or only ask questions? You can also state concerns for the record.

Okay. So, my concerns for the record are it's going to affect drainage and it's right up against desert pine villas and how is that going to affect it? I'm concerned about the air quality because of increased traffic, noise pollution, impact of tunneling on already established foundations and neighboring climates. Crime assessment. You have somebody that's letting people in, so there's security getting in. What about the surrounding area? Veterans and their buddies and that kind of thing. Is there going to be some kind of um additional security? I didn't hear any I heard that there was, you know, places for recreation and whatever. I didn't hear anything about social services on site or anything of that matter. So, those are all concerns.

Thank you. Do I get to hear anything back at all? No. The applicant will have an opportunity to respond to the questions and concerns. Okay. Thank you. My name is Mark Stetts Sts and I was just wondering is there any kind of treatment involved in this or is it strictly housing? Thank you.

Good evening and thank you. My name is Vince Pome. um command of the military or the purple heart here in Las Vegas. And first I wanted to say thank you to the planning committee for approving this project. This is something that has been needed in this city for decades. And I worked with tunnels to Towers for the last year and a half trying to get this placed uh in North Las Vegas by the hospital. And I think many of you know that it was rejected twice. Um and I'm glad that they didn't give up. They told me they wouldn't give up. And I can tell you all, uh, when they first came to town, we had a meeting with them with 30 veterans. We drilled them like you wouldn't believe. They probably thought they were PS. That's how intense the drilling was. And every question we asked, they satisfied us. So, uh, the veterans community has no problem. uh they are going to provide uh not services or treatment but they will have veterans will have the option to go to somebody to find out where to go for treatment and they are going to provide security. We asked them about the drainage uh that was a while ago and I know he mentioned gentleman mentioned they're working on it and we don't think that's going to be a problem either. So, I want to thank you again very much for taking care of us veterans. Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Tim Smith, American Legion Post 76 here in Las Vegas. Uh in regards to services, if you notice the location of the uh property, this will be near the northwest clinic uh on Rancho and Alexander. So VA services will be there and uh that also is a secure site as well as a tunnel for tower site as you heard already in the presentation. That is a secure site. You're not allowed on the property unless you're living on that property. So, I'm sure the property is secure and as the I mentioned, the services would be provided Northwest Clinic with the VA there.

Thank you. Thank you. Seeing no other members of the public at this time, applicant, please come forward and you can have the opportunity to address the concerns.

Sure. A few things I uh would like to address. Um, so parking, the first gentleman indicated, uh, what if parking, they have a couple things I didn't mention. They have their own vans and their own transportation that they own that they transport veterans to and from appointments. Uh, as is shown right here, this is the VA facility located directly across the street. So many people can walk if need be or they could take a vehicle or the place could provide shuttles for them. There also are two bus stops, one located directly in front of us. We're adding a bus stop, bus pull out right here. And there's another one that's located right here. So, there's public transportation available also right at the site. The other facilities that are operating throughout the country are built on the same premise of a 1:1 ratio. They've been in operation for many years, 5 to 10 years, and none of them have a parking issue either. One of the other things was drainage. There is a drainage study currently in process with the city of Las Vegas, and the easement exists, and we're putting it in. The other issue is the flood zone that uh encroaches on the property from Rancho on the north. We're also addressing that concern with the flood study. The drainage study has to be approved for us to um be moving forward with the development. So, I'm not worried about that through the city. uh security. One of the things that was mentioned I didn't mention here, the entire site is proposed to have a fence around it except for so this has a a block wall already existing here, a block wall existing here. There will be a fence proposed right at the edge of the sewer easement all along the frontage of Rancho and all along Jones until it comes to here and a fence continues along here. So the only area that won't be fenced would be the main entrance right here. I think that helps provide security as well as they will be having cameras and other security measures incorporated into their design of their building. Uh this

is also not a treatment center. It's a long-term uh supportive or long-term uh that's best way I can put it long-term facility where veterans can live. There are support services or people can be connected to like the VA across the way to get support, but there won't be treatment. There won't be any type of treatment going on in this facility. It's only being used for housing and supportive services such as that, such as trying to find a job, um trying to uh educate veterans, uh other things like that. And I would be happy to address any concerns the board has as well. Thank you. So, with that, I'm going to turn over to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Walters.

Hi. Yes. Hello. Uh we've we've spoken before about this house uh about this facility and I think I would like to move to approve along with staff recommendations. Commissionerations. Thank you.

Thank you. Yeah, I'm very familiar with this project. It was designed to go in North Las Vegas, but I know that they wanted to make that uh location commercial. Uh, but I'm sure uh uh uh uh commit uh Councilman uh Cherro wants that back and and I can't think of a better location that's more harmonious compatible than where you proposed it. Um we've talked at length. Um and this is definitely needed in our community. So kind of blessed that they dropped the ball and we picked it up to have it in the city. So with that, I definitely would support it. Commissioner Taylor.

Uh thank you, Chair. Um, I just wanted to circle back on the parking if you don't mind for a minute because I did have some outreach from neighbors with concerns about the parking because since it's 118 units and you're doing 120 parking spots, I know that you we talked about the fact that there's many models of this um that show that it's about a 67% um 67% of the occupants actually do have vehicles. So, I just wanted to see if there was any other data or stats or anything that can further support that. Also, just before I say that, I want to say that I think this is an amazing project. Um, I'm really excited at the sighting. The fact that it's going right across from that VA center is fantastic. Um, and thank you for all of the trees because this will be a wonderful place for the veterans to be able to to, you know, hang out, walk around and and stuff. So, thank you for the the very lush landscaping. Sure. To address your concern on parking, there actually is a parking demand study that was done by a traffic engineer, Worooster Engineering, on the specific development proposed for the site. This has been submitted to the city and the city has reviewed it and I believe accepted it, the planning department, and this mandates and shows how the the parking can be at 118. Uh I can go through the details if you'd like but basically the study supports it with all of the findings that they have gone through and looked at all the the different facilities across the nation and also use the information from the uh IT generation the Institute of Transportation Engineers manual to dive at the the required parking.

Okay. Thank you. And then just so there's 118 units there's 120 parking spots. Um, these are all single family. I mean single family. These are all studios, so they're intended to be single occupancy. Correct. That's correct for the most part. Yes. Okay. And then other parking being taken up by staff. Do you have the count on that? Uh, I believe it was 11 per shift, but I could double check.

Okay. And then have you done any outreach to like the veteran center to see if there was like the gentleman asked what the backup plan was if for some reason there was a need for additional parking whether or not there could be you know parking across Rancho. Not like it's you know it's a problem because you'd be walking across Rancho but there's I'm pretty I'm very familiar with this corner and there's not a lot of other options for overflow parking.

Yeah. I mean, if there ever became a need for it, it it wouldn't be it's not anticipated ever to need that. But if, let's say, there was some sort of specialized function or, you know, gala or something being held there, which they don't plan to do. Um, there is the VA. I mean, we've not reached out to them directly on a parking issue, but you can see they have a rather large parking lot. So, I don't know if there's any ability to share parking at certain times. That's something that would be possible. Uh, but further discussions would have to be. Okay. I just think it would be a good thing to just sort of check in on since I've had personal outreach on concerns about parking and then we've had it from the public comment as well. But otherwise, really excited about this project. Thank you so much for bringing it. Thank you, Commissioner Schlotman.

Yes. Uh Madam Chair, through you. I I I think the the landscaping is great. I think the project's great. Um I I I can't believe you actually have so many trees on the project. It's it's it's amazing. uh on parking, you know, we've looked at parking uh throughout the the years on a lot of these apartment buildings and you know, I mean, we've we've gone down to half a space per per unit on some some spaces, even down to zero in in downtown. You know, this isn't downtown. So, you do need parking and you do have parking. We almost have one to one which is a lot for what we're seeing on most of our uh you know projects has come before us uh over the past few years. We've been talking about well what what happens if and I know that one of the uh one of the residents citizens out here come up and ask about what happens if if you do have a parking problem and uh even though I don't see you having a parking problem because you have these studies um across all your properties uh throughout the US uh there's certain things that you could do that I I talked to other uh other applicants uh like the ones that that come before us off of St. Louis and Paradise, uh, you could issue parking permits. If your residents start collecting two, three vehicles, you can issue parking permits and tell them they can only keep one one vehicle there. We had to do that at our community. Um, and so, uh, it's doubtful that that your residents, every residents resident will have a a vehicle and, you know, you can control it if people start having more than one vehicle per unit with a parking permit. So, I'm not concerned about the parking at all and you have my support on this project.

Thank you. Thank you. And I'm just going to say ditto to Commissioner Schlotman. So, Commissioner Walters, would you like to make a motion? Yes. I make a motion on 26 26-0024 to approve uh with staff conditions and 18A sorry uh to approve agenda item 18A 18B 18 C and 18 D asking if he agrees to all conditions subject to staff conditions. Do you agree? Do you agree? Yes.

And that motion carries. Madam Chair, that item will move forward to city council on May 20th, 2026. Thank you.

Thank you. And now we are going to go back to one of our trailed items. Um, Commissioner Rogan, is everyone accounted for in the audience? Okay, perfect. We are moving on to commission. Uh item number 15, Abeayance 26-000027 applicant Blue Heron Development LLC, owner Andrew Molasi Revocable Family Trust for possible action on the following land use entitlement project request at the southeast corner of Palamino Lane and Shutland Road. 15A obeyance 26-0027 VR1 to allow proposed residential lot and perimeter retaining walls that do not conform to title 19.06 6 development standards for lot width and height lot 1 15B obeyance 26-0027 VR2 to allow proposed residential lot that does not conform to title 19.06 development standards for lot width lot 2 15C obeyance 26-0027 V3 to allow a proposed residential lot that does not conform to title 19.06 6 development standards for lot width lot 3 15D obeyance 26-0027 V4 to allow proposed residential lot that does not conform to tile 19.06 development standards for lot width lot 4 15e obeyance 26-0027 V5 to allow a proposed residential lot that does not conform to title 19.06 6 development standards for lot 5. 15F Obeans 26-0027 V6 to allow proposed residential lot that does not conform to title 19.06 development standards for lot width lot 6 15G obeyance 26-0027 V7 to allow proposed residential lot that does not conform to tile 19.06 6 development standards for lot size and lot width lot 75 15H obeyance 26-0027 V8 to allow a proposed residential lot that does not conform to tile 19.06

development standards for lot size and lot width lot 85 I obeyance 26-0027 V9 to allow proposed residential lot that does not conform to dial 19.06 6 development standards for lot size and lot width lot 9 15J obeyance 26-0027 V10 to allow proposed residential lot that does not conform to title 19.06 06 development standards for lot width lot 10 15k Obeyance 26-0027 V11 to allow no off-site improvements where such are required 15 L Oayans 26-0027 V12 to allow proposed perimeter and retaining walls that do not conform to title 19.06 06 development standards for height 15M Aance 26-0027 TAMP1 Palamino and Shhatland for a 10 lot single family residential subdivision. Staff, may I please get the report? Madame Chair, the applicant is attempting to reszone through variance as the proposed lot sizes are more in line with the RD zoning district which allows an 80 foot wide lot. 10 of the 12 requested variances could be eliminated if the applicant had requested to reszone to the applicable applicable zoning district. The proposed lot sizes and dimensions do not meet the intent of the rural preservation overlay which is characterized by large lot residential home sites that convey and protect the rural feel of an established rural neighborhood. Therefore, staff recommends denial of all variance requests and the tenative map. Thank you.

Thank you. Please give your name for the record.

Good evening, Madam Chair. Stephanie Gronower, 1980 Festival Plaza Drive. Here on behalf of the applicant, Blue Heron Homes. My last name is G R O N A U E R. Um, as was mentioned, this property in yellow is the property that we are talking about. It's about five acres. Um, it's located on the south side of Palamino Lane, um, on the east side of Shetlin. You can see on this aerial there are eight lots that currently exist on this property. many of them that are um vacant or have been rental properties. Um and you can see I'm going to point out before I get to the presentation, many of these are very narrow in their existence today. In fact, um some of these smaller ones are around 60 or 65 feet in width. Um so what we're proposing today is actually larger than these lots, but I will show you the site plan because we're proposing 10 lots on five acres, which is under the two units per acre. Uh the reason we did not do the zone change is because we understand this area is a rural area. Um most of the area is zoned re and so we wanted to keep that zoning designation but our density is at 1.93 units to the acre. The master plan is desert rural. So this is the master plan on the property in green. Desert rural actually does allow up to two and a half units to the acre. So slightly higher than what we're allowed to, but again we're keeping that re zoning designation to be consistent with with the area. So you can see here this is the zoning designation. Immediately to the east of us is actually an old designation RPD2 which allowed a lot of flexibility. There's no longer that um zoning category or ability under the zoning code. But my my guess is is that this community was designed with some flexibilities with their setbacks, their their standards in order to accommodate the layout that they've got today. Um, that's not an availability today. So, as

was mentioned, our choices were to either do RD and do a zone change or to come forward with density that's under two units to the acre with some variances. And so, that's what we're here before you with tonight. We believe they're justified because as you can see the parcel is very long and narrow, not a whole lot of width to these um parcels. But this is the layout that you have. If I could just zoom out a little, this is the layout from a north south perspective. Um so we have um eight lots and then one lot that will front onto um Palamino located here that's narrow. Um the minimum lot size as was mentioned is 80 feet feet in width which is larger than what exists today. Several of them are 82, a couple of them are 80 and then um a few of them are slightly larger than that. But you can see they're extremely long in length. This is 300 ft. So it is a unique lot size, but it's not um something that's not already existing today in this neighborhood. It's just unique. It's not your perfect box halfacre lot. Every single one of these lots are halfacres. Um, a couple of them are slightly under the 18,000 square foot. Um, so those are three of the variances, but the other variances are the lot widths. And then we have a variance for off-site improvements. Shetland is currently rural. The neighbors really want to keep it rural from what I've heard. We had a neighborhood meeting last week that Councilman Kenson set up. There were about 50 neighbors in in attendance at that meeting to discuss this as well as another property. I did not hear one person say that they wanted off sites on this property. So, if someone here wants that, I hope they'll certainly voice that. I think that was a really important piece of information for the neighborhood that they want to keep this rural. So, that's one of the variance requests that's before you. The other two variance requests deal with the drainage on the site. Currently, there's

a low point in the middle of this property and in order to drain, we have to drain out to Palamino. There's an existing drainage easement that we can't access that would go through Troder Circle, unfortunately. Um, so instead, we have this drainage easement in blue here, you can see, that goes all the way down to Palamino, and that requires some additional retaining walls that are on your agenda. Um, we fortunately have worked with public works. solution has been extremely helpful and the drainage team to where we will do a slope of 0.4% um that allows us to eliminate our variances on this common lot. So variance 15L on your agenda we can withdraw without prejudice. So that gets rid of any of the wall height variances located here. We then have two two variances remaining on lot one along the southern property line and along this eastern property line. We've worked closely with Mr. Fish who lives to the south. We tried to reach Miss Townsen who lives to the east and I was not able to get a hold of her. Um so I'm not sure what her preferences on walls, but we did work closely with Mr. Fish. Um provided some options to either tear his wall, maybe provide some um view fencing. Where we're at right now, we're asking for an additional one foot of retaining than what the code allows. meaning that the the wall will be anywhere from 8 feet up to 11 feet in total height adjacent to Mr. Fish's wall. He's asked us for some trees which we're happy to accommodate. Um Blue Heron is is happy to buy some trees to block that wall. It is a significant wall that will be up against his property. The fortunate part is he'll be able to use the wall instead of install his own. He'll have one wall to share and again we're happy to do some trees there. My initial suggestion was to do um it's about 240 feet where that wall

is to do one large tree 20 feet on center. Um but I think he's thinking more of a shrub. Um so I know Commissioner Rogan and I were talking beforehand. Whatever we come up with, we're happy to do it. My proposal right now would be to do a tree every 20 feet on center, a large tree every 20 feet on center for 240 ft, which is about 12 trees. if he wants more than that, we can certainly work with him on that. Um, the elevations, Blue Heron does a beautiful product. So, I've got just three of them to show you. These are in the millions of dollars. So, these homes will really, really be a great enhancement to the area. Um, all of the existing homes will be demolished and they've been vacant for a long time. So, this will be a great improvement. Um, these are just three samples of of one elevation. They'll have four different home types with three different elevations. So, lots of options for those 10 lots. Um, again, a mix of variety. Beauties in the eye of the beholder. I heard a lot of things at that neighborhood meeting. Some really loved the elevation, some like modern style, some like mid-century. Um, so Blue Heron will do a great job of making sure they put a really quality product in there again and improve the overall area. So, with that said, we'd ask for your approval. Um, again, I know there's some neighbors here and I know Mr. fish is here and again we're happy to do some trees along his his boundary and then the withdrawal of that other variance I think addresses the wall heights which was um I think the primary concern happy to answer any questions

thank you this item has been noticed for public hearing is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak at this time thank you please step forward and give your name for the record I have one of the renderings the one that shows tro color one not this one no the one that had troter circle in yellow right there. That one. There you go. Sorry, it's upside down.

Thank you very much for this opportunity. My name is Art Nathan, N A T Han. I live in Troder Circle. I am the president of the Troder Circle or Palamino Gardens Homeowners Association. And we've had extensive debates about this project. And I have to tell you that I'm here to represent the 15 homes in there. And we'd like this development to go forward. I I say that with a little hesitation because we've had so many arguments in our neighborhood, but I don't know if any of you have driven down Shetland in the last four years. The eight homes that are there, and there's only eight, as you can see, those homes back up to only five on our properties. So the density gets worse by the day. But that's not our main concern. Our main concern is the condition of that property today or for the last four years for that matter. That property, all eight of them have been abandoned. There is one home with anybody in it now. And I think that's a horse. But beyond that, there's not much going on there. And since we are right here, I have to tell you that on a weekly basis, we get homeless people and others coming over our wall because those houses are abandoned. They look abandoned. They invite mischief. And that mischief comes on a weekly basis. We've complained about it. There's no fencing that would keep your kids out of there. So, if we're going to support this, and I say that

it's hard for me to to say that, but we're going to support this. If on one condition you would require them to tear those houses down within 30 days of approval and put fencing up that would protect our homeowners. The city and the owners have ignored this community. We've complained. We've had police there on a weekly basis and nobody seems to care. So, we're putting our hopes with you that you will help us secure this. And you know, it's one thing to say, look, anything that Blue Heron puts there will be better than what's there. That's a pretty low bar, frankly. But we're going to support Blue Heron and Mr. Molasi. Andrew is a neighbor of ours. We like him. We were in favor of his putting the the horse commu the charitable horse community here that would support veterans with PTSD. We thought that was a great idea and we think building homes there is a good idea. But too dense, I don't know. That's not for us to complain about anymore. We just want those current houses torn down and put up a fence that will protect the residents of this community. We don't have that now. and you're our last hope to get that a achieved. Thank you.

Thanks.

Hi, I'm Jeff Gordon, part of the Gordon Family Trust. How are you all? So, you may have noticed that I took out a measurement here and I measured the distance between those shares and this counter. Turns out to be about 13 14 ft. Does the city of Las Vegas remove dead horses from property, rotting corpses, things like that? No. They're not part of the animal control area. Clark Countyy's got that, right? But we're talking about city of Las Vegas, and you're asking for variances to what we're talking about. Well, let's look at it. The Gordon Family Trust loves the Molasi Family Trust. We think they're great. They donate a lot of money to you, right? Plus, they have made so many developments over the years since the 50s to make Vegas an incredibly wonderful place. The Gordon Family Trust is also part of that community. We've been here since, well, I don't know, 1960, 1963. So, we've been quite a while. You know, Andrew Gordon, federal judge, appointed for life at district court. My brother John Gordon's an attorney as well. My sister-in-law Katie Gordon's an attorney. She helps defend against uh people that are prosecuting doctors and trying to win cases against them. We're part of the Gordon family trust 800 Troder Circle. Like Arty said, we're for this development subject to some conditions, but we also agree with your own planning commission staff that the variances be denied at this time. How come? Well, let's see. We're all interested in this. The community has sidewalks that are wide enough to allow horses to go through. The city of Las Vegas put up a great sandstone sign that says what? Equestrian estates. It's all zoned for horses. We don't have any dead horses you need to remove. The horses that are there we like to take care of. The flipping ranch used to be up on Campbell and Pinto and they used to raise cutting horses there. All kinds of great things

have happened there. The equestrian estates needs to maintain and keep the current requirements that the law requires without a bunch of variances. Variances A through A, A through J, those are 10 variances that do not conform with Title 1906. Item K, it does not allow, it says no, don't allow the requirement for off-site improvements. Well, our presenters said nobody brought up off-site improvements. They said, "Yes, we want to keep this a rural area, including the paths, the bridal paths that are next to that area." If you look along here, the Gordon Family Trust has got 300 ft, 100 yards worth of land that goes along this area backing up against this property. They want a variance to make sure the drainage is not appropriate and is lower than required drainage. We say no, that's not a good idea. Flood control all throughout the valley is a major issue. And now you want to take five acres of property and provide flood control that goes right on into Palamino without making the drainage ditch and walls big enough. So we say nope, we want to deny that variance. What else? The tenative map for where the development property is going to be along in here. What's the plan for how the actual properties are going to be divided up? We don't know. We'd love to see it. Had a meeting last week. Couldn't present it then. Love to see it now. They've been planning this for a couple of years. How come we can't see what the plan is for where the lots alone are going to be in that area? Not a good idea. Your own staff recommends denial of this. We also say don't do it. Deny it because you haven't figured out what the full plan is. Have them submit more detailed plans. have them say what the advances are going to actually be for and why they're required. Thank you for your

time. Any questions? Appreciate all your work. I don't know if I can follow that, but uh Terry Helms uh 800 Campbell Drive. I live in the neighborhood. Uh Helms Holmes LLC and Terry Helms Helms Helps Foundation. Um, I bought my property because I have a 10car garage and next to me he built a garage in the back and he's got six cars and across from me he's got two garages in the back and the guy next to me has got three garages. So, we like to bring cars into the neighborhood and we like to have big properties to put an 80 foot lot in. Take out 24 feet for a garage, 12 foot for an entry, and 20 more feet for setbacks, and you got 24 feet or 22 feet left for a house. Uh, I don't see how that fits anywhere in this neighborhood for that size. If I was a developer and the builder for this, I would design a house and put a large section in the back. They have 300 feet to put garages. I'm also an investor in stack auto where they're building garages that are million and plus for people that don't have garages. So to me, you can make the house look really nice in the front, put big garage in back and not be 80 ft. That's Thank you. Good evening. My name is John O'Reilly. I'm here as a property owner at 313 Pin Lane and at 619 Campbell. Was mentioned the Flipping Ranch. Just as an aside, that's the corner of uh Campbell and Pino. That's one of the lots that I own,

one of the houses I owned. And just by comparison, the house that's on there is still functional. It was probably built before about the same time as the dilapidated houses uh are that we're talking about uh on Shetland. uh the houses are could have been maintained, could have been restored, could have been usable. So I think uh Mr. Nathan's concerns about tearing the houses down as a priority is, you know, clearly a priority, but it's certainly not of a justification for the variances that are not compatible with the existing zoning. uh from a standpoint of uh what's in the neighborhood I think and what's been committed by the city I think it's pretty obvious as we look at uh what the neighborhood has been blessed with with the sign from the city equestrian estates a historic neighborhood historic community that's a city sign that's a commitment the city has made to those of us in the neighborhood and to the neighborhood as a whole it's maybe a hundred yards or less from the beginning of these these properties. Um, as I look at the applications and consider the recommendation of the staff, it seems to be pretty obvious that just by the signage itself that shows the number of variances that have been requested that it's not compatible. As I think as we look at in more detail the issues, there's no legal justification for these. I find this somewhat difficult to be here in opposition because Andrew Molasi is a friend and a neighbor. Uh the Malaski family have been friends for years. Um the Jones family Tyler and many of the Jones family are friends and have been for years. So it's not a personal thing. It's one that I think is very important to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. Uh that is uh one experiencing I think some of its best times in its history. If you haven't

taken the time to walk down, ride down, stroll down Pinnol Lane and the surrounding areas, look at some of the gems that have come up and look at Pinnol Lane, how it's developed, which is significant because this zoning and uh these variances, as we talked about the other night, could very well be a precedent for the wind property, which is directly across from we live on Pinnol Lane. Uh significance. So, as you talk about the legal significance of this, is there any real necessity? Could they comply? Yes. Are they? No. Is it a self-imposed hardship? Absolutely yes. There's no other hardship there that they've inherited they couldn't deal with. Is it compatible with the neighborhood? If it was compatible with the neighborhood, they wouldn't need all the variances. And is there a precedent risk? Absolutely. And if uh you would or the city council, whoever would ultimately make the decision, grant all these variances, it would create a precedent for this entire neighborhood that would be devastating to the values. On our block alone, there's one house that's up for sale for $10 million. There's another one that I don't know what the price is, but it's somewhere in that same range. So, what you're talking about a block away are some incredibly valuable properties to add to the ones that have been there for years and those of us that have treasured the neighborhood for years. And we built our house from scratch many decades ago, raised four kids there. Um, and uh again, treasure the lifestyle, treasure the neighborhood. uh and I hope that uh you will uh cherish it as we do and cherish the commitment the city has made to this historic neighborhood. As a procedural matter, I would indicate to you that as I've indicated to Commissioner Rogan. Uh I uh called today to see if this was on still on. I was told by staff that it was held in a band. So, the number of people that are

here that uh may or may not uh be speaking are very minor compared to those that were at the community meeting the other night. None of whom except for one speaker was in favor of it. And I would say that if I look at uh Mr. and Nathan who was the first commentary when he said uh we're we we're in favor of the development we want us to bullharon but we don't want the density and I think that uh that in essence is an opposition to all of the variances that have been requested so we ask you to consider uh the significance of this to this historic neighborhood and to the community and to those of us who invested many decades of our life and many millions of dollars into this neighborhood. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Good evening. I'm Christina Pickering and I live at 258 Pinto Lane which is at the corner of Pinto in Shetland. Um I've lived in that neighborhood for 35 years before I lived in the Pinto Lane house. We lived on Palamino. So I'm well familiar with the neighborhood and its historic significance. This neighborhood is one that is, as the the the sign shows, equestrian states, an historic neighborhood. It is zoned precisely to preserve that rural heritage. And those of us who live in that neighborhood have worked hard to get along with the neighbors to work together to preserve our neighborhood and the the the feel that it has. It is not an HOA governed neighborhood. We converse among ourselves and we resolve issues that arise in the neighborhood as as and when they arise. I was really distressed by the number of variances that are sought associated with this. It is an instance of the camel's nose coming under the tent. There will be more variances. They will be looking for additional variances not just on this project but the project that my friend and neighbor um John O'Brien just alluded to on the wind property on Pinto Lane directly. It's a test run on that. Um and I don't think it's appropriate to start having halfacre um zoning changes and retaining wall changes and variances. Once you do that, then we have precedent that sets a rule for the next one. Well, they did it in that case. We should be allowed to do it in this case. The neighborhood no longer lives by its historic equestrian estates status. Um, that's a monumental change to shift what we have and what we've

tried to preserve. It's an uneven neighborhood. The property values vary from house to house. Um, but the fact of the matter is it is a neighborhood and it's a valued neighborhood. We're committed to one another. We're committed to maintaining the historic character of the neighborhood. And this represents a direct intrusion on it. I was heartened to read your staff's recommendations and the reason for it on the on the multiple variances that were sought because they went through item by item that they did not meet the legal standards required to get a variance. In this instance, the hardships that they're citing are hardships that they themselves have created. And they are not hardships that need to be addressed on mass. It is not one unique property. Um rather they're seeking multiple variances in order to shift this neighborhood to a situation where you have much smaller lots with homes that are built close to the lot lines and you lose the entire rural feel that this neighborhood has. Um, I ask you to honor your staff's recommendations and to deny this um, request all of these requests for variances. And I would point out the question occurred to me as I was listening to the first speaker who said, "I've I'm I'm in support of this because the houses that are on Shetland that were sold have stood vacant and are now in disrepair." Well, who has owned those houses and allowed that situation to occur? And I would submit that in all likelihood, it is the applicant themselves that are creating the situation that is now being complained of. Um, that's an additional reason for me to oppose this request not to support it. So, thank you very much for your time and attention and your consideration of these recommendations. I really encourage you to deny these variances. Thank you.

Thank you. And I just want to make a note for any other additional speakers, please come down and give your name for the record. But just in the interest of time and keeping the meeting running, we just ask to limit any redundant comments. Thank you. Hi, my name is Judy Santleman. I live at 2550 Palamino Lane. I am sort of kitty corner across from um this development. I have lived in this neighborhood actually close to this neighborhood and in it for since 1959. Uh my husband and I bought our home at 2550 Palomino which is on the corner of Shetland and Palamino. We're like right right here. um in 1976 and we cherish this neighborhood. Um it is unique. It is historic. Some of the most important movers and shakers in our town have lived in this neighborhood. Uh people used to uh come to Las Vegas to live in this neighborhood. This is where they came. The school um was one of the best in the county. So, I would I would agree with the last two speakers completely. They said everything that's in my heart. We need to keep this a a a historic neighborhood with homes that look like, in my opinion, homes, not office buildings. And I would certain I know Blue Heron makes great homes, but this is not the neighborhood for them. and certainly not to decrease the size of the lots, the setbacks. The drainage looks like it's going to come right out on practically onto my property that they propose. So, I I hope

that you will honor what your staff has said and what the the neighborhood feels. Yes, I know there's a real problem with those homes. something needs to be done, but this is not the development for our neighborhood and certainly not setting a precedent for other parts of the neighborhood, including the wind property and and others. So, thank you very much for your consideration.

Good evening. My name is Mark Wolson. I live on 279 Pinto Lane. Unlike some of the previous um speakers, I haven't lived here for 30 some odd years. Sorry, real quick. Can you spell your last name? WFso N. Thank you.

Um I haven't lived here for 35 years. I have been here for about eight. And I did build my house on Pinto Lane from one that was in pretty good disrepair and I kept it to the consistency of the neighborhood which I liked. But what I like doesn't necessarily mean that is what needs to be. There's a house across the street from me that is very much in the vein of what the Blue Heron homes are. It's very modernistic style home. Do I like it? Not necessarily, but it's there. I think we should look at this in some way, not in the absolute. And that's what I think some of the previous speakers are talking about. Let's not do this. Well, the question isn't let's not do this. is is what can we do? I mean the first speaker I agreed with wholeheartedly. The place looks like hell. Now the last speaker did make a point. The reason it looks like hell is because the prior owner who's bringing this action is responsible for that. But it's been sitting like that way for four years and I don't know how many more years it's going to sit if this development doesn't happen in some way, shape or form. Now, I brought up the point at the um neighborhood meeting. There were eight houses there. Now, they want to make 10. Could they make nine and it would be close enough? It's not going to change the density. Could they set them back better? Sure. Could they put the garage in them? There are ways to make this work. Uh with regard to the style of the home, the houses that are going up now in my neighborhood and their neighborhood are more on the more modernistic side than they were in the past. It's called progress. It's called difference difference difference of opinion. Will it be a precedent for the wind property? Here's another situation that is a disaster. This also needs to be addressed. I have spoken with my neighbors who don't want anything to be done that way. We're looking at 13 acres or whatever it is of

dirt. So, we need to look at this not in the absolute but in what can happen. If we're going to stick to the rules that were done 35, 40 years ago, which are nice, which is why we bought here, then we are doomed to look at dirt on the wind property for decades perhaps. And in this place, maybe not that long, but you need to find a developer who wants to sell lot by lot by lot by lot. If the winds wanted to do that, they wouldn't have torn down all the houses. They chose not to. So that's my opinion. I think there's compromise here, and there should be compromise here. I think that if you look at going from 10 houses to nine when there are eight, dealing with the setbacks and the garages in the back, maybe there's a way to fix this and make that neighborhood look a lot nicer than it sure as hell does now. That's all I have to say. Thank you.

Good evening. Uh my name is uh Chris CR last name Andrew Fay A N D R A S F A Y. I live at 825 Shhatland. That's two doors down from the development that's proposed. Um my main problem, the major major objection is the width of the parcels, the width of the new parcels. It may not seem like a lot, but you know 15 to 20% narrower. And it's not just one parcel. We're talking two, three, four, nine, 10 parcels. That's that's a lot of thinning, thinning, thinning, thinning. So everything is some people call them trackhomes, some people call them cookie cutters. No matter how nice or beautiful you may think they are, they're still narrow and they're nothing like the majority of the houses, almost all of them in that neighborhood. So does something need to be done? Do homes need to be there? Yes. Um, Mr. Molasi for four years has not done what he mentioned he would do, but that's beside the point. There were eight homes on that property. There still are eight homes. Yeah, they're dilapidated. Yeah, they're they're they could be fixed, but they're not. So, when we go from eight to 10, what happens? It's it's it's destin it's density problem. But the other problem is using the variance to make these changes. I mean the staff said it very well in how they described a variance, but a variance is for small things. It's, you know, a foot on your fence. It's, you know, okay, the property screwy. Let's fix it. So, but there's we can do that with a parcels. Just redivide the parcels. Some are thin, some are huge. Just redivide the eight. You already have it. You won't even need a variance. It should all be fixed simply that way. Uh, that's my opinion. And uh thank you for a lot of

people from the neighborhood that I don't really know as well as I should, but um thank you for being here and thank you for your time. Hello, I'm Alice Hartling. H A R T L I N G. I live at 825 Shhatland. Uh, we've been in the neighborhood for 15 years in Vegas since the 90s and I know Mr. Molasi and I understand what his original concept was for all of those lots that he bought one at a time. He basically financially bullied any single family home buyer that potentially might might have wanted to live on our street. Um, and his plans of course fell through. And now this, what they're trying to do is basically just make millions and millions of dollars on my street, which should be available to single family home buyers to build their dream home to renovate what's already there. We don't need 10 lots. The eight lots that are there are fine. Um, there's nothing rural about Blue Heron buildings. There's nothing um equestrian estates about them either. So, uh, please deny the variances. Thank you.

Good evening, everyone. My name is Brian Plaster. I'm at 2694 Palamino Lane, directly across the street from this project. So, my house is going to be more affected by this project than any other project uh than any other uh home. And uh what I'd also like to say point out is that my home width is 75 ft wide and the homes that they're asking for 82 feet wide. So, there is an absolute precedent in the neighborhood already. There's two lots directly across the street that are only 75 ft wide. And uh the amount of times I've seen people trying to break into the vacant homes directly across the street is enough to bother me quite a bit and makes me angry that uh I think some of my other neighbors are even protesting this at all because this is the best thing that could possibly happen to our neighborhood. We need this in our neighborhood. Um, I don't think it uh disturbs the character of the neighborhood at all because the homes are going to fit in with a lot of the other homes. Uh, right on uh Shetland, there's a h enormous home, 15,000 square feet that looks like an office building. So, all the Blue Heron homes will look significantly better than those than that house. Um, but I just want to voice my full support for this project. All the variances, everything. I think Blue Heron does a great job building and I support this project 100%. Thank you. Good evening, commission. Rick Baron, Stone Assets, 2684 Palamino, also direct directly across from the subject property. Uh I um in adhering to not repeating a lot of the same items. The previous um property owner stated 75 foot width. We're at 77 foot width. There's definitely a precedence in the area for wid for lots that are narrower than the required amount and I want to also express full support for the project. Thank you. Maggie Plaster, uh 2694 Palamino Lane.

My husband just spoke. Um I just want to say that I'm also fully in support of the project. There's been a lot of talk about this being designated rural and equestrian estates. And while I know that that is the designation and it's called equestrian states, I have not seen a horse riding on the streets in that neighborhood in a very long time. It doesn't feel rural. Sometimes I tell people I live downtown. Now, I know that's a stretch, but it's still I mean, we are in the middle of a city. Um, I have lived there for 17 years. A neighborhood came out and opposed our house, said we were going to decrease property values in the area. Our house is lovely. Lots of people like it. It is the same footprint as the ones Blue Heron wants to build. So, I'm in full support of the project. I actually think it's going to raise our property values to have these houses across the street. And I want to thank Mr. Molasi and Blue Heron for their plans to improve our neighborhood.

And may the applicant come down and you can answer some of the concerns.

Well, thanks. And I would just like to start by thanking the neighbors. I I know there's it's a very special area. There's a whole mix of opinions and a mix of homes down there and it takes it takes a village to to keep your neighborhood the way you want it. So I appreciate everyone's input and obviously you can hear from their input. It's varied. Um I'm going to just start with the variances for the lot width and the the code requirements with respect to variances. Um, in your staff report, it specifically says that when you have a reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowess, or a shape of a specific piece of property at the time of a regulation, that's the purpose for why you would apply for a variance. So, never have I seen a property that's probably more applicable than here because all of these lots would require a variance today with the eight lots. Also across the street, as was just mentioned, you can see there's at least four immediately across the street that don't meet that 100 ft variance. So I think it's it's arguably and easily within your discretion and your purview to grant those variances because there is precedent in the area and this property is a very narrow shaped parcel. Um, from a density standpoint, I just want to remind everyone it's not a question of density tonight. We comply with the density. We're at 1.93 units per acre, which is well within what is allowed by code, what is consistent with the area. Um, in fact, we have room to go up if we wanted to go up a little bit. The master plan allows up to 2.5 units per acre. So, um, we're at 1.93 10 lots on five acres, which is a completely appropriate and compatible with the area. Um the variances for the walls I want to hit on real quickly because um your public works department was kind enough to share when we were having all the discussions about

drainage the fact that this is actually Troder Court to the east. There's an existing drainage easement that's still on record from way back in the 80s that sure would be useful for us to use. There's a house that sits on top of it. So we're not able to use it unfortunately. And because there's a house sitting on top of that, we have to drain all the way to the street. If we were able to use that easement or even another easement to take the water that flows through Troder Court where it was intended to go, we wouldn't need those variances for the increased wall heights. So, the drainage situation, unfortunately, when you do infill like this, it's difficult to develop a property and drain the property accordingly. There's drainage laws that we can't evade and get around. And so, um, we have to make sure that this property drains properly and that's the reason for the the wall variances. Fortunately, your your public works department is so wonderful. They were able to work out um the situation where we could withdraw that variance along the eastern property line, which is a huge um huge thing. We can withdraw that tonight. That was variance 15L, leaving the only wall heights on lot one. Um, which gets me back to Mr. fish who is south of that. He didn't speak, but he is here. And I think it's important that we address that wall height because he is very much impacted by this. The the lot widths, the precedents there. I think it's appropriate if these homes were coming in today, they would need that same variance as well as a whole slew of other homes in the area. The walls are are important for us to address, and I think it's this southern wall that's the most important. So, we're happy to add trees um in his yard. we could buy them and and in have them installed so he doesn't have to do that himself and um I'm happy to consider whatever condition you seem you you think is appropriate for that. Finally, I just wanted to

touch quickly on the um re standards because I do want to remind everyone we are meeting the setback requirements. So that's an important thing that you also see in the neighborhood often are variances for setbacks. Um, a 50-foot front yard setback is a huge setback and we're meeting that. Um, so these homes will feel just like the rest of the neighborhood with a humongous front yard 50- foot setback. The rear yards are 35 minimum. We'll have way exceed that because we have some that are 300 feet in length. So these are huge lots. Um, the minimum sideyard setback is 10 feet. Not just for these properties, but for every property in the entire neighborhood. That's the the setback requirement. So you don't see variances for that. The homes fit on the property. They're going to be very large, beautiful homes, 4,000 to 6,000 square foot. Beautiful homes with multiple car garages. Someone mentioned cars. They'll be on this property, but they're going to be inside the garages. Um there will not be an HOA, so it'll fit right in with the community. There's no need for an HOA. People will build these lots that, you know, choose their lots, choose their homes. They're sort of semicustom homes and this will be their dream home just like everyone else is in the neighborhood. So, I'm excited and proud to represent Blue Heron coming into this neighborhood. They comply. It's always perplexing to me when people oppose something that actually complies and fits in with the density in the neighborhood. Um the the character of the actual elevation and and product type is again that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I personally think Blue Heron does a beautiful product and they're going to put a whole different several different models on the property. So, it's not going to be this the same home. It's not going to feel like a subdivision. They will all be different. Um, and I think it'll really improve and enhance the area. With respect to the demolition, we're happy to demo the homes and Blue Heron has

said that they think it'll take at least 60 days to get the permit to do that. So, if that is ai condition for your consideration, we think we can do it within 60 days. 30 days is a little bit short, but um if this is final action tonight, we'll go to work and go try to get that permit and demo those homes. The other thing we had heard is there's concerns with rodents and all kinds of animals that have been on the property. So, we're happy to look at whatever abatement might be necessary so that those critters don't go out into the neighborhood and to someone else's lot. Um, since it sounds like there's all kinds of issues on the property today, we're hoping to improve that and make this a great addition to the neighborhood that's harmonious and compatible with what's existing. And we'd ask for your approval.

Thank you. And with that, I turn it over to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Rogan.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Miss Grauer, for coming out. And thank you for the neighbors to come out tonight as well as those that came to the neighborhood meeting last week and for everyone that's texted or emailed or called that I've had conversations with about this project. Um most in opposition, some in support. I do want to address why I am going to support this tonight because I think it's important given what the comments have been and I think the staff's initial report this evening is is a clue to to where I'm coming from. This is an area of town that is rural and there's two types of zoning uh zoning districts that can go in there. RE, which is what most which is what you have now, and RD. Those are consistent with the master plan land use designation for this area. So that means they could have come in and asked for RD zoning. RDzoning means different front yard setbacks and it means different sideyard setbacks. RE has a 50- foot front yard setbacks. RE has 10-ft sideyard setbacks. RD has a 25- foot front yard setback and five foot sideyard setbacks. So, if they had come in and asked is this as this their right for RD zoning here, that would have significantly changed the character of your neighborhood because those homes would have been much closer to the street, much wider. It would have appeared much more dense. And they didn't do that. What they've done is come in and asked for the same density that is allowed under RE, but with the lot widths of RD. And they did that to preserve the look and feel of the neighborhood because they're meeting the same exact front yard setbacks and sideyard setbacks that exist today, but they're getting one extra home. And I don't think that's too unreasonable in looking and and some of the major concerns that were raised tonight and that were raised in the neighborhood

meeting is the the number of variances for the lot widths. And it's been brought up that we want to preserve large lot widths and and as many have mentioned tonight in these older neighborhoods including my neighborhood I live in McNeel. Even if you're re you're a lot of these homes were built before it was 100 foot lot width standard and many of the homes of that you live in that have spoken tonight I've been checking all along Campbell all along Kenny all along Lacy it's a 90 foot lot width but those are zoned RE2 so we're talking about just a few feet difference from what they're asking exists today in re zone ing in your neighborhood as in my in my neighborhood. I live on a house I live in a house that's very similar to what's going to be built here. My lot width is 92 feet. The length is 250 ft. I don't think that my lot makes my neighborhood look any worse than I think that these lots are going to look like when when and if they're built. So, I'm not super concerned about that lot width. Um, and again, the density has been met. So, all in all, I'm I'm I'm very supportive of the idea of getting rid of those homes that have been a problem, having some new development in there that remains. I don't think that Blue Heron is going to build a product that's going to be bringing down your home values. If anything, I think it was said these homes are going to be what three to five million each. Is that correct?

Closer to six, probably. So, we're not talking about a project that's that's coming in and building cookie cutter size houses or type houses that are going to um you know, totally detract from the neighborhood. The one thing that I do want to bring up and and I agree with some of the comments tonight is the architectural style is not consistent with equestrian estates. It's not consistent with the ranchstyle homes that are there today. And you're 100% correct. You're not. But as Justice Pickering pointed out and some of you else have pointed out, there's no HOAs in this neighborhood that have architectural standards. You have multiple different styles of homes in your neighborhoods from contemporary to mid-century to ranch style. And we can't control that as the government. That's without that HOA, you can build whatever style home you want. And that comes as a blessing for some and as a curse to others because as one of you mentioned, uh, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So all in all, I think that they've even though it looks like there's a lot of variances that are being requested, that was intentional. And that again, that was intentional to preserve those front and sideyard setbacks that make that help to make equestrian estates what it is. Um, if again if they'd come in with RD, I think you'd be looking at a a different style of development that I don't think I would like and certainly that I don't think that that you would like. The one concern that I've had with throughout this entire proposal has been those wall heights and perimeter wall heights and they've addressed that. Um, and that was at my request and Lucian did a great job, um, as well as Tanny Engineering to come and figure out how can we lower those wall heights because we were looking at some substantial wall heights, especially along Trotter Circle. Um, and they were able to bring that down by 3 feet. So, they don't need that variance anymore. So, it's

consistent with the zoning code except for that one lot at the southernmost end. But again, that's because someone built a home over the flood easement that was planned for and place and put in place um 40 years ago, 45 years ago. So, I I hope that you're not upset with the decision that I'm making tonight, but it is well thought out and I I hope well reasoned and I hope that you understand it even if if you disagree with it. My hope is that the Blue Heron homes that are built um you'll be pleased with. I hope that you'll accept those neighbors that that move into those homes and and help be and become a part of your community. I don't think that once those homes are built and those neighbors move in that that you'll you'll regret this decision. But I do believe that this is consistent with the zoning code. And I don't believe the variances that are requested are so out of line that they should be rejected. So, those are my comments. I don't know if anyone else has any other comments. Nope. All right. So, with that, now Miss Grenau, you're withdrawing without prejudice uh item 15 L.

Yes. All right. 2600027 V12. Okay. So with regard to agenda item 15, that's uh project 26-000027 for sub items 15A through 15K as well as 15M. I will move for approval subject to all staff's conditions and you agree with those conditions? I do. Did we want to add a condition for landscaping? Okay. We cannot because you're you're proposing to put some trees on property that does not belong to the applicant. So,

I have to rely on that. You're going to follow through with that promise to provide those those trees or those shrubberies, whatever he's requesting. And and you promise? I promise. We will work with Mr. Fish. Um, we've been talking to him already. I'll connect him with Blue Heron and we'll make sure he gets some trees or landscaping along that wall. Okay. Thank you. Yes. So, that's my motion. Thank you. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Madam Chair, items 15 A through K and 15M are final action unless appealed to the city clerk within 10 days.

That brings us to agenda items 1626-00008 B1. Applicant owner Jorge Julio de Alivera Jr. for possible 15. Got it. Sorry. We are reopening 15 L for a motion. Is the proper motion a motion to deny or a motion if it's all right. I move to withdraw 15 L without prejudice.

Motion carries. Moving on to agenda item 1626-00008 V1 applicant owner Jorge Julio de Alivera Jr. for possible action on a land use entitlement project requests to allow an existing home addition that does not conform to title 19.06 development standards for setbacks at 7508 Pinedale Avenue. Staff may please get the report. Madame Chair, the requested variance is the result of an open code enforcement case that cited an unpermitted addition to a residential home that does not meet setback standards. Staff finds that no evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance has been presented to warrant the requested variance. As such, the hardship is self-imposed and staff recommends denial of the variance subject to conditions if approved. Please note that additional letters of protest and support were received after a publication. Thank you. Please state your name for the record.

Larry Sanchez, 7844 Sarinbrook Street, uh representing the Homer as their engineer of record. Um staff, uh I'm here today to request uh a couple of variances. uh one from the rear of the property and um which is encroaching 5T into a 15t rear setback which puts the uh room addition at 10 ft from the rear property. Um the picture shown here is the rear of the property um rear of the I'm sorry the um room edition. This is what it looks like on the interior. Uh it used to be a patio cover and the homeowner uh tried to enclose it and um obviously he needs to get building permits for that. And this is a picture of the side of the room addition that was enclosed or the patio cover that was enclosed. In this diagram here, we show about a 9- foot setback to the eve uh which would be 10 ft wall to wall from property wall to property line wall to wall of the a room addition. And over here we show a twoft distance from the neighbor's property line to the eve of the roof. But in actuality from the block wall to the wall would be actually 2 and 1/2 ft.

Um, currently the neighbor has um received support of this um uh waiverss. Uh this neighbor to the I believe it'd be to the east would be a neighbor uh at 7504 Pinedale. Um and they are in support of such room addition which is encroaching into the 5- foot setback. Um and we are asking staff to please allow us to continue to bring this to uh the building department. We are under the understanding that this wall here would have to be fire rated as possible as the roof because it's inside the 5- foot setback. Thank you. This item has been noticed for public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak at this time? Seeing none, I will close that and I'm going to move on to members of the commission. Starting with Commissioner Rogan.

Thank you, Chair. Um I spoke with the applicant's representative today and we talked through some of these issues. somebody filed a a code complaint because they didn't like the structure. Um, did you happen to talk to the neighbor behind you and find out whether they're supportive of the variance request? Um, according to the homeowner, we did get some uh support from the neighbor behind and I have emailed you since our phone conversation today and to McKenzie uh the planner. Um, the four uh neighbor support letters and I believe one is from the side that I'm pointing to here and then the other two I think one of them is from the back and then some other two here on Huntley.

Okay. All right. My major concern was is that sideyard setback, the rear yard set back, you've got 10 feet that's still there. And in looking at aerial maps of this area, there's there's a lot of folks that have built patio covers and probably some enclosures more likely for storage rather than living um in this area. But, you know, 2 feet and two and a half feet, that's too close for comfort for me. Um you're going to have to tear down that wall anyway because, you know, it's not fire rated. So, I'm quite all right with the the rear yard setback. It's that sideyard setback um that I I just don't think is appropriate. And in looking at the the the justification letter, it looks like they originally enclosed the patio cover to the rear and then added on that office later as well. So, this is it's not too out of line to request that that sideyard setback be denied. Are you okay with that?

Well, um if I can just show you really quick, these are this is what it looks like.

Uh what they have inside is is an office. This is facing uh that window would be facing the front of the house and then this is what it looks like there now. So we would essentially have to take this wall and just move it in a few feet or um according see so building safety says that the wall should be 5t away for fire separation distance. Um, planning and zoning says three feet away. Correct me if I'm wrong on that. Um, but then again, we would have to fire rate it. Currently, the wall wall to wall is 30 in away from face of block wall to face of room edition wall. So, we would have to move it a foot and a half or maybe 6 in to get it at 3 feet, but we'd still fire rate it. So, we're willing to do what's acceptable. Uh the homeowner asked me uh with your permission if it's okay to fire rate not only the wall and they understand what they need to do to that wall to bring in the right assembly as well as the roof. Um but if that's not possible um we would move it over possibly a foot to meet at least 3 feet and then deal with the building safety department for fire separation distance and fire rate the wall as well. You know what? Let's let's trail this if we could, chair, and then I'm just going to go talk to him on the side if you don't mind.

Okay. Thank you. We will trail the item.

So, with that, we are moving on to agenda item 1926-0039, applicant A4 Builders, LLC owner, AG Construction, Inc. for possible action on the following land use entitlement project request at the southeast corner of Wilson Avenue and 10th Street. 19A 26-0039 VAC1 petition to vacate a portion of rightway Wilson Avenue. 19B26-0039 SDR1 for proposed one-story 4-unit multifamily residential development with waiverss of appendix F interim downtown Las Vegas development standards area 2. Staff may please get the report. Madame Chair, staff does not support a non-uniform vacation of Wilson Street as this will create varying street widths. In addition, staff does not support exceptions for trees. One of the 2050 master plans key actions is to plant 60,000 high quality trees to combat the urban heat island effect. Due to this proposal resulting in an irregular street width and fewer trees, staff is recommending denial of the requested vacation and site development plan review. Thank you.

Please state your name for the record. Robert Cunningham, 6030 South Jones Boulevard with Tann Engineering representing the applicant.

All right. First, I'm going to address the vacation first. So, this is our property in red right here. And what we're requesting to vacate is approximately 10 ft of Wilson adjacent to our site here. What staff's indicated and why they recommend denial of it is because that it would create a saw to pattern to the rideaway along the street. And what I'd like to point out is that that sawtooth pattern already exist. And I think this is one more puzzle piece into trying to uh get all of the adjacent properties to ultimately vacate the 10 ft. So I've highlighted here all of various different properties where the 10 foot has already been vacated. And there's actually vacation numbers labeled on each of these. So you can see that there's four different properties here or this is actually two but four different sections of this block from 9inth to Maryland where this has already occurred. So we would be adding to it which would actually help out I believe and and getting almost half of the properties between here and here with the area vacated. the area. This is an older area. It was built in the 1950s and60s. And they've left an area between the back of the sidewalk in the property somewhere around 13 to 15 ft in width. Most of the adjacent properties, even those that haven't vacated it, have developed it in some fashion. And so what we're asking to do is to be able to vacate that, make it the responsibility of the property so that we could come in and develop that portion of the site. With that, I will show you what we're proposing. So, here is the proposed site plan. It is a forplex building, singlestory, 16 ft in height with uh two-bedroom units. It has four parking spaces off of the alley. And then the green area that's not hatched is basically our lot and it's about 5t from this property line to the proposed building and another 5t from this property line to the proposed building. But then beyond that, there are right away that we're trying to vacate here.

uh this area we'd like to vacate and have it be incorporated into the lot so that it could be owned by this property. The area outside of this if it's amanable to the city, we would also get a license and maintenance agreement and agree to landscape it. We did not submit that in our request because that's not property we control and own. But if this board sees fit that that's maybe how they would like us to proceed, we would gladly do that. would like to show you our proposed landscape plan because there were some requests for waiverss of trees and as I indicated that was mainly due to not having enough room here on our property to propose a tree. So the proposed landscaping and the trees that we're proposing are in the vacated area here to keep them adequately away from the building. You're not supposed to plant trees within a 5-ft stretch or less adjacent to a building. Uh so this would allow the property owner it themselves to actually plant the required number of trees along this section of street on this section of street over here on 10th. We did not request the variance or I'm sorry the vacation of it as no one else on this entire street has proposed to vacate it. But if the planning commission in the city would allow, we would gladly landscape this and plant the required number of trees on the city property if a license and maintenance agreement could be entered into with the city for that. That's the general um overview of the project. I'd be happy to answer any additional questions uh that the board may have. Thank you.

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

Hi, thank you. Yes, we have spoke about this property. I um I understand the intent of to vacate and in looking at the other properties, you're correct. There are several along the street uh including the next door neighbors who have not come before here and asked for uh uh to vacate where they have built a wall and trees and others. Uh and then in the next block there are several that have already that have already requested this and um gotten approval for it. So, um I am inclined to support that that um that particular element. Uh I do appreciate the trees and adding that in um and bringing that. So, I want to make sure that that is part of the the final um approval because it is necessary to have that landscaping in there. Um and because there is not other vacations on the other edge, defer to my colleagues.

Well, seeing no other questions on the commission, Commissioner Walters, are you prepared to make a motion? I'm I make a motion to approve with the trees. And what do I have? On item 19, 19A, and 19B.

Can I ask for a condition to be read into the record? Yes, Steph, can you help read into the record? Uh, through you, Madam Chair. I can take this one. As far as the landscaping, it's it's actually already a condition. Cond condition 21 of the site development review. It says to landscape. If you want specific landscape, you may have to specify that today, but condition 20 21 already requires landscaping and ma maintenance of the unimproved rideway portion. So, the area behind the sidewalk and where the property line is is their maintenance responsibility and they will have to do a license agreement to do that. But we don't have any specific direction as far as what type of landscaping in the unimproved rightway.

Um Madam Chair, can I ask a question? Um Mr. Cunningham, would you be amendable to a condition such that we have done in the past on projects where we have a designation of a type, you know, like the fast growing large trees with the caliber width above grade. Would you be comfortable with that or were you looking for specific direction on species?

Sure. No, we have no problem. I just want to point this out. We could plant the code required landscaping in the city property here if the license and maintenance agreement if that's acceptable to the city. There is a condition as Lucian pointed out requiring a license maintenance agreement. We just aren't allowed to show the landscaping off our property if that makes sense. This is city property. So if this board says yes, if you can plant the required code landscaping in the rideway adjacent to your site, we gladly will do that if that's acceptable and allowable through the license maintenance agreement. Mr. Patt, is there something that needs to be put in the record to allow that?

Um, Madam Chair, I don't believe anything needs to be added to the record for this. They've acknowledged it on the record and through the administrative process of the license agreement, they will have, I think, allowable trees. They I don't I don't believe they're allowed to show that in the public hearing for the site development review because it's technically off their property. So, it's more something that happens administratively. I don't know how to specify like again I'm not sure how we specify. They can you maybe give them direction as far as what type of trees you want and they can acknowledge that they will do that and when the license agreement goes to the administrative review they can show those trees. That's that's my suggestion. Commissioner, if I could jump in. Condition 21, like Lucian indicated, says landscape and maintain all unimproved right ofway adjacent to the site. So, I think condition 21 covers the request to have landscaping on the the north and west portion of the rightway adjacent to the uh to the uh gentleman's property.

Okay. So, that covers the permission to do it on the city land, right? Yes. Okay. But then can we get a condition that is again one that Mr. Cunningham helped me craft um that says that he will plant fast fast growing large trees off the SNWA list that are 3 in at cal 3-in calipers at 6 in above grade. Are you comfortable with that, Mr. Cunningham? Yeah, we have no no issue with that. If that's the direction of the board, we'll work with the city through the license and maintenance agreement process when this gets approved.

Okay. So then can that get added in or not or is that something that gets added in at licensing? I think it can be added to kitchen 21 if you want to specify that trunk diameter dimension. You know trees trees to be installed in the unapproved redway area shall conform to a shall be fast growing large trees off the SNWA plant list with a 3-in caliper at 6 in above grade. Okay. Planning you have that for the revised condition? Miss Edetos knows that condition really well.

Madame Chair, through you. Um, I crafted up something. I will read it and you can let me know if this will satisfy everyone's uh wants and needs. Um, it would read upon f upon approval of a license agreement, fast growing 36 inch box shade trees with a minimum 3-in trunk calipiber measured 6 in from the base of the trunk shall be planted every 20 ft on center with four fivegallon shrubs for every required tree within the vacated rightaway. Will that satisfy I I would just say take the vacated out right away out just because some of it's not being vacated.

Okay. Yeah, I'll just take that part out.

Madam Chair, through you. I think that is sufficient. Great. And also I would remind that this item is not final action. It is going to city council. So there is additional time to work out additional agreements or specifications as needed. So, um I certainly support the project as well. And Commissioner Walters, are you prepared to make a motion with the additional um staff red record? I am. I make a motion to approve uh agenda item 19 A and B with sub subject to staff conditions. And then read, do you agree to all staff conditions?

Yes, I agree to all conditions. I do have one question on that last condition. Um, I'd like to work with the text, the exact text out of it out with staff before the city council meeting if that's possible because there's a few things in there like the 36 inch box usually doesn't have to be put in there if you put the caliper in and a few other things if that's okay. Madam Chair, you can take out the 36 inch box size. The caliber will still dictate the size of the tree. I think that sounds good, Commissioner Walters. That sounds good.

All right, let me reread this for the clerks. This will be an added condition to the SDR. So, that would be number 19B. And it would read, "Upon approval of a license agreement, fast growing shade trees with a minimum 3in trunk caliper measured 6 in from the base of the trunk shall be planted every 20 ft on center with four fivegallon shrubs for every required tree." Madam Chair, just one quick clarification if I may. Sorry. Um, Miss Edetos, is that fast growing, large, comma, shade trees? Because that's usually how the language is is fast growing and large.

We can add large. Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Cunningham. Thank you. The clerks, would you like me to read that again? We're good. Okay. Commissioner Walters, would you like to make the updated motion?

Yes, I'll try again. Uh, I would like to motion to approve uh agenda item 19A and B with staff conditions. And do you agree to all staff conditions? Yes, I agree to all staff's conditions and the added condition by Commissioner Taylor. Thank you. Thank you. So that would be subject to amended conditions. Yes.

Thank you. Thank you. Motion carries. Madame Chair, that item will move forward to the May 20th, 2026 city council meeting. Thank you.

Thank you. With that, we move on to agenda item 2126-0053. Applicant Jean Pere Puron, owner Jewelry and Minerals of Las Vegas Atal, for possible action on the following land use entitlement project request generally bounded by Sahara Avenue, Sanorita Drive, and Santa Paula Drive 21A 26-0053 GPA1 from Lowdensity Residential to TOC2 transit oriented corridor Low APN 16203415 021 022 027 and 028 21B 26- 0053 Z1 from R1 single family residential PR professional office and parking and C1 limited commercial to C2 general commercial 21 C 26-0053 VR1 to allow 14 parking spaces where 29 are required 21D 26-0053 V2 to allow proposed commercial building that does not conform to tile 19.08 08 development standards for setbacks and residential adjacency setbacks. 21E26-0053 SDR1 for proposed three-story 37,000t commercial development with waiverss of the perimeter landscape buffer requirements. Staff may please get the report.

Yes, Madam Chair. Regarding the general plan amendment, staff finds the addition of the four lowdensity residential designated properties will further redevelopment goals of transit oriented development and is compatible with other transit oriented corridor designated properties along Sahara Avenue. Staff recommends approval of the general plan amendment request for the remaining applications before you. Staff finds a proposed development is an attempt to spot zone as the nearest C2 zone properties are approximately 700 ft west of the subject sites. While the proposed development is generally oriented towards the Sahara Avenue with parking facil facilities largely screen from view, variances, waivers, and exceptions of title 19 requirements indicate an attempt to overdevelop the site. As such, staff recommends denial of the resoning variances and site development plan review. If approved, the variance and site development plan review will be subject to conditions. Please note, additional letters of support and protest were submitted after publication. Thank you.

Thank you. Please give your name for the record.

My name is David Straight uh 1223 Heather Oaks way and this is Christopher Eckles. We're representing Jean Pierre. Um we started this last fall um trying to resolve some compliance issues that were u created by a complaint. Um, we've we discovered quickly that this 40-year-old business is occupying spaces uh that could have been permitted at one time possibly, but they can't be now. So, there was no way for us to resolve the uh building department and fire department issues other than to agree to redevelop the site. Now since we don't really want to shut down the business and I don't think anybody wants us to, we asked to do this in a three-phase approach. Um what what is it this this portion here is occupied you saw the photos. It's occupied by a bunch of old buildings that are connected together with sun shades and um also they incorporate um sea containers as as built as rooms uh things that cannot be resolved. So what we want to do uh on this side in this corner there is a an old building that used to be a restaurant that was acquired. There are eight parcels involved that all belong to Jean Pierre Piron. Um what we've proposed to do is to develop this side. There's a there's a power line here and a sewer easement here. So we can clear this site. Most it's halfway cleared now, but we'll have to tear down one house in order to do

the fish. The proposal is to build a a three-story building there that will um accommodate most of of what is happening in the existing um uh buildings on on the west side or the east side. When this building is done, we expect to clear the rest of this site and then propose to build this building which would be basically an inventory warehouse. And then later the last phase would be to add this building to expand the business along and and reoccupy the space that is now um the jewelry and minerals of Las Vegas. Um we actually asked for a waiver of 36 parking spaces were or 38 where 46 is is u required. That's because that covers the entire site. We were advised by the uh pretty much everyone that we could not uh get this thing approved without designing all three phases. So we've we've done that. But what we're the waiver that's stated in the staff report is is is just for the first phase. There's 14 spaces there. Uh there's there's probably 14 spaces now in front of the existing building that u are accessed from Santaorita. uh nobody actually accesses this from Sahara but um those spaces will remain functional during the construction of phase one. So we we we really don't need more than 14 spaces

to support this business. It's a it's the walk-in trade is is somewhat sparse. Uh the drive-in trade is is also not heavy. He has a a lot of uh mail order and shipping and uh foreign and uh u other retail sales that are not on site. So his his commercial sales area can be easily accommodated in the ground floor of this first building. Um we I think that the staff has done a excellent job because it got very complicated. We have to uh amend the the we have to do a general plan amendment because some of these u are residential lots now and they we're asking we have to re combine the entire eight lots into one parcel and the proper uh zoning for that is C2. So in order to get Z2 on the whole thing, we have to amend the the uh the uh overlay district. Um I think that the staff's uh analysis is looked to me like it was pretty much positive. I understand that they're not allowed to uh recommend approval of a variance or waiver, but I I think that this when in our neighborhood meeting, we found some support and I don't think anybody's come out to object for so I I I'm open to questions.

Thank you so much. This item has been noticed for public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak on this item at this time? Seeing none, I will turn it over to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Schlottman. Thank you, Madam Chair. If we can see on the overhead, can you um if you point at the trees that are along Santa uh Santaita? Um the white trees. Yeah. Yeah. What what kind of trees are those? And what kind of trees are the other ones uh along Sahara and Santa Paula? And why are they depicted a different color? Well, there are different species. Okay.

Um I don't have the um in the packet we have the landscape plan, but it was basically just a different um code.

All right. Can you find the landscape plan in the overhead? I'm I'm looking. Well, let let let's not worry too much about the the actual species. I just wanted to ensure that um it it was just drawn a little differently than what I'm accustomed to seeing. Let's look at the the map on the north of phase 2, building B. Um all the way on the north side in the parking lot. Will you point at that little uh section along the property line between the parking lot and the uh the property line all the way up uh on on the north side of the property north of phase two?

Yep. Keep going further north. Further further north right there that sk the skinnier part just to to your left. There you go. Um that section right there is that parking or is that just for cars to pull out and turn around or what? Yeah, we have a parking space right here. Okay. And basically, it's it's a way for this car and that car to back out and turn to go this way. Why couldn't those cars back straight out and then then turn and and come? Why didn't they have to turn at a at an angle like that before pulling out? Is that a requirement of our code? It It's not a traffic requirement, but why couldn't we make that?

Would you prefer to have landscaping? I would prefer to have a a a wide uh landscape buffer going all the way down and to have trees protecting from that residential lot to this commercial property. Madame Chair, through you for 90° parking, we do require um a vehicle to be able to make that curve back up and not go straight. So that is a code requirement and why that um particular portion of the landscape buffer was made so narrow. And so there's no way to get around that. Well, we

um through you chair, madame chair, they would have to um eliminate another parking space or two so that you could have still the backout space for um the other we would need to eliminate a couple of those parking spaces along that western perimeter. make that landscaping and then to ensure that the vehicle had the uh radius to back in and out of the stall, parking stall.

At at minimum, it looks like you potentially could move that parking stall a little bit closer to the gate. I I'm unsure. I'm probably gonna be told there's a minimum from a gate, but um is there a minimum from from the gate to the the parking stall? Madam Chair, through Yes, there are throat depth requirements for drive aisles. Yes, a throat depth for for drys, but the distance separation from the from the side of the gate to the first park install looks like there's about a three-foot space right there. Um,

look, I think I'm gonna want to hold this and meet with you and and meet with staff. Um, just because it's not just that area. There's that whole area on to the west of phase 2, building B. Um, there's no there's no landscape buffer there. We have residential a button commercial. There's no attempt to put in landscaping. I know there's overhead lines is what you're saying, but that doesn't mean that you can't put in I mean we've had we had other ones today that come before us and we put landscaping underneath them. We just didn't put tall growing trees.

Well, I I I didn't explain it but there is a fire lane requirement and um this is the gate this is the main gate that will be open uh for handling of materials. This is not a public area, but we have to give the fire truck a way to come in to the property and either go this way or that way.

Sure. And standing here today, I couldn't tell you if uh I couldn't tell you if you're taking up that entire that entire uh uh section from the parking spaces to the uh block wall with a fire lane or not because there's not the typical fire lane that is drawn on a site plan that shows it coming in and going around a circle and all of that. So, if you want to draw radiuses and and show that to me, but I look I I I think you're just overbuilding the site.

And if you didn't overbuild the site, you would have room for some of these landscape waiverss. So, look, I'm willing to to sit back uh take it back a month and uh and talk to you between now and then, but Okay. Right now, you don't have my support. Okay. So, we're asking for an obeyance then. Yes. For one month at a meeting with with you. Yes. Okay.

And I' I'd probably like to have it here at city city city hall and I'd like somebody from planning and public works to be present. Um just so as we're talking about some of these items, we can make sure that we're getting good feedback and we're not trying to uh make something happen that that I can't make happen. just like I was trying to make your landscape uh buffer a little bit wider and there's other other regulations that I need to be informed of.

Madam Chair, through you. Yes. Due to him having um those driveways gated, there are throat depth requirements um as well as the fire turning radius requirements. Um so we will have um the planner arrange an appointment to get everybody in the room together to discuss what possibilities there are to improve the site. Okay. And can I ask you to put to have the fire department radiuses drawn on your plan before you They are on here. They're just very faint. You see this line? Yeah. I it's a you know it's it's

I see the one that says fire lane, but I don't see the radius as it comes around. So maybe maybe when we get together um we can have that printed a little bit darker. Maybe up closer I'll I'll be able to see it. Fine. Okay. And you could just get with uh who's your planner?

Uh Chris Christian and Christian just get a hold of me and we'll we'll get together and discuss this. Um and the next meeting is the the 12th uh May 12th. So uh Madam Chair, I move to hold this uh project in abance until the May 12th planning commission hearing. Thank you.

Motion carries. All right, we are going to go back to a trailed item and that is agenda item 16. So re reopening agenda item 1626-00008 VR1 applicant owner Jorge Julio Dea Jr. for possible action on a land use entitlement project request to allow an existing home addition that does not conform to title 19.06 6 development standards for setbacks at 7508 Pinedale Avenue. Commissioner Rogan or

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think the applicants representative might have might have left, but we did work it out beforehand. So, um I'm ready to make a motion. We just need to amend condition number one to uh V1 to read a variance is hereby denied to allow a two-foot sideyard setback where 5T is required for an existing home addition. Is that correct, Madam Chair? Through you. Yes. Uh we will amend condition number one to read, "A variance is hereby denied to allow a twoft sideyard setback where 5T is required for an existing home addition."

Okay. And if you were here, I'd ask him to agree to it, but he's not. So, um I will make a with that amendment I make a motion to approve um agenda item 16 project 26-00008 VA1 subject to staff's conditions and amended condition as read into the record this evening.

Motion carries. Madam Chair, that is final action unless appealed to the city clerk within 10 days. Thank you. That brings us to agenda item 2326-0058 sup1 applicant American Multi-cinema Inc. owner Rainbow Plaza Enterprises LLC for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for proposed alcohol on premise full use at 2321 North Rainbow Boulevard. Staff may please get the report. Madame Chair, staff finds that the proposed use can be conducted in a manner that is harmonious and compatible with the existing surrounding commercial land uses in the shopping center. Staff recommends approval of the special use permit subject to conditions. Please note that additional letters of protest and support were received after publication. Thank you.

Thank you. Please state your name for the record. Yes, Melissa Wait with the law firm of Dickinson Wright. I'm here tonight representing the applicant on the special use permit. Uh the applicant's currently been operating since 2015 with beer and wine at this location is looking to expand to full liquor and we request your support and approval this evening. Thank you. This item has been noticed for public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to speak? Seeing none, I will turn it back to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Walters. I'm inclined to support this. Yeah. Um, so I'll make a motion to approve agenda item 23 with staff conditions. Do you agree to staff conditions?

Yes, we agree to staff conditions. Make sure the rest of us don't have any comments or questions. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Walters.

Motion carries. Thank you, Madam Chair. That item will move on to city council on the 20th of May, 2026. City council agenda. Thank you. Thank you. That brings us to agenda item 24.26-0060 V1. applicant Erica Victoria, owner Bound Family Trust, for possible action on a land use entitlement project request to allow existing residential accessory structures, carport, and garage, that do not conform to Title 19.06 development standards for size, height, and aesthetic compatibility at 170 Pico Street. Staff may please get the report.

Madame Chair, the requested variance is the result of an open code enforcement case that cited unpermitted structures in the rear of the property. Staff finds that no evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance has been presented to warrant the requested variance. As such, the hardship is self-imposed and staff recommends denial subject to conditions if approved. Thank you. Thank you. Please state your name for the record.

Hello, my name is uh Isma Ventos. I am the son of the owner. I'm here to represent. He's sitting back there. you just wanted to address about the one of the um rules of the structure of it being too too big. Sir, excuse me. if you can speak in the microphone a little more clearly

of the of the structure cart for port being too big of of a height and um the reason of for it the only reason uh we had uh he had he had built it intentionally was to store uh his his equipment he uses for work and some tools. Other than that, uh he had uh he wasn't informed about the permits he needed to for the to build the carport. So for he just wants to see how how he he how he can make things right and get it approval for the carport.

Thank you. This item has been for public hearing. Is there anyone at this time who would like to speak? Seeing none, I will turn it over to members of the commission. Starting with Commissioner Schlottman. Yes, Madam Chair. There you uh thank you for coming out tonight. I I've reviewed this item and I I I think it's conforming with uh a lot of the other accessory structures and everything within that neighborhood. But question for staff. when um when staff went out to take uh photos of this property, I'm looking at a a Google image uh photo and it looks like there's maybe five accessory structures along the south perimeter wall that are touching the perimeter wall. Have those been removed, sir?

Yeah, everything else that's not the corpor has been removed. It's just the carpet in the property as of now. Uh that everything else has been removed. So the the five six structures that were on that south wall are all all gone. Yeah. Okay. All right. No further questions. Seeing none, please make a motion. Okay. Uh Madam Chair, on item number 24, um move to approve subject to staff's conditions and you agree to all conditions if approved. Uh yeah. Okay. Motion carries.

Madam Chair, that item is final action unless appealed to the city clerk within 10 days. Thank you. Thank you. That brings us to item 2526-00631 applicant owner 2083 East Fremont LLC for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for proposed alcohol off- premise full use at 2083 Fremont Street. Staff may please get the report. Madame Chair, the proposed use meets the minimum minimum special use permit requirements set forth by 1912, title 1912, and staff is recommending approval. Please note, additional documentation of support was received after publication. Thank you.

Please state your name for the record. Good evening. My name is Nancy Amonson, 520 South Fourth Street, Las Vegas. And with me is Rod Yosf. He is the owner and the applicant. and Adam Foolad uh general contractor

at this time. The request is for a um full alcohol land use um SUP. If you look at what is here right now, this is a building that is in great disrepair. the um applicant has purchased it in the last six months and wants to totally revitalize it, but he would need to have this um full liquor in order to move forward with that. Right now, it has beer and wine. It also has gaming on the site. But he is proposing to take down the canopy, take out the gas pumps, take out the gas tanks. and he his concept would be more of a market feel and he would just like to have the full alcohol added to the approvals on this site. And I'm here to answer any questions as is the owner and the contractor.

Thank you. And with that, this item has been nosed for public comment. Is there anyone at the time who'd like to speak? Seeing none, I will turn it over to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Schlman.

Thank you, Madam Chair. through you. Um, at the beginning whenever I first read this project and learned about it, I was opposed even though staff was recommending approval because I live across the street from this and I'm not affected any greater or lesser than anybody else. But I do see this every day whenever I pull out of my uh parking lot and go down the street both ways. And honestly, I've been living there for 15 years. And um I I'm scared to I would have been scared to go into that uh into this market. Um so whenever I heard that there was liquor coming in into the the what I felt was the same establishment, uh I was pretty put off by this. And uh but then uh the gentleman up here uh called me and then Adam called me and Adam said that he was a general contractor on the project and Adam doesn't build anything other than stuff for himself typically and uh and and Adam I know builds some of the nicest uh you know apartments and uh and has some of the nicest remodels in and in in our town's doing a lot of stuff in the arts district as well. So when he said that gave me some confidence that there was going to be some money invested here. It was unfortunate that we couldn't have an SDR where we could actually put these um you know conditions on there to ensure that this is going to happen, but I understand with bank funding and and trying to get this SUP to make that happen. And can you tell me you said that uh the the liquor is going to be behind the counter, but uh there are going to be food products in there too. Yes, that is correct. So, we are going name name for the record.

Rodie Ysef, we are definitely going to be going for a full market feel here. Um, if we just had liquor, the place would fail. uh it needs a combination of the liquor and the full market concept in order for it to become a one-stop shop, not only for the residential around it, but for anybody passing through on Fremont. Unfortunately, in the current condition it is in, we are we are unable to accommodate anything. And so that is why we are going to be revitalizing and modernizing this entire building and making it a lot nicer. Um it's it's an eyesore and we bought it hoping we'd be able to transform it.

All right. Thank you. Uh I I appreciate it, Adam. I'm I'm counting on you to to come through and really give us a beautiful looking uh building here. um you know, we're going to be working together for a long time. So hopefully uh hopefully you carry through with some commitments here and uh and I appreciate you all reaching out and really explaining what you're doing here. Based on that, I'm ready to make a motion. Please do. All right, Madam Chair, on item number 2526-0063 SGP1, move to approve subject to staff's conditions. And you all agree to all staff conditions have approved. Can I get a yes? Yes, we do. Okay. Thank you.

Motion carries. Madam Chair, that item is final action unless appeal to the city clerk within 10 days. Thank you. Thank you, guys.

That brings us to agenda item 2726-0075. Applicant Contour Homes owner Kyle Partners LLC for possible action of the following land use entitlement project request at the northwest corner of Trails End Avenue and Alpine Ridgeway. 27A 26-000075 GPA 1 from PCD planned community development to MLA medium low attached density residential 27B 26-007501 from U undeveloped PCD planned community development general plan designation to RTH single family attached 27 C26-0075 V1 to allow private gated streets that do not conform to tile 19.04 4 complete street standards for street termini and connectivity ratio 27D 26-0075 VA3 to allow no half street improvements on Alpine Ridgeway between the northern end of the usable area to moccasin road 27E 26-0075 VAC1 petition to vacate US government patent easements 27F26-0075 TMP1 Alpine Ridge and Trails N for a proposed 77 lot single family attached residential subdivision staff may Please get the report.

Madame Chair, staff finds the proposed general plan amendment and resoning to be compatible with adjacent densities in the area and is recommending approval of both. On the other hand, staff is not able to support a variance to not construct the Half Street improvements for Alpine Ridge Way for the full length of the subject site. Staff administratively approved a deferral for moccasin road, but Alpine Ridgeway is an 80 foot wide collector street expected to be a vital thoroughfare for the area residential subdivisions as the residential subdivisions continue to be built on the east side of Alpine Ridgeway. The granting of a variance would transfer the cost from the developer to the taxpayer which staff is not able to support. Therefore, staff is recommending denial for the entire development, including both variances, vacation, and tenative map request. Please note, additional documentation of support was received after publication. Thank you.

Thank you. Please state your name for the record.

Good evening. Mark Mhall, 1980 Festival Plaza Drive here on behalf of the applicant, Contour Homes. And Contour Homes is a private builder here in the valley. And right now their focus has become this unique townhouse product that has backyards and that's what they're proposing here. It was approved earlier in Ward 5. Um and so this is a similar product but will be a little bit different but just I want to orient you all to the site. It's up here in the Kyle Canyon Gateway area. Um, as you can see, the site is approximately 10 and a half acres just under that, but the northern portion of the site is encumbered by an Envy Energy easement. There's the power lines that run along the northern portion. We have Envy Energy as our neighbor there to the west with the planned expansion site. um there as our uh adjacent neighbor to the west to the south of us has all generally been approved for single family detached homes. There's the KB development that was approved here to the south I believe Tri point down in this area. This is KB Homes that's being built out. So there's a lot of single family detached homes that have been uh approved out here at varying densities. And because of the unique nature of this site with the Envy Energy easement and then a drainage uh a drainage basin being needed in that southeastern portion of the site, we believe that this unique product should be approved up there. We agree with staff's recommendation of approval for the plan amendment and for the zone change. Um it'll add product var variation up in that area um just to kind of break up some of the single family detached. As mentioned, these are unique because of the fact that these actually have their own backyards. They'll all have

driveways, twocar garages. Um and so we are proposing uh 77 lots, but we sent in new plans today. We actually reduced one lot so that we could increase the open space area. So that was sent over to staff. They saw that wasn't updated in time for tonight but will be for city council. So we just wanted to make you all aware that we made that change just so that that open space area can be more uniform, adding approximately 2500 extra square feet to that. The open space area is going to be programmed with um a volleyball court. So that's going to have artificial turf with that barbecue um in a covered area and it's a it's a gated project. Um we do have improvements on Alpine Ridge up to the site at this port at this point in time. Moccasin is undetermined. Um so that administrative deferral was approved and we requesting that on this northern portion and kind of the thought process with that is the fact that this portion of the property is not going to be developed as it's encumbered by the NV Energy easement. Um currently moccasin is not going to be developed as well. Um it's all BLM land north of there. So, it will essentially be a road to nowhere. Um, that can invite all sorts of activities of people going up there uh to off-road, to drink, to get to dump trash, to do all sorts of different things. And so, we do understand um staff's concern and the city's concern about uh future financing of those improvements, but there is a condition the applicant will bond 100% of those improvements. Um and obviously some of those costs can change in the future. Um but we're prepared to do that as this

area is undetermined for now. It would be maintained by the city. We see it as more of a potential problem um in its current state. So that's the reason for that request. Um otherwise we do have a variance for connectivity which is related to the stub street and again that's just due to the unique nature of the site with the NV energy easements there at the northern portion. Um we do have the modified roll curbs in front of all of the houses. Um we do also too in our landscaping on the street landscaping we have the 3-in caliper 6 in above grade um large and fast growing. Right now, these are 24-in box. Um, and so, but we do have that along the street landscaping. Again, this is a unique product for the area. Um, Contour Homes does an excellent job. They've built out the Decatur project. They're looking at bringing more of these. This is kind of that missing middle that, um, all the jurisdictions have been looking for with the housing shortage. It'll have a friendly price point so that people can get in, have real home ownership, and look to build equity and generational wealth. And we also look at this area too that it's going to invite young families, those that work up at Creech, those that want to be around recreation. So, we think this is a great development, and we'd request y'all's approval here tonight, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

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

Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. Um, thank you for coming down and doing the presentation and thanks to Contour Homes for bringing a a unique project up to this area that I do think fits. Um, you know, we we've worked really hard to try to balance the appropriate density and products up Kyle Canyon Road, not wanting to um have wanting to have some um, you know, good programmable space and and really create communities and not just subdivisions with like stacked buildings or stacked homes. And so I I really thank Contour Homes for continuing that. Um, I want to make sure that there is an understanding that uh because of where this is located, that is part of the reason that this town home product makes sense and it is not to be sort of seen as like opening up a lot more requests for density um along Kyle Canyon Road because that is not what the plan and the vision um statement sort of in invites. Um, so I just want to make sure that we're we're clear on that and that's on the record. Um, thank you for doing the roll curbs. Let's just talk about your landscape condition real quick because I heard you talk about the large fast growing trees with the 3-in caliper 6 in above grade, but then you mentioned 24-in box. So, can we just have the caliperbased condition for the trees and we can take out the 24in box? Is that okay?

Yeah. And so I guess I would just point out on that we are um amanable to that and acceptable. There is a couple portions on the site where the landscaping area is a bit skinnier where kind of the 3-in caliper wouldn't grow as well. It wouldn't be as successful and that's just in these portions here. All the other areas is definitely suitable. Okay. So on the northern stub street that's one location. Yes. And then is the other location on the east of those four that are on the east or are you pointing to the ones that are all along the border as well?

This would be the the west border and then the west border of lot 53 and 24. So you would want just the 24inch box all along the west border. Yes. For for spacing purposes as well. This will allow it to have have more dense trees along that border. It's just a skinnier area along there. So, in order for it for the landscaping to develop appropriately, it would be better to have those types of trees along that um western boundary. How big is the border on that western subdivision edge? I'd have to check exactly.

I mean, it makes sense along lots 24 and 53. Madame chair through you if a 36 inch I mean the 24 inch size box tree will eventually grow to be a 36-inch box tree. So if it is not going to fit I would recommend them plant a species that is either a singular trunk or a tree that is not known to develop to a very large size because they will not survive and end up needing to be removed anyways on the western border. Yeah, on Yeah, on those areas where they've got thin landscape buffers. Okay.

I mean, the size planning it right now, I mean, eventually they're going to continue to grow. So, I would just recommend a species. Okay. Can we condition the species though? Like the single trunk and we know no pine trees. Yes.

Okay. Oh, I'm getting that. Miss Edos, while you're looking that up, should I move on to my other set of questions? Okay, thank you. Um, so the other um variance that you've asked for um is that I want to talk about is this no half street improvements on Alpine Ridge north of the subdivision. Um I understand your argument that is currently a road to nowhere. However, you are asking for a variance. Um, and I am hardpressed to see the viability of that argument. Um, when the definition of Trump of of a variance and granting a variance is to relieve a hardship uh solely personal, self-created or financial in nature. Um, yes, we know that Moccasin is not currently going to be built out, but if those Half Street improvements north of the subdivision are not built out, that is going to potentially fall on City of Las Vegas residents. Um, and that's not the kind of financial burden that I want to put on our on our residents right now. Um, and the other question or concern I have is that you say you're going to bond, but given that we don't know when it's going to get built out, and again, I understand that's your argument, that bonding amount may not be sufficient to cover the buildout. And so, again, that falls then on the

citizens of Las Vegas. So, I am not inclined to want to grant that variance because I just don't see any compelling argument or compelling hardship under the definition um to warrant that particular variance. I'm I'm comfortable with um the vacation, the tenative map, um 27C, the the gated streets um that don't conform with complete street standards, but I'm just not inclined um or convinced about your half street improvements.

Yes, if I may. One, the bond amount is what was placed in there with discussions with staff. one also if it's interestbearing that amount may increase but also what I'd argue on the hardship side of things is that if you create this area if you create this road to nowhere one that can create a hardship for the city from a maintenance standpoint it can create a public nuisance with dumping with activities there and it can create a hardship for those future residents when folks are going back there and they're the ones having to deal with that or having to make the calls out to code enforcement or to law enforcement to deal with those potential things. And I know that's hypothetical, but we see this in a lot of areas where this ends up happening with these roads, with these half street improvements that are barricaded off where folks go around to do off-roading, to dump trash, to drain, contain gauge and different types of things or turn their music up loud. So, that's the only thing that I'd argue on that is that it can be a potential hardship for the city if those kinds of things are going on. um just dealing with that law enforcement wise, code enforcement wise from a maintenance perspective and then also for for the future residents.

And I understand that argument. Um Miss Ed, sorry to ask you to multitask, but are there other subdivisions that are entitled um up along Alpine Ridge, even to the north of this proposed project? Madame Chair, through you to the immediate east of Alpine Ridge, we have one parcel that is owned by the BLM and one that is privately owned. And then east of those, yes, we do have entitled land use or land use entitlements for residential subdivisions. So, Alpine Ridge will become a, you know, throwaway um for these residential subdivisions as it continues to develop. Um we we admit we do not know how moccasin is going to fully develop as this area fully develops. And that was why staff was was um or granted the administrative deferral for moccasin. But staff is um not in support of not fully developing their half of Alpine Ridge. Okay. Um and again, let me just make sure I understand. When you have them bond, it is bonding at the current cost. There is no going back to them and saying, "Okay, you bonded at X, but now it's going to be Oh, is this a question for Lucian?" Hey, and Lucian, can you do me a favor and just speak a little bit more into the microphone this time?

Sure, no problem. Um, so that you know, my my question is when they bond, they bond at current costs, right? And if something doesn't get built out till five years from now, 10 years from now, you don't get to go back to them and say, "This is now the cost of concrete or asphalt or grading or whatever and have them increase the amount that they're putting into the project." Yeah. Through the chair, let me be clear. They don't actually bond for the improvements. They pay a deferral fee, which is the cost of the improvements, but it's never the full cost of the improvements. It is the current cost on our current bond estimate form.

And yeah, that's not the current cost. It's a the the intent of the of the bond estimates is to show the public costs to have to build having to build the improvements and the current rates do not match the what the existing costs are today. Okay. So let me make sure I understand again. So regardless of whether you call it a bond, deferral, whatever it is, the amount that they are committing to right now for this is not ultimately going to be the amount that that would be required to build off street improvements down the road. For sure. Yes, that's correct. All right. Okay. Um, Miss Edos, I don't know if you have your the the species.

Madam Chair, through you. I do have a condition I would like to read and to see if this will satisfy um what you are looking for. This uh condition would be added to 27F26-000075-TMP1 and it would read fast growing large shade trees with a minimum 3-in trunk caliper measured 6 in from the base of the trunk shall be planted within the required landscape buffer areas with the exception of the landscape buffer areas that are 5 feet or less in width. Within those narrow landscape buffer areas, a single trunk tree species with a 3-in caliper trunk shall be planted. Okay, that works for me. Does that work for you? Can you agree to that condition? Um through the chair, can I interject just on a couple of conditions because I had worked out with Mark previously to today yesterday some condition changes, some clarifications. Can I read those in for the record?

Can we wait until we talk about trees? Sure. Okay. Thanks. Just give me one second. Yep. Yes. And so I I think just as a point of clarification on the western boundary we might be slightly wider than five feet but there's a retaining wall. So if we could just add clarification maybe that that the western boundary is included in that and the western boundaries included in the can we commit to work with them next week?

Yeah. and and if we can just kind of continue to work through this condition because this will be moving to city council if there can be something to that effect. I I know you know I don't know how that would be handled conditionwise but just kind of on the landscaping confirm that or if we can just include the the western boundary and then we can work through this condition as well. Okay. So 5t or less as well as the western boundary. Does that work misstos? Madam chair, through you or I can change it to six feet or less. Let's do six feet or less if that will encompass the western boundary. Yes.

Okay. And then you had condition changes, Mr. Patt. Sure. So on the intended map, so item 27F, we've agreed to change conditions 15 and 20. Condition 15 to the end. We're adding the connection point may change in if an adjacent project guarantees construction of the same required sewer line. And in addition to condition 20 or adding uh or recommending adding landscaping is not required where street improvements are not required. However, all unimproved public rightway is the maintenance responsibility of the homeowners association and must be included in the required license agreement.

Okay. I'm sorry. What page is that on the staff report? Madame chair through you. Those are conditions associated with the tenative map under the public works requirements. Okay. And those are for the temperate for the TMP only. We're not talking about anything in terms of the northern part of Alpine Ridge improvements, right?

That's correct. Yeah. So, e um even if you deny say the variance 27D, the condition still applies to the unimproved portion of moccasin that they will be responsible for maintaining as public rightway. The HOA would be responsible for maintaining the unimproved part of moccasin. Yes, they will be. I I don't understand how the HOA would be responsible for maintaining the unimproved part of moccasin when it's not at all connected to their property and it's across an easement. Like how can they even maintain the unimproved part of moccasin when they'd have to cross an easement to do it?

Am I missing something? Sure. Just to be clear through the chair, they're not required to landscape it, but it will become after they map their project, it will become public right away. So today, moccasin and Alpine is not public right away. When they map and they dedicate it as public right away, someone has to maintain that public rightway. It'll either be the city or their HOA. And what this condition does specifies is that the city will not be maintaining the unimproved public rideway. It will be their HOA's responsibility on the northern part of Alpine Ridge as well as moccasin. Correct. Yeah. Any of the unimproved rightway will be their responsibility.

And madam chair, this adds to the point of why staff wants Alpine Ridge to have their half street improvements because their HOA is going to have to or they're going to need to access moccasin road to maintain it. It will be their responsibility. So, if they don't do their half street improvements, they will be crossing along dirt until the city goes in and installs those improvements. Okay. Um, do you agree to those changed conditions? Yes. Okay. And you agree to the condition that Missto's crafted? Yes.

Okay. Um, all right. I Does anybody else have any questions on this project? Okay. Um then I am prepared to make a motion. It's going to be two motions. Um the first one will be a motion to approve. Apologies, Commissioner Taylor. Commissioner Dalia did have a question. Okay. Thank you. I'm just trying to figure out maybe I missed it, but the detention basin once there's no need for that, does that become open space or park or something? What does that become? Yeah. So, I don't believe that it's set out currently,

and it's it's tentative at this point. So, it could become a park. Um, it could become something of that nature, but it's it's not set currently because even the the detention basin, the size of it hasn't been fully determined. Um, so it could be slightly um smaller, could be slightly larger, but it hasn't been determined of of what that use will be yet. All right. Thank you.

Okay. So, actually, Madam Chair, through you. Um, can we add in the condition as well that if the detention basin is ever released for development that it will be at the same residential density as the rest of the project since we've done that before on these house on these projects up here? Madame Chair, through you um if we are going to add that condition, I would like to trail the item because there's some math we would need to do to make sure that they would if they added lots, they would still maintain the density. Or we can

we can also too we can we can commit to that being open space and if if we want to just move on past that, we don't need to commit to to lots. You know that of course I am happy to have more open space. So if you would like to commit somehow that if the detention basin is ever released, it becomes open space, I'm happy to do that as well. Thank you. That's acceptable. Does that require a condition, Missos? Madame Chair, through you. Um, yes, we will need to craft a condition for that. Do you still want to trail this for?

No, I just need a hot minute here. Okay, madame chair through you. Then this would be a second added condition to the tenative map item 27F and that would read if the detention basin is ever released for development, the detention basin shall be converted to open space for the residential subdivision.

Yes. Great. All right. So now, anybody else have any issues? Okay. Okay, I'm going to make a motion. So on item 2675 A, B, C, E, and F. So that's the GPA, the reszone, the variance for the um street termini, the petition to vacate, and the tenative map. I'm going to make a motion to approve those subject to conditions. subject to all conditions and you agree to all the conditions we've just crafted. Yes. Okay. Thank you.

Motion carries. Okay. Madame Chair, those items will move forward to city council at the May 20th, 2026 city council meeting. All right. And then on item 27D, that's 2600075V AR3, um to allow no Half Street improvements on Alpine Ridge, uh between the northern end of the usable area to moccasin Road. I'm going to make a motion to deny that variance. So a yes vote is a motion to deny to deny the variance. Motion carries.

Madam chair, that item will also move forward to city council at the May 20th, 2026 city.

Thank you. Okay, that takes us to agenda item 2826-0081. applicant Greystone Nevada LLC owner Precedent Properties LLC for possible action on the following land use entitlement project request on the west side of Rainbow Boulevard approximately 56 565 ft south of Lone Mountain Road 28A 26-0081 GPA 1 from O office and SC service commercial to M medium density residential 28B 26-0081 Z1 from U undeveloped to O office general plan designation and C1 1 limited commercial to RTH single family attached 28C 26-0081 VR1 to allow private gated streets that do not conform to tile 19.04 4 complete street standards for street termini connectivity ratio and sidewalks 28D 26-0081 TMP1 low mountain rainbow for proposed 49 lot single family attached residential subdivision staff may please get the report

yes madam chair the subject site is located in the rancho area identified in the city of Las Vegas 20150 master plan which identifies a lack in diversity in housing types including uh town homes and plexes as such staff recommends approval of the general eneral plan amendment and reszoning. However, the proposed subdivision requires a variance of title 19 complete street standards which is a self-imposed hardship. Staff therefore recommends denial of the requested variance intended a map. If approved, they will be subject to conditions. Please note additional letters of protests were submitted after publication. Thank you. Please state your name for the record.

Good evening, Madam Chair, Commissioner Stephanie Gronower, 1980 Festival Plaza Drive here on behalf of the applicant Lenar Homes. Um, this property is located off of Rainbow Boulevard out in the northwest south of Lone Mountain Road. Um, the area really is a mix of of different things. So, we very much appreciate staff's recommendation of approval. Um, you can see here on the master plan, the the property is currently planned for service commercial in pink and for office. Um, but the general area is planned for all kinds of different uses with multifamily across Rainbow, multifamily to the northwest. Um, there's a fire station on the corner. There's a church located to the south. There's a Somerset Academy school located further south. And then you've got a major street obviously with Rainbow. Um, uniquely there's also some um halfacre plus homes that are a county island here to the west of us. And so LAR in designing their product have certainly taken that into account as well because those homes have been there quite a long time. Um as staff mentioned the recommendations of for approval on the GPA and the zone change because this area this Rancho master plan has a need for diverse housing including town homes and that is what we are proposing are for sale town homes. Um, from a zoning perspective, similar to the master plan, same thing. You can see a portion of the site is currently zoned C1. There was previously a uh mini storage development years ago that was approved on this site and just never was actually developed. Um, apartments are across the street, two-story apartments. There's threetory apartments located here in this orange area. And then further north in the red is where the casino is um out in this area. So, lots of intensity, a mix of of things in the area. Our request is for

medium master plan and for residential town homes for the actual development project. This is the site plan that we have before you. Um, and you can see our gated access point is off of Rainbow with plenty of queuing space here with the gates located back a little bit. I would like to categorize the variance request more as an alternative plan than a full variance because um we do have private streets behind a gate, but we are providing sidewalks. They're just not part of the actual street network. So, the sidewalks you can see here are lined and they're uh behind the guest parking spaces that are within this this roadway. So, there is connectivity for pedestrians. These units have front um front access points through the PO located here. And then they have rear loaded driveways and um garages actually located in these in these alleyways I guess if you will. But there are sidewalks from the front yards and then sidewalks that connect all the way north to south. There's also a sidewalk along this northern property that attaches to a pedestrian gate to Rainbow on this north end. And then there's also sidewalk here along the south that connects to the sidewalk. Um, also connection points are at the gates from for pedestrians that need to get out to Rainbow for any type of uh public transportation on Rainbow. The parking's important because we've got um an excess of parking spaces. We've got 34 parking spaces where I think nine are required. Um so a lot of excess parking spaces. We also have 18 foot driveways and then garages, full twocar garages on all of these units. So, the property is really well parked from a a town home property. Sometimes you see the shorter driveways and not this amount of guest parking. So, I wanted to make sure I highlighted

that for you as well. Um, the variance also is to allow the stub streets. So, you can see there are stub streets on the property. It's just a really narrow site. So, it's difficult to add full cul-de-sacs there with the amount of narrowness to this property. Um, so we are asking for sub streets. I know this commission has approved stub streets in the past. Um, we have six units that are along these stub streets. So, I think from a fire safety standpoint, there should be plenty of room for fire safety vehicles. We also have a crash gate located up here in this area. So, um if there ever were an in incident, there's vehicular um access here through that crash gate. Um all of the units are also fire sprinklered. So, I did want to make sure that um you all knew that these town home units are fire sprinklered. So, that's another safety feature of the um of the overall community. From a traffic or excuse me trash standpoint, we did at the last minute get a letter from Republic Services today that I can submit into the record. It's a will serve letter from Republic Services. It states based on the site plan that they reviewed, public services would be able to serve the abovementioned location in accordance with the rules and regulations outlined in the Clark County Ordinance for Solid Waste Management. It further understands that we'll serve the project subject to accessibilities for our trucks and equipment. We're assuming there'll be no cars parked on the street. That is true. And again, I just wanted to point out we've got tons of parking, so there would be no reason for there to be cars parked on the street. There will be an HOA that could also enforce that. Um, so from a variance standpoint, um, connectivity was one of the, uh, requested variances. sidewalks I covered and then also the stub street request that we have here that this commission has previously approved. So, with that said, I'm happy to answer any questions. I think there's a few neighbors that might be here. We had a

neighborhood meeting where three neighbors showed up and I do think there's a couple of them here. So, can you also submit the letter to staff for the record? Thank you.

So, that concludes my presentation. Thank you. Okay, with that, this item has been noticed for public hearing. Anyone in the audience, please come down and remember to state your name for the record.

For the people making public comment, we have multiple microphones. You can come down and line up and save a little bit of time instead of darting after the person's finished. Hi, Marcia Swinson. M A R S H A S S W N S O N Please do not put this in our neighborhood. Most of our existing 1/2 acre or 1 acre lots are one residence. You want to put 49 residents on less than four acres. No.

David Edelman, 6971, West Red Coach. Um it's way too dense. It's too much. Lenard does this all over the all over town. It It's just too dense. All these lots back here, I think they're all one acres. One house on one acre. And you're talking about three sto these are three story. What What's the height of the roof? The top of the roof and these. What's the I was told 35 35 ft. 35t

and there's the houses back here are single story. They're all single story. 35 foot. It just it's too dense. And then these streets here, it it it's I just think it's way too dense. I'm not okay with it. If they could reduce the height or the density, I'd be okay with it, but it it's just too much in my opinion. So, that's what I think. Thank you. Thank you.

I'm Jackie really at 4722 Malsome. Plus, we own the uh property right next to their reach it up right here. The next lot right next to them. We bought this in we lived up we bought our property in 1963 on three quarter acres and everybody has at least just one house and they want to build 49 little dinky places and right behind it right behind most of the people and it'd be we own the property on Boston and property property on rainbow and I just it not feasible to what it's supposed to be is rural estates and we need to keep it spacing not all this density that you've approved half of the night I can My name is Rick Reley. Live at 4722 Balsam and also parents we own the property just north of it. Lived out there since 1964. Um come went away to college, come back and visited there and now I'm retiring and moving back in. So I mean this is ridiculous. There's a school that's down below, you know, just south of it that's taken over there. There's apartment complex on the other side, but they're gated community, too. I mean, this is a rural

estate house, 3/4 acres, lots. There's, you know, five lots. you know, two houses maximum should be on each one, not 49 houses there with, you know, hundreds of people and that kind of stuff being locked in there. Everybody on Balsam Street and the lot be behind on the on on the west side of it has single family homes. They're all families. They've all been there long time. Some of the people some people just moved in recently but I mean it's the kind of thing this is utterly ridiculous. This is not medium density. This is heavy density is what they're looking at and what they're wanting here. This is excessive for for this amount of space. I mean 5 3/4 lots acre lots they want to build this much in and cram everything in that much. Please vote no. Thank you. I invite the applicant to come back and answer or address any concerns.

Thank you. Um, so we understand this is a a unique and and challenging area. There's a need to transition and buffer their homes. Um, I want to just show you here. So, as I mentioned, these are their homes that are here. There is a 20 foot alley existing that I believe used to be a bridal path um be behind their homes and in between our property. Also, there's a um about 15 13 to 15 foot landscape buffer on the western side of the property. This doesn't show the trees because there wasn't a site development review attached to this. Um but we will have to provide the internal common element trees in accordance with code or beyond. Um so this is an opportunity here for you know a better buffer. We've also sideloaded these these homes right here. So there's six sideloaded lots intentionally to try to not have backyards or you know front yards looking over to them. But they're right. It'll be 35 ft in height is the proposal which is unfortunately consistent with the area and other development in the area. This is a look of the town homes and the front yards um that would face onto those poos. Here are the garages that would go into the you know the alleyways. Um 35 ft is the height that's allowed for a single family home. So, even the homes that they live on um to the west that are, you know, planned and zoned differently than this property, those homes could be 35 ft in height as well. Um they're not, but they they certainly could be under the code. So, our our codes are are consistent in that regard. I do want to point out the request is a down zoning from my perspective because it's planned and zoned for something far more intense than what we're asking for. So, it's planned and zoned for office and

commercial. So, you could have a whole lot of other intense uses on this property without any request um to change anything. We're asking to reduce that to a residential medium and then a forale town home product. These town homes um will be anywhere between $400 and $500,000 homes people can buy and live in in this area. And it certainly is consistent with the city's plan to offer a diversity of housing product. There's four rental product in the area with these apartments. Um, but not a lot of new forale homes in the area. And this is a great opportunity to do town homes. Um, it's very unlikely you'll ever see single family homes right here on Rainbow just because of the dynamic of what's going on. It makes perfect sense to go from apartments, rainbow, which is a major intersection, town homes, which is a density of two and a half units to the acre, and then you've got, you know, the lower density homes, but then you've got three-story apartments next to that, too, because that's closer to the freeway. So, again, it's a mix out here. Here, um it's tough to know what would be better on the property. Personally, I think this is probably the best use of land you could have and the best neighbor that you could have. um understanding it's not halfacre lots and it's certainly not consistent with those halfacre lots that have been there a long time. From a traffic standpoint, the um the traffic count will not increase much and all of the traffic will go out to Rainbow. So, there's really no reason for any of these new homeowners to have any reason whatsoever to be in this neighborhood to the west. They should probably go north to up to to Lone Mountain or they'll go south on Rainbow. I know traffic's a concern. That's what I understand came up at the neighborhood meeting because the Somerset Academy has kind of inundated the neighborhood with a lot of cars during those peak hours for the school. This community will not add

significantly to that because 49 homeowners, you know, coming in off Rainbow should not impact those neighbors to the west. Um, from a tree perspective, um, I know Commissioner Taylor in particular wants larger trees. Lenar is happy to do that and they will do that. We have some fingers here. Um I don't think this site plan shows it, but this one does. So there's a couple fire hydrants right here in the fingers and we do have end caps here. Um so we'll comply with code and happy to put larger trees in there because there is, you know, a lot of asphalt in this area with all the apartments and the casino and all the, you know, rainbow. There's there's a lot of asphalt. So we've got huge trees going along Rainbow. We'll have internal trees and then that buffer along the west. Happy to do some larger trees there as well. So, with that said, we'd ask for your approval. Um, the variance request, as I mentioned, I think I covered. Um, but I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. With that, I turn it over to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Walker.

Hi. We met and spoke together, so um, thank you for that. I do have several questions, but um um I want to start with uh the buildings. Do you have any plan for like I didn't actually see the size of the units, the um um elevations of the union units. So these are these are the elevations. Um there are different size units, but they are um interiors

essentially threestory um town homes with the garage on the bottom floor. So here's your first level. You have a twocar garage. You also have an 18t driveway so cars can park on the driveway. The second floor is basically your living space. So, you've got a nice dining kitchen um area and then the bedrooms are on that third floor. The maximum height, as I mentioned, is 35 ft in height. Um this particular plan is 2,000 square ft. Um but there are some different sized plans um as well. Um so nice. Here's a 2192. So, they go up in size. Three and four bedrooms predominantly.

Yes. Okay. Um, so a lot I mean I have several questions. One is about landscaping. Uh, generally there's most none in the center of the complex. There's certainly none and maybe it's with the site development review uh as a buffer for these properties on the backside. I also have some concerns about um sidewalks and as we talked about, you know, um some kind of turnaround area. Every single one of these garages are two cars, parking in them, backing out. Um, and every service vehicle truck, I realize you have Republic services and they will, but at at each garage and pulling in and backing out, moving trucks, you know, every person there's it just doesn't really make a lot of sense to me that there's not any any turnaround area um or there's not any place that you can come in without backing out. Also, I you did send me and I appreciate um other examples of stub streets. I did not think that they were equivalent because um most of those had uh the main road as a throughway and so they only had small sections of sub substrates, not one entrance to an entire complex. So, uh I also have some concerns about that. Um, and so, uh, and I think that in fixing those, it would no longer be able to be a 49 lot, uh, community. So, um, perhaps we can meet, perhaps an obeyance and, um, but otherwise,

we're happy to hold it if you want. We and we can continue to work with the neighbors if that's what you'd like us to do. I I do think it's going to be difficult as you mentioned to to change the substrates because it'll change the significantly the overall site plan, but I'm happy to hold it and we can meet and discuss it longer. That's fine. It's probably a good start. Madam Chair, if I can just ask. Thanks. Um, so if if uh the commissioner is going to have you hold it, I just would be curious. These these are all attached, right? So those interior walls don't have

windows, but the walls that are going to face into their backyards, those do have windows. So that they would have Yeah. So that I I when we met, I don't know why I didn't realize it was three stories. I feel like that's a little intense

um for a budding. I agree that this is a very mixed area. Um, but you're looking at immediately joining the backyards of people who are on a much lower intensity in singlestory homes. I'm guessing predominantly these are singlestory homes. So, if there's a way to maybe change the elevation so that any windows facing to the west are like high, you know, high windows that allow light in but don't allow viewing out. You know what I'm saying? I don't know what those are called. Not not skylights obviously, right? But the ones that you can't just look into people's backyards,

right? Um that would be one thing. I will let you work uh with Commissioner Walters on bigger things, but that was just one suggestion I was going to have to sort of take down the intrusiveness of a much needed project and some much neededed product, but without completely disrupting the peaceful and quiet enjoyment of the the neighbors on Balsam. So, uh, I just wanted to throw that out there as an idea. And thank you as always for, um, adding in the, um, parking island trees because I think that'll make a difference just for the overall aesthetic of the project as well as mitigating urban heat island impact. Sure. Thank you.

So, could we hold the item? Yeah. Do I make a motion? Please make a motion. Okay. I would like to a motion for obeyance. for 30 days to the May 12th planning commission planning commission meeting.

Motion carries. Thank you so much. And if the residents want to stick around, I don't think they were all at our neighborhood meeting. So, I can get their phone numbers and I'll reach out to them as well and I'll reach out to you, Commissioner. Thank you.

That brings us to agenda item 3126-0090. Applicant KLA Construction Development, Inc., owner Pro View Series LLC Series 38 for possible action on the following land use entitlement project request on the west side of Casino Center Boulevard approximately 215 ft north of Utah Avenue. 31A 26-0090 V1 to allow a 50-ft lot width where 100 ft is required. 31B 26-009001 from R4 highdensity residential to C1 limited commercial. 31c26-000090 SDR1 for a proposed one-story 6324 square foot commercial development with waiverss of appendix F interim downtown Las Vegas development standards area 1 and title 19.08 screening standards for collection areas and dumpster staff may please get the report.

Yes, madam chair. Although the proposed infill development would redevelopment a stackment segment of casino center boulevard, staff finds a river request would detract from the intent of the vision 2045 downtown Las Vegas master plan and appendix F interimm downtown Las Vegas development standards and creating a vibrant urban environment for the 18B Las Vegas arts district and will negatively impact parking in the immediate area. As a proposed groundup development, the building design should not only be in conformance with the physical environment envisioned in downtown Las Vegas. As such, the proposed development is not compatible with adjacent development and development in the area. Staff therefore recommends denial of the requested site development plan review, variance, and resoning. If approved, the site development plan review and variance will be subject to conditions. Thank you.

Thank you. Please state your name for the record.

Adam Foolard Bash, FOU Lakh. Um, I am the owner and the contractor for the property. Um, we are proposing to do the same thing here as I'm doing uh north of the property at 11:27 South Casino Center Boulevard. It's actually going to have the same layout. The facade will look different in terms of the finishes, but the overall project will remain the same. Um, I did hear about parking. This is directly across from the I believe it's a $25 million parking structure the city is building. So, if anything, I hope this helps to activate that parking lot further, bring some more money back to the city. Um, I don't think we need parking there, but I do think this adds to what the arts district is, which is a happening area for locals and tourists alike. Um, if you have any other questions, I'm I'm happy to answer them.

Thank you. This item is for public comment. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak at this time? Seeing none, I'll turn it over to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Schlottman. Yes, Madam Chair. I don't have any um any questions on this. Um, Adam has built some great projects and I would imagine you're going to do do the same here. So, I'm ready to make a motion. Please do. On item number 31, A, B, and C, move to approve subject to staff's conditions and you agree to all staff conditions of approval. I do. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Motion carries. Thank you so much, Madame Chair. That item will move forward to city council on May 20th, 2026. Thank you.

Thank you. That brings us to item 33, 26-0129, SDR1, applicant owner, Diamond Zing LLC, for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for proposed addition of four units to an existing one-story 3-unit multifamily residential development with waiverss of appendix F interim downtown Las Vegas development standards area 2 at 401 South 11 Street. Staff, may get the report.

Yes, madam chair. Although the proposal represents much needed multif family housing within the downtown Las Vegas Founders District area, staff finds that the requested waiverss of the required setbacks, parking spaces, landscape buffers and mechanical equipment screening and exceptions of the required planting materials reinforce the unsuitability of the proposed development to the surrounding area. For these reasons, staff recommends denial of the proposed site development plan review. Thank you.

Thank you. Please state your name for the record. Good evening. Marissa Ferman, 1980 Festival Plaza Drive here tonight on behalf of the applicant. We are here at the intersection of 11th Street in Lewis. The site is highlighted in yellow. It is currently zoned R4. And on the site is an existing one-story building comprises of three multifamily units. As you can see here, um it might appear as a single family home, but really it's um a three-unit building right now. Um it's been in a bit of a dilapidated condition. Um as you can see in this picture, this application is for a site development plan review to add four units to the to the existing building for a total of seven units. As you can see here, turning to the site plan, we have addition one, two, three, and four and the existing building here. Uh for some background, this uh application actually came before you and in 2023 um the exact same site plan um and list of waiverss. Um the applicant was ready to pull building permits um in the fall of last year. Um and they came to find out that uh entitlements had expired. So we are back now uh with the application this evening. Um, we do have a few waiverss, um, which I won't bore you with each and every one of them, but I did want to point out that, um, back in the 2023 application, um, the applicant at the 11th hour added trees to the site. And I know there are, um, currently waiverss for, um, reduced street or perimeter trees as well as a zero foot landscape buffer, um, along portions of the street frontages and the southern buffer. Um, but we do have uh 14 large trees as you can see here in the pink and then seven additional large trees along this uh southern buffer. So that's 21 uh trees total that were being

added to the site. Um many of which um as you can see here um will encroach into the ride ofway and will be subject to a license agreement um that the applicant um actually had already set in motion for the previous application. Um so I just wanted to make you all aware of that. um they are fully financed and ready to go if and when approved. Um this will add to uh the already um seen revitalization effort in the area um on the other corners of this intersection um actually uh done by KLA. Um they have uh been able to uh revitalize some of the existing buildings and do similar multif family in the area and uh this would be a great addition to that on this corner. Um, with that I will close my presentation and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. This item has been nosed for public comment. Is there anyone who would like to speak at this time?

Uh, Adam Foolad Bash, KLA. I'm the owner of KLA. I own a lot of properties around this and I am so in favor of what they're doing. Uh, I absolutely love the owner of the property. He's a very honest um he's a very honest and nice guy. uh he helped me a lot with the project I had uh up the street that I'd actually bought from him. I've done I want to say maybe 10 11 projects surrounding this and she's right. It's an eyesore. Um I don't believe that parking is an issue. Majority of my projects that I've revitalized do not have a onetoone for parking and it has not been an issue with leasing or with congesting the area. Uh based off of the design and what they're trying to do, I'm very in favor of this. Thank you.

Thank you. and please come down. Would you like to speak for the record? No. Okay. Thank you. So, seeing none, I'll turn it over to members of the commission starting with Commissioner Schlottman. Yes, Madame Chair. This was previously approved and we've uh vetted this thing a few years ago. I'm ready to make a motion. Please do. On item number 3326-0129 SDR1, move to approve subject to staff's conditions and you agree to all staff conditions if approved. Yes. Thank you. Motion carries. Thank you,

Madam Chair. That item is moved forward to city council on May 20th, 2026. Thank you. Thank you. And that brings us to director's business item 3426-0070 TXT1 applicant owner city of Las Vegas for possible action on a request to amend LVMC19.12 related to the rental store use within the PO professional office zoning district and to provide for other related matters. Staff recommends approval. Staff, can I get a report?

Uh thank you, Madam Chair. Fred Solis for the record. This amendment will follow will allow for a rental store within the professional office zoning district by means of special use permit. As proposed, rental stores within the PO district will be limited to a maximum of 1500 square feet and outdoor storage or outdoor display of merchandise will be prohibited as non-waveable conditions. Staff recommends the approval of this request. Thank you. Thank you. any I see no questions on the commission so I will turn it over to vice chair if you want to make a public hearing sorry late night um this item has been noticed for a public hearing is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak on this item

seeing none I'll turn over to members of commission are there anyone madam chair u I I completely understand this this will help out areas like the founders district and retail to be able to go into some of those uh particular locations So I have no problem with this. So I'm ready to make a motion. Please do. Madam Chair, item 3426-0070 TXT1 move to approve subject to staff conditions.

Motion carries. Madam Chair, that item will move forward to city council and ordinance form. Thank you. That brings us to item 3526-0084 TXD1 applicant owner city of Las Vegas for possible action on a request to amend LBMC1 19.06 19.12 and 19.18 related to accessory dwelling units within residential zoning districts conforming with assembly bill 396 of the 83rd 2025 session of the Nevada legislature and to provide for other related matters. Staff recommends approval. Staff may please get the report.

Uh thank you madam chair. In 2025, the Nevada legislator legislature adopted AB 396 requiring local governments in Nevada to adopt ordinances authorizing accessory dwelling units on residential property with the intent of providing additional housing options in Nevada. While Title 19 already allows ADUs within most residential zoning districts, this amendment will bring the city into conformance with the new provisions outlined by AB 396. The primary changes with this amendment include the allowance for attached ADUs without interior access to the primary primary dwelling, the removal of ADU minimum lot size requirements, uh the removal of the special use permit requirement in certing zoning districts, and the revision of several definitions to match the state definition. Staff recommends approval of the request. Uh thank you.

Thank you. This item has been for public hearings. Is there in the audience who would like to speak at this time? Seeing none, I'll turn over to members of the commission. I see no questions. Vice Chair. Madam Chair, I'm ready to make a motion. Please do. Uh on item number 3526-0084 TXT1, move to approve subject to status conditions.

Motion carries. Madam Chair, that will move forward to city council and ordinance form. Thank you. That brings us to item 3626-0102 TXT1 applicant owner city of Las Vegas for possible action on a request to amend LVMC19.09 and appendix F related to trash enclosures within the downtown Las Vegas overlay district and to provide for other related matters. Staff recommends approval. Staff may please get your report.

Uh thank you, Madam Chair. The current development standards for trash enclosures located within the downtown master plan area are addressed by Title 1908. specifically the requirement to provide an enclosure with solid metal gates in the roof or trellis structure. These standards are more suburban in character and do not take into consideration that many trash enclosures in the downtown area are served by alleys. This amendment will allow for trash collection areas to be located off an alleyway without a trellis or roof provided that is properly screened from view. Staff recommends approval of the request. Thank you. Thank you. This item has been noticed for public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak at this time? Seeing none, I will turn it over to members of the commission. Seeing no questions, vice chair.

Yes, just a few comments. I appreciate staff bringing this one forward. Um, it was after many of years of me making comments on on these trash enclosures that it was brought forward. So, thank you for listening. Thank you for drafting this. The problem that we have is that we have to build these trash enclosures with CMU walls um you know curbs and ballards and um and concrete floors and these metal gates and trash enclosure lids and it doesn't always fit the buildings that we're building uh in downtown and not just myself, you know, all the builders down here. Sometimes it does. Sometimes it it works out perfect and sometimes it matches the building and u and and the the whole design aesthetic of the building, but other times uh other fences such as metal and decorative uh other decorative services would work just just as well. We also run into issues on uh pro projects quite often. Um, you know, we we we say it's a death by a thousand cuts where, you know, they get our budget, we go through, we design a project, we add cost, um, we get down to the end, uh, the city gets a or there's a $100,000 sewer connection fee, and then there's a trash enclosure that gets added on the very end. And these trash enclosures are $25,000 anyway, you cut them. So you start adding up all the fees and you you get somebody who comes in with a half a million dollar budget and before they're finished they're over a million dollars. And you know there's uh particular projects here recently where we waved this requirement because the trash uh uh enclo or the trash cans were behind a fence. And if I would have built this exact trash enclosure, it would have been difficult to maneuver like trailers and other things at the horse trailer hideout um up and down their little uh

their little driveway. So, it it it allows a little bit more flexibility on a lot of these tight tight uh lots downtown. And anyways, I really appreciate planning staff taking a look at this and doing a great job with uh you know, bringing this text amendment forward. So, that's all my comments. And Madam Chair, I'm ready to make a motion. Please do. Uh, Madam Chair, on item number 3626-0102 TXT 1, move uh move to approve. Madam clerk, I vote I. Motion carries.

Madam chair, that will move forward to city council in ordinance form. Thank you. Thank you. That brings us to citizens participation. 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. Please state your name for the record.

Good evening. My name is Sunonny Westbrook. S U N I W S T B R O K. It is late, so I will be brief and direct. My family and my neighbors family need help with a zoning issue, and I acknowledge there's nothing you can do about it this evening, and I will spare you the details and the outlines that I have cleverly crafted, but these are black and white zoning violations. I can quote you Title 19 up and down. My neighbors have four to eight storage containers on their lot at all times, 247 for about three years now, and they are used in support of a little light industrial work. The work crew shows up every day, Monday through Friday, at 5:30 a.m. And of course, code enforcement's the first stop. And for the past six months, they've been telling me it's fine. And two weeks ago, the deputy director has agreed that it is fine because the cargo containers are appropriately screened from the street. and the work crew is just doing a little gardening for the neighbors. So, I'd like to leave my contact information. I'd love it if someone from the planning commission could follow up with me and be our point person. We need some help.

Thank you. I'll just wait over. Thank you. I wait if Yeah, we'll have a member of staff come and collect your address and contact information. Ma'am, do you know what planning commission w you're in or what council word I should say? Two. Two. and and councelor Cara Kelly is is aware of the issue already. We've had a chance to speak with her. Thank you so much. Thanks. Thank you. With that, I will close citizens participation and the meeting is adjourned.