OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Las Vegas Planning Commission Meeting - January 14, 2026

Public MeetingsWednesday, January 14, 2026
BodyLas Vegas, Nevada
SessionPublic Meetings
DateWednesday, January 14, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 4:21:31

Transcript — Verbatim
2:48

Good evening, everyone.

2:49

We are ready to begin.

2:51

This planning commission meeting is called to order.

2:55

This meeting has been properly noticed and posted in compliance with the open meeting law.

2:59

These proceedings are being video recorded and can be viewed live on City of Las Vegas TV on Cox Cable Channel 2.

3:05

You can also watch the meeting live online and access other city content by visiting Las Vegas Nevada dot gov backslash connect.

3:12

The proceedings will be rebroadcast on City of Las Vegas TV the Saturday after the meeting at ten AM Monday at midnight and the following Tuesday at six PM.

3:20

Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

3:44

Vice Chair Cassama.

3:46

Present.

3:46

Commissioner Schlottman.

3:48

Present.

3:49

Commissioner Rogan.

3:50

Present.

3:50

Commissioner DeSalvio.

3:53

Commissioner Lebaux.

3:54

Present.

3:55

You have a quorum.

3:56

Thank you.

3:57

I call to your attention the information printed in your agenda concerning our actions and the appeal and review process if appropriate.

4:04

Please read this carefully, and if you have any questions, staff is available.

4:08

Also, the second page of the agenda contains our rules of conduct.

4:17

Next up is public comment during this portion of the agenda.

4:20

Comments must be limited to matters on the agenda for action.

4:24

If you wish to be heard, come to the podium and give your name for the record.

5:00

This is to voice my opposition for item number 18, which is regarding the proposed changes to 5924 West Lone Mountain Road.

5:06

I've lived in this area for approximately for over 30 years.

5:10

Whoops, I'm just decided to get really funky here.

5:13

Fortunately, the majority of the land in this area has been developed.

5:19

But there's a vacant dirt parcel next to this business that I fear they will purchase so that they'll be able to expand.

5:28

I now do oppose this.

5:30

It started as what appeared to be a family-owned company, but the business has continued to grow and develop beyond what it was zoned for.

5:39

Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't the zoning issues be done before the work has happened?

5:46

One asks that it be changed from residential to service commercial, another to limited commercial, another two limited material and lumber yard use in a residential area.

5:59

Lil Sopratos is located next to this parcel, very close to the parcel.

6:04

I live across the street in Rancho Altamere.

6:07

Probably shouldn't have said that, but anyway.

6:16

They say that they need to bring in materials, but it appears that they have a pile of sand there in the center that they've been driving their vehicles around.

6:25

We do not need a construction yard in this area.

6:33

And I'm disappointed that the commission is recommending approval to an entity that is obviously not played by the rules.

6:40

The property has already been developed into a business.

6:43

Is there not a penalty or fine for this?

6:45

I ask that you at least deny the zoning one and SUP One requests.

6:51

Why would you reward them for not following the law?

6:55

Thank you.

6:56

Thank you, ma'am.

6:57

Anybody else under this item?

6:59

Come on down, sir.

7:00

Folks, if you're gonna speak on an item, rules for tonight, or please come down as soon as that item is called so we can have an efficient meeting.

7:07

Please state your name for the record and let us know what you're referring to.

7:09

Kyle McGuire.

7:11

Um that's K Y L E M C G U I R E.

7:16

Um, this would be for project number 25-0459.

7:24

Uh they're applying for a variance to have um child care in the neighborhood.

7:31

Um, unfortunately, what's happened is they've moved in, they have a disabled child, and they had uh a license, I believe, to have round the clock care at home for that child.

7:46

What they've done is they've parlayed that into a round-the-clock daycare facility where there's school buses that come to the actual house to pick up disabled children.

7:58

Um the thing is I have school buses backing up and turning around the corner where that's located, which is on a corner lot.

8:07

Um there's parking problems in the neighborhood.

8:10

In fact, that's what they're here for to have less parking and continue doing what they're doing.

8:16

They don't have adequate parking.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Land Use Planning████████████████████████████28%
Group Homes Regulation█████████████████████21%
Affordable Housing███████████11%
Procedural████████8%
Parking Requirements██████6%
Daycare Regulation██████6%
Public Safety████4%
Code Enforcement███3%
Cannabis Regulation███3%
Summary of Proceedings

Las Vegas Planning Commission Meeting – January 14, 2026

The Las Vegas Planning Commission met on January 14, 2026, starting at approximately 6:00 PM and concluding after 9:00 PM. The meeting included public comments, housekeeping, consent items, and 20 public hearing items covering variances, special use permits, site development plans, and zoning changes. Key decisions included approvals for a tiny‑home park denial, three group home/daycare facilities with conditions, and a new elementary school. The commission also elected its 2026 officers.

Consent Calendar

  • Items 7 & 8: Approved as routine. (Final action unless appealed within 7 days.)
  • Item 9 (One Motion, One Vote): Approved – massage establishment with waivers at 6340 W. Charleston Blvd. (Proceeds to City Council on Feb. 18.)

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Item 18 (5924 W. Lone Mountain Road): A resident of 30 years opposed the proposed zoning changes and SUP for a construction yard, stating the business had already expanded beyond its zoning and that the applicant had not followed rules.
  • Item 14 (5617 Grand Guinness Court): Kyle McGuire (neighbor) opposed the daycare variance, citing school buses, double parking, and traffic on the cul‑de‑sac. He noted the facility had been operating without proper permits.
  • Item 23 (Alta & Tonopa – apartment building): Steve Pichet opposed the 154‑unit, 7‑story project due to insufficient parking (154 spots for 154 units) and fear of overflow into residential streets. The item was held 30 days.
  • Item 14 (continued): Additional neighbors (David Lee, Lisa Solby, Todd Solby, Robert Surreal) opposed the daycare, citing traffic, noise, and safety concerns. A parent (Sandra Kinney) and the provider (Shannon) spoke in support, presenting a video of drop‑offs and arguing the facility provides needed childcare.
  • Item 27 (5933 Perfect View Street): Several neighbors (Terry Lee, Dr. Alwes, Sandra Adams, Beth Cushinson, Linda Marvin) opposed the residential facility for elderly, citing traffic congestion, parking issues, and emergency access concerns. The applicant (Ariane Pineda) explained the facility would house 7–10 elderly/disabled residents and operate like a private home.

Discussion Items

  • Item 10 (25‑0557 VAR1 – Donald Road variance): Applicant requested a variance to reduce the required fee contribution for deferred street improvements from 50% to 0% because the road will be built to rural standards. Commissioners DeSalvio and Schlottman opposed putting the burden on future homeowners. The item was held 30 days to February 10, 2026, for further discussion with the applicant and Public Works.
  • Item 11 (25‑0096 – Tiny house park): Applicant proposed a 50‑unit tiny‑home park on 2.25 acres at Searles Ave. & 23rd St. Staff recommended denial citing inconsistency with the master plan (underdevelopment) and insufficient trees. The applicant presented seven elevation versions to improve aesthetics. After extensive debate about durability, landscaping, parking, and air‑conditioner screening, the commission voted to deny. Commissioner Schlottman noted he could not support due to landscaping and design concerns but encouraged the applicant to address issues before City Council. Motion to deny carried.
  • Items 14, 15, 16 (Group home/daycare facilities): Three separate applications for in‑home childcare (up to 12 children) with parking variances. Staff recommended denial for all due to parking shortages. Public testimony on Item 14 (Grand Guinness Court) was sharply divided. After discussion, the commission approved each with conditions:
    • Item 14 (25‑0459): Approved with conditions limiting outdoor recreation to 8 a.m.–5 p.m., requiring staff to park off‑site, all drop‑offs on‑site, an administrative review by Public Works within 60 days of operation, and children limited to age 17 or younger.
    • Item 15 (25‑0460 – Alta Drive): Approved with similar conditions plus removal of the waiver for 5 a.m. operation; administrative review in 60 days.
    • Item 16 (25‑0462 – Monterey Avenue): Approved for the SUP and parking variance; denied the variance for the existing carport (patio cover) in the front yard; approved the storage shed variance. Children limited to age 17 or younger.
  • Item 18 (25‑0504 – Lone Mountain landscape yard): Applicant proposed converting a home to a landscape materials showroom (no heavy equipment). Staff recommended approval. Public comment from the resident who spoke earlier. The commission approved with conditions prohibiting outdoor storage of heavy equipment and limiting hours to 8 a.m.–4 p.m. Mon.–Fri., Saturday by appointment, closed Sunday.
  • Item 22 (25‑0529 – Church sign variance): Approved with added conditions: sign illumination only 6 a.m.–9 p.m., and an administrative review one year after final inspection.
  • Item 27 (25‑0543 – Residential facility for elderly): Approved with conditions limiting residents to age 65+, an administrative review 60 days after operation, and a maximum of 10 residents (per land use definition).
  • Item 28 (25‑0551 – New elementary school): Approved with adjusted condition for right‑turn lane on Shomber Road. School to open by June 2027.
  • Item 29 (25‑0552 – Alcohol on‑premise at apartment complex): Approved for a self‑dispensing alcohol room for residents only.
  • Item 30 (25‑0558 – Six‑unit multifamily): Approved with waivers.
  • Item 31 (25‑0564 – Front yard wall variance): Approved with condition that the wall conform to submitted plans (columns only, not solid).
  • Item 32 (25‑0592 – Rezoning and lot width variances): Approved; applicant had letters of support from adjacent property owners.
  • Item 33 (25‑0595 – Alcohol on‑premise at Limelight Social Club): Approved to correct square footage.

Key Outcomes

  • Held/Continued: Items 10, 12, 23, 26, 34, 36 were held to February 10, 2026. Item 20 was withdrawn without prejudice. Item 17 was continued to February 10.
  • Denied: Item 11 (tiny house park) – final action; Item 16B (carport variance) – part of Item 16.
  • Approved: Items 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16 (with partial denial), 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33. Most approvals are final action within 10 days unless appealed to the city clerk; some go to City Council on February 18, 2026.
  • Officer Elections: Serena Kasama elected Chair, Commissioner Schlottman elected Vice Chair for 2026.

Note: The meeting transcript indicates the meeting was properly noticed and recorded. The agenda and minutes were not available for cross‑reference.

Meeting Transcript

Good evening, everyone. We are ready to begin. This planning commission meeting is called to order. This meeting has been properly noticed and posted in compliance with the open meeting law. These proceedings are being video recorded and can be viewed live on City of Las Vegas TV on Cox Cable Channel 2. You can also watch the meeting live online and access other city content by visiting Las Vegas Nevada dot gov backslash connect. The proceedings will be rebroadcast on City of Las Vegas TV the Saturday after the meeting at ten AM Monday at midnight and the following Tuesday at six PM. Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. Vice Chair Cassama. Present. Commissioner Schlottman. Present. Commissioner Rogan. Present. Commissioner DeSalvio. Commissioner Lebaux. Present. You have a quorum. Thank you. I call to your attention the information printed in your agenda concerning our actions and the appeal and review process if appropriate. Please read this carefully, and if you have any questions, staff is available. Also, the second page of the agenda contains our rules of conduct. Next up is public comment during this portion of the agenda. Comments 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. This is to voice my opposition for item number 18, which is regarding the proposed changes to 5924 West Lone Mountain Road. I've lived in this area for approximately for over 30 years. Whoops, I'm just decided to get really funky here. Fortunately, the majority of the land in this area has been developed. But there's a vacant dirt parcel next to this business that I fear they will purchase so that they'll be able to expand. I now do oppose this. It started as what appeared to be a family-owned company, but the business has continued to grow and develop beyond what it was zoned for. Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't the zoning issues be done before the work has happened? One asks that it be changed from residential to service commercial, another to limited commercial, another two limited material and lumber yard use in a residential area. Lil Sopratos is located next to this parcel, very close to the parcel. I live across the street in Rancho Altamere. Probably shouldn't have said that, but anyway. They say that they need to bring in materials, but it appears that they have a pile of sand there in the center that they've been driving their vehicles around. We do not need a construction yard in this area. And I'm disappointed that the commission is recommending approval to an entity that is obviously not played by the rules. The property has already been developed into a business. Is there not a penalty or fine for this? I ask that you at least deny the zoning one and SUP One requests. Why would you reward them for not following the law? Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Anybody else under this item? Come on down, sir. Folks, if you're gonna speak on an item, rules for tonight, or please come down as soon as that item is called so we can have an efficient meeting. Please state your name for the record and let us know what you're referring to.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com