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 Two.

You can also watch the meeting live online and access other city content by visiting Los Vegas Nevada.gov slash 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.

Staff, can you please call roll?

Chair Cassama.

Present.

Commissioner Rogan.

Present.

Commissioner Taylor.

Present.

Commissioner Di Salvio.

Present.

Commissioner Lebaux.

Present.

Thank you, Chair.

You have a quorum.

Thank you.

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

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

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

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.

Hello, my name is Sebastian Crawford.

Um I just want to bring a couple of items to the attention of the committee that's sitting here today.

Uh, not only has this city approved and allowed the implementation of a city plan that has seen the cost of a home increase 56% in the last four years, where wages have increased 2.68%.

You are doing nothing about it.

The current master plan that you have includes no high density housing, allows nothing to be done for the public that lives and works in this city.

Well, in a city that we're seeing 2.68% of the wages being increased.

This is ridiculous.

Where we're seeing houses increasing 56%.

Who's profiting off of it?

Who's profiting off of it?

The people sitting here.

This is absolutely ridiculous.

Thank you for your time.

So now we're moving on to item five for possible action to approve the final minutes for the planning commission meeting of January 13th, 2026.

Vice Chair.

Yes, move to approve January 13, 2026 uh planning commission minutes.

Motion carries, please post.

All right, item number six for possible action.

Any items from the planning commission, staff and or the applicant wish to be stricken or held in abeyance to future meeting may be brought forward and acted upon this time.

Are there any items that staff would like to pull?

Madam Chair Nicole Edoes for the record.

The applicant is requesting to hold item number 13 to the March 10th planning commission meeting.

The applicant is requesting to hold item number 14 to the March 10th planning commission meeting.

The applicant is requesting to hold item number 16 to the March 10th planning commission meeting.

The applicant is requesting to withdraw without prejudice.

Item number 17.

Staff is requesting to hold item number 20 to the March 10th planning commission meeting.

And staff is also requesting to hold item number 35 to the March 10th planning commission meeting.

Thank you.

And for members of the public, is there anyone who would wish to pull an item?

Yes, hi.

My name is Robert Cunningham with TN Engineering.

I'm representing item 18.

We would like to obey that or hold it until the May 10th Planning Commission meeting.

I'm sorry, March 10th, March 10th.

I have a letter if the clerk needs it.

Perfect.

Thank you.

You can submit to staff.

And with that, Vice Chair, would you like to make a motion?

Chair.

Sorry, I have one request too.

Okay.

Commissioner Rogan.

Item 33.

Um I'm requesting that that be moved to the March 10th planning commission meeting after speaking with the applicant.

All right.

And seeing no other, Vice Chair.

Yes, Chair, through you on items number 13, 14, 16, 20, 35, 18, and 33.

I move to hold those items in abeyance until the March 10th, 2026 Plan Commission meeting.

And for item number 17 to withdraw without prejudice.

Thank you.

There's a motion.

Motion carries, please post.

Okay, moving on to item six for possible action.

Sorry.

Consent items.

So we're moving on to the consent agenda.

Consent items are considered routine by the planning commission and may be enacted by one motion.

However, any item may be discussed if a commission member or applicant so desires.

Vice Chair, may I have a motion?

Yes, madam chair, on item number seven and eight, the consent agenda items, a move to approve, subject to set staff's conditions.

And that motion carries.

Madam Chair, those items are final action unless appealed to the city clerk within seven days.

Thank you.

Now we're moving on to our one motion, one vote agenda.

The following are items that may be considered in one motion, one vote.

They are considered routine non-public and public hearing items with the staff recommendation of approval.

All public hearings and non-public hearings will be opened at one time.

Any person representing an application or member of the public or a member of the planning commission not in agreement with the conditions and all standard conditions for the application recommended by staff should request to have that item removed from this part of the agenda.

So with that, item 9 25-0555 SUP1.

Applicant Mustapa Rabaj, owner of VMC properties, LLC for possible action on a land use entitlement project requests for proposed massage establishment use with waivers of distance separation requirements from a church or house of worship, school, city park, individual child care center license for more than 12 children and a massage establishment at 2441 Tech Center Court Suite 109.

Item number 10, 25-0599, SUP1, applicant to Casa Trez, LC, Owner Sunrise Investment Holdings, LLC for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for proposed alcohol on premise full use with an outdoor patio area at 1401 South Commerce Street.

This was noticed as a public hearing.

Would anyone like to be heard?

Seeing none with that, Vice Chair.

Yes, Madam Chair, on items number nine and ten, one motion, one vote, move to approve, subject to staff's conditions.

Motion carries.

Madam Chair, item nine will move forward to city council on March 18th, 2026.

And item 10 is final action unless appealed to the city clerk within 10 days.

Thank you.

We'll now be moving on to our public hearing portion of the agenda.

And with that, I would like to pull forward item 36 and then to also pull item 32 after.

Item 36, abeyance 25-0594, applicant owner, City of Las Vegas for possible action on a request to amend the City of Las Vegas 2050 Master Plan to modify CERN general plan categories and corresponding compatible zoning districts to amend LVMC 19.10, creating a new transit oriented development overlay, TODO, amending other applicable chapters of LVMC Title 19, and to provide for other related matters.

36A, a bans 25-0594 GPA 1, to amend the City of Las Vegas 2050 Master Plan to modify CERN general plan categories and corresponding compatible zoning districts consistent with the creation of the transit oriented development overlay district and 36b abeyance 25 0594 TXT 1 to amend LVMC Title 19.10, creating the transit oriented development overlay district and amending other applicable chapters of LVMC Title 19.

Staff can we have the report.

Good evening.

Uh uh Madam Chair, Planning Commissioners, Marco Velata, City of Las Vegas Department of Community Development for the record.

I have not much more to really add for from our workshop earlier.

Uh there are uh there are a few things that were brought up uh that that might be worth discussing real really quick.

Uh but if there are any other questions on the general plan amendment itself or on the text amendment, I'm here to answer them.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This I this item has been noticed for public hearing.

Is there anyone who would like to speak at this time?

Seeing none, I'll turn over to members of the commission.

Are there any other comments at this time?

Commissioner Taylor.

Thank you, Chair.

Um during our break, I had a quick conversation with Mr.

Velata and Mr.

Solis.

Um, and at this time I would request that on um page eight um under your prohibited uses that you strike number one animal hospital clinic or shelter um based on our conversation again that that's not a use that necessarily is incompatible with your TOD, and I do think it is incompatible with other city priorities.

So that would be my request.

I also remain concerned about the exceptions on perimeter landscaping, but let's start with the animal issue, but that issue.

All right, seeing none other.

I think Mr.

Solis Madam Chair, through you, Fred Solis for the record.

Uh yeah, we'll we will strike that uh use from the prohibited use tables prior to uh it being forward to city council.

Okay, thank you very much.

Okay, with that, I see none other commissioner vice chair, Commissioner Wogan.

Uh thank you, Chair.

With that, um, with the amendment read into the record, I make a motion to approve agenda item 36, project 25-0594, including subparts A and B as amended this evening.

Motion carries.

And Madam Chair, that we'll move forward to city council in ordinance form.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And with that, we're moving on to item 32 25-0604 SDR1.

Applicant owner, City of Las Vegas for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for the proposed addition of a skate park and shade structures to an existing park at 1800 Wildwood Drive.

May you please get the staff report.

Yes, madam chair, this is Christian Gates community development for the record.

Uh the proposed development complies with all applicable requirements of Title 19 and continues to be compatible with the surrounding area.

Therefore, staff recommends approval of the requested sites of online plan review subject to conditions.

Please note additional letters of support were received at their publication.

Thank you.

And the applicants.

Good evening, Chair Kasama and Planning Commissioners.

My name is Gina Venglass.

I am the city engineer here at the City of Las Vegas Public Works Department.

I have with me tonight Shelley Hayden.

She is an architectural project manager in our division, as well as our consulting architect Stantech, and this is Carrie Baird to help answer any questions you might have.

So I would like to just tell you a bit about this park renovation project that my team has been managing.

It is for Wildwood Park, which is generally located north of Vegas and west of Michael.

Um next slide.

There we go.

And it is generally um within a neighborhood west of Wildwood.

This is within ward five.

This is some photos of the existing park, which was built in 1975.

There is an existing basketball court and a play playground area, as well as some landscape.

Tennis court and a tennis court.

So with this renovation, we are proposing to add a skate park into the southwest corner of the site, renovate and resurface the basketball court, include a fitness court on the northwest corner of this of the site, incorporate three new shade structures that will be fabricated with steel and include picnic tables and barbecues, as well as adding in 18 new trees, 10 of which will be adjacent to Wildwood Street.

The existing shade structure that's there and playground will remain as is.

Thank you.

At this time, this agenda item has been noticed for public hearing.

Is there anyone from the public that would like to comment?

Please come forward.

Hi, good evening.

My name is Chelsea Harrison, uh currently resident uh to the neighborhood of Wildwood Park.

Um thank you so much for the opportunity that you guys are granting.

I truly appreciate the park.

However, one of the concerns that it is built in the 70s, one of the concerns is the property that I exist in does share wall with the park.

I noticed that there are some slopes uh granted as well as some pipings to protect the wall barrier.

Um I noticed that in the agenda, some of the recommendations, those pipings, the um the protective barriers along the slopes are to be removed.

So some of my concerns in regard to that is how are we going to protect the residents, those barriers, including the walls.

Um, that right there was one of the issues in the past was skateboarding existing and also doing some damages to those uh bordering walls, the residential homes.

So that's one of my concerns.

I do understand some appreciation for um any resurfacing.

I know in the past there had been numerous trees that were taken out.

Um so I do uh enjoy the the implementing of shade as well as the greenery.

Um, but that that's just one of my main concerns as to whether or not I feel if I approve or deny considering what are the neighboring, especially those that are within the the wall bearing, because I've looked at many other parks, um any sort of recreational skateboarding.

There are no shared walls in plants, so that's just where my consideration is that is that's it.

Yeah, Carrie Bear pick one of these.

Hello, Carrie Baird, uh, landscape architect for the project.

Uh great concerns.

Um, the ballers that will be removed are only in the skate park area that we're talking about.

Everywhere else we're keeping them to protect the wall.

And the skate park, we're designing the back side that's up against the wall to keep kids off the wall.

So we're designing the shapes unique to preventing kids from wheeling off those walls.

Perfect.

Is there anyone else at this time that would like to give comment?

Thank you.

Seeing seeing none, I will turn it over to members of the commission.

Starting with Vice Chair?

Jennifer, Commissioner Taylor.

Um Thank you, Chair through you.

Um, I just have a couple questions.

Given the it's great that you guys are are going to renovate this park, and what an awesome opportunity for the neighborhood to have a new sort of center place to be and to recreate and to gather.

Um, I just guess that my concern centers around the how close those backyards are to the skate park.

And so I I guess as a point of reference, what I would want to know is are you aware of complaints from those adjoining neighbors related to noise or you know, intrusiveness from the basketball court?

We aren't at this time, and we did have um some neighbors recommend the desire to have a skate park there.

We did research how loud it is at skate park, and you would find that it is the same decibel rating as a playground, no louder than that.

Okay, and then sort of following up on um the neighbors' comments or questions.

Is there is it just basically like the park goes up to the residence's walls, and there's nothing to sort of buffer between the park and those residential walls?

Okay.

Um the res the wall is is there, and then there's a slope.

Um, there's a great difference between the houses in the back and in the park, and so there's a little slope, and that's why we added the ballards because the kids were kind of using it as a skate ramp.

And so we added those ballards with the chain to prevent that and to protect the wall from from that damage.

So we have we have to we have to kind of keep away from that.

So we got a natural buffer up the slope, right?

And then we start doing what we're doing.

Okay.

So that's about six feet or so, so six or seven feet.

Okay, okay.

Thank you very much.

Vice chair?

Yes, I cheer through you.

Just a quick question.

Since this isn't a residential neighborhood and not on a major thoroughfare like we usually see one of our city parks.

Um, are there any uh restricted hours for the basketball court or the skate park?

Um, just in in particular to those couple of facilities may create a lot of noise, and people were there at 10, 11, 12 o'clock at night.

So the city park hours are standard in all city parks, which is 7 a.m.

to 11 p.m.

So I I believe this is the exact same hours.

Okay, all right, thank you.

Perfect scene.

Oh, Commissioner Design.

And that's that's my concern too, is the noise pollution.

In the ward I live in, we have a uh a tremendous amount of skate parks, and it's not just skateboarders.

It is a congregation of bicyclists too using it, and there's a lot more usage of the skate park for some reason nowadays than the basketball court, and to have that skate park right up against a residential backyard draws some concern for me because I know the noise that's created by the skate parks that are in my ward, and they're in the center of the parks almost.

Uh so is there any way to take I mean I like the idea because that's kind of like where the future is, and that's what everybody's hanging out and doing with all the e-bikes and everything, and they're using the heck out of the skate parks more than the skateboarders.

Is there a way more to design this to the point where it's more centrally located within that footprint of that park to where that way gives a uh an even buffer for all those that are in that surrounding?

Because again, you said this park was built in 1974.

I'm sure there's probably hardly any houses around it at that point in time, but now we're looking to be harmonious and compatible to what's existing, and I think putting it next to somebody's literally right up against their backyard wall is an injustice, but I do support it if it was moved more to the center of this park.

So at this time, the project is funded as a renovation, and we're trying to maximize the square footage of the park to get as many amenities as possible.

So we were trying to find ways of using the existing surface that isn't being utilized and turn it into something that could be utilized.

So essentially the answer is likely no, due to funding constraints, and again, trying to keep the park, trying to keep all quadrants of the park maximized with the existing grass space picnic table space, overall recreation opportunity.

Commissioner Rogan.

Did um do you do any specific outreach to those abutters to ask them their thoughts on the skate park?

We did.

Parks and rec went out and did a survey with the neighborhood and received feedback from the neighborhood that supported the park renovation, and then that is where they got the recommendation for the skate park.

It came as a part of that survey that was done through parks and rec.

Okay.

What was the kind of response rate on that survey?

Was it that's a great question?

And I I don't know.

And and again, I guess my specific question was were those a butters specifically contacted to ask them their opinion on a skate park.

It's email surveys, so you know it should have gone to the whole neighborhood, but where we got the responses from, I have not researched that specifically.

Okay, thank you.

You're welcome.

Vice Chair.

Is there a way that we can put a six-month administrative review uh just to see if we need to adjust the hours of the skate park in case if it's going until 11 o'clock?

Because we we had a uh another park, I think it was in ward six, um, where it's not bocci ball, what was it?

Pickleball.

And and yeah, yes, your ward.

And I think we restricted hours on it.

So uh maybe it's needed, maybe it's not needed, but if we start if the city starts receiving complaints over the first six months, um, then we could adjust those hours on this park in particular.

So would the city be open to that seems more than reasonable to me, and then having that six months placed after the time we receive the permit, so that or you know, after construction is complete, actually, so that it makes sense.

Six months from now we'll still be in the design process, just to be clear.

Well, with that, Vice Chair, you ready to make a motion?

Yes, uh I'm gonna ask Nicole to go ahead and craft the motion uh uh the condition for me.

Madam Chair, through you that condition would read a six-month administrative review shall be performed from date of completion.

Thank you.

And with that added condition on item number 32 25-0604 SDR1 move to approve, subject to staff's conditions and the added condition motion carries.

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

Thank you.

Thank you so much for your time.

And with that, we are going to item 11, that is 25-0304 VAR 1.

Applicant Yan Chao Fan, owner Yongquin Wan and Shundan Zhao for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for proposed residential accessory structure, Jim.

That does not conform to Title 19.06 development standards for setbacks at 1540 South Tanay.

Staff may please have the report Madam Chair.

This item has been remanded back to the commission for reconsideration of a design change that is in your supplemental packet.

Well, the setbacks have been altered, they still do not meet Title 19, and staff is recommending denial.

Thank you.

This item has been noticed for a public hearing.

Is there anyone or the applicant?

Sorry.

The applicant, can you please give your name for the record?

Yeah.

Hi, my name is Yongqing.

Um, yeah, I'm the owner of this property.

Um, yeah, maybe I can share a little bit about sort of the modification we have made.

So um, so as you can imagine, as you can see from the the charts, the backyard is actually shaped very downward.

That's why it's difficult for us to make any adjustment and uh in the front line.

So the adjustment we're trying to propose to make is uh on the side of the property.

And we also pre-order the gym equipments from nine months ago to and there's specific dimensional requirement that we had have to fit into this house.

That's why, like after calculating everything, this is the modification that we can make to make sure that the property is as far as possible to the neighboring uh backyards.

And also, if you um I also bring some charts here to showcase that the neighboring land is actually pretty empty, and that's why we also got four approval four approval letters from all the neighbors, and they also feel like this because it's a gym structure, it's not gonna be noisy or anything.

So this really doesn't affect their living conditions.

If you'd like to submit that to staff for the record, you're more than welcome to.

Yeah, sure.

Okay, uh, let me just share the gym equipment.

Oh, yeah, sure.

So this is the gym.

Yeah, this is the gym we purchase, and that it has specific dimensional requirement.

Um for and we're trying to make the house as small as possible to fit the gym.

And also, if you see the neighbors, so the gym is actually here, and the neighbor land is actually pretty empty, so we won't be touching anything on the neighbor side.

And like I said, uh the gym is not going to be used very regularly.

So it that's why the neighbors all agree to it and they are okay with it when we talk to them.

Yeah.

Okay, thank you.

Um, so with that, this item has been noticed for public hearing.

Is there anyone from the public that would like to talk on this at this time?

Oh, yeah, sure.

Seeing none, I will turn it over to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Rogan.

Oh sure.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, I met with the applicant uh a couple times and had a couple conversations with them.

This came in as a as a code complaint from from a neighbor, and since it was first in front of us, it's there's been some modification, but most importantly, you've reached out to those all of the neighbors, and without knowing which one complained, they're all in support of this now this evening.

And looking at the plans again, there's a there's a problem because of the the location of the pool and the specific dimensional requirements, and so they can't move it away from the rear yard setback.

And unfortunately for them, they also started building this before they got the permits.

So a lot of what they want to do is already done.

And so moving it away from the the side wall is um kind of out of the question.

I would note, and I'm asking for your input on this is um a lot of the the setback variants is necessitated by the eaves of the building.

And so what we've done in the past is we've said, all right, cut the eaves off because we don't want to approve a two-foot um setback.

I don't know whether that's necessary if anyone has concerns about that, if they think it's appropriate.

Otherwise, I I'd be ready to move forward with it as is tonight.

Seeing none.

Seeing no comments, all right.

Um, then I am prepared to make a motion to approve um agenda item 11 project 25-0304 VAR1, subject to staff's conditions.

Motion carries.

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

Thank you.

Thank you.

With that, we're going to agenda item 12, renotification 25-0466.

Applicant Rhythm Roast Inc.

owner BGH property, LLC for possible action on the following land use entitlement project requests at 2747 North Rainbow Boulevard.

Staff may please get the report.

Madam Chair, this item has also been remanded back to the commission for reconsideration as the square footage of the proposed establishment increased from 2,962 square feet to 3,800 square feet, thus intensifying the parking variants from 39 where 43 was required to 39 where 76 is required.

Staff recommends recommendation remains denial on both the variants and the special use permit.

Please note an additional documentation of support was received after publication.

Thank you.

Good evening, Madam Chair, Planning Commissioners and Staff.

I'm George Ross on behalf of the applicant.

My address is 7582 Las Vegas Boulevard South Suite 518 in Las Vegas, Nevada, 89123.

Pam Matthews is the business operator that is looking to operate predominantly a coffee shop at this location.

And she's going to be open early for the coffee drinkers and have plenty of space for folks to sit and enjoy coffee and also get some work done.

In addition to that, because this size of the building is 3800 square feet, she's also looking to uh serve alcohol as well for those that want alcohol in their drinks at nighttime.

Also they would be able to have less coffee and more and more drinks.

The property's located at 2747 North Rainbow.

So that's why we're asking for two special use permits, uh, one for the parking variance and one for the full alcohol on premises.

There's gonna be no gaming at all involved in this business.

The building's been vacant for for many years.

She's looking to serve the local neighborhood, and I'm here to answer any answer any questions you might have.

Thank you.

At this time, this agenda item has been noticed for public hearing.

Is there anyone from the public that would wish to speak at this time?

Seeing none, I will turn over to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Rogan.

Uh thank you.

Um just in terms can you just explain to me briefly, because I was not here when you were in before the planning commission before the difference between what was initially proposed and what was proposed before city council.

Certainly.

Uh the the square footage of the building didn't change.

The square footage of the back of the house changed.

She made a smaller back of the house, more open area for the customers.

We also eliminated the outdoor seating to make it such that it would be within the premises.

And just a question for staff since we had that presentation on the parking earlier.

If I'm reading this correctly, as proposed in the near future, we're gonna move for a parking space based upon one space per 50 square foot to one space for 150 square foot.

Is that right?

Currently, our code it requires the one space for 50 square feet of public areas, and then back of houses one for every 200 square feet.

All right, and we're just moving to one standard of one for 150 square feet.

Yeah, when you average it out.

All right, so then you have you will have meet these new standards under this proposal.

I believe so.

Okay, you madam chair.

But I understand.

I understand.

Thank you, Mr.

Lowenstein.

I understand.

All right.

Um you're early, but I I think based upon the proposed new standards that are coming up.

I'm comfortable with this parking variance.

Does anyone have any questions or comments before I make a motion?

Okay.

All right.

Um, with that on agenda item 12, project number 25-0466, including uh V Air 1, Subpart 12A and 12B, SUP1, and make a motion for approval subject to staff's conditions.

And that motion carries.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Those items will move forward to city council on March 18th of 2026.

Thank you.

Thank you.

With that, we move to agenda item 15, abeyance 25-0502, VAR1.

Applicant owner Sherry Tonkin for possible action on a land use entitlement project request to allow an existing side yard fence, existing rear yard fence, and existing residential accessory structure that do not conform to Title 19.06 development standards for height and setbacks at 5881 Wild Horse Ledge Avenue.

Staff, can I please get the report?

Madam Chair, this is Cassandra Cerna community development for the record.

No evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance has been presented, and that the applicant has created a self-imposed hardship by constructing the fences and shed without permits that do not meet Title 19 height and setback requirements.

Therefore, staff recommends denial of the variance request.

Please note there is a revised staff report in your supplemental packet.

Thank you.

Thank you.

May you say your name for the record?

Sure.

Good evening.

Jessica Lane with Proficient Patios representing the homeowner, Miss Tonkin.

And she is here for the record too, just in case.

So yes, we are requesting a zero setback reduction from I believe it's a 10-foot that was being requested on this for building like privacy lattice walls on her rear and two side walls, as site plan showed.

So both side walls and rear property line.

Main thing for this is this is what she has as her back neighbor.

This huge shed that got put in not too long ago.

Zero setback reduction from I believe it's a 10 foot that was being requested on this for building like privacy lattice walls on her rear and two side walls as site plan um showed so both side walls and rear property line main thing for this is um this is what she has as her back neighbor this huge shed that got put in not too long ago so trying to avoid this look from this neighbor for the rear neighbor that was obviously the purpose of this in addition really not much privacy from her neighbor on the left or on the right one of them's got a spotlight the other one's facing right into the pool area but this was the really the main reason of why um we went ahead and uh did for the privacy lattice it is color to match the um color of the residents of the home I know it was set on the agenda I believe a couple weeks ago and one of the commissioners said they were going out there today so I'm sure one of the commissioners probably went out there I don't know was gonna go and um take a look at it that's why they set it for this agenda but um that's where we're at no HOA so there was um there's no HOA there and um that's where we're at thank you um at this time this has been noticed for public hearing is there anyone from the public that would like to speak at this time seeing none I will turn it over to the commission starting with Commissioner Taylor uh thank you madam chair through you um right here oh sorry hi that's okay I was there last time we're here yeah um so miss lane I I have been out to the site I I drove um to the front of it but mostly I went and saw it from the neighboring view so um I I do have a question for staff I hope they can answer this um the large shed that is in the backyard that is the precipitating cause of oh is that a direct shed that one that was the precipitating cause of this construction prior to approval and permitting was that permitted Madam Chair through you yes we did confirm that that was constructed with a building permit and it is legal okay so I miss Lane I I I just have a huge concern about this I mean I understand that this is quite an obstruction for her backyard view I understand she has concerns about privacy I would guess that a huge percentage of folks in this valley have concerns about balconies looking into their backyards.

However I have seen this construction now both from looking into the backyard and looking at it from other backyards and I do not find that it is harmonious and compatible with the neighbors it it is its own it is its own obstruction and it is also attached to a shared wall which causes me concerns and so I I will happily hear from my other my fellow commissioners but I I am not sure that I can support this application.

Got it.

Is there anyone else from the commission that would like to speak at this time see none.

Okay.

Oh and look Commissioner Schlotman Yeah I I I concur with what you're saying there I I wouldn't want to look at this myself but um I I would think Japanese blueberries were uh uh cherry laurels or uh an Italian cypress or some other fast growing uh hedge could start to provide them a little bit of relief and look a little bit better because I I feel we're just going down the wrong road when we uh approve something that's so great in height and I and I do again I under I understand um uh and I um empathize with why she wanted to do this but I I I just think it's too intense it's too much and it's not harmonious and compatible so um madam chair I'm I'm prepared to make a motion please do okay so um on item um 25-0502 var one um variance um I'm gonna make a motion to deny commissioner can I have one question or one last comment before or are we is it too late at this point?

Madam Chair Yes just my last point is on the on the wall it is on poll so not specifically on the wall would you guys be willing on anything maybe even shortening the height a little bit so it's not as tall I madam chair uh I was gonna ask if there was any I mean I think my understanding is that there's maybe an opportunity for one more course of block under the code if that's accurate Mr.

Lowenstein.

So the maximum height of residential would be eight foot on a CMU block wall eight foot eight foot wall is the maximum height before it would go into a variance.

Uh-huh.

And would it is there are there materials other than masonry block that are permitted to be used to get to that eight foot?

Um I mean you'd probably want a compatible uh material, but there are a list of prohibited materials such as barbed wire and things of that nature.

Um I think I only have a question.

I don't know if staff has already looked at which side of the wall is higher and if which one per code it's going to be drawn from.

Madam Chair, we did not look at the different grades between the backyards, but to our uh deputy director's point, they could go up to eight feet.

Um so uh increasing the wall height would probably be the best bet so that it would maintain the character of the neighborhood, you know, surrounding block walls.

The only other option really would be wrought iron.

Um, but that is you can see through that.

I don't know that that would give them the visual relief they're looking for.

Otherwise, as to uh Commissioner Slotman's point, I would plant trees, cypress trees, something that grow grows tall and quickly and a column column type shape to create that living wall, and then they wouldn't see it.

And regardless, the application before us tonight is for the existing construction, and so we have to make a decision on that, correct?

Yes, yes, you're voting on the variance before you tonight.

Okay, and so then anything else would have to be a subsequent discussion.

Yes.

Okay.

Ms.

Mr.

Lewins.

Yes, through you, Madam Chair.

So just point of clarification on the height, the height of the wall or fence shall be measured from the side with the greatest vertical vertical exposure.

So if they're on the high side and only have five feet, but the other side is greater, then there might be a conflict with adding additional wall height.

So if they're uphill and the backyard neighbor is downhill, you're measuring from the backyard neighbor.

Correct.

Okay.

So if they're eight feet, then there's no adding a block.

That's correct.

Okay.

All right.

Again, regardless, we're moving on this variance tonight.

So my motion to deny stands.

But at least you've got some clarification, and you've got some great suggestions from Commissioner Schlottman on on what to do to potentially mitigate that that view.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Motion carries.

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

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

With that, we move to item 19, 25-0463 W VR1.

Applicant, All-Star Fence Company, owner Boyd Vegas, GSA L L C for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for a proposed perimeter wall that does not conform to Title 19 requirements for material at 550 South Main Street.

Staff, can I please get the report?

Madam Chair, staff finds the proposed razor wire material added to an existing.

I'm random I'm Randy Graham of All-Star Fence and sorry, at this time I'm I'm doing a staff report and then we'll open up to the applicant to give their presentation.

Oh, okay.

Madam Chair, staff finds the proposed razor wire material added to an existing perimeter wall.

Does not support the vision for redevelopment plan area one for achieving an environment reflecting a high level of concern for architectural and urban design principles.

Therefore, staff recommends denial of the requested waiver subject to conditions if approved.

Thank you.

With that, I open to the applicant.

Please give your name for the record.

Hi, my name is Norma Miles, and I'm with all American builders.

And what we were, I guess, requesting was just to add um about um eight inches of bob wire on the interior portion of the actual wall versus on the exterior, so that way we didn't have a lot of the um concertina wire exposed.

Um it's only going to be uh mainly on uh one of the walls that's currently um parallel to the actual parking structure.

So we were kind of hoping that we can get that approved.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

With that, this item has been motion has been noticed for public hearing.

Is there anyone from the public that would like to speak on this item at this time?

Seeing none, I will turn it over to members of the commission, starting with vice chair.

Thank you, Chair.

Through you, um and and this is razor wire that you're wanting to put at the top, not just a metal uh fence at the top.

Correct.

Okay.

Um so we've we've had a long history with razor wire in in this town, and I've I've probably seen 40-50 applications and I've never never approved razor wire, even an industrial area that backs up to a uh railroad track.

Um so being that we're right down in the heart of the city, right by City Hall, and um and everywhere else, I I don't really feel it's appropriate.

However, um in reading the the uh staff report, it seems like uh the maximum perimeter wall height, six to ten feet.

We're not located along a rideway or adjacent to residentially zoned property, which sounds like you could raise the wall up to 10 feet from its current eight feet if you want to put uh some sort of uh metal or wrought iron on on the top.

But for me, I there there's just no way for me to get behind razor wire, especially just um uh right right downtown anywhere in the city.

Uh it just doesn't scream that we're safe and that uh it's not the look that we're really uh trying to achieve.

So is there anything you would like to say in response?

No, um no, nothing else that I can really add to be honest.

Okay, with that, are there any other members of the commission seeing none?

Vice Chair Ray to make a motion.

Yes, uh Madam Chair.

Uh based on the comments and testimony heard today on number 19 25-0463, waiver one, uh move to follow staff's recommendation for denial.

We're gonna have to offer that instead.

And that motion carries.

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

Thank you.

With that, we are moving on to item 21, 25-0509 VAR one.

Applicant concept auto body repair, LLC, owner Highland Drive Investments LLC.

Her possible action on a land use entitlement project request to allow 23 parking spaces where 65 are required at 2908 Highland Drive Suite 140.

Staff may please get the report.

Yes, madam chair.

While the proposed land use is permitted conditionally, and the zonings are strict and satisfies Title 19.12 conditional use regulations.

Uh the site does not provide sufficient parking spaces for all the uses within the building.

Uh staff finds no evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance to warrant the requested variants.

Staff recommends denial other requested variants subject to conditions if approved.

Please note additional letters of protest were received after publication.

Thank you.

Okay, and applicant, please give your name for the record.

Thank you.

Uh good evening, madam chair.

Commissioners uh for the record, Jennifer Gaynor, Jay Ginnerlaw here uh with the applicant.

Um we're here, as you know, to request a variance to allow 23 parking spaces where 65 are required by code.

Uh this use is permitted at this location with a conditional use verification.

Uh however, as you know, we're facing an issue when it comes to parking um requirement.

The reason we believe this variance makes sense is this uh will not be a typical auto-body shop uh where you might see dozens of customers a day, uh cars under repair throughout the yard.

Um this is uh going to be a high-end shop with approximately 50 vehicles serviced per month, uh vehicles repairs by appointment only, uh at most maybe four walk-in clients a month, and uh only six employees total, and uh only very limited vehicles on site due to the longer repair cycles and the specialized nature of the work.

Um I have had discussions with uh Commissioner Schlappman as well as that councilwoman Diaz, and they were uh supportive of this request with some potential conditions that we are amenable to.

And we're here if you have any questions.

Thank you.

With that, this item has been noticed as a public hearing agenda item.

Is there anyone from the public that would like to speak at this time?

Seeing none, I will turn it over to the commission, starting with vice chair.

Thank you.

Um I appreciate you uh giving me a call, kind of discussing the project.

Um I I feel that the parking based on uh the type of business that you're running uh would be adequate.

But if I could ask uh through the chair uh for uh Miss Edoes to read the added condition into the record.

Madam Chair, through you we have three added conditions.

Number one, the hours of operation are limited to Monday through Friday, 8 a.m.

to 5 p.m.

Number two, no work shall occur outside of the enclosed structure.

And number three, no inoperable vehicles shall be kept overnight in the parking lot.

All inoperable vehicles shall be stored within an enclosed structure.

Thank you.

Number two no work shall occur outside of the enclosed structure and number three no inoperable vehicles shall be kept overnight in the parking lot all inoperable vehicles shall be stored within an enclosed structure thank you thank you and you agree to those conditions yes I agree okay and uh I did notice that there was ours uh uh Monday through Friday uh are you not planning on operating on Saturday yeah we don't work on the weekends okay Monday through Friday okay perfect um I have no other no other comments feel free to make a motion madam chair on item number 21 25 0509 VAR1 move to approve subject to staff's conditions and the added conditions as written to the record by Miss Eddoes and you agree with all those conditions yes we do yes I do thank you motion carries madam chair this item is final action unless appeal to the city clerk within 10 days thank you item 22 250520 VR1 applicant owner Jonathan Bellow for possible action on a land use entitlement project request to allow an existing front yard wall fence that does not conform with Title 19 development standards for height invisibility at 410 South Rancho Drive staff may you please get the report hello good evening uh sorry at this time for gonna have staff report and then the applicant can you the presentation thank you madam chair no evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance has been presented and that the applicant has created a self-imposed hardship by constructing a wall that exceeds Title 19 development standards therefore staff recommends denial of the variance requests subject to conditions if approved please note additional documents for support and protests were received after publication thank you thank you and the applicant at this time please give your name for the record thank you okay um in this case the owners of the property want to maintain the same height of the fence because they have experienced uh some incidents incidents of home homeless people like uh trespassing the property or even campings in the in their properties so that's why the reason they want they want to keep that height of the fence can you please say your name for the record once more Jesus uh and your last name uh beatris thank you this item has been noticed as a public hearing item is there anyone from the public that would like to speak at this time please come forward and just please state your name for the record sure uh good evening uh my name is Jeff Brooks good evening madam chair commissioners um staff um I am a next door uh neighbor of the uh subject property and uh this is very difficult for me because I'm a very very neighborly sort of uh person um the issue here uh is I as as staff noted there's there's there's no uh intrinsic issue that forces or presents the uh request for variance I think I'm I'm I'm a very rules oriented person and I think the development code speaks very clearly to fence height and gates height gate heights uh in addition I have a number of other concerns that I have with this project which I submitted in a letter um uh I don't know if I would be permitted to go into some of those but they go to uh basically bulk and mass and also just um even fitting the uh the nature of a RA zoned property this is a massive structure um that goes uh sky high it doesn't fit the nature of the of the RA zoning and does not compatible with any of the neighboring homes uh as well as there's intrusion of privacy issues with rearward facing balcony which overlooks my backyard swimming pool and so forth so those are the concerns I have and I would request the commission to deny the variants as well as investigate other perhaps non-compliant issues in this construction thank you yeah I'm Doug Hughes I live uh right next door and I did actually comply with all the um stuff and I met here with you guys and changed my plans and did everything like I was told and then next door they let alone um how would I put this um um yeah they built something where exactly what I was told I was wasn't allowed to do and and I do understand the concern of the wall and the walls very important um it's very loud on rancho I just don't really uh I know that the wall's a problem right so the wall's a problem because what I learned when I am preparing to put my wall up is that uh you your your meter has to be in the front because if there was a fire in the house then the fire company's not they can't shut off the power because it's not in they're not accessible to it you see what I'm saying so that I had to you know spend the money to do that did all that um

So the wall's a problem because what I learned when I am preparing to put my wall up is that uh you your meter has to be in the front because if there was a fire in the house, then the fire company's not they can't shut off the power because it's not in there not accessible to it.

You see what I'm saying?

So that I had to, you know, spend the money to do that, did all that.

Um changed my plans, did everything, and then next door neighbor built a two-story garage in front of their house.

And I don't understand how they that happened.

I really don't.

And that's really all I have to say here with that.

Wondering what you know where you guys have to say is really what I'm wondering, because I like I said, I complied with it.

I'm right next door to him.

He's right behind me.

So thank you for your comments at this time.

At this time, if the applicant would like to address any of the concerns.

Thank you.

Uh also I think um the next door neighbor have a higher fence than the fence of the current owners of the property.

And also in the future, they will move the heatherly parents to the property.

So that's why they want to keep a safety environment for them.

Okay, and with that, I will turn it over to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Rogan.

So there's a lot of interesting things that are going on with this property, and I've driven by it, and I've heard about it from Doug and from numerous other people who are very much concerned about the impact that the residential construction is having on the neighborhood.

Um, and and I share those concerns, but that's not what's before us tonight.

The only thing that's before us tonight is the wall height.

So I'm happy to meet with you both afterwards and talk to you about the building of the addition.

Um, but we're only limited to that wall height.

So please reach out to me, Doug.

I know you tried to reach me today.

I promise I will talk to you.

Um with regard to the that front yard wall, I think I have three or four on the agenda tonight asking for the same thing for the same reasons.

And then probably in the last year, I've had you know five or six on agendas, and another five to ten that have reached out to me personally asking for the same thing in this ward, and they're all say the same thing.

Homelessness, crime, traffic noise, um, safety of pets of themselves.

And my answer is always the same.

We gotta follow the code as much as possible.

And a slight variance to meet certain needs, I have no problem with.

And I've routinely said, if you want six feet, fine.

If you want to make that a three-foot base or three foot open or two-foot base with four foot open, fine.

I we can find some some measure of compatibility with the code, but I cannot, and I although I have in the past on rare occasions supported taller than six foot and um closed walls.

I've always regretted it.

I've always regretted it.

Um and I think in in light of of what I'm seeing here, I think it's a great looking wall with the the unique block structure.

I think it looks great.

But you've put almost you've made it almost like a prison yard with that that um wire running across the top of it.

It's it's frightening, not to mention the fact that um the door code requires the homeowner to come in and block the sidewalk to enter that code and block the right-of-way, um, preventing pedestrians or bicyclists from from passing as is he or she enters the code to get into their own home.

So there's multiple reasons why I can't support this, but predominantly I don't want to see our neighborhoods turned into these um these streets just filled with six to ten foot solid block walls because of this generalized fear of of homelessness.

That's not what I think our community should look like.

So I really can't support this application tonight.

And I know that several of you are in the the audience tonight um asking for the same thing.

You're on notice of likely what I'm going to propose to this commission tonight.

So if there's any other comments, um other than if there's not, I'm ready to make a motion.

Um with regard to agenda item 22, project 25-0520 V AR1, and make a motion for denial.

Yes.

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

Thank you.

Thank you.

Moving on to agenda item 23, 25-0537, applicant, Las Vegas Billboards, owner Stewart Plaza, LLC for possible action on the following land use entitlement project requests at 321 North Mojave Road, 23A, 25-0537 VR1 to allow proposed off-premise sign to be constructed to a height of 65 feet or 55 feet is the maximum allowed, and 42 feet above the elevation of the roadway surface of an elevated freeway where 30 feet is the maximum allowed.

23B, 25-0537 SUP1 for a proposed 65-foot tall 14-foot by 48-foot off-premise sign, not qualifying as a city communication sign use with digital LED display on both faces.

Staff, may you please get the report?

Yes, Madam Chair.

The proposed off-premise signs would be located on property with an approved multifamily residential development and would be perpendicular to the approved mixed use development, which would have the highest light and glare impact on the residential units closest to the sign.

Additionally, the applicant's justification for raising the height of the proposed sign is premised on the height of the adjacent land.

Whereas there is no unique condition of the subject property that warrants a variance.

As such, the hardship is self-imposed and staff recommends denial of all requested entitlements, subject to conditions if approved.

Thank you.

Thank you, applicant.

May you please give your name for the record.

Greg Esposito representing the applicant in this uh uh matter.

Uh good evening, Madam Chairwin, uh members of the commission.

Um just to familiarize yours just familiarize with you with the uh property.

Uh it's on the corner of Stewart and Mojave.

To the uh east of this property is the prison.

Um directly underneath the this property on this property.

Uh the owner has uh submitted plans.

Um they've not been approved yet.

They've submitted plans for mixed use development, and then further to the west, uh you have some multi uh multi-family units there that I'd like to touch on in a little bit later.

But the owner, you know, the owner understands that uh this mixed use development is going to go up.

Uh the billboard is going to help uh this this commercial property remain viable.

Uh the convenience store isn't on major arterials.

Stewart isn't as as well traveled.

Um so the the billboard is going to help uh uh keep this property uh viable for the owner.

I have a couple of pictures I'd like to show here.

Any overhead please.

So I appreciate staff's report.

Um the picture here, you have a crane and it is currently holding a billboard, a uh a piece of vinyl at the height that is currently allowed.

And you can see that you you can't see the billboard at the height that's currently allowed.

This picture over here is holding uh a piece of vinyl the size of the billboard at the height that we're requesting, and you can see that it is now visible uh over the uh sound barrier.

Uh we're very familiar with this section of road, the sound barrier uh pretty high in this area, uh necessary because of the residences, but the all the all the billboards along this corridor are above that sound barrier so that they can be viewed.

Um I wanted to uh talking about residences in the these are the closest residences, and you can't really see very well from these pictures.

I can actually pull it up on my phone.

There are only one, there's only one window per unit on these multi-unit uh residences that face this signage.

And it's not currently very well lit back there.

Uh this is not this is a this is an economically depressed sort of area, and uh it's not there's only one street light here and here.

Um this sign is not gonna add a significant amount of of light to the area that is going to disturb these residences so far away, especially with the the limited amount of windows that they have.

Uh we appreciate uh Commissioner Schlottman meeting with us.

Uh one of the concerns was brightness uh right there on the freeway uh and and it potentially being an uh uh an obstruction or a distraction to the drivers uh on the freeway.

This is the sign company here.

Uh they use more modern technology than many of the the billboards that are around Las Vegas right now.

Um instead of having a timer on them to decrease brightness at certain times of day, they actually have uh photo sensors to where even if you're in the middle of the day and it gets cloudy, uh it will reduce, it will scale back the brightness of these signs.

Limits to the to the to the daytime, nighttime that meet pretty strict standards.

If you were to read all their material, this paragraph here really goes into how there's an outdoor advertising association that has commissioned studies and commissioned professionals to set levels of brightness of these signs a standard across the country to where they aren't distracting, to where as they scroll from one vendor to another, uh they don't distract drivers.

They aren't bright enough to be to influence a driver uh as they're driving.

Um then uh there are safeguards to make sure that those um the the signs do dim at night.

Um if if something happens and they're not dimming properly, uh it will automatically go to the darkest setting uh at night.

And then another uh thing that we discussed during our meeting was louvers.

Umvers on the sign itself, uh right around each of the LEDs.

So you have you know rows of LEDs, and uh these are louvers that direct the light more outwardly, more horizontally, and don't allow for as much light pollution uh to head towards the ground.

What's interesting about this application is if and this is not an accurate um representation of what will actually be used.

This is one type of sign after our conversation with the commissioner, uh the uh Las Vegas uh billboards is going to go with a second design where the louvers are longer, more of the light is directed horizontally, not vertically, not downwards.

Uh so where it is more directed at the freeway, which is its intended uh audience, although I don't know exactly what angle it is.

Like right here on this sign, it's 63 degrees downward.

I don't know.

Uh we can have more information uh as we move forward in the process, uh, but I don't have that for you at this time.

Uh and and it's interesting, he he asked, you know, what what do you mean louvers?

And the best I could think of was when I was a teenager and everyone was driving around IROX.

And it's this sort of effect.

Now, if you're sitting in the driver's seat, you can see out the back of this window perfectly, but if you're looking from any other direction, you really can't see into the car.

So imagine this sort of an effect on a billboard where if you're driving down the freeway, you can see what they're advertising, but if you're below it, uh street level, residence level, uh, it is not as bright.

And I believe there's a condition uh to be read into the record um that's that that agrees to those louvers being there.

You know, in the staff report, um, they said that it's a self-imposed hardship.

Uh I I hope you can understand that this sound wall, not our fault.

That's not us doing that, uh, and everyone has to you know be able to be seen over that wall.

And um, and that there are uh uh extraordinary circumstances, as it says in the staff report.

The sound wall creates an extraordinary circumstance to where if we don't go that high, uh and once again going that high with the louvers makes it a little better because you're higher, and your angle of the lighting heading down is less.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

This item has been noticed for public hearing.

Is there anyone in the public at this time that would like to speak?

Seeing none, I will turn it over to the commission, starting with Commissioner Schlottman.

Thank you, Chair.

Through you, uh yes, I did meet with the applicant and the actual sign company, and uh my my biggest concern was what impact will it have on the multifamily that could come in at some point in the future that was previously approved, but I don't I don't see any movement in that on that project.

I pass by this uh property five, six times a week.

Um there's a a trail that runs right on the back side of this property as well with a big sound wall.

And it's not just a sound wall, it's the the highway is built up, you know, significantly higher than this particular site.

But um one of the things that I uh the very first thing I said was how do we mitigate the the light uh pollution from hitting the future uh multifamily and they start talking about uh there's uh technology with these louvers, which you know I I I've never heard any other sign company talk about when we're talking about LED signs.

And um, and yes, it's more expensive, but they offered to put this in uh to make sure that it wouldn't have an impact.

And another big issue that I have with these signs or when you're driving down any any street, if it's the highway, or if you're driving down Charleston um or Sahara and the the vet clinic or the little casino, they change to bright white message from a dark message, and it blinds you or you can't even hardly see.

So the after the meeting, they actually sent me a um probably a 20-page pamphlet on the design and the features built into uh into their LED signs.

And I'd like to pass it around uh at some point because 14 years of being on the plan commission, going to various APAs and all these workshops and everything.

I'll learn more in about an hour of reading this pamphlet than I uh learned in the previous 14 years.

So it talks about the difference between knits and and and foot candles and and when you would use one over the other and how far you you measure uh uh uh the nits or the the foot candles uh uh from and and so it goes into depth, and so it's a really interesting read.

Thank you uh for sending that over.

Um, and uh the technology built into it where you actually get emails in case of your player or your uh your your photo sensor goes out so you know to go um you know modify that right away and how it defaults to the lowest bright brightness of some of any of the components break.

So appreciate the care put uh that you put in there.

I don't have a problem with the height.

I mean, the higher you get, the further you're away from the residential.

Uh I just want to make sure that we have a uh condition, and I know that plan staff was working on it.

Yes, madam chair, through you, there would be an added condition to item 23b, 250537 SUP1, uh, which would state movers shall be added to the off-premise sign to prevent errant lighting from becoming a nuisance to adjacent to properties and to ensure the lighting is directed towards interstate 11 traffic.

Thank you.

Thank you.

May I may I uh madam chair may I please comment on that?

Words matter, and and and in that statement, there's actually two absolute words to prevent um you can't prevent, right?

So I don't know the word, I don't I don't know that the word prevent is I mean is the right word to use there to limit um you know I I don't want to be dishonest.

I don't know.

No, I I definitely I hear your concerns and uh Commissioner Schlottman.

Do you have a comment?

I I I would be fine with limit what what's the second well there was two there's two places in the statement.

I don't I don't have it memorized, but there were two places that made very sort of absolute, you know.

Can you reread the condition with the word limit versus prevent yes, madam chair, through you uh so that can tissue to read again as the loofer shall be added to the off-premise sign to limit errant lighting from becoming a nuisance to adjacent properties and to ensure the lighting is directed towards interstate 11 traffic?

And sure.

You know, well, you were ensuring that the light was being directed towards interstate 15.

I think that's what what you're doing.

Um you're limiting the light that's going there to ensure that it's heading out to interstate 15.

Yes.

Okay.

Yes, we can definitely accept that.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Um Madam Chair, I'm ready to make a motion.

Please do.

On item number 23, 25-0537, 23A 25-0537 V A R1, and 23B 25-0537 SUP1.

Move to approve, subject to staff's conditions and the added condition as read into the record, and you agree to all conditions.

Can I get a yes?

Yes, yes, we do.

Commissioner Gesalvia.

Yes.

Motion carries.

Thank you very much for your time tonight.

Madam Chair, this item will move forward to city council on March 18th of 2026.

Thank you.

Thank you.

With that, item 24, 25-0561, VR 1 applicant owner Maria Gonzalez and Ulysses Jose Gonzalez Gomez for possible action on a land use entitlement project request to allow an existing front yard wall that does not conform to Title 19 development standards for height and visibility at 4363 Mountain View Boulevard staff.

May you please get the report.

No evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance has been presented in that the applicant has created a self-imposed hardship by constructing a front yard wall that exceeds Title 19 development standards for height.

Therefore, staff recommends denial of the variance request, subject to conditions if approved.

Please note additional documents for support and protest were received after publication.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And the applicant, you can present.

Can you please give your name for the record?

Yeah, Maria Gonzalez.

So I just wanted to let you guys know update.

I got a call from the city there a date to put a 20% contrast.

And I also did that.

Um I can show you pictures on my phone, but I sent it by email to Cassandra, I believe is her name.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you so much.

Um, with that, this item has been noticed for public hearing.

Is there anyone from the public that would like to speak at this time?

Seeing none, I will go to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Rogan.

Yes.

Thanks.

Um I think you heard me a moment ago talk about the front yard walls.

And I'm sure you saw the writing on the wall, but again, for those same reasons that I mentioned on the agenda item 22.

I I can't support it.

I think that you can find other ways to achieve the goals that you want.

Maybe through uh for privacy, you can put up some bushes or something like that.

But surrounding your house in a solid block wall, I just don't think is conducive to the look and feel of a uh neighborhood that we want.

Um I do note that you do have some issues about which is the front yard and which is the side yard that you can.

Yeah, you can you can work that out with with staff and and they can tell you, and you can I think there's a process to determine what is the front yard and what is the side yard, so you can at least figure out what how tall you can build your walls and whether they need to be solid, okay.

But I can't support it tonight.

Oh, there's no other comments.

I'll make a motion to uh deny uh agenda item 24, project 25-0561 VAR 1.

I'm a yes.

Will they work on the computer?

Motion carries.

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

Thank you.

Thank you.

And with that, we move on to item 25, 25-0579 via one.

Applicant owner Corey Wendell for possible action on a land use entitlement project request to allow existing residential accessory structures, carport and shed that do not conform to Title 19.06 development standards for setbacks, separation, and aesthetic compatibility at 6509 Echo Crest Avenue.

Staff may please get the report.

Yes, madam chair.

The requested variance is the result of an open code enforcement case as cited and unpermitted carport that does not meet setbacks.

No evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance related to the physical characteristics of the property have been presented to warrant the requested variants.

As such, the hardship is self-imposed, and staff recommends denial of the requested variants, subject to conditions if approved.

Please note additional letters of support received after publication.

Thank you.

Thank you.

May the applicant give your name for the record.

Corey Wendell, and this is David Shoemaker.

I'm not a good speaker, so I'm gonna let him do that.

David Shoemaker, 6509 Echo Crest Avenue.

Um, here with Corey Wendell.

I'm a resident of that house.

So I had written a prepared statement about this already, and yesterday I was going to the neighbors to talk to them about this and see what they think, see if they would get behind this project.

And actually, one of all of them signed uh letters saying that they were okay with it.

Um, one of them actually wrote a letter better than mine, so I'm gonna start with hers.

Um I don't uh honestly know her.

This is the first time I've met her.

Um she lives at behind me.

5220 Sun Gem Court.

Uh I am writing to express my support for my neighbor David Shoemaker and his request to keep the existing RV cover structure located on his property as a note neighboring homeowner.

I can say that the RV cover is not negatively impacted my property, my enjoyment of the neighborhood, or the overall appearance of our community.

On the contrary, the structure is well maintained, visually harmonious with the surrounding homes, and helps keep the area organized and tidy.

The RV cover does not create excess noise, traffic, or disruption, and it does not pose any safety concerns.

I believe it adds value by keeping recreational vehicles properly stored and shielded, which benefits the neighborhood as a whole.

I respectfully ask the city council to consider allowing the structure to remain in place.

Supporting reasonable property use that does not adversely affect neighbors helps preserve the character, cooperation, and goodwill within our community.

Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration, and that's from Tamara Badger.

Like I said, that's better than mine.

In any case, I will keep this short but to the point.

This is concerning an aluminum RV covered parking structure next to the house.

It is a non-permanent structure.

It is not attached to the house.

It has been in place for over 20 years.

And by saying that, uh I one of the items in this that keeps getting mentioned that that this is a self-imposed hardship.

The only self-imposed hardship, I believe, here was that we bought the house.

And I'll go into a couple of other things regarding that in just a second, but we are by no means the only ones in the area or the neighborhood with this.

As a matter of fact, if how would I show this on there?

So we went around the neighborhood uh just last night to count all of them.

We often walk the dog in the area.

These are there were 33 units close enough to us to that within walking distance, exactly like this.

Um as far as I know, there's only four or five of us that have gotten uh this notice.

Um to that point, I guess I don't understand why everybody isn't getting noticed.

Um so, furthermore, um I believe that the issue will cause home valuations to drop in the area if we were forced to remove all of these.

Uh we weren't told by anyone that this is or could be a problem at the time of purchase of the house, not the previous owner nor the realtor.

The company that installed it, it has been sold to uh that installed it had been sold to a new owner.

When I asked them about it, they said, well, when we sell these to people, we tell them it's at your own risk if you proceed without a permit.

If the house is not in code, you can't sell it until it's corrected.

You must give any buyer full disclosure of a problem.

It will cost money to remove this structure.

It will cost money to amend the structure.

Part of the appeal and the value of these single-level ranch-style homes is the additional space provided by these RV parking shades.

It gives people that have an RV or boat somewhere to park on their own property.

So you don't have to go to a storage unit or something like that.

And when you do that, then you don't want to go to the storage place to go use the right RV.

If you don't have an RV or boat, it allows the person the opportunity to strive for something like that without having to worry about, well, where would I put it?

Well, that's us.

We don't have one yet, but I I would like to.

Um, and then lastly, I would like to say that there's because there's so many of these and it's an older neighborhood, there's others in the neighborhood that may lose their house to this issue.

Um there are elderly people in the area.

We know one of them across the street that has been noticed for this violation.

And uh he's not going to be able to work this through the system.

Um they don't have the time, money, or physical ability to do what we're doing today.

Um I think that's it for now.

Thank you so much.

And with that, this item has been noticed for public hearing.

Is there anyone from the public that would like to speak at this time on this item?

Seeing none, I will turn it over to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Taylor.

Thank you, Madam Chair, through you.

Um thanks so much for coming down tonight and thanks for the time talking about your about this um uh addition into your backyard.

Um appreciate the map showing just how extensive through the neighborhood these these are.

I looked at the aerials, and your neighbor immediately to the right has one that is twice as long as yours, it appears.

So um I don't really have any concern um with it.

I think it's harmonious and compatible given the fact that so many of your neighbors also have these RVs, um, these RV structures.

So um, unless there's anybody else on commission that wants to make a comment, I'm prepared to make a motion.

Please do.

Thank you.

On item 25-0579 V A R1.

I move to approve um the variants requested.

Oh, subject to conditions.

Thank you, Chair.

And you agree to all conditions.

Yes.

Okay, great.

Thanks.

Um motion carries.

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

Thank you.

Thanks.

Thank you.

That we go to item 26, 25-0581 SDR 1, applicant of Go services, LLC, owner, SSND, Nevada Properties, LLC for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for a proposed parking facility with waivers of appendix F interim downtown development standards, area one on the east side of Las Vegas Boulevard, approximately 470 feet south of Okey Boulevard.

Staff may please get the report.

Madam Chair, staff finds the proposed parking facility is compatible with adjacent development and meets the need for infill development in the gateway district.

The requested waivers of interim downtown Las Vegas Area 1 development standards are minor in nature.

Staff therefore recommends approval of the request subject to conditions if approved.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I mean the applicant, can you give your name for the record?

Thank you, madam chair, commissioners.

My name is Bob Gronauer, 1980 Festival Plaza Drive.

I'm here representing the applicant in this matter.

And I also have a representative from EVGO located right here with behind me in case there's any questions.

I may not be able to answer this before you.

So that gives you a mock-up of the elevation.

I believe that it will be consistent with the uh condition that staff has in the uh staff report for you, or that will be revised.

So that being said, we'd ask you to uh follow staff's recommendations for approval with that addition that we're gonna be doing the stucco for the building itself.

Thank you.

With that, this item has been noticed for public hearing.

Is there anyone in the public at this time that would like to speak on this item?

Seeing none, I will close public comment and turn it over to the commission, starting with Commissioner Schlottman.

Yes, uh Madam Chair, through you uh when I reviewed this item, the only problem I had was the tough shed that looked like it was bought from Home Depot and being planet right on Las Vegas Boulevard because the rest of the facility looks nice.

Um so uh thank you for going back and uh talking to your client, convincing them uh to uh put stucco on the outside of it.

It's gonna look nice.

I appreciate y'all doing that.

And um if I can through the chair, if I can ask planning staff to read the added condition requiring the uh stucco on the outside of the building.

Madam Chair, through you that added condition will be on the SDR, and that will read revised elevations shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Community Development prior to the time application is made for a building permit.

The guard shack exterior shall incorporate finished materials consistent with the character of surrounding development along Las Vegas Boulevard, such as stucco, stucco-like composite panels or other materials approved by the department.

The color scheme shall incorporate the branding colors of the vehicle charging station operator.

Thank you.

Do you agree with that condition?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

I'm ready to make a motion.

Please do.

On item 26 25 0581 SDR1 move to approve subject to staff's conditions and the added condition as written to the record, and you agree to all those conditions, Mr.

Groenhauer.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Motion carries.

Thank you very much.

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

Thank you.

Thank you.

With that, we are at item 27, 25-0590.

Applicant owner, Gabriela Arias Soto Trust for possible action on the following land use entitlement project requests at 913 RTZOA.

27A 25 0590 VAR1 to allow an existing residential accessory dwelling unit, residential accessory structure, pool bathroom, and a patio cover that do not conform to Title 19.06 development standards for separation and setbacks.

And 27B, 25-0590 SUP1 for proposed residential accessory dwelling unit use.

Staff may please get the report.

Yes, madam chair.

The requested special use permit and variance requests are the results of an open code enforcement case that cited multiple living structures at the subject property.

No evidence of unique or extraordinary circumstance related to the physical characteristics of the property have been presented to warrant the requested variance or special use permit.

As such, the hardship is self-imposed, and staff recommends denial of all requested entitlements subject to conditions if approved.

Please note an additional letter of support was received after publication.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes.

She she I'm her husband.

Can you please give your name as well for the record?

Will some vagus?

She doesn't speak in a lot of English.

I don't speak a little bit.

Just a little bit.

I'm should be here because we make it a uh uh patio in my backyard.

And I have existing patio before, uh metal patio.

And we should build in a little bit bigger than that one we have that one I had before.

And uh we uh Garage Combres uh for uh I have for my dad.

We supposed to have our representative, but I he was not here.

So that's it.

Okay, thank you.

This item has been noticed for public hearing.

Is there anyone from the public that would wish to speak at this time?

Seeing none, I will close and turn it over to members of the commission.

And I would start with Commissioner Schlottman.

Do you have any comments on this?

Madam Chair, I I mean, I reviewed this item.

I it it's in Ward 5.

We I don't have a problem with the bathroom uh that was added for the pool.

Um the Grad conversion, I mean, I don't have a big issue with that either.

It's uh if there's a casita in the backyard, accessory dwelling unit that's attached or detached.

Um and so then it come down to the patio structure that's in the back.

And I start looking through the neighborhood and um as you look on Google Maps.

I I would say probably 80 percent of the houses in this neighborhood have a patio structure or a storage shed right up against the wall.

So is it harmonious and compatible?

I I would say with that particular neighborhood.

I it probably is, but I'm open to hearing what anybody else says before we make a motion.

And I don't see anyone else having any comments on this item, so ready to make a motion.

All right.

Uh Madam Chair, based on the testimony today and based on the facts of how this is compatible with almost every neigh house in that neighborhood.

Um I can uh make a motion for uh approval on item number 27A and 27B.

And subject to conditions, and you agree to all conditions if approved.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Okay.

Motion carries.

Madam Chair, this item will move forward to city council on March 18th, 2026.

Thank you.

With that, we are at item 28, 25-0596 ZON1.

Applicant Abraham Gabit, owner ANZ management LLC for possible action on a land use entitlement project request from RE residence estates to R1, single family residential on the north side of Delray Avenue, approximately 330 feet east of Arville Street.

Staff, may you please get the report.

Madam Chair, staff finds the proposed R1 zoning district is inconsistent with the surrounding RE zoning districts, which are intended to provide for low density residential units on large lots to convey a rural environment and would result in a case of spot zoning.

Therefore, staff recommends denial of the request.

Please know additional documents of protest were received after publication.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Can the applicant may please give your name for the record?

Abraham Gabe.

Is there anything that you would like to present on this agenda item?

I can on the shama I can hear you.

Hi, my name is Yfe Joseph, and I am helping him.

And basically, we prepared a talking point that you can see it here, but I can read also from my phone either way.

Um to Yes, you're welcome to submit anything written to staff if you'd like to speak on the item, though.

This is your chance.

Yes.

Well, uh we actually prepared a talking point after seeing the recommendation.

And uh I have here uh six items, and it's uh the compatibility with the neighborhood.

The subdivision maintains the single family resident character of Del Rey Avenue.

Both proposed lots are significantly larger than the minimum R1 requirement, which is 10,000 to 10,236 versus 600 500.

And the lot size match the existing pattern of parcel on the block 0.24.

Item two, support the existing development pattern surrounding parasols, including both RE and RD zoning, showing a natural density transition.

The proposed split uh continues this pattern without increasing functional uh density.

Three consistency with the city's land use plan fully aligns with the city's single family residential designation, support in field development using existing infrastructure, helps maintain a neighborhood stability and orderly growth.

Four infrastructure and impact natural, no additional burden or utilities like water, sewer, electrical drainage, no adver no adverse traffic impact, each lot retain proper frontage and parking.

Street access remain unchanged.

Five logical and symmetrical parasail configuration, balance and proportional lotus split, no uh variance requested variance, sorry, requested, no existing structure affected, and six, improve order and appearance over time.

Uh and clean code compliant future development, enhance visual and functional quality of the block.

And my closing statement is that the request is modest, fully compliant, and maintains the single family nature of the neighborhood while supporting the city long-term vision for balanced efficient residential development.

I would like just to uh emphasize the point that there is RE and RD zoning in this area.24.34 acre.

The only difference between this those uh lots to our uh lot is that is will be called R1 and not RE or RD, but will be the same size.

That is this all I have.

Thank you.

And with that, this item has been noticed for public hearing.

Is there anyone from the public at this time that would like to speak?

Seeing none, I will turn it over to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Rogan.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, sir, I I I did look at this and I've driven that area many times.

Um all of those things that you said may be true, but the the fact remains that your lot is located in a rural preservation neighborhood.

And by the very nature of its name, the duty is to preserve that in the way that it is, which is large lots.

Um and so certainly I I support in theory the idea that we should take large lots and we should divide them in half and allow people to do um lot splits like that, like some other places are doing.

But even in the in that case, it would only be a split to the next uh lowest level of of development, which would be RD, which you would not be able to meet with uh with a lot split on your lot.

So I agree with staff, it is spot zoning, um, but predominantly it's it's the preservation of the rural neighborhood.

I do recognize where your lot is located, it's right near commercial activity.

It I can understand the arguments against this, but it's still located within that rural preservation overlay, so I cannot support the request to rezone to R1.

Um I hope you appreciate the the reasons why, as I've said on uh tonight, but uh again, I just can't support it.

Does anyone have any questions or comments before I make a motion?

Okay.

Um with regard to agenda item 28, project 25-0596z0N1 and make a motion for denial.

Motion carries, madam chair.

That item will move forward to city council on March 18th of 2026.

Okay.

With that, we're closing item 28.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

And with that, we move on to item 29, 25-0597, VAR1.

Applicant owner Richard Nye and Philip A.

Smith for a possible action on a land use entitlement project request to allow proposed home addition that does not conform to Title 19.06 development standards for building setbacks and to allow front yard wall fence that does not conform with Title 19.06 development standards for height invisibility at 1801 Silver Avenue staff.

May you please get the report.

Yes, madam chair, staff finds no unique or extraordinary evidence has been presented to warrant the requested variance as such.

The hardship is self-imposed, and therefore staff recommends denial of the variance subjects who conditions have approved.

Please note an additional letter of support was received after publication.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And the applicant, can you please give your name for the record?

Madam Chair, uh fellow or excuse me, Las Vegas uh City Planning Commission.

Uh, my name is Phil Smith.

Uh, this is my husband.

I'm Richard Ny.

And uh we're here to uh to seek your support for two variances uh for uh our property.

Um the uh the first one is uh is Commissioner Rogan's uh favorite uh discussion point is uh a variance we uh we've been planning for a wall uh with a gate uh to uh kind of surround the front of our property, uh as well as a variance for building uh an area for the map uh for the primary bedroom in the in the rear of the house for a variance uh to the uh rear uh wall that is already there on the property.

Uh Richard's gonna talk about a little bit more of that.

Um but uh the one thing that I wanted to share before um Rick goes is you know the um we're very close to the the neighborhood, the scotch 80s where we live.

Uh we moved here in 2018.

Um I I just retired three years ago from Nellis Air Force Base after 22 years as a fighter pilot in the Air Force.

We we didn't know when we moved here that Vegas was gonna be our final, you know, this is where we want to be.

This is our home.

Uh we've spent a lot of time working with an architect uh to make sure that our plans are um harmonious and uh compatible with the neighborhood.

Um and while I know and we've heard uh Commissioner Rogan's uh you know uh opposition to to uh to a wall variance.

Um we our goal is to make it as harmonious with the property with the neighborhood.

And uh with that, I'll give it to uh Mr.

Nye.

I apologize.

We came with we didn't know that PowerPoint was an option.

So uh after 22 years in the Air Force, I can build the heck out of a PowerPoint slide, so I'm sorry we didn't do that to you.

Uh we brought um printouts.

Yeah, if we could do the overhead, I don't know how zoomed out we can go in the overhead, but we did bring our plans and renders and stuff.

There's a way to like zoom out because it looks giant.

If that's not possible, I'm happy to hold them up.

Yeah, either way.

We'll just hold it up.

So again, like Phil was saying, we did uh oh, perfect.

They zoomed it out.

You can throw it back down.

Perfect.

It's good because I'm short.

So all right, like Phil was saying, uh, we appreciate your time tonight.

Uh unfortunately, our architect could not be here this evening.

Uh she's Reno based, but we do have renders that she has provided.

I know she's submitted some digital documents as well.

But here are just some quick renders to kind of give you an idea of what we're looking to do.

Uh, our home was built in 1964.

We are in the Scotch 80s, so we are neighbors with uh, you know, Mayor Oscar and Carol Goodman.

And uh for the sake of continuity, we do intend on fully maintaining the architectural integrity of the home, the historic vibe of the neighborhood.

My original major was architecture.

Um so it's very important to us that uh when we do any modifications to the home, particularly with the facade that we keep it period correct, keep it mid-century modern, and uh keep it relevant.

So this render obviously is just uh demonstrated showing a brick layout, but obviously we want to integrate breeze block into it, maybe some stucco element and custom iron gates.

We can only do so much uh as far as the architectural rendered software would allow.

We are located on Silver Avenue.

Uh I wanted to present this printout today to kind of give you an idea of what we're trying to do overall.

So we have silver here, front of the house here with a circle-shaped driveway.

The lot next door to us is empty at the moment.

We did own this lot, but we did sell it about uh seven, eight months ago.

Uh so this is zone residential.

Um had a chance to speak with a new owner.

So we do have support from all of our neighbors, including this lot, this home, this home, and this abutment here.

We've also been in contact with the neighbors behind us, but unfortunately, her brother passed this week and she was unable to come and show support as she does about the rear side, which is our second variance request.

Uh as you can see on the big zoomed out picture, though, we have the empty lot here, then MLK.

Uh, just here to the north is the fire department and I-15.

So the reason why we're requesting the variance on the rear setback for the addition of the primary structure is of course to get rid of all the noise and light pollution, not only from the beautiful new lights on MLK, but also from the interstate itself.

Here's a zoomed-in photo to kind of show you guys where we're at.

Again, front of the house here.

Uh behind us, immediately behind us, this home was built in 2007.

They have a two-story accessory structure that backs up to the five-foot easement line on their property line.

We do intend on building a future garage in this back corner and eliminating this 1970 edition, whilst we add on this corner here to the house.

Again, we wanted to maintain the complete integrity of the facade as it sits.

Even though we had room to build up forward in the front or on this side in the back, we're trying to focus all the views and everything westbound.

Our home was broken into.

Uh they did hop over this fence and break in through our pool deck entryway.

So we figured by building out on this way, not only are we improving the sight lines from in the house, but it also creates more security and blocks out all the noise and light pollution.

To address Commissioner Rogan, why do we want a wall?

So, for the sake of uh what do we call it?

Harmonious and uh compatibility.

Compatibility.

These are neighboring walls in our neighborhood.

So this is directly across the street, Caddy Corner to us.

I stand six feet tall.

This is about seven and a half.

This one's about seven.

This was the tallest one I could find.

That's about nine feet tall.

My personal favorite is the one that runs down Waldman.

It is 600 feet long.

It is a newer build uh as of a couple years ago.

It's over eight feet tall.

Um, and then here's another one about seven feet tall.

Again, these are all just walking distance from the house.

Took these pictures a couple days ago.

Uh just to kind of give you where we're at.

So it does fall in line with the aesthetic of the neighborhood.

It does fall in line with what other people have been approved to do, and uh, we humbly request you approving ours today.

Here is a quick highlighted diagram of what we're requesting.

So on the facade here, eight feet all the way around.

The perimeter center section will be kind of zigzag shaped just to add a little like architectural flair to it.

Again, we will be integrating breeze block, and we're requesting up to eight feet, not necessarily eight feet.

We don't have anything we want to block out, but depending on the building material that we go with, the measurements are you know, they're kind of variable depending on the blocks and all that.

So up to eight feet is something that we're looking for, but a minimum of seven.

Uh on the back side here, you can see the little highlighted section.

The 30-foot setback line is drawn here.

This is the portion that we're looking to add.

This is the empty lot here, and then the secondary structure is here.

So we want to face the primary bedroom this way.

Again, here's just another quick floor plan to show you what we're on about.

But basically, you can see we've added on a whole new primary section in the back here.

This is the new bedroom.

Um looks like it's gonna uh come out to 19 feet at this point from the setback and nine feet from this point here.

Oh, hold on, sorry.

And uh here's the future accessory structure, and this is the area that we're removing that exists now.

So the overall square footage of the home remains the same.

We're just shifting it from here to here, so we can add a garage here.

That's the whole reason we're trying to do this.

Here's a photo of Phil standing in our backyard, so you can kind of get an idea of what we're looking at.

Uh we want to build a bedroom section here where he's at.

There's MLK behind us, there are the street lights in question.

There are the super tall street lights on the interstate, the strat, the whole thing.

I'm sure you guys are very familiar with the area.

And this is our neighbors' enormous substructure that overlooks in our backyard, which is fine.

They're nice neighbors, but you know, it'd be nice to look this way instead of at them.

And then here are the renders for the add-ons.

This is kind of what we're looking to do.

Uh, this portion here is the portion that would go into the rear setback that we're requesting.

All of this uh does it here to the existing code.

Here is an image of the garage that will be going in that other corner where we're eliminating that structure.

Um the additional 1970 edition was about stands about here now.

Once we eliminate that, we want to build an additional substructure in the back there, again, up to the five foot setback.

So that's kind of a render as to what that would look like and what it would look like if we were in the primary looking out.

And we'll close it on this.

There she is at night.

Again, uh, I just wanted to say um Rick mentioned it at the beginning.

Uh we do have letters, and we're happy to submit those uh from those five neighbors that uh Rick talked about in support of we haven't gotten any negative support.

I guess that wouldn't be negative support.

It would use yeah, negative feedback.

Um just I know it's been a long meeting.

I just want to say thank you.

No matter what the answer is, thank you for uh your service on the planning commission and uh really appreciate your time tonight.

Thank you.

No, thank you so much.

And with that, this has been noticed for public hearing.

Is there anyone in the public that would like to comment on this item at this time?

See none.

I will turn it over to the commission, starting with Commissioner Rogan.

Hi guys.

Hello, sir.

This is the most entertaining presentation tonight.

So thank you.

Um I wish your architect would hear to just compliment him or her on what a great job they did on the development of this.

I think it looks great.

Your house has been one that I've when I first noticed it, you know, years and years ago when I first moved to Las Vegas.

I thought that's a fantastic house.

I wish I owned something like that someday.

So you're very lucky.

Um to the point, I I really think I have no problem with the with the addition to the back.

I think it makes sense.

Um, I think the the variance, although it's not in line with um with the code.

I I understand why you're doing it given the unique positioning of your house near MLK and near the freeway.

So I'm I'm very much in support of that.

You've got the support of your neighbors, which is what I look for.

As you can anticipate, that that front wall um is a problem.

I wish we had standards like Pump Springs where you could build a beautiful palm springs like house and put an eight-foot wall in front of it with um a beautiful oleander that would just shield you from from all of your neighbors and all of the potential issues that that arise when living in a dense um urban neighborhood like ours, but we don't.

And so um once we start going down that road, like I said before on the other um items tonight, it's routine requests over and over and over again.

And and let me just say your wall is beautiful.

Most of the requests we get are not.

So I can't make a distinction based upon how well that wall is compatible with the existing neighborhood.

I will point out I I don't know any of your neighbors with those walls.

I don't know whether they're those, the ones that you showed tonight.

I don't know whether they're rear walls or sidewalls that have different standards or they're front yards.

I don't know.

But I'm I I I hope code enforcement doesn't go out into your neighborhood and start siding them for not getting variances because none of them have come as long as I've been on this for seven years have come before to ask for any variances.

So again, I uh I appreciate what you're trying to do, and I think that wall looks great.

If the standards allowed it, I would be in fully support of it.

But I think you gotta you gotta find a way to make it at least 50% see-through and bring it down.

I'm happy to give you, like I have it before, a six-foot height variance.

I think that's compatible.

If you're willing to do that, or you want to just move forward with a denial and try your luck at city council, it's up to you.

It doesn't matter to me what you want to do.

So that would mean we could build up to six feet, up to six feet, but you still get to have that 50% open.

Sure.

Okay.

No, that seems reasonable.

Okay.

Sorry, staff to do this to you at last minute, but um, if you need a minute, could we?

Yes, madam chair.

Through you, we would amend condition number two of application 250597 V Air one to instead state.

A variance is hereby approved to allow a solid seven-foot tall wall.

Or six foot tall front yard wall fence where five feet with a two-foot solid base is the maximum allowed.

We want it 50% up, right?

Right whatever the whatever the opening is under the space.

Madam Chair, through you, you wanted it um 50 so three feet solid and three feet like some kind of uh like maybe they could repeat the panel pattern on the gate.

Right, like could it just be like solid, breeze walk, solid, breeze block, or like would that work?

Or does it have to be like a half and half on the vertical plane?

Yeah, it's the site, it's the site visibility standard, so whatever it is.

Okay, so we could do uh three feet on the bottom solid and then do the three foot, maybe recreate that gate panel.

Sure, but if it was gonna be done on a vertical plane instead, so solid see-through, solid see-through.

Does that make sense?

You know what?

Let's maybe let's just go meet on the side and you can explain to me what you're trying to talk about rather than trying to figure this out while we have a couple items left, all right?

So could we just we'll trail this?

Trail this, thanks.

Yep.

Sounds good.

Okay, we will be trailing item 29.

And so with that, we are going to move on to item 30, and that is 25-060, applicant owner Alfonso Arellano Lopez for possible action on the following land use entitlement requests at the northeast corner of Peyton Drive and Eastern Avenue.

30A 25-060 VAR1 to allow a zero foot corner side yard setback where 10 feet is required, and 30 B 25 0600 and 1 from PR professional office and parking and R1 single family residential to C1 limited commercial.

And with that, can I have the staff report?

Yes, madam chair, while the subject site has a land use designation of TOC2, which temporarily allows the proposed C1 zoning district.

Staff is not able to support the request as evidenced by the requested variance of setback requirements, which is a self-imposed hardship and an attempt to spot zone the four parcels, which would not be compatible with the existing surrounding zoning districts.

Staff therefore recommends denial of all requested entitlements.

If approved, the variants will be subject to conditions.

Please note an additional letter of support was received after publication.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And the applicant can please give your name for the record.

Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Blaine, B-L-A-Y-N-E.

Last name, Soule S O U L E.

I'm with Dwyer Engineering, D W Y E R Engineering, and I'm here representing the owner who is with us tonight of these properties.

Three of these lots are residential.

And one is a commercial site, which currently is the southwest corner with the existing building.

Desires to turn it into a C1 zoning.

And it under if you look at the denial, it says denied due to being too intense for the direct adjacency to an existing single family residential neighborhood, which constitutes spot zoning.

Ultimately the purpose of the site is not to have anything that would bring, as it says here, uh a too intense of a use.

The development will likely be something to the effect of one or two customers at a time.

It mostly will be items which will be looked at and purchased online and not at the site.

So our owner who is with us tonight does not see this as being an intense use.

So this is north.

Eastern is here.

This is the site that we are talking about tonight.

Um about 1,500 feet away, two um streets away on a minor arterial is another C1 zoning.

And our site is on a much larger arterial.

So I was looking for a similar zoning that is somewhat close to this particular subject site that we're talking about tonight.

And with that, I'll oh, there's one other thing.

Zero zero foot setback.

And I can put that up here.

So you can consider that as you'd like, but as for self-imposed hardship, this was something he did not present upon himself.

It was more brought upon the building as it stands now.

So with that, I leave it to uh Madam Chair and the Commissioners and staff for your questions.

Thank you.

So with that, this has is this has been noticed for public hearing.

Is there anyone in the public at this time that would like to speak?

See none, I will move over to the commission, starting with Commissioner Schlottman.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And a question for staff before we begin.

So is the variance to allow the zero foot corner side yard setback or 10 feet required necessitated by the rezone?

If it wasn't being rezoned, would the corner side yard setback be required?

Madam Chair, through you, that is correct.

Once you rezone a property, any structures on the site or proposed for the site must meet the setbacks for that proposed zoning district.

If they were not rezoning it, then they would not be subject to a variance at this time.

Okay, thank you.

I I appreciate you bringing this forward and and trying to get the best and highest use for your property.

But I've seen these properties uh 10 different times on Eastern, try to change to C1 from PO or PR, and it there's been a push for many of years to keep this as PR uh and uh PO.

When we start to introduce other uses such as C1, we allow banquet facilities and restaurants with drive-throughs.

Uh we also allow clinics, health clubs, alcohol uses, uh, motor vehicle uses, um, and the list goes on.

So, although a lot of times applicants will come up and they'll state, hey, we're not gonna do this, we're gonna use this for um online retail cells.

We might only have one or two customers to come into the site.

And in those cases, if there was a way that we could have a particular um uh you know, condition on zoning that would allow for that, then you know I could look past some of that.

But the problem is when we approve a rezone, we're we can't condition those items, and it's a the the zone and runs with the land until uh on until uh somebody comes in and rezones it in 10 years, 20 years, 100 years or or whatever it is.

So um, you know, if these individuals end up moving out, then we could get a drive-thru.

And you know, I I I know this area pretty well.

I draw Eastern quite quite often, uh, a lot of professional offices.

One of the things that I like about the professional offices is that most of them are residential in nature.

Uh it it blends well with the residential structures of the ARC R1 and uh uh and and uh the different zone districts that that's already established and been established since the 50s.

Um a lot of times when we start putting in commercial, I mean, we we're we're putting up big big structures with you know plain expressionless back uh backs to them and they're buttoned up to these existing residential neighborhoods.

So a few years back we we seen another one with the AC repair company that just wanted to have their home office out of there and they needed to move to C1, and uh but it it's just too big of a risk uh of uh you know starting to covert these uh properties and and it would be a uh spot zone if we did move forward.

I I can I present something if it were possible that I have time with the client to come up with something that they propose for the site that uh with rendering something that can show what they want to propose for the site.

Can we look again at the C1 zoning?

But but that's the problem.

It once we approve the C1, then it's C1 forever.

And so even if you if you build something that is nice that could satisfy as one of one of my my concerns, but it doesn't satisfy the other concern of some of the uses that could go into that particular uh area.

I mean it could be a bar nightclub, uh it could be um uh motor vehicle cells or uh a whole whole bunch of and don't quote me on motor vehicle cells but motor uses uh and and other items.

So I mean, just based on the long history of Eastern Avenue and it being professional uh office.

Uh it would be really hard to convince me.

Uh we'll see where the other commission uh decides to go, and you could always uh uh reach out to city council.

Thank you.

Thank you and seeing no other commissioners that have anything to say, Commissioner Schlottman, would you like to make a motion?

Yes, uh Madam Chair, through you on item number 30A and 30 B, based on uh the testimony tonight and some of the concerns that I have.

I uh uh am going to make a motion to follow staff's recommendation of denial on 30A and 30 B.

Motion carries.

Madam Chair, this item will move forward to city council on May 18th of 2026.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, through you just real quick.

Um that was March 18th for city council.

Sorry, I think Yvonne mixing them up.

March 18th, 2026.

Thank you, Nicole.

And with that, we're going to bring back the item that we trailed.

So we are reopening item 29.

And I'll turn it over to the commission.

Chair, can I make a comment?

I think we we've you've sat down with staff and you've had an opportunity to kind of figure out what it is that you're you want to do.

We have commissioner.

Okay.

And Fred, do you have a condition you could read into recommendation?

I do uh, Madam Chair, through you.

So the uh condition number two shall be amended to read uh a variance is approved to allow a six-foot-tall solid front yard wall with a minimum of 50 percent of the total wall area being open to allow full visibility when viewed perpendicularly from the public right away.

Thank you.

Okay.

And you agree with that condition?

Yes, Commissioner.

Okay.

All right, with that um, I I'll make a motion for approval of agenda item 29, project 25-0597 VAR1, subject to uh all conditions as amended this evening.

Motion carries.

Again, we appreciate everybody's time.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

This is our first time at City Hall, so it's kind of fun.

Thank you.

Have a good night.

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

Thank you.

And with that, we move to item 31 25-0602 SDR1, applicant owner St.

Joseph Catholic Church for possible action on a land use entitlement request for a two-story addition to an existing one-story church house of worship with waivers of Title 19.09 form based code development standards at the southwest corner of Ogden Avenue and 9th Street.

Staff may please get the report.

Madam Chair, staff finds the proposed addition to the existing church development compatible with the surrounding development in the area.

The requested waivers for building placement and building form standards are minor in nature.

Therefore, staff recommends approval subject to conditions.

Please note additional documents of support were received after publication.

Thank you.

Thank you.

May the applicant present and give your name for the record.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Andrew Zimmerman, and I represent the applicant.

I've been a parishioner at the church since 1998.

Good evening, uh Justin Kittrell, uh, the general contractor for the project 1919 South Jones, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89146.

And we're here just to answer any questions if you have any of us.

Thank you so much.

So with that, this has been noticed for public hearing.

Is there any members of the public that would like to speak on this item at this time?

Seeing none, I will close and I will go to the commission, starting with Commissioner Schlottman.

Thank you.

Uh Father Career reached out to me.

I think he's at the back of the chambers today.

Um thank you for reaching out and sending me the elevations.

Um we we looked at this a few years ago and uh we approved it, and you you made a couple of small little tweaks and uh missed a extension of time.

So, anyways, uh I I missed when do you think you'll get started on the project?

Uh this is the last condition of approval on the billing permit, so as soon as that issued, um I would say within five or six weeks.

Amazing.

Perfect.

I have no further questions.

And seeing none on the rest of the commission, Commissioner Schautman, you're welcome to make a motion.

Okay, thank you.

On item 31, 25-0602, SDR 1, move to approve, subject to staff's conditions, and you agree to all staff's conditions if approved.

Yes.

Thank you.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

And with that, we move to item 34, and that is 25-0610 VAR1.

Applicant owner Antonio and Sonia Hurtado for possible action on a land use entitlement project request to allow proposed residential accessory structure, Casita that does not conform to Title 19.06 development standards for size at 2121 Elm Avenue.

Staff may please get the report.

Madam Chair, the proposed accessory structure is 60 percent of the main home's floor area where Title 19 allows a maximum of 50 percent.

Therefore, staff recommends denial of the variance request.

Thank you.

Thank you.

May the applicants please give your name for the record, and then you are welcome to present.

Madam Chair, good evening, uh, commissioners.

Good evening.

My name is Francisco Salinas, uh F R A N C I S C O S A L I N A S.

I'm here representing Mr.

Urtelo.

As the staff uh mentioned, the structure that Mr.

Utard is trying to build is uh slightly below what is approval, what is approved.

Um the setbacks that uh need to be there are there.

There's nothing out of that.

Really is just the size of the structure.

Um Mr.

Urtalo has spent uh a lot of money uh with uh souls reports, grading plans, uh EMPs, uh architectural plans, and to change the structure that he has right now, the size of it would entail more expense in revising all these documents.

Uh currently the project is uh with the city uh to be approved, and really they're just waiting for your approval for uh this structure to go ahead.

So we ask that you uh consider this and uh let him have it.

Thank you.

With that, this has been noticed for a public hearing.

Are there any members of the public that would like to speak on this item at this time?

Please come forward and give your name for the record.

Seeing seeing none, then I will turn it over to the commission, starting with Commissioner Schlottman.

Thank you.

Uh I've reviewed this.

This isn't in my ward.

I I looked at the neighborhood, it seems compatible.

Um your meeting setbacks, you're you're at 60 percent versus 50 percent.

So I think um it it's more than compatible with that area, and uh and I appreciate you bringing it forward to us before having it fully constructed.

Thank you.

Seeing uh no other members of the commission having anything to say, I will turn over to you to make a motion, Commissioner Schlottman.

All right, cheer through you on item 34 25-0610 VAR1.

Move to approve, subject to conditions based on testimony heard tonight, and you agree to all conditions if approved.

Yes, we do.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Motion carries.

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

Thank you.

And that brings us to our final item for the night.

That is citizens' participation.

Item 37, 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.

Is there anyone from the public at this time that would like to speak?

Please come forward and give your name for the record.

My name is Sebastian Crawford, S-E-B-A-S-T-I-A-N, Crawford C-R-A-W-F-O-R-D.

Las Vegas is facing a severe housing crisis.

This is not political rhetoric.

This is not rhetoric that is trying to create a uh disagreements within the community.

This is a 100% factual statement.

The city of Las Vegas is facing a housing crisis, okay?

56% an increase in the cost of a home in the last four years and wages have gone up 2.68%.

This is an issue.

And it's not being addressed in the current master plan for 2050 because there's no high density housing.

How are we approving a 2015 master plan that only allows 100,000 housing units when we're already short 60,000?

This does not make any sense.

It doesn't help anyone that's currently facing this crisis.

And I understand that probably many of you are homeowners and actually benefiting off of this, but the city of Las Vegas is not having a good time out here.

We are not having a good time out here.

I understand that we want the low density housing because it's the housing that people prefer, correct?

We understand this, yes, that people want space in their yards.

They they they want a backyard, they want all these nice things, but then we need to acquire more land.

We need to do something that gets rid of this housing crisis.

We have a if if I told you we have a 10% unemployment rate, this would be ridiculous in the city.

Well, the city would fall apart.

We have a 10% housing crisis.

There are 60,000 housing units that are short in this city.

How are we not doing anything about this?

How is the housing plan?

Well, how is the communities being built for the new wave community in the the City of Las Vegas Master Plan?

There's no high density housing.

Tool Springs, no high density housing.

What are we doing?

Why are we not helping the citizens of Las Vegas?

You guys live here.

Don't you want to see me succeed?

I want to see you succeed.

Do something to help us, the future generations, especially, man.

Do something for us, please, man.

This is this is ridiculous.

We understand that you homeowners, you like to see your value go up.

We understand that.

Yes, wouldn't we like to see our value of our home go up?

But we're seeing the main issue of this point is that maybe housing shouldn't be something that it's a market where people have to suffer in order for others to win.

Yeah, go ahead.

Make the 2050 master plan have no housing development.

Let's go ahead and only build 10,000 housing units.

Then your housing prices will go up to 10 million dollars per house.

Yeah, the awesome.

You guys will have a 10 million dollar home while hundreds of thousands of people are homeless.

Is that what we want?

No.

I don't think any of us want that.

So we have to figure something out as a community here at the city level, maybe even going to the federal level, but something has to be addressed here.

Maybe housing shouldn't be something that we a housing community shouldn't be something that people have to suffer in order for others to win, man.

It's if this isn't something's wrong in the society right now, man.

We need to do something about this.

We need to fix this, please.

I'm begging you.

I'm begging you.

I will keep coming to these meetings until something is done.

But I'm looking at these plans for the 2050 master plan.

I don't see any high density housing when we're already facing a housing crisis.

And that is my primary issue, and I'm going to keep showing up here until something is done for the city of Las Vegas and the people that work here and the people that pay your paychecks.

Okay?

Please and thank you.

Thank you for your time.

And with that seeing no other citizens part.

Oh, oh, one more.

Sebastian.

Hi, I wasn't planning on saying anything, but hi, please also give your name for the record.

Hi.

My name is Sunny Westbrook, S-U-N-N-I, W-E-S T, B-R-O-O-K.

I live in the 89117 zip code, and I'm a local real estate agent, and I just showed up to learn about the process and see what you do.

But Mr.

Crawford inspired me to share an idea that I've had.

Instead of just asking the planning commission to do something, I think something that could be done to increase affordable housing might be to find a way, and I don't know what that way is to incentivize homeowners who currently own multiple properties.

Um, you know, your primary residence, and then you have investment properties where that you rent out or as a second home.

If we could encourage local homeowners with the second, third, fourth, fifth property to sell them.

Boy, would we ever flood the market with inventory.

That would bring prices down.

Thank you.

Thank you for your time.

Okay, and with that, seeing no other, I will close citizens' participation and the meeting is adjourned.