Good evening.

We're ready to begin.

This planning commission meeting is called to order.

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

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

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

The proceedings will be rebroadcast on City of Las Vegas TV the Saturday after the meeting at 10 a.m.

Monday at midnight and the following Tuesday at 6 p.m.

Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance America.

City Clerk, would you please call roll?

Chair Cassama.

Present.

Vice Chair Schlottman.

Present.

Commissioner Rogan.

Present.

Commissioner Taylor.

Commissioner DeSalvio.

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 our rules of conduct.

We appreciate your adhering to these rules so we can have a smooth meeting.

Thank you.

Public comment during this portion of the agenda must be limited to matters on the agenda for action.

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

The amount of discussion as well as the amount of time any single speaker is allowed may be limited.

All comments made under this item for specific action items will be cross-referenced to those items.

Are there any members of the public who wish to speak under this portion of the agenda?

And seeing none, we'll move on to item five for possible action to approve the final minutes for the planning commission workshop meeting and planning commission meeting of February 10th, 2026.

May we have a motion to approve the minutes of the planning commission meeting and workshop on February 10th, 2026?

Move to approve Commissioner Taylor.

We move on to item six for possible action.

Let's move on to our housekeeping items.

Are there any items that commissioners, staff, applicants, or members of the public would like to pull forward for action?

Does anyone wish to speak on any of these items?

Madam Chair, Nicole Edoes, for the record.

Staff is requesting to strike item number nine A two five-04 seven two dash V A R one as the variance is no longer necessary due to revised plans.

The applicant is requesting to hold item number 11 to the April 14th Planning Commission meeting.

This is the applicant's third request.

The applicant is requesting to withdraw without prejudice.

Item number 12.

And the applicant is requesting to hold item number 25 to the April 14th planning commission meeting.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And seeing none from the public.

Yes, Chair, through you, I move to hold 98, or I'm sorry, on 98 for this item to be stricken on item number 11 and 25 to hold these items in abeyance till the April 14th, 2026 planned commission hearing.

And to withdraw without prejudice, item number 12.

That is my motion.

Commissioner Taylor.

Aye, motion carries.

With that, we move on to our consent items.

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

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

Yes.

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

Commissioner Taylor.

Aye.

And that motion carries.

Please post.

And that item is final action unless appeal to the clerk within seven days.

We now move on to one motion one vote.

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

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

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

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

Item number eight twenty-six-0011 SUP1, applicant Taylor Morrison of Nevada, LLC, owner KLLB by four LLC for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for proposed golf courses, clubhouse, public and private, alcohol on premise full use at the southwest corner of Serene Haven Avenue and Indigo Oak Street.

This was noticed as a public hearing.

Would anyone like to be heard?

Seeing none, Vice Chair may I have a motion.

Yes, madam chair.

On number item number eight two uh two six-0011 SUP1 move to approve, subject to staff's conditions.

Commissioner Taylor.

Aye.

Motion carries.

And that is final action tonight.

Let's appeal to the city clerk in 10 days.

Thank you.

We move on to our public hearing items, and I know that we are pulling them out of order.

So we will be hearing item 13 and then subsequent order just for the reference by the audience.

We'll be hearing agenda items 13, then 14, 27, 29, and 30.

So starting with agenda item 13, 26-0040, GPA 1, applicant owner, City of Las Vegas for possible action on a request to amend the City of Las Vegas Master Plan of Streets and Highways map.

Staff may please have the report.

Madam Chair, the city is proposing to amend the master plan of streets and highways, and we have staff here tonight from public works to provide further details.

Thank you.

Please state your name for the record.

Hi, Nicole Jolly, engineering project manager with the city of Las Vegas.

The city is requesting to amend the following roadway alignments for this uh city's planned streets and highways map.

Uh we are planning to reclassify wellness way from shadow lane to Martin Luther King Boulevard to a 60-foot wide collector.

We are going to modify the wellness way to align with existing conditions.

We are going to be reclassifying Shadow Lane from wellness way to Charleston Boulevard to a 40-foot-wide collector to match what is north and south currently on the map.

And then we are also adding Harris Trail from Eastern Avenue to 21st Street and classify it as a shared existing shared use path.

I'm here to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

This item has been noticed for a public comment.

Is there anyone from the audience that wishes to speak?

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

Commissioner Rogan.

I'm ready to make a motion.

Please do.

I make a motion for approval of agenda item 13, project 26-0040 GPA one.

Commissioner Taylor.

Aye.

And that motion carries.

And that will move on to City Council on April 15th.

Thank you.

We move on to agenda item 14.

That is abeyance 25-0494 SDR1.

Applicant Parting C's Investments.

For possible action on a land use entitlement project request for a proposed four-story 87,600 square foot medical office and commercial development with a five-story parking garage with waivers of Title 19.09 form-based code development standards at the northeast corner of Wellness Way and Shadow Lane.

Staff may please get the report.

Good evening, Madam Chair Steve Swanton, senior planner community development.

The staff finds the proposed development to be harmonious and compatible with the surrounding area.

Given the irregular shape of the lot, the proposed waivers of form-based code are minor, and the development furthers the goals of the Las Vegas Medical District.

Staff therefore recommends approval.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Please give your name for the record.

Good evening, Jennifer Lazovich, 1980 Festival Plaza Drive here tonight on behalf of the applicant.

On the screen is a rendering of what the medical office building would look like with the parking garage behind.

Thank you.

This item has been noticed for a public comment.

Is there anyone from the audience that wishes to speak at this time?

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

I agree with the findings of staff.

And unless there's any other comment, I'm ready to make a motion.

Please do.

All right, for agenda item 14, project 25.

Sorry.

Commissioner Rogan, I mean, through the Commissioner Taylor.

No, not a problem.

Please speak.

A question for the applicant.

I I know that when your office talked to me about this project, I had a question about the upper level of parking and whether or not there was going to be covered parking up on the top to just again mitigate any heat radiation from the from the decking on the parking garage.

And so I didn't know if you'd had an opportunity to determine that or um clarify.

Uh yes, Jennifer Lazovich for the record.

There is a plan for there to be uh parking available on the top of the parking garage, but at this time um it's undetermined as to whether or not those would have what I'll call maybe like a car port over them.

It's it's undetermined at this time.

Okay, thank you, Ms.

Lavanich.

Thank you.

Commissioner Rogan.

Thank you, Chair.

Um thank you, uh Commissioner, for your comments.

Um, with regard to project um agenda item 14, project 25-0494 SDR1.

I'll make a motion for approval subject to all of staff's conditions and Ms.

Lazovich, you agree to all those conditions.

Yes, we do, thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Taylor.

Aye.

Motion carries.

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

Thank you very much.

We now go to agenda item 27, abeyance 25-0563 TXT1.

Applicant owner, City of Las Vegas for possible action on a request to amend LVMC 19.17 and 19.18 regarding the attainable housing incentives and definitions conforming with assembly bill 540 of the 83rd session of the Nevada legislature, and to provide for other related matters.

Staff may please get the report.

Good evening, Madam Chair and Commissioners.

Marco Vallada, City of Las Vegas, Department of Community Development for the record.

As you recall, at our planning commission workshop in February, we talked a little bit about attainable housing standards.

This amendment would modify Title 1917 on our incentives for affordable housing and then change change them to the new terminology that was uh provided for in assembly bill 540 of the 83rd uh legislative session in 2025, along with uh some other amendments in AB 540 were the uh introduction of new tiers of housing, uh including uh a tier three, four, and five, which increase the area median income thresholds from 60 to uh to 80 percent area median income, 80 to 120 percent area median income, and 120 to 150 percent area median income.

The amendments uh to Title 1917 will change the word affordable to attainable to match up with that, as well as uh change the incentive structure for our fee reduction incentive, which uh would be structured along the lines of a minimum percentages for more attainable housing and a greater uh fee reimbursements depending on what general plan category it falls into, whether that's form-based code for the downtown, our transit-oriented development categories, or for any other category within the city.

Um along with AB 540, there is additional incentive money that we have applied for through the state through the division of housing.

Uh, we are working with them on the outcomes of that, but this is one of the steps to uh providing a greater uh incentives for a number of uh permit fee and other impact fee reductions as well as taxes.

Uh with that, if there are any questions, be more than happy to answer.

Thank you for the report.

This has been noticed for public comment.

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

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

Are there anyone on the commission that would like to give any comment?

Commissioner Taylor.

Thank you, madam chair.

Um Mr.

Velata, I did have a couple of questions.

Um especially where you're looking at the funding that might be coming from the state from that Nevada attainable housing account.

Is there any um has there been any consideration about how that gets allocated between full rent product and for sale products?

Because you you do sort of acknowledge on page 12 one of the concerns that I've expressed, which is um, you know, we've got sort of two types of housing, two types of you know, housing, which is apartments and single family housing.

And so with what you identified on page 12, um, in terms of trying to come up with additional product in terms of four-plex, triplex, that kind of thing.

Have you given consideration to how we make sure that there are opportunities to purchase notches to rent?

Marco Velata, City of Las Vegas, Department of Community Development Record to the chair to you, uh, Commissioner.

Uh, at this time, we're we're keeping this open for a range of different uh housing types.

We we will take a look at some of those, uh some of those specifics as part of a strategic housing plan that we are working with our Department of Neighborhood Services on, uh, Director Seth Floyd and the other directors of our uh neighborhood services department and their staff uh kind of acknowledge exactly what you're talking about with respect to the for-sale product as well as some of the other challenges that are related to assembly bill 540.

That's something we're gonna continue to explore, but for the time being, this amendment here I think accomplishes what AB 540 uh sets out to do, and we're going to uh at least work through some of those uh some of those things with the division of housing at the state level uh in terms of that uh five million dollar matching fund that was allocated to the city as part of uh the bill.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Pilata.

Yeah, I I I hope that that is a consideration that continues to be part of this analysis, um, even though it doesn't speak to it in any way in this text amendment, other than those concerns again raised in um or alluded to on page 12.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, I just want to say I I know how hard everyone worked on getting the governor's housing bill across the line this session, so appreciate seeing it kind of promulgate forward and looking forward to what we're able to accomplish with that.

So, with that, I am happy for vice chair if you want to make a motion.

Yes, madam chair, on item number 27 abandons 25-0563 TXT1 moved to approve Commissioner Taylor.

Okay.

Motion carries.

And that will move on to city council and ordinance form.

Thank you.

Moving on to item 28, 25-0532 TXT1, applicant owner, city of Las Vegas for possible action on a request to amend LVMC 19.16 and 19.18.

Oh, sorry, for moving on to 29, my apologies.

Item 29, 25-0562 TXT1, applicant owner, City of Las Vegas for possible action on our quest to amend LBMC 19.12, making changes related to parking requirements, providing for bicycle parking requirements and standards, and to provide for other related matters.

Staff may you please get the report.

Good evening, Madam Chair, Commissioners Markov, City of Las Vegas Department of Community Development for the record.

We went over our parking standards at the February 10th workshop.

And I'm gonna provide a I'm gonna turn things over here to Ian Reinex, who is the lead on this project to give you a brief overview and a little bit of a recap on what we discussed at the last meeting and then what some of the changes consist of.

Good evening, Madam Chair and Commissioners, Ian Rennox for the record.

So right into the parking study.

So again, as Marco alluded to, we're we're just sort of giving a quick overview due to the uh the workshop last month.

We discovered that from 2020 to 2025, we had 112 parking variances, most for reduction of required parking.

Uh 104 were recommended by staff for denial, and 106 were ultimately approved.

Uh so that it really clearly shows the need for this uh text amendment.

The uh parking landscape has really changed.

Uh you know, Title 19 parking standards are quite outdated.

Uh through this study, we found that e-commerce, smaller format retail, local fulfillment, ride share, telecommuting, and others have resulted in in decreased parking needs.

And then uh, you know, this technology is in its infancy, but autonomous vehicles has the potential to dramatically reduce parking requirements across uh a wide range of land uses.

Through our uh surveys as part of the study, this was uh the city found that shopping centers had an average peak holiday occupancy of 71 or 61.5%, excuse me, of Title 19 requirements, and only 50% uh for off-holiday.

So peak holiday was around December, off holiday was in March.

Uh and then medical office and office sites uh were observed to have a average peak occupants occupancy rate of 45% of their actual provided parking, site plan provided parking, and 60% of what Title 19 would require.

Uh so uh part of the study was to assess the impacts of overparking.

Uh so this includes uh increased urban heat island effect, uh, those large swaths of asphalt absorb um up to 95% of solar heat, higher development and operational costs, uh excess parking really adds no economic benefit.

It is in fact a drain.

Uh additional bundled costs and goods and services for customers.

Uh all parking is bundled into costs for goods and services, so excess parking represents wasted money essentially for consumers.

Uh wasted and underutilized land, wasted opportunity to generate more productive economic economic activity, housing, or other uses, and reduced walkability and weaken transit, bicycle, and pedestrian access.

So excess parking equals farther distances to walk across hot parking lots to destinations, and drivers tend to speed across wide open parking areas.

So these issues uh fortuitously really are addressed quite well by our master plan.

Uh so uh this is within various chapters and and uh um outcomes of our of our master plan.

Uh so uh we were aiming to reduce the visual and physical dominance of parking, you know, mitigate the visual blight of those large expanses of pavement, implement parking management and reduction strategies, improve affordability through uh uh more efficient land use.

Um, uh again, improve the affordability of housing and those goods and services.

This text amendment will contribute to individual 2050 targets for parking or parks, excuse me, more land for potential parks, housing costs, reduce those housing costs, reduce greenhouse gas uh emissions, and improve mode split uh mode share for uh bike uh walking and transit.

And finally, uh this should improve streetscapes and accessibility and improve public safety by improving bike pad access.

The uh the national regional context.

So uh we are far from the only city uh to uh to do this.

Uh over 2,000 North American cities have reduced parking requirements.

Over 100 have eliminated park minimum parking requirements entirely.

Over 1,000 cities have implemented parking maximums.

And uh Clark County, our neighbor, recently uh did a completed a 17 to 50 percent reduction in minimums for most of their land uses, and they uh added a 115% maximum on those minimums.

So this is a uh a broad overview of our the summary of this uh a broad overview of this text amendment, uh which is one to reduce minimum parking parking requirements across 96 uses.

Uh we added parking maximums for all uses, and uh we added the flexibility to exceed maximum or reduce minimum uh parking requirements via parking demand studies and finally new uh bicycle parking standards.

And so this is just a quick overview of our bike bike parking standards since they're brand new.

It will apply to applicable uses, non-industrial active uses with the daily visitors.

Amount required is five percent of whatever the vehicle parking is required, placement design, 10 gauge metal metal ally is supposed to allow locking at two points, not be of a certain design that's deemed to be uh lower quality or on uh unsecure and uh bicycle parking must not block entrances or pedestrian flow, among other more detailed locational requirements.

Thank you.

And uh me, Mark and I are here for any questions you may have.

Thank you.

This has been noticed for public comment.

Is there anyone who wishes to speak at this time?

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

Is there anyone on the commission that would like to give comment on the text amendment?

Seeing none, I'm happy to pass it along to the vice chair.

Madam Chair.

Commissioner Taylor.

Sorry, madam chair, I just was yeah, thank you.

Um just a couple questions on this one.

I didn't see in the text amendment um uh any sort of reference to how this reduced area of parking might um impact um landscape requirements, parking lot island requirements, and I just wanted to um understand if there's going to be any concomitant reduction in those requirements because it would seem that your um the the statements and the observations about the impact of parking lot to um urban heat island and to GHG, that those would obviously um be you know obviated if we were also reducing any requirements related to um landscaping and in particular trees and parking lot island.

Uh through the chair to you, uh Commissioner Taylor Marco Vallada, City of Las Vegas for the record.

Uh as far as the uh the parking lot design standards as part of this amendment, there's nothing that is being changed for this one.

However, one of the other amendments that we've talked to the commission about at prior uh at prior planning commission meetings is a uh urban forestry and landscaping text amendment.

That is something that uh we're on track for for April, the April Planning Commission, as well as a uh fairly lengthy amendment to Title 13 of Las Vegas Municipal Code specific to trees and urban forestries.

So among those uh changes that we are looking at for Title 19 include the parking lot landscaping and some of the standards related to residential and commercial development standards as it relates to uh trees and other uh uh other uh landscaping requirements uh that I think you're alluding to not in this amendment, but that is something that we'll be uh looking at coming up.

Okay, thank you very much, Mr.

Villada.

Looking forward to seeing those amendments.

Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Yes, uh Madam Chair, through you.

Uh just real briefly, I I you know we've looked at park invariances as you mentioned last month, and I don't know, you said something like 95% of them were were approved.

Um you know, I applaud you for going out and taking a look at this, and when you start talking about it and going around looking at the the empty parking lots um on these big you know uh super centers where you have Walmarts and Lowe's and Home Depots and Best Buy and stuff like that.

I started looking at it more and more over the past month, and it's just uh it's crazy how much uh parking we have in and some of these facilities.

So it's about time that we uh we've done this and uh sometimes we we we just move on and uh we're we're kind of blinded by by some of these things in the code.

So thanks for bringing this to our attention and and uh rewriting this.

And madam chair, ready to make a motion.

Please do on item 2925-0562 TXT1 move to approve, subject to additions.

Commissioner Taylor.

Hi.

Motion carries.

And that will move on to city council and ordinance form.

Thank you.

That brings us to item 3026-0003 TXT1, applicant owner, City of Las Vegas for possible action on a request to amend LVMC 19.12 and 19.18, making changes related to residential uses within commercial zoning districts, conforming with assembly bill 241 of the 83rd session of the Nevada legislature, and provide for other related matters.

Staff may please have the report.

Good evening, commissioners and madam chair Marco Vallada, City of Las Vegas Department of Community Development for the record.

Uh this uh text amendment uh came out again, came out of uh the uh 83rd legislative session of the Nevada legislature uh in a form of assembly bill 241 as part of uh a comprehensive look at how we can address uh housing and housing related uh issues.

I have here tonight uh Holden Wiseman, one of our planners in community development to go through this amendment and how we conform with AB 241.

Good evening, uh Madam Chair and Planning Commission, Holden Weissman, City of Las Vegas, Department of Community Development for the record.

Um, as Marco stated, we're here because this proposed text amendment is due to the passage of AB 241 at the most recent uh session of the legislature, um, as it pertains to mixed use developments in commercial zones.

So Assembly Bill 241 states that each governing body shall adopt an ordinance that authorizes by right a multifamily housing development or mixed use development that includes a residential use on property zoned for commercial use.

Um and you'll note that only the mixed use land use category permissions are going to change significantly as a part of this text amendment.

There's a minor change to multifamily, which you'll see momentarily, but the primary focus here is mixed use, and that will be satisfactory for conformance with this uh assembly bill.

Um the bill goes on to state that the city may establish standards and requirements to qualify for buyright development.

Effectively, that means that these uses can become conditional.

We just can't impose something like a special use permit requirement or anything like that.

Um and then the final note from the text of the bill is that they do not include industrial zones to be considered part of commercial zones, so neither will we for this text amendment.

So here you'll see the proposed changes to our Title 1912 uh permissible use table.

Effectively, the mixed use land use category now becomes conditional in all of our commercial zones.

You see that underlined there.

So previously it was already permitted conditionally in C1 and C2.

Um now in the PO professional office zone, the O office zone and the CPB plan business park zones.

It was previously permitted only with an approved special use permit, now it's conditional, and in the CD designed commercial zone, previously was prohibited entirely, now it's permitted conditionally.

Um and then you see there that one minor change to the residential multifamily land use category that just makes it conditional in that CPP CPB zone just to create consistency across the two land use categories.

The only other significant change being made to Title 19 as a part of this text amendment comes to our definition of mixed use, um, that we have a few places in the code.

And this definition change um adds horizontal as well as vertical integration of residential uses and commercial um or civic uses within a single building.

So the existing code only allows for the kind of traditional style of vertical integration where you have your ground floor commercial and then your upper floor residential uses.

Um the 2050 City Las Vegas master plan defines mixed use in a similar way where they don't restrict it to only vertical integration.

Um and city practice in the past, we've approved a few different projects as mixed-use projects, even though they lack those elements of traditional vertical integration.

We have an example of that on the screen here uh with May Daily's on Las Vegas Boulevard.

In 2019, this was approved as a mixed-use development, even though it's not vertically integrated.

In the front, there is a restaurant, and in the back, those are the boulevard apartments, but you see one is not stacked on top of the other, and yet we consider that to be mixed use, just like we would consider something like the jewel to be mixed use.

Um so those are the only real changes being proposed here.

The purpose is to create that better alignment between Title 19, the definitions in the master plan, and some of the previous practices that we have as the city, and then of course, all of these changes will bring us into conformance with NRS as required by AB 241.

The final kind of bonus here is that it also furthers some of the land use and housing goals that we have in the master plan as it pertains to promoting mixed-use developments, promoting redevelopment of different commercial sites, and increasing our housing supply.

So thank you, myself and Marco here to answer any questions.

And I, Madam Chair, I would also acknowledge that all the jurisdictions uh have kind of been meeting on this and discussing City Areno, City of Henderson, Clark County.

We've all collaborated a little bit.

We all have similar path forward in terms of what our codes are, and it really has been one of those things where we work with uh uh work with uh different levels of government uh and across the across jurisdictions and across the state.

Thanks.

No, I appreciate that.

And this item has been noticed for public comment.

Is there anyone who wishes to speak at this time?

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

But real quick, I just want to say I really appreciate all the hard work staff has been doing on all of the text amendments.

I know that there's more than usual for tonight's uh meeting and appreciated and the incremental work is good work.

We're moving in the right direction, and also definitely appreciate the collaboration with the other municipalities, especially considering how many Clark County Islands there are with the city of Las Vegas.

So on that note, I turn it over to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Taylor.

Do you have any questions?

I do not, madam chair, thank you.

Perfect.

Anyone else on the commission?

Seeing none, I'll turn it over to Vice Chair.

Thank you.

Uh I I appreciate this, and I think it brings in some creative opportunities uh uh to for new developments, and so uh thank you for bringing this forward and giving us its presentation.

I'm ready to make a motion.

Please do.

On item number 30, 26-0003, TXT1 move to approve.

Commissioner Taylor.

Aye.

Motion carries.

And that will move on to city council in ordinance form.

Thank you.

With that, we are returning to our normal sequence for the agenda.

So we are going back to agenda item nine, and that is abeyance-25-0472.

Applicant owner Rosaleo Mendoza Navarro for possible action on the following land use entitlement project requests at 1622 and 1630 Sunset Drive.

9B, abeyance 25-0472 VAR2 to allow existing perimeter walls and fences that do not conform to Title 19.08, outdoor storage screening requirements.

9C, abeyance 25-0472 SUP1 for proposed salvage or reclamation of products, outdoor use.

9D, abeyance 25-0472 SDR1 for proposed salvage or reclamation of products, outdoor development with waivers of perimeter landscape buffer requirements and building facade development standards, and to allow chain link perimeter fencing and barbed wire where such is not allowed.

Staff may please get the report.

Good evening again, Madam Chair Steve Swanton for the record.

As activities for the salvage and reclamation use will not be located with an enclosed structure.

The site will not be adequately screened, and waivers of various landscaping requirements will not be met.

Staff recommends denial of the variance, special use permit, and site development plan review, subject to conditions if approved.

Thank you.

Thank you.

May the applicant please state your name for the record.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Good evening, staff.

My name is John Vargas.

I reside at 2969 Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89123.

I'm here today on behalf of the property owner, Rosalio Navarro.

We're requesting the land use approval for a proposed recycled wood pallet storage facility in support of this request.

We are also requesting a variance to allow alternative screening walls along the east property line, a special use permit for recycled wood pallet storage facility, and the site development plan review, including waivers for perimeter landscape buffer requirements, building facade development standards, and then alternating fencing along the property perimeter.

The proposed site improvements are including sidewalks, curb, and gutter to match existing uh improvements on the north and south.

Uh 10-foot landscape buffer with 24-inch box streets spaced every 20 feet along the west and east property lines, two commercial 28-foot gated driveways constructing according to standard drawing 224.

Parking spaces provided in compliance with development code requirements, office and storage structures will include architectural enhancements such as coordinated colors, trams and signage, a trash container located on site, eliminating eliminating the need for trash enclosure.

And we have a letter from Republic Services confirming uh service is not required.

Shed, demolition of an uh existing structure in the northeast corner.

A new eight-foot decorative CMU block wall installed along Sunset Drive.

Alternating screening installed above the existing wall along the east property, which uh owner is willing to extend using CMU block, which is currently there.

Um and then a five to six foot chain link fence installed along the south side of the property.

The operations here would be to collect, sort, store and resell wooden pallets.

The site will have only two employees operating the hours Monday through Friday from 6 a.m.

to 11 a.m.

The gates will remain open during business hour, but it is not open to public access.

Uh we anticipate um only two to four truck deliveries per day, and the site layout allows safe vehicle circulation, and it's all fire lane and emergency access requirements.

We respectfully request an approval of this project and agree to apply all with all conditions by the city.

The project is compatible with surrounding developments and will significantly improve the site and surrounding area through the proposed upgrades and improvements.

We would also include letters of support from neighbor neighboring properties, and we thank you for your time and consideration.

And then here we have can you pull the screen?

Okay.

So the neighbor on the south is uh this one.

Uh he signed uh uh the petition form and then number two is this neighbor on the front.

Uh they they own two properties.

Number three is the neighbor in the in the rear.

He signed two forms.

And neighbor number four is all these properties, which are one two, three properties, and they also sign two form for uh for approval.

Thank you.

If you'd like to submit that to uh one of the staff members so we can have it on the record.

Thank you.

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

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

Oh, one, please come forward and state your name for the record.

For the record, my name is Joy Nelson.

I just I thought that was very well done, and it looks like uh an excellent plan.

And with the neighbors all agreeing, I just think it I thought I would comment that it seems like they've really thought it through.

So I support it.

Thank you.

Thank you, thank you.

And also, real quick, um, may I please have your name for the record?

That'll be Urburola.

Thank you.

And with that, I turn it over to members of the commission, starting with vice chair.

Yes, madam chair, through you.

I this was held in advance from last month, and last month I had significant issues with it where I it was probably gonna see a denial, but it seems like uh uh you you you decided to go back and make quite a few changes, like um the uh just real quickly remove the existing shed structure uh that was in the side uh yard setback, uh edit the eight-foot wide landscape buffer, and while we're speaking of landscape buffers, it it seems like you have the landscaping on um on on sunset, and you also have it along the alley.

I understand not having it against the neighboring building, there's a commercial building that you're buttoned up to that's on zero zero lot line, and then the other one seems like it's some sort of uh construction yard or something else on the uh the south property line.

Um the I didn't even have a problem with the additional four to five and a half foot uh screen wall.

Was that on the north and or just the the south or on the east side that that's on the uh that's on the east, right?

Yes.

Okay, that's along the alley.

Uh yes.

Well, this one is the the front.

Uh and this one is the existing CMU block, which is four feet.

Okay, so where are you adding the additional four feet of screening material?

Um they were uh trying to put like a turn up the uh materials like marrow slightly, but I thought with the owner this this morning and he's willing to also raise the wall, the missing wall uh with CMU block.

Okay.

And where's the chain link fence at?

On on this area.

Nothing was requested for this area, but if it was front and a right away, I would be opposed to it, but I we have granted a couple uh variances for that chain or waivers for that uh between neighboring properties.

Um I was gonna ask you to change that out to a block wall if it was if it was along the alley, but you'd be willing to instead in that screen material just add the additional courses of masonry wall.

Um we'll probably want to add that as a condition.

And then looking at everything else, I I I didn't have any other questions, but we'll open it up and see if anybody else has questions.

Commissioner LeBoe?

Yeah, I actually have a question um regarding the trash enclosure.

So it looks like in the justification letter, um, you state that trash service is not required by Republic Services.

Um, but I see that you actually have on this exhibit um an area for a trash enclosure, and the existing condition is that you have a dumpster kind of in that front area.

So um do you expect to need trash service here still, or how will that be handled?

Uh that will be on the future um by Naki Casa Container for this process but he's willing to pull a trash enclosure in the area as well.

Okay, is there is there any way that we can add a condition that the trash is not in the front of the site?

Um that it would be located, madam chair.

Through you, it's my understanding that they have a letter from Republic Services that they are going to either do curb side and not need a trash enclosure if the applicant wants to confirm that.

Correct.

Yes.

I don't have any other questions besides that.

And seeing Commissioner Rogan.

I I just want to confirm is in the staff report that there's going to be no barbed wire in the property at all, right?

Correct.

No.

Bar bar will be removed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And staff, do you need uh read the new condition into the record?

Madam Chair, for that wall along the east side, it's my understanding that the applicant had the site surveyed, and that wall was on the neighbor's property.

Is that correct?

Uh for for this one?

The on the along the east perimeter.

Uh yes, and we provide some letters.

Yes.

Okay.

Um, at this time, madam chair, without an application from that property owner, we could not condition to force them to add coursework.

This is gonna have to be a um take their word for it that they'll work with the neighboring property owner to add that coursework to that wall.

Madam Chair, through you, that's the coursework for there's a wall on the east along that east property line that is the four-foot tall wall.

I will use this one, right?

Yeah, that's easy.

Yeah.

Does that not back up to an alley?

Um it was we were informed that the wall after a survey was actually on the neighboring property.

And we and that was why we did not eliminate that particular variance and kept it due to the fact that we did not have an application, assigned application from that property owner agreeing to raise the height.

I understand there's a verbal agreement.

No, but without there's a letter.

Yeah, so there's a letter stating, but without that application, it's it's hard for us to impose a condition on another uh property owner when we don't have their application and they're not part of this application.

But wouldn't the duty fall on the applicant and if they can't achieve this, they would have to come back?

They no, we left the variance uh as part of their application package, so if they are not able to come into an agreement with that neighboring property owner, they have the variance for the shorter wall.

Okay.

So sir so chair, just a question.

Does that mean that if if they can't come to an agreement they have to build a separate four-foot wall uh on their property, or what is that actually mean?

Madam Chair, through you know they're gonna keep that wall.

Okay.

We included the variants so that they are covered, so they would not have to come back through the process in case they weren't able to add the additional coursework to the existing wall.

Okay, so we're giving them a variance on the wall that they don't own well to not provide that screen wall and to just leave the conditions as is.

Okay, understood.

Thank you.

Vice Chair.

Yes, uh Madam Chair, through you I think I'm written to make a motion.

Please do.

And this is with the understanding, you're gonna go back and add the masonry versus uh versus the uh the other other sort of fencing, but it's not gonna be a uh condition.

Okay, but I've seen you up here several times, and I'll see you see a few more.

So on item number nine abandons two five-0472, uh a move to approve on items number nine B through 9D, subject to staff's conditions.

Commissioner Taylor.

Thank you.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

And that will move on to city council on April 15th.

Thank you.

That brings us to agenda item 10, abeyance 25-0355, applicant owner YNB Investments, LLC for possible action on the following land use entitlement project requests at 2521 South Fort Apache Road, suite 101.

10 A, abeyance 25-0355 VAR1 to allow 28 parking spaces where 40 are required.

10 B, abeyance 25-0355 SDR 1 for proposed one-story 337 square foot addition to an existing 4,987 square foot commercial development.

Staff may please get the report.

Madam Chair, while the subject site functions as a commercial subdivision with shared drive aisles and parking, the site was not mapped as such, and the enclosure enclosing of a patio area has intensified the parking need for that particular ownership lot, resulting in a parking variance that the staff is not able to support.

Thank you.

And I don't see an applicant at this time.

Seeing no applicant, um, this item has been noticed for public comment.

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

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

Thank you.

Um the last time I spoke with this applicant was a few months ago.

Um, and I had requested that they speak with um the neighboring properties to see if they could get some type of letter um of approval to allow a shared parking agreement.

Um I I didn't get any updates on that, but considering the changes that we're going to see in the parking requirements and the fact that this was built uh more as a commercial subdivision, um even though it's not mapped as such.

I don't really have any issues with um the request on this one.

So I'd like to make a motion.

Please do.

Okay.

Um I move sorry.

Uh on item number 10, abandoned 250355.

I motion to approve.

And that is for 10A and B.

10A and 10B.

Subject to conditions.

Commissioner Taylor.

Aye.

Motion carries.

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

That brings us to item 15, abeyance 25-0605, VAR1, applicant owner J.

Christopher Dabber and James Jamie M.

Dapper for possible action on a land use entitlement project request to allow a proposed front yard wall that does not conform to Title 19 development standards for height and visibility at 2500 Pinto Lane.

Staff may please get the report.

Madam Chair, this is Holden Moistman, Planer 2, Community Development for the Record.

Staff finds no evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance has been presented to warrant the proposed front yard wall and gates that do not meet Title 19 development standards.

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

Thank you.

Thank you.

Please get your name for the record.

Hi, Jay Dapper, uh 2500 Pinto Lane.

Uh thank you for your time today.

So I'm here in reference to my front wall.

Um I've got a I don't know if it's up on the overhead, um, but uh I've got a couple of photos to share with you today.

And um, so I built a wall in front of my house.

And uh move that over.

So um the vast majority of my wall uh and the metal portion on top of it uh does meet the standard, as you can see um on the eastern side of my property, uh the the grade kind of falls down, and so for pretty much uh I would say somewhere around 75 to 80 percent of my wall, the height is within code, but just in the small portion that's over down at the eastern side of my property, as you can see, the grade falls and the wall gets a little bit higher than what's currently allowed.

And then there's two portions of my fence.

Uh, there's uh essentially the majority of the fence is see through, which you can kind of see how that looks.

At certain um vantage points, it doesn't look like it's see through.

So if you look over here, it appears that it's not see-through, but it's just because uh of the direction that you're looking.

Um, this is the exact same fence, and you're just looking at it through a different vantage point.

So it actually is quite see-through, and you can see there's different versions of that.

And then so of the total lineal footage across the entire wall, the only portion of the fence that can't uh you can't see through is the wooden fence that is on either side of the of the driveway, which is these two areas here.

Other than that, this is that same area, and you can see right through the fence.

And so I'm here to answer any questions and respectfully ask for approval this evening.

Thank you.

This item has been noticed for public comment.

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

Please come down and state your name for the record.

My name is John O'Reilly.

I live at 3013 Pinell Lane, uh, also own the property of 619 Campbell.

I would encourage you to approve uh Mr.

Dapper's application.

If you look at some of the other uh walls in the area, Mr.

Dapper's looks beautiful.

And uh compared to some that have gone up recently, uh, who are way out of line with the code.

Mr.

Dapper's looks beautiful.

He's followed the rules and should not be penalized for doing so.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

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

I agree with Mr.

O'Reilly.

I wish you could build all the walls in your neighborhood, uh, considering some that have gone up and some that have come before me, some of which I have approved.

Um I think this is a great wall.

It's about six feet in height, which we've approved in the past.

Um it meets most of the requirements again.

It's only that solid um gates that are really out of line with stuff that we've approved, but it looks great, so I have no problem with it.

Thank you.

Umless there's any other comments, I'll make a move to approve agenda item 15 project 25 0605 VAR1, subject to staff's conditions, which you agree to, correct, Mr.

Dapper?

I do.

Thank you.

Commissioner Taylor.

Aye.

Motion carries.

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

Thank you very much.

You guys have a nice night.

That brings us to agenda items 1625-0444.

Applicant Neighborhood Housing Services of Southern Nevada, owner City of Las Vegas at Al for possible action on the following land use entitlement project requests at the Northeast Corner of Jefferson Avenue and E Street.

16A 25 0444, Zone 1 from T4 MS T4 Main Street to T4N T4 Neighborhood, APNS 13927210057 and 13927210058.

16B 25 0444 W V R1 to allow waivers of Title 19.09 form-based code development standards, lot one.

16C 25 0444, W VR2 to allow waivers of Title 19.09 form based code development standards, lot two.

16D 25-0444 W VR3 to allow waivers of Title 19.09 form-based code development standards, lot three.

16E 25-0444 W VR4 to allow waivers of Title 19.09 form-based code development standards, Lot 4.

16F 25-0444 W VR5 to allow waivers of Title 19.09 form-based code development standards lot five.

16G 25 0444 W VR6 to allow waivers of Title 19.09 form-based code development standards, Lot 6.

16H, 25 0444, WVR7 to allow waivers of Title 19.09 form-based code development standards, lot 7.

16i, 25 0444 WVRA to allow waivers of Title 19.09 form-based code development standards, lot eight.

16J, 25-0444, TMP1.

Jefferson and E for an eight-law single family attached residential subdivision with waivers of Title 19.09 form-based code development standards.

Staff may please get the report.

Staff therefore recommends approval of the rezoning.

Staff considers the proposed waivers to meet the intent of the form-based code, introducing diversity in housing types and encouraging a walkable urban area.

Staff therefore recommends approval of the waivers and tentative map subject to conditions, except that condition three on each waiver, which is WVR1 through WVR 8, should be stricken as the submitted site plan shows conforming common yard frontages on each lot.

Thank you.

Thank you.

May the applicant please give your name for the record.

Good evening, Chair Madam Chair and Commissioners.

My name is Ben Mahoney.

I reside at 2151 Village Wolk Drive, Henderson 89012.

I'm the senior project manager for neighborhood housing services of Southern Nevada.

The applicant with me today is Susan Florian, representing our civil engineer on the project, Taney Engineering.

Our project is called Mosley Commons, located on the corner of Jefferson and A Street.

The site's directly across from 500 Jefferson Avenue, a building we also own and manage six rental units to low-income households.

Combining all parcels together, it will be 0.68 acres, creating a subdivision of eight single attached family homes.

Oops, sorry, you can see that on there.

So that's our 500 Jefferson there and the site parcels here.

On the site plan, you can see we've got uh sizes ranging from 1600 to 1800 square feet with lot sizes between 3200 to 4200 square feet.

Each one will be a two-story with a detached two-car garage and ample yard space, and we'll be targeting households of 80% AMI.

Uh Madam Chair and Commissioners, we're requesting several waivers for this project.

I'll let Susan, our civil engineer, discuss the waivers with you further.

Thank you.

Uh uh good uh evening, um, planning commissioners.

My name is Susan Florian from Taney Engineering, 6030 South John's Boulevard, here on behalf of the applicant.

I will be going over uh the major uh what some of our um major waivers.

We do have other ones if uh you want to hear more about it.

I can explain.

Uh but the first one uh is a zone boundary amendment.

We're asking for the uh so two of the parcels are already zoned uh T4N and the other two uh parcels are zoned uh T4MS, and we're just requesting to rezone all of them to T4N.

Uh one of the waivers is for the uh growth uh floor area.

So the garages are supposed to be 218.27 square feet, um, but we are requesting for them to be 455 uh.18 square feet.

Um another waiver is for the side window.

So uh they're required to have a 10-foot setback, um, but we're we're asking for a six-foot setback on the uh east side.

Um another um waiver that we have is for the um the row uh the row house depth waiver.

So uh for lots one, uh three and six and eight, uh, we're asking for a 50-foot, 58-foot depth row house where 45 is the uh maximum depth.

And then for lots two, four, five, and seven, we're asking for a uh depth of 56 where 45 is required.

Uh we are grateful for staff's recommendation uh for approval.

Uh and we're here to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you so much.

This item has been noticed for public comment.

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

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

Is there anyone on the commission that would like to give comment or have any concerns?

And seeing vice chair.

Yes, uh, madam chair, through you.

I met with the applicants a few months ago in my office, and uh they briefly brought me up to speed on this project and uh applauding them for bringing us a project that looks uh that looks nice.

And this is an area where we've seen a lot of a lot of different projects try to come to this area and uh and some of them have been hard fought by the neighborhood and and others have uh they're they've just been very vocal, but this project it seems like uh they're in sure or they're they're definitely not in opposition because they're not here tonight.

And I'd love to see more of this get built in that area.

I have no problem that the graduates are a little bit larger and that we have a minor uh setback on the east side of the project.

So I think overall is conforming.

You made it look nice by having various uh portions of your facade set back more than others and uh different colors and everything else.

So uh thanks for bringing us something that would look nice in that neighborhood.

So I'm ready to make a motion, Madam Chair on item number six.

Madam Chair, if I just may oh excuse me, Vice Chair Apology.

Commissioner Taylor.

Go ahead.

Oh, thank you, Madam Chair through you.

Um to the applicant.

Um I echoing Vice Chair Schlottman.

I think it's a great looking project.

I just wanted to ask if I missed it.

Um is this a project that is providing a for sale product or are these gonna be for rental?

Yes, for sale product for sale product, yes.

I I'm sorry, I just think that's a good one.

Sorry, yeah, yes, I apologize.

Yes, Commissioner Taylor.

Yeah, great.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate okay.

Thank you, madam chair.

I apologize uh vice chair.

Not a problem.

No, I do think that this is kind of great floor plans, and I love what you've kind of put together, so thank you.

Vice chair.

Thank you.

And also great landscape and plan.

So thank you for preparing that from the get-go.

All right, on item number sixteen, two five-044, items number sixteen A through sixteen j moved to approve, subject to staff's conditions with noting that we are gonna strike condition number three on which items.

Um Madam Chair, through you, W V R 1 through W VR 8.

Okay, so that would the same condition for each lot.

Strike in condition three for 16B through 16i.

Thank you.

And that's my motion move to approve.

Subject to staff's conditions, Commissioner Taylor.

Motion carries.

Thank you, planning commissioners.

Thank you.

And that will move on to City Council on April 15th.

We now go to item 1725-0554, SUP1, applicant owner, FPGM Investments LLC for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for proposed alcohol on premise full use with waivers of distance separation requirements from a church, house of worship, and school and appendix F interim downtown Las Vegas Development Standards for parking area two at 401 South Sixth Street.

Staff may please get the report.

Madam Chair, the proposed alcohol on premise full use is located on a site that has historically operated as an establishment which sells full alcohol for on-premise consumption, and it's in an area characterized by office and commercial development.

Despite the proposed waivers of distance separation and parking, staff finds the proposed use will not negatively impact surrounding development and can be conducted in a manner that is harmonious and compatible with existing surrounding uses.

Staff recommends approval of the special use permits subject to conditions.

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

Thank you.

May you please give your name for the record.

Yes, it's uh Jordan Dennison with FBGM Investments.

Wonderful.

Um I'm here to seek uh approval today for the special use.

Um as uh others have mentioned, it's historically had alcohol on site.

Uh the building sat uh vacant and abandoned for about 15 years.

Uh we restored it, brought it back, uh, just got it uh fully leased to a French restaurant here in town that has two additional locations.

Um so we're we're we've pumped a ton of money into this.

We're happy to bring life back to uh Las Vegas uh in this area and especially this building, and uh we're grateful for your consideration and I'm happy to answer any questions you have.

Thank you.

This item has been noticed for public comment.

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

See none.

I will turn it over to members of the commission, starting with Vice Chair Schlottman.

Thank you, madam chair.

Uh great building, a lot of history.

I've been in this building, I've been in this building probably even eight years ago after it was shut down, and so it was scary.

Yeah, it's gonna take some work, but uh uh y'all looking forward to uh moving quick on this, or what what's uh what's your game plan?

We are uh the new uh gentleman that signed the lease says he plans to be open within the next 60 days.

Um he's bringing in a bunch of furniture equipment, things like that.

So um time is of the essence, but uh we've kind of done our part.

This is our last uh uh thing to address, and then we're gonna wish him the best and see how he does.

Okay, perfect.

And seeing no other comments, vice chair?

Yes, madam chair, through you on item 17 uh 25-0554 SUP1 move to approve, subject to staff's conditions, and you agreed all staff conditions have approved.

I do.

Thank you.

Commissioner Taylor.

Commissioner Taylor.

I said aye.

Motion carries.

And that will move on to city council on April 15th.

Thank you.

Thank you.

With that, we move on to item 18, 25-0608 SUP1.

Applicant Las Vegas Billboards, owner 2830 Fremont LLC for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for proposed 40 foot tall 14 foot by 48 foot off-premise sign not qualifying as a city communication sign, use with digital LED electronic message illumination at 2030 Fremont Street.

Staff may please get the report.

Madam Chair, the proposed digital off-premise sign is located on property containing an existing commercial shopping center.

Staff finds the proposed use will not negatively impact surrounding development and can be conducted in a manner that is harmonious and compatible with the existing surrounding land uses.

Staff recommends approval of the special use permit subject to conditions.

Please note additional letters of support and protest were received after publication.

Thank you.

Thank you.

May the applicant please give your name for the record.

I'm Melia Henry with Las Vegas Billboards.

Jared Andrews, I'm the contractor for uh Las Vegas Billboards.

I'm with uh Jones Media.

Thank you.

And you can please present on the item.

Yeah, we're here tonight uh requesting approval for a special use permit uh for the development of a 40-foot tall 14 by 48 back to back digital off-premise advertising sign.

Um we believe this sign will contribute to the visual quality and economic uh vitality of the area while also providing an effective communication platform for businesses and organizations that serve the community.

We respectfully request uh your approval of the special use permit, and we appreciate your time and consideration.

Um we're happy to answer any questions you guys may have.

Thanks for your time.

Thank you.

This item has been noticed for public comment.

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

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

Thank you.

Uh is this sign just two-sided and kind of on a B shape?

Uh it's a back to back, so it's exactly parallel face-to-face.

Okay.

And so there won't be any kind of signage on on the sides.

No.

And you'd be fine with conditioning for that to not not be any signage on the sides, just the the two large faces.

Correct.

Okay.

And we would enclose each end so it couldn't be seen through.

Okay.

Um, and I don't think we're that close to the residential.

I think we have some commercial up front.

So uh, and I've read through your packet last month or a couple of months ago, and seems like is this the same same manufacturer, same technology on this sign as the other sign with you know the light sensors and and um and and electronic reporting when something goes wrong?

Yes, it has uh dual light sensors on it, so uh one is backup, um, and yes, it is dactronics.

Okay.

All right, no further questions.

Commissioner Taylor Hearing none, Commissioner Schlottman.

Yes, uh, through you, if I could ask staff to read read into the record at motion or a condition.

Madam Chair, through you, uh this would be an added new condition to the special use permit.

Um 25-0608 SUP one.

No signage shall be allowed on the third northeastern elevation of the off-premise sign directly facing Fremont Street.

Only the two sign facades depicted on the sign elevations date stamped 1126, which was the uh the one we've received from you that face northwest and southeast um shall be allowed.

And you agree, agreed, as planned.

Okay, thank you.

Uh Madam Chair, um ready to make a motion.

Please do.

On number 1825-0608, SUP1 move to approve, subject to staff's conditions and the added condition as read into the record by staff, and you agree to all uh if approved conditions.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Taylor.

Motion carries.

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

Thank you.

That brings us to item 19, 25-0614, applicant owner Angel Diaz for possible action on the following land use and title and project requests at 11 Prince Lane.

19A 25-0614 BAR1 to allow an existing front yard fence that does not conform to Title 19 development standards for height.

19B 25-0614 SDR1 for proposed conversation of an existing single-family residential dwelling to an office with waivers of perimeter landscape buffer requirements.

Staff may please get the report.

Madam Chair, the proposed residential to office conversion fails to meet landscaping requirements and therefore does not support the city of Las Vegas 2050 master plan goals and vision for reducing the heat island effect.

In addition, no addition of a unique or extraordinary circumstance has been presented to warrant the requested variants to allow a six-foot-tall front yard fence.

Therefore, staff does not support the request and recommends denial of both the variants and the site development plan review.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Please state your name for the record.

You see, I just I just tried to put my office there.

I put the fence that high because that's a lot of homeless there.

Even the police told me to put it high.

They go like every week.

So that does the way does Mary put it there.

Okay, thank you.

And this item has been noticed for public comment.

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

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

Yes, thank you, madam chair.

Um I've reviewed this application.

I don't have a big problem with the fence because it's uh see-through from the ground up, but I do have a problem that uh with zero landscaping.

Yeah, I have some landscaping in the west side of the building, but I didn't put it because the I told you if I just put a variance, I don't need it, but I already got one.

Let me let me finish.

So I I'd like to see I'd like to hold this for 30 days.

I'd like for you to show me what you what you're gonna do with landscaping and come back with a plan uh because I don't want to I don't want to prove this right here tonight while we're presenting because I I want to see it you know thought through a little bit.

Uh I know that some of these landscape buffers can get wide at 8, 10, 15 feet.

Uh I don't need hold on.

I don't need it to be the full width of whatever it is because then you wouldn't get any parking in there.

But I would like to see some landscaping.

Look, I I live downtown.

There's a lot of places up and down Eastern Avenue where there's a lot of these houses that turn to professional office and we didn't require additional landscaping, and it looks bad.

I'd I'd love to see it.

I'd love to see that happen.

I'm gonna make it beautiful.

Okay, I'm gonna make it beautiful.

I tell you what, I'm I'm gonna meet you on the side here in a second.

I'm gonna give you my telephone number, and uh before was is 30 days enough time for you to come up with a plan and show me what kind of landscaping you're gonna do around the perimeter.

Yeah, even I can put us on like uh plants at the corners if it looks okay because I don't have a space for the parkings.

Does buddy I want the variance for the last landscaping?

Okay, if I got a space, I can put us on plants or trees.

Okay.

Well, uh, I'm gonna make a motion to hold this for 30 days and then um and then we'll talk between now and then and see if we can come up with something.

And can somebody give me a date April 14th?

Is that okay?

So April 14th.

So on item number 18, I am going to uh make a motion to hold this in advance uh for 30 days until the April 14th 2026 Plan Commission hearing.

Okay, okay.

Commissioner Taylor.

Aye.

Motion carries.

And with that, we go to item 20, 25-0617 SDR1, applicant owner Miguel Gutierrez for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for the addition of a proposed one-story 9,000 square foot building to a site containing an existing commercial building with waivers of perimeter landscape buffer requirements and of Title 19.08 building facade development standards at 4485 North Rainbow Boulevard.

Staff may please get the report.

Madam Chair, staff has determined that since the proposed waivers and exceptions concern landscaping located in the rear yard behind a gate and adjacent to the existing mini storage development located west of the site, they will have minimal negative impact to the existing surrounding commercial developments.

The proposed addition is compatible with the site and the adjacent development in this area, therefore staff recommends approval, subject to conditions.

Please note there are additional documents of support received after publication.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Please state your name for the record.

Wonderful.

And please present and your name as well.

Vicky Kataras, uh 6245 North Dapel Gray Road.

Wonderful.

And please just um let us know about your application.

Yes.

Yeah, I I agree with all staff recommendations.

Perfect.

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

Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak on this item?

Seeing none, I will turn it over to members of the commission, and I will go with Vice Chair Schlottman.

Um give me one quick second.

You didn't speak long enough.

Willing to answer any questions for you.

No.

Oh, advice chair Schlottman.

Considering that staff recommends approval, I I would definitely support a motion to approve, but if there's any comments, happy to hear them.

Okay.

No, I I've I've reviewed this project and um and I didn't have any questions, so I'm written to make a motion.

Please do.

On item number two.

Madam Chair.

Commissioner Taylor.

Vice Chair, just I just thank you through you, Madam Chair.

Um I I did try we played phone tag a little bit today.

Um, because I wanted to talk to you.

I I I appreciate and respect staff's um recommendation and their observations that because the landscaping waivers are in the back, it wouldn't really have an impact on some of the neighboring buildings.

But because uh because this is you know basically like black top with the minimum trees.

Um, I just have some concerns about your parking lot and about the lack of trees in the parking lot um to be able to mitigate that urban heat island impact in this area, which is again part of our urban core uh in one of the higher heat mapping areas.

So we know that adding in, you know, we don't want to do something that triggers additional variances, but I'm wondering if there was any way that you might be able to put in some car ports or something that provides some um some shade in in over that asphalt to mitigate those impacts.

That was what I wanted to talk to you about.

Uh if I can speak.

Yes, please do.

Uh what we were planning on doing after we had the the structure up, we were gonna add some solar panel uh uh shades over the top, the car port with the solar panels to kind of get rid of that black top effect because it does get hot back to the way the sun goes up, comes down.

Right.

So we were planning is that on your plan?

It's not on appliance, but I would that was going to be my future plan to put that on there to add the uh okay um carport slash is there is it possible that you can put that on your plans prior to moving up to city council.

Um yes, I guess we can.

Yes.

Okay.

I think that would be a great idea if you did that.

Okay.

Or would it be possible just to add more trees?

Would that be sufficient?

I think sorry, madam chair.

I I I think if you added more trees, that would also uh do the same thing that would that would allow you to uh you know uh have uh reduce that heat album effect, and I think that's one of the things Commissioner Taylor was trying to uh get to.

So if that's more achievable for you in the short term, uh then yeah, I think that would be good uh to address okay.

We'll add some trees.

All right, Madam Chair, if I may just interject, they are right at their required parking requirement.

Yeah, so I would advise not to lose any parking spaces to adding trees.

So if they could find other places to put in the trees, that would work.

Okay.

Okay.

No, appreciate thank you.

And so with that, vice chair.

Well, we're we're reducing parking at the beginning of this meeting.

I'm joking.

Yes.

So um take take a look at it.

See if you can uh stab a couple trees in there where you don't reduce your parking.

And I think that would go a long way to um getting the councilperson's um uh approval, hopefully.

Um so anyways on vice chair on item number 20, 25-0617 SDR1 move to approve, subject to staff's conditions, and you agree with all conditions of approved.

Yes, I do.

And the recommendation of getting planning staff a new new plan before city council.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

That is my motion.

Commissioner Taylor.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries my vote.

And that will move on to city council on April 15th.

Thank you.

That brings us to item 2126-0012.

Applicant owner, Lone Mountain Estates, LLC for possible action on the following land use entitlement project requests at the southwest corner of Helena Avenue and North Grand Canyon Drive.

21A 26 0012 VR1 to allow proposed front yard wall that does not conform to tile 19.06 development standards for height and pilaster distance, lot one, APN 1380631301.

21B 26-0012 VAR2 to allow a proposed front yard wall that does not conform to Tile 19.06 development standards for height and pilaster distance lot three, APN 1380631303.

21C 26-0012 VAR3 to allow a proposed front yard wall that does not conform to Tile 19.06 development standards for height and pilaster distance lot four APN 1380631304.

21D 26 0012 VAR4 to allow proposed front yard wall that does not conform to tile 19.06 development standards for height and pilaster distance lot five APN 1380631305.

Staff may please get the report.

Madam Chair, no evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance has been presented, and that the applicant has created a self-imposed hardship by proposing walls and gates that exceed the maximum height allowed and contain pilasters space farther than the maximum allowed.

In view of the absence of any hardships imposed by the site's physical characteristics, it is concluded that the applicant's hardship is preferential in nature, and staff is recommending denial of the variance requests.

Please note additional documentation of support was received after publication.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Please give your name for the record.

Jeff Thompson with Tanney Engineering 6030 South Jones Boulevard.

Madam Chair and Commission, I appreciate you giving me the time to uh present this project to you.

So this is a project in the northwest along Lone Mountain.

Um, and specifically on these four lots, as you can see, there's one of these lots that have already been built.

Um we're here to again reiterate that we're here to increase the wall height in the front yard from five feet um to have a five-foot bottom plus a three-foot rod arm fence on top, and then um lighting that goes above that.

Um this condition was originally approved um back in 2020 when this project first came through uh the commission and city council, in which the five-foot solid wall with three-foot rod iron fence above where two feet solid and five foot total height is allowed.

Um, and then along with the nine-foot tall rod gate where five foot is allowed, and the 50-foot spacing on the pilasters.

Um obviously, this is expired since 2020.

It's taken the client uh a little longer than expected to build all these homes as it consists of um all these home these 13 homes along Jensen and then plus another additional nine along Grand Canyon.

Um the the original reason why these were applied for this home that sits over here.

It's kind of that estate living to where it existingly has a wall that surrounds the site that looks very similar to ours.

It has a five-foot solid wall with three feet on top, and then pile ass are separated between those two.

Um I will show you a picture of what again.

This so this lot is already built, and I'm gonna show you a picture of what it looks like and what we're going to do the exact same um thing too.

So here's a picture of the wall.

Um also it has landscaping in front of it, as you can see, as well as the five-foot wall, the three-foot ride iron, and then the pile lasts every 50 feet.

The pilasters increase the visibility between it.

That's why you increase it to 50 feet.

I think we're 25 feet is is allowed.

Um, and then again, these similar homes have been built along Jensen that uh mimic this same front yard wall that uh they're trying to get around this whole community.

Um I appreciate your guys' time and would hope for this to be approved here um and here to answer any questions that you guys have.

Thank you so much.

This item has been noticed for public comment.

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

See none, I will turn it over to members of the commission and starting with myself as this is in Ward 4.

I think that these homes and the facades, they look great.

I think it's as harmonious and compatible with the area.

Very familiar um with this area, and especially with there not being line of sight issues with anyone on the street.

I would support an approval.

Vice Chair, would you like to make the motion or motion to approve sure on item 21, 26012?

Uh items number 21A through 21D move to approve, subject to staff's conditions.

And you agree with all staff's conditions.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Commissioner Taylor.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

That brings us to item 22, 27.

That item will go to city council.

I'm sorry.

Yeah, city council on April 15th.

Thank you.

Item 22, 26-0020 WVR1, applicant owner, Howard A.

Keys Trust for possible action on a land use entitlement project request to allow proposed 80-foot tall flagpole where 40 feet is the maximum allowed at 6551 Centennial Center Boulevard.

Staff may please get the report.

Madam Chair, staff finds that no evidence of a special circumstance has been presented to warrant the proposed flagpole that is inconsistent with the intent of the town center development standards.

As such, the request is preferential in nature, and staff recommends denial of the waiver subject to conditions if approved.

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

Thank you.

Thank you.

And seeing no applicant, I will turn it over to public comment.

Is there anyone in the audience at this time that would like to speak on this matter?

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

I don't have an issue with this.

I know that this is you know the dealership has moved.

I think that it is harmonious and compatible with this area.

Commissioner DiSalvio.

Madam Chair, thank you.

Um this exact same situation we had a problem with on Sahara, and I want to say it was at Lindell with a pretty much the same, I believe it's the same owner.

A they erected an 80-foot flagpole, uh, but under high winds, that flag makes so much noise that it turned into an actual major problem.

And they actually now remove that flagpole from that location.

And I'm just wondering, I have no problem with it.

I think it is harmoniously compatible.

However, I'd like to set some type of standard to where if the winds are over a certain mile an hour that it's it's taken down or lowered because of the noise that it does create to move such a large flag like that, that I don't want it to become a nuisance to the adjacent neighbors.

So is there some type of restriction that we could put to where if we're looking at something over 25 miles an hour, 30 miles an hour, that it's it's lowered?

I'm I'm happy to explore that.

Members of the commission.

I I don't since it is on the freeway.

Um, but uh happy to put a commission or a condition if the applicant isn't here to to speak on their behalf.

So Commissioner Rogan.

I was just gonna say chair.

Oh, sorry, madam chair, if I can ask a couple questions.

Commissioner Taylor.

I'm so sorry to jump in, but thank you.

Um I have a question for staff.

My understanding is there is already an 80-foot flag across the street.

Is that correct?

Um, Madam Chair, through you, uh Commissioner Taylor, that is correct.

There is another 80-foot flagpole on Centennial Center that was approved via waiver.

Okay, and then my second question is with that 80-foot flagpole that was approved via waiver.

Have you ever had any complaints about noise from that flagpole?

I I'm just madam chair, through you.

Um not that we are aware of.

Um, and looking at the aerial, there are the closest residences are north of the 215.

So any flag noise would probably be drowned out by the vehicular traffic on the 215.

Um, I would hesitate adding a condition without an applicant here to agree to it.

This item will move forward to city council.

We can definitely reach out to the applicant, uh, maybe put a limit on the size of the flag itself.

I know the one that you're talking about, Commissioner DiSalvio.

That um, that particular flag itself was the size of a small home.

It was enormous.

It was like 1600 square feet.

So, yes, it was very noisy.

So we can definitely reach out to the applicant between now and city council.

See if there's some way we can have them limit the size of the flag itself.

So if there is uh, you know, a breeze, it doesn't create a sound issue.

Perfect.

But with that, oh Commissioner Taylor.

But one other thing on the record.

Sorry.

I I I guess, and it's great that this is gonna go to City Council so you can have that discussion because my concern would be, and I did not know that there was a distinct differential distinction in the sizes between the two flags, but I would just be really concerned about putting a condition like wind speed on a landowner and a business owner.

Because how do you enforce it?

How do they gauge it?

What are you asking them to put some type of weather vein on top of their building as well?

I mean, I just I understand the point and I understand the concern.

I just if if the size of the flag is a way to mitigate that, I I think that may make more sense than trying to put that kind of a condition that I'm not sure could be.

I I just feel like it would be really onerous on the on the land of business owner on the applicant.

But anyway, that was that was just my other follow-up question that I wanted or comment that I wanted to make.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, through you, Commissioner Taylor, we will reach out to the applicant and see if we can have a specific flag size placed as a condition and loot instead of doing wind speed.

And then that way, if the flag is not 1600 square feet, maybe it won't make so much noise when there is a breeze.

And we will definitely follow up with that.

No, I appreciate that.

And and like I said, its location being on the freeway and in the others' not residential directly adjacent to it.

I think I'm happy to make a motion now to approve.

So unless there is anyone else on the member.

All right, Commissioner Schlottman.

Yes, uh, Madam Chair.

I I was frantically looking up the map when Commissioner DeSalvia was saying making his comment because I was uh thinking the same thing and some of these flags that we've we've experienced in the past, but uh seeing as how there is a highway and it looks like there's gonna be commercial um continuing through here.

Um you know, and maybe another thing that they can consider between now and city council is if they do want to take it down at night or uh high wind speed.

So, anyways, y'all can they can think of that uh between now and city council, but for item 226-0020 W uh W VR1 moved to approve, subject to staff's conditions.

Commissioner Taylor.

Aye.

Motion carries.

And now we'll move on to city council on April 15th.

That brings us to item 2326-0022, applicant extra space storage, owner SON V 9770 West Cheyenne Avenue, LLC for possible action of the following land use entitlement project requests at 9770 West Cheyenne Avenue, 23A 26-0022 SUP1 for a major amendment to an approved special use permit SCP 1105 for the proposed addition of units to an existing mini-warehouse facility use 23B 26-0022 SUP2 for a major amendment to an approved special use permit SUP 1107 for the proposed per no, sorry, for the proposed removal of storage spaces from an existing recreational vehicle storage and boat storage use 23C 26-0022 SDR1 for a major amendment to an approved site development plan review SDR 1020 for a proposed two-story building addition and parking lot reconfiguration to an existing mini storage and recreational vehicle and boat storage development with a waiver of Title 19.08 building facade development standards.

Staff may please get the report.

Madam Chair, the proposed amendments are consistent with Title 19 minimum use requirements and previous conditions of approval and the mini storage development will remain compatible with adjacent development.

Staff therefore recommends approval the requested amendments subject to conditions.

Please note there were additional documents of protest received after publication.

Thank you.

Thank you.

May you please get your name for the record.

Good evening, Teresa Wolf, 6671 Los Ayas Boulevard South 89119 here on behalf of the applicant.

We're here before you today for a few amendments to special use permits that exist for an existing warehouse facility at the northwest corner of Cheyenne Avenue and Grand Canyon Drive.

The adjustments that are going to be made to this site is currently in this area.

Here is two rows of covered RV and trailer parking that they're going to remove and replace with the new two-story building with a bunch of storage units.

The existing building on the east end is actually a two-story um RV storage unit, and they're going to do some modifications internally to create two stories of a single story second floor and a single story first floor storage units.

And then the existing buildings to the rear isn't changing.

And then some parking is going to be modified for the new area that has the proposed building.

And so we agree with all of staff's conditions.

Thank you so much.

This item has been noticed for public comment.

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

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

I believe that I agree with staff recommending approval.

I think it is still harmonious and compatible.

I don't see an issue, obviously, to the north side, considering it's the I believe it's a solar plant.

And then across the street, I think that there's enough distance that's not going to impact the residential units there.

And so with that, I am happy to follow along with staff's recommendation for approval by Chair Schlottman.

Yes, Madam Chair, through you on item 2326-0022, 23A, B and C moved to approve subject to staff's conditions, and you agreed all conditions have approved.

Yes.

Thank you.

Commissioner Taylor.

Aye.

Motion carries.

And that will move on to city council on April 15th.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That brings us to item 2426-0025 applicant Las Vegas Billboards owner South Main LLC for possible action on the following land use entitlement project requests at 4500 North to AOA.

24A 26-0025 VR 1 to allow proposed off-premise sign to be constructed to a height of 65 feet, where 55 feet is the maximum allowed.

24B 26-0025 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 electronic message illumination.

Staff may please get the report.

Madam Chairs, there's no no unique or extraordinary circumstance related to the physical characteristics of the subject property that warrants the requested height variants.

The hardship is deemed to be self-imposed, and staff recommends denial, the variance in special use permit subject to conditions if approved.

Please note the revised staff report that includes comments and conditions from the Clark County Department of Aviation is located in your blue sheet packet.

And note there were additional documents of protest and support received after publication.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Please state your name for the record.

Good evening.

Lucy Stewart 1930 Village Center Circle representing the applicant and with the Mr.

Greg Esposito.

And as shown in your agenda, we do meet, we're on the west side of US 95 and north of Craig Road.

And we do meet all the separation requirements from residential, from other off-premise advertising in the area.

We have commercial to the south and residential to the north.

And the in your packet, the drawing that shows where the billboard is proposed and how it shows, it's a little misleading because it's a little bit above.

Oh, sorry.

Um it's shown a little bit above like there's more clearance.

So after this was submitted, we went out and did a put a crane and we flagged the site.

And so as you can see, with um at 55 feet, the bottom third is cut off.

And it we barely clear the the noise attenuation wall on the southbound lane.

So I mean, if 65 feet, it barely clears it.

That gives us the ability to have um the signage to be legible to be able to read the entire thing.

Um but we are also aware that we do have residential to the north, and so we are proposing um a um a type of of uh technology, and so Mr.

Esposito is gonna discuss that.

Thank you, Madam Chairman, members of the commission.

Uh as Lucy said, Greg Esposito.

Um Commissioner Schlottman brought up uh how about a month ago uh I was in front of you uh with the same company uh of uh Las Vegas billboards uh but a different brand.

This is uh this is a different brand, and this is the brand that actually makes the Louver technologies that we talked about a month ago.

Uh to answer your question from many uh items ago, yes, this will have the same technology uh of the two different sensors, the backup um and uh automatic dimming, um even if it's even it's bad weather, uh if it's just timed bad weather, you know, it wouldn't get any dimmer during uh during bad weather.

Um this is what this is the amount of foot candles you would see from the ground if it was a standard billboard, a standard uh LED billboard.

And now a foot candle is exactly as it sounds.

If you held a candle a foot away from you, the amount of light you would see.

And these numbers represent that metric if the billboard was completely white.

It would never happen.

I mean, no one advertises a completely white billboard.

But if the billboard is completely white, this is how much light it would emit on the ground.

That's how much light you would see on the ground with this billboard being 65 feet high.

So in reality, the billboard being 65 feet high is better because less light would hit the ground with this louver technology.

And this is to the south.

Now to the north, we're gonna put the louver technology in, and you'll notice that the values drop significantly.

Where this ring was 0.176 foot candles, this ring now the same distance is about half that, just in the vicinity of about half that.

And you'll also notice that where if this was not louvered, it would affect or it would actually shine towards five different houses.

This now only will be visible from three different houses, and at an even more significant drop off in that foot candle um value.

Um I want to point out some some numbers.

A street light is and and just for this neighbor right here has a street lamp right in front of him.

So there's a street lamp right here.

A street light can be anywhere from 0.3 to one foot candle, and so you would see the value in the in the most affected neighbor, the backyard, is significantly less than even a street light.

And a street light on a major road is one to three foot candles, and if if we had a street level view, you would see that the freeway has a four-light post right here, and there are multiple other ones if you were to look at the street level from here.

There's multiple, there's like four, four-light posts on the freeway right here that are gonna have far more of an impact than what this billboard will have.

I'll also note that a parking lot light, especially in a commercial center like this, which there's one right here.

A parking lot light lets out two to ten foot candles.

Now I'm not I I didn't go out there with a meter and and and measure how much these this parking lot is, but in general, the existing light in this area is already far more uh than what we are proposing uh with these billboards.

And so um it it should not have uh a noticeable negative impact on the neighbors uh compared to what's already there.

Okay, and I guess I just wanted to point out which I didn't earlier that it's a V-shape and it's oriented towards the highway and it will be enclosed on the back side.

So I just wanted to point that out.

So with that, we respectfully request your approval.

Thank you so much.

Uh actually I do need to add one more.

So we are requesting, we are proposing that we put the louver technology on the north side, because that is the side that's facing the neighbors.

And but we are going to leave the non-luver technology to the south side because it's just facing commercial, so it would have no impact on anybody.

Okay, and just for my edification, the reason for that is probably I would say it's cost prohibitive to use.

The Louver technology, the different sign is significantly more expensive, worth it for the neighbors, but no, understood.

And so do you have any more comments or shall I perfect?

With that, I will turn over.

This item has been noticed for public comment.

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

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

Now, normally, right, a digital sign in any kind of proximity to residential is usually subject to concern, but how it is angled, also considering its proximity to the existing freeway, which to your point does already have light sources, the space that already exists, the commercial, there is a lot of activity light as well in the parking lot.

And considering I do appreciate that you sent the materials ahead of time to give me a better understanding of the louver technology.

Um I am willing to make an motion to approve.

This is going to city council, though, correct?

This is the so this is going to move forward to city council.

So with that, I am happy though to address any comments from the commission.

Commissioner DiSalvio.

Uh, just a couple questions.

So the purpose for this sign is for what?

General advertising.

For the business that it's in front of?

No, no, no, it's it's uh the billboard just like any other you would see that has clients rotating every 10 seconds.

Um the reason why and the height, the reason why I had a problem last time you were before us, you had a I think it was a convenience store, and you had a sound wall, and totally justified to get that elevation in order to see it from the freeway.

The problem I have with this one is as I pass this place every single day, and I'll be passing it tonight on the way home.

It is unobstructed, unobstructed.

The whole frontage of that store, all the way down to that exit is 100% open without a sound wall.

So I have a I have a problem with the height because you're really not doing any justice by raising it, other than being back a whole exit or so way back from what your proposed picture is right there on the overhead.

When you come in front of that property, that sound wall literally darn near ends at the see that picture you got right with your fingers?

It ends right there, it ends right there where the houses are, and all the way down, all the way past that commercial, is all open.

So I just I can't get behind the height.

I can get behind the sign with the louvers, but I just can't get behind the height.

And I would agree, north round northbound, it is unobstructed, but southbound because you do have and they are traveling at high rates of speed.

It is, it does block it until you get right in front of the property.

And of course, that's not really you like our view.

Well, you're talking probably an eighth of a mile of wide open space to see it.

And it's trust me, it's it's wide open.

That's I just can't get behind your height.

That's fine with your advertisement.

I just can't get behind the height.

All right.

With that, Vice Chair, I'm happy to support a motion for approval.

Okay.

Uh on item number 24 26-0025, uh 24A and 24B.

I would move for uh approval.

Subject to conditions.

And we agree to those commissioner Taylor.

Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you.

All right, and with that, we go to Madam Chair Motion Carey.

That item will move forward to city council on April 15th.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And that takes us to item 26, 26-0030 VAR1.

Applicant owner 321 Beaumont Revocable Trust for possible action on a land use entitlement project request to allow an existing residential accessory structure, Casita that does not conform to Title 19.06 development standards for setbacks at 321 Beaumont Street.

Staff may please get the report.

Madam Chair, the requested variance is the result of an open code enforcement case that cited an unpermitted accessory structure that does not meet setbacks.

Staff finds that no evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance has been presented to warrant the requested variants.

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

Please note additional letters of protest were received after publication.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Please state your name for the record.

Good evening, Madam Chair, Commissioners.

Melissa Yary, 1055, Whitney Ranch Drive, Suite 210 here on behalf of the applicant.

You can see here where the home is, and what happened is we have the residential accessory structure back here.

I know staff had some issues looking for the permit, but the home was built in 1955, and building records are notoriously spotty from that time frame.

If you actually see on the assessors page, it actually does show the structure back there.

So it was at some point allowed back there.

What we have for the waivers on the variance.

You can see here is that the setback to the what is technically the east part of the property meets, and then to the north property line here.

We're about three inches short from at the foundation, which is how the setbacks measured.

But the reason for the one foot and the two foot is because we have the architectural details from the roof eaves that actually hangs into the easement.

So that's where the one foot and the two foot is.

So we're asking for the one foot here to the east and the two feet to the north.

And as you can see here, this is the accessory structure right here.

So you can see there is quite a bit of space there, but that this right here is that roof eve overhang, and that is where we happen to have the variance request.

So if you see fit to approve it, we're happy to accept all staff's conditions.

With that, happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

This item has been noticed for public comment.

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

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

Thank you, Chair.

Um, thank you for presenting, Miss Yuri.

I forgot.

I think you told me that you had reached out to some of the neighbors.

Can you just go into that a little bit more?

Yes.

So we did um we did try to reach to the neighbor here to the north who's directly affected.

Um they do have their structure there, but we did want to reach out and let them know that we were making this application.

Um, and so we did try to there's this is a rented out property, so the property manager did go next door, they weren't able to get hold of the neighbor.

We did go ahead and send out a certified letter letting them know that we were making this application, giving our contact information, so if there were any questions or concerns, they could reach out, but we have not heard anything from that neighbor.

Thank you for doing that.

Um, you know, this is one of those older neighborhoods where we don't know when that that building was built.

It could have been built to code way back when and when we're just unsure.

Um, I think that whatever it was, where there was a shed and now it's been changed into something different.

It's um aesthetically compatible with the house.

I did go through that neighborhood on Google Maps, and you can see that there's a lot of these types of outbuildings that um likely, I mean it's hard to measure on Google Maps, but likely are in the same boat as this this uh homeowner.

So I don't have any problems with it given that it is uh what looks well constructed and it is in the rear of the property and not visible from the street.

Does anyone else have any comments or concerns?

Okay.

With that, then um on agenda item 26, project 26-0030 VAR1.

I would make a motion for approval subject to any of staff's all of staff's conditions, and Monsieur, you agree to those conditions.

Yes.

Thank you.

Commissioner Taylor.

Motion carries.

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

Thank you.

Thank you.

That brings us to director's business.

Item 2825-0532 TXT1, applicant owner, city of Las Vegas for possible action on a request to amend LVMC 19.16 and 19.18 regarding cottage food operations being conducted as a home occupation and to provide for other related matters.

Staff may please get a report.

Madam Chair, currently Las Vegas Municipal Code Title 1916.

Before you tonight is a proposed amendment to add a cottage cosmetic operation to the existing cottage food operation as part of the home occupation permitted uses.

This text amendment will bring the Las Vegas municipal code into alignment with AB 352, which was passed during the last legislative session in 2025.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And with that, I would turn to the rest of the members of commission.

Is there any oh sorry, public comment?

Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak on this matter?

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

Um I think you know, obviously we have to come in line with the legislation from the state level.

So I appreciate your work on the text amendment.

I have no issues with it.

Are there any other comments from members of the commission?

Seeing none, I will turn over vice chair.

Are you ready to make a motion?

Yes, madam chair, through you on item 2825-0532 TXT1 move to approve, subject to conditions.

Commissioner Taylor.

Aye.

And that will move on to City Council in ordinance form.

Motion carries.

And with that, that takes us to item 3126-0077 DIR 1.

Applicant owner, City of Las Vegas.

Discussion for possible action on request for the first amendment of the Cashman Development Agreement.

Staff may you please get the report.

Um thank you, Madam Chair, Fred Solis for the record.

Uh February 4th, 2026, the City Council adopted the development agreement between the City of Las Vegas and Greystone, Nevada LLC for the property formally known as Cashman.

This proposed first amendment will add a new section four to the agreement and an exhibit D, which will outline the off site improvement obligations for both parties.

The proposed amendment complies with all NRS 278 and Title 19 standards, and as such, staff recommends approval of the request.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Please state your name for the record.

Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the Commission and Stephanie Gronar, 1980 Festival Plaza Drive here on behalf of the applicant Lenar Holmes.

Um I think Fred covered it for the most part.

So other than thanking staff very much for their negotiation and time and recommendation of approval, we'd very much ask for yours tonight.

Thank you.

This item has been noticed for public comment.

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

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

Uh starting with Commissioner Schlotten.

Written to make a motion.

Seeing no other comments, please do.

Madam Chair on item 3126-0077 DIR1.

Move to approve.

Move to approve.

Commissioner Taylor.

Aye.

Motion carries.

And that will move on to City Council on March 18th.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That takes us to item 32, 26 0079, DIR1, applicant, City of Las Vegas, owner, State of Nevada Division of State Lands.

Discussion for possible action on a request for the first amendment of the Grand Sawyer Development Agreement.

Staff may please get the report.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

On February 4th, 2026, the City Council adopted the development agreement between the City of Las Vegas and Grayson Nevado LSC for the property formerly known as Grant Sawyer.

This proposed first amendment will add a new section 4 and exhibit C to the agreement, which will outline the off-site improvement obligations for both parties.

The proposed amendment complies with all NRS 278 and Title 19 standards, and as such, staff recommends approval of the request.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Please state your name for the record.

Good evening again, Stephanie Grown hour 1980 Festival Plaza Drive.

Here on behalf of the applicant Lenar Homes.

As I mentioned, I appreciate staff's time and energy negotiating this amendment to the agreement, and we'd very much appreciate your approval.

Thank you.

This item has been noticed for public comment.

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

Seeing none, I will turn it over to members of the commission, starting with um Commissioner Schlottman, since I see no other comments.

Written to make a motion.

Please do.

Madam Chair, on item 3226-0079, DR1 move to approve.

Commissioner Taylor.

Motion carries.

Thank you very much.

And that will move on to City Council on March 18th.

And that brings us to our final item, which is citizens' participation.

Citizens participation.

Public comment during this portion of the agenda must be limited to matters within the jurisdiction of the planning commission.

No subject may be acted upon by the planning commission unless that subject is on the agenda and is scheduled for action.

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

The amount of discussion on any single subject, as well as the amount of time any single speaker is allowed, may be limited.

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

Seeing none, I will close citizens' participation.

And with that, this meeting has been adjourned.