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 ten AM, Monday at midnight, and the following Tuesday at six PM.

Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Present.

Commissioner Labeau.

Present.

Commissioner Walters.

Present.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

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

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

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?

I see one.

Okay, great.

You're up, you're allowing for three minutes.

Two minutes.

Okay, all right.

So quite a while since I've been to one of these fine meetings.

Thank you all for your leadership.

Say it again.

Well, I don't know if that's totally pertinent.

I come from wellness background, actually, but um, I did want to make a a plea for more senior and veteran housing.

Uh it's an endless conversation, I know here in town about what do we do with all these wonderful veterans that are struggling and we're losing some of them.

Um way too many.

So I just wanted to make a plea.

Um, please can we have more of that uh with all these wonderful in fil projects that are happening?

Um and it'd be really exciting to possibly talk to staff here that is more in the no than not if possible.

One of your support staff could point me to the right person to talk to before I leave about who might field those kind of questions.

I very much appreciate it.

No, absolutely.

If you want to go off to the side, um, I can have one of the city staff uh give you their card or take your information and then we can follow up after the meeting.

Okay, would there be any staff here that is indeed on point with with that kind of work that you guys are doing?

Uh we can help we'll send a follow-up email after this with the more appropriate sources.

Well, I'd like to talk to them anyway.

So thank you all for your time and your leadership.

Have a good evening.

Perfect, thank you.

And seeing no other coming down for public comment, I will close it at this time.

And then we are moving on to approving the final minutes for planning commission meeting of April 14th.

Vice Chair may I have a motion.

Yes, Chair.

Um I move to approve the April 14th, 2026 meet uh meeting minutes.

Motion carries.

And then moving on to item six of to our housekeeping items.

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

Uh Madam Chair, staff has some housekeeping items for you.

This is Fred Solis for the record.

Uh item nine, uh, the applicant requests to hold this item item in abeyance until the June 9th or June 16th, 2026 planning commission meeting.

Item number 25, the applicant requests this item to be held in obeyance to the July 14th, 2026 planning commission meeting.

Um item 26, the applicant with requests this item to be withdrawn without prejudice.

Uh item 27, the applicant requests this item to be withdrawn without prejudice.

Item 30, staff requests this item to be stricken.

Uh, item 42, apply the applicant request this item to be held in abeyance to the June 16th, 2026 planning commission meeting.

Item 44, the applicant requests this item to be held in obeyance to the August 11th, 2026 planning commission meeting.

And item 51, staff requests this item to be held in abeyance to the June 16th, 2026 planning commission meeting.

Thank you.

Three chairs, senior defensive clerk brand for the record.

Was that uh item 30 or 30 B that you're trying to strike by staff?

Um give me one second here.

It would be the so yes, that would be 30 B.

Thank you.

And also, real quick before Vice Chair makes a motion.

I do just want to highlight in particular for those in the audience.

If anyone is here for item 44, the one in ward six, that is being obeyed until the August meeting.

And so I just want to make sure if anyone's in the audience for that, you're not staying for the entire evening.

Um, but it is obeyed till the August meeting.

So with that, Vice Chair, I'm happy to have a motion.

Yes, madam chair, I'd make a motion to hold items nine, twenty-five, forty-two, and fifty-one until the July 14th.

Um let me let me start over.

I'd like to make a motion on item number nine to hold it till the June 16th, uh 2026 plan commission hearing.

25 uh holding abeyance till the July 14th, 2026 plan and commission hearing to withdraw without prejudice item number 26 to withdraw without prejudice item number 27 to strike item 30 30b to hold item number 42 and uh item number 51 to the June 16th 2026 plan and commission hearing and item number 44 to the August 11th 2026 Plan Commission hearing.

Uh Madam Chair, through you, did we catch capture 51 in that motion?

Yes, that was in there.

All right, thanks.

This brings us to our consent items.

Consent items are considered routined 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.

So with that, vice chair may have a motion for approval on consent item number seven.

Yes, madam chair.

I make a motion to approve consent item number seven.

Motion carries.

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

Thank you.

That brings us to our 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 open at one time.

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

So with that, we have item number eight, twenty-six-0096 SUP1, applicant owner silver building LLC.

For possible action on a land use entitlement project request for proposed secondhand dealer use at 1703 East Charleston Boulevard.

Item 9, 26, sorry, that is Ms.

Dricken.

Item 10, 26-0101 SUP1.

Applicant Verizon, Owner Centennial 215 Plaza, LLC.

For possible action on a land use entitlement project request for proposed 80 foot tall wireless communication facility, stealth design, use at 6450 centennial center boulevard.

Item 11, 26-0106, SUP1.

Applicant Owner Sticky 6 LLC for possible action on land use entitlement project request for proposed gaming establishment.

Restricted one to five machines use at 1508 South Main Street.

Item 12, 26-0111 MOD1, applicant owner, the Howard Hughes Company, LLC for possible action on a land use entitlement project request to amend the Summerland Development Standards regarding permissible uses and regulations within specialty park districts.

Item 13 26-0112 SUP1.

Applicant for Loncano, owner Eddie R.

Fisher, Revocable Trust for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for proposed transit passenger facility use at 350 East Bonanza Road, suite 190.

Item 14, 26-0118 SUP1, applicant Erica Padilla.

Owner Wagama LLC for possible action on land use entitlement project request for proposed massage establishment use with waivers of distance separation requirements from a city park residentially zoned property and a massage establishment at 7240 Westlake Mead Boulevard Suite 1.

Item 15 26-0119 SUP1 applicant Josephina Ramos Chavez, owner of the Joseph's Family Limited Partnership for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for proposed financial institution specified you specified use with a waiver of distance separation requirements from residentially zoned property at 1550 East Sahara Avenue.

Item 16 26-0124 SUP1 applicant Olala French Bistro owner Ramp RPHD LLC for possible act for possible action on land use entitlement project request for proposed pubs, bars, and lounges, alcohol on premise full use with an outdoor patio at 2120 North Rampart Boulevard, suite 150.

Item 17, 26-0145, SUP1, applicant owner Down Syndrome Organization of Southern Nevada for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for proposed social service provider use at 6960 O'Bannon Drive.

Item 18, 26-0146 SNC 1, applicant owner city of Las Vegas for possible action on land use entitlement project request from Schomburg Road, North of Iron Mountain Road to Sheep Mountain Parkway.

Item 19, 26-0152 SUP1, applicant Grapevine Cafe, owner Summerhill Shops LLC for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for proposed alcohol on premise full use with a waiver of distance separation requirements from City Park at 7501 West Lake Mead Boulevard, suite 120.

And that is the end of our one motion one vote item.

May I have a motion?

You want to open it up for public hearing?

This I uh these uh these this portion of the agenda is open for public comment at this time.

Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak on any of the agenda items I just read out?

Seeing none, I will close the public comment.

Vice Chair may have a motion.

Yes, uh and madam chair on item number 11.

Uh owner sticky uh six LLC.

We've recently done work on that property and the adjacent property, and I've had an ongoing business relationship with them, so I'll be abstaining on that matter.

Other than that, uh Madam Chair, I'm making I'll make a motion for approval, uh, subject to staff's conditions on uh item number eight and 10 through item number 19.

Motion carries and madam chair, items eight, ten, eleven, thirteen, fifteen, and sixteen are final action tonight unless appeal to the city clerk in 10 days, and items 12, 14, 17, 18, and 19 will move on to city council uh on June 17th.

Thank you so much.

That brings us to our public hearing item starting with agenda item 2025-0520 VAR1, applicant owner Jonathan G.

Bellow for possible action on the following land use entitlement project requests to allow an existing front yard wall fence that does not conform with Title 19 development standards for height and visibility at 410 South Rancho Drive.

Staff, may I please get the report?

Madam Chair, Jonathan Boyle, senior planner with the Department of Community Development for the record.

This request is a result of open quote enforcement case on February 10th of 2026.

The planning commission denied the requested variants.

The applicant appealed the denial to the March 18th, 2006 City Council meeting, at which time the city council remanded the project back to city council for review.

On May 6th of 2026, the applicant submitted a revised site plan and wall elevations drawing drawings for the proposed wall and fence.

The revised site plan depicts that the entry gate will be recessed an additional 10 feet to provide space for a vehicle to enter the property without blocking traffic on Rancho Drive.

Also, the new wall elevation depicts a new material at the top at the top two feet of the wall that replaces the cable wiring that previously was proposed.

These amendments have been added to the blue sheet revisions for tonight's meeting.

Since no evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance has been presented to warrant the construction of the existing wall without obtaining building permits, staff maintains its recommendation of denial for the requested variants.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is the applicant in the audience?

If so, please come down at this time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Please state your name for the record.

Good evening.

Uh council members and staff.

Thank you for hearing my appeal.

Um my name is Jonathan Bellieu and uh I'm the owner of 410 South Rancho Drive.

I'm here with my general contractor, Gilbert Vasquez.

Um we're looking to appeal uh the case 25-0520-VAR1.

I'm appealing the February 10th, 2026 Planning Commission denial of my variants for a six-foot front wall and eight-foot uh side wall.

Uh pursuant to LVMC section 19.16.140.

I respectfully request a de novo review by the city council.

The primary basis for this appeal is the clear procedural entitlement under LVMC 1916 140 to have the council independently review the planning commission's decision.

While I continue to maintain that the evidence shows exceptional and undue hardship due to unique conditions on my parcel, the De novo review is warranted regardless of any single hardship argument.

First, hardship.

In 2019, Wells Fargo nearly denied my mortgage because mapping data flagged it as highway adjacent.

I had to submit a letter attesting to its residential exhibit H.

I also learned that the city is planning to expand Rancho Drive even wider in front of my house.

Documented burdens include city signs, equipment in the parkway strip for up to 255 days in front of my property in 2025.

That's an exhibit A.

Encampments spilling from neglected Oleanders in the city owned right of way.

Also, Metro Police using my driveway for arrests, exhibit D.

These are site-specific and cumulative.

A compliant two-foot solid base plus three-foot open topper provides inadequate screening.

A six-foot wall is the minimal relief needed for reasonable use and security.

Second, neighborhood character.

LVMC 19.16.140E requires no detriment to character.

No homes on Rancho Drive, use the compliant low profile design, exhibit F.

Taller six plus foot wall tall solid walls are the norm.

Recent precedence.

On November 18th, 2025, the commission approved a 10-foot solid front wall at 2315 Alta Drive, just three doors down from our property.

Based on similar 10 foot walls nearby, exhibit G.

On May 23rd, 2024, a six foot solid front wall was approved at 711 Campbell Drive, just two blocks away from our property.

That's an exhibit I six foot request is modest compared to these approvals and preserves the established pattern.

Sidewalls also align.

The norm is six to fourteen feet, including my immediate neighbor's 14 foot wall with an eight foot solid and six foot topper.

And my backyard's neighbor to nine foot wall with a five foot solid and four foot topper.

I'm willing to replace the wire cable topper with a more aesthetic black metal open topper and any other changes that the council deems appropriate.

I'm willing to plant more tall trees, shrubs as a landscape buffer with my immediate neighbors.

Thank you.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

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 Commissioner Rogan.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, if you recall, this was was on our agenda back uh a couple months ago, and uh as is patterned for me when we get these wall height variances that are in excess of six feet.

I move for denial without actually having visited with Mr.

Belou or seeing the property and subsequently asked me to come out and meet with him and his wife, and I did, and I met with him and his wife and his the contractor.

Um and they took me for a little walk down the street where there are other similar walls that I was not aware also were eight feet tall along Rancho Drive that um I did not take into consideration at the time.

Um he agreed to change one of the concerns I had was that wire at the top that made it look like it was barbed wire rather than um even though it's not.

Um he agreed to change that.

He also agreed to remove the or move the gate back so that his car would not be blocking the right of way when um when turning into the driveway.

Um I also spoke with his immediate neighbor who came and testified or spoke against the um wall height and in speaking with him.

He didn't realize that he was actually speaking against a wall height and is actually gonna be coming before us with the same request for an eight-foot wall height on his property right next door.

So taking in all those considerations, I um I am reconsidering my decision, and I believe that this is an appropriate um accommodation given the location of this property on Rancho Drive where there's excessive traffic and the neighboring properties that all have wall heights of eight feet that are very similar to this, though I would say that this is a much better looking wall than those given the design.

So, with that all being said, I'm I'm ready to make a motion for approval unless there's other comments.

No, okay.

With that, with regard to agenda item 20, project 25-0520 VAR1 and make a motion for approval subject to all of staff's conditions, and you agree to all the conditions, Doctor.

Yes, I do.

Thank you so much.

Motion carries.

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

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That brings us to agenda item 21 of ANS 26-0015 VAR1.

Applicant owner George Murphy and Grace Wong for possible action on land use entitlement project requests to allow proposed residential accessory structure garage that does not conform to Title 19.06 development standards for size and coverage at 1513 Brynmar Avenue.

Staff may please get the report.

Madam Chair, according to the submitted site plan, the proposed garage will be 888 square feet, and the existing single-family dwelling is 1,230 square feet.

As such, the garage will be 72% of the floor area of the principal dwelling where a maximum of 50% is allowed pursuant to Title 1906.

While the proposed garage would meet setbacks and separation requirements and would be aesthetically compatible with the primary dwelling, no evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance related to the physical characteristics characteristics of the property has been presented to warrant the requested variance for size and coverage.

As such, the hardship is self-imposed and therefore staff recommends denial of this requested variance.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This uh is the applicant in the audience at this time.

Please come down and state your name for the record.

John Timon, JT contracting representing George Murphy, client who resides out of state.

In Maya Maxwell.

Yes, I'm Maya Maxwell JT contracting.

Thank you.

Is there um is there anything you like to present on this agenda item or were you just no?

I think we left there with uh no denials from the neighbors.

There was a couple of items Commissioner Rogan uh suggested that we do to basically um what I would call it uh shade the side that with some shrubbery from Rancho Street to kind of hide the structure.

And I did talk with the homeowner again his car collection.

This garage is he's means moved down in a few years to retire.

He has some very um rare late 60s models mustangs that he would like to keep on this property without the size, he would have to store them off site.

Would be a cost to him on a monthly basis.

No, thank you so much.

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

Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak on this agenda item at this time?

Seeing none, I will close the public comment and I will take it over to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Rogan.

Thank you, Chair.

This is uh another one I did meet with the applicant and some of the neighbors.

The concern that was was raised prior to last meeting was that the uh owner was using the property for commercial enterprises.

There were these um tractor trailers dropping off boxes um time and time again.

That turned out to be a tenant and not this a former tenant and not this owner, so that that issue was was satisfied with regard to the garage.

Uh I was okay with it.

The neighbors that we met with it after talking to Mr.

Tyman were okay with it.

My one concern is this is a large structure.

It's 40 feet long, it's gonna take up about half, or if not more than half the the width of the property, and it's gonna be right on Rancho.

So I have a condition for you, Mr.

Tyman, that we discussed.

It's to make sure that the uh rear yard setback that's the west setback that borders rancho is seven feet in width, and that you have 36-inch minimum box trees that are placed to placed 20 feet on center, and those trees have to come from the um approved regional plant list.

And you agreed you agreed to that condition, right?

Yeah, and I I spoke with the client, he agreed with as well.

Okay, so again, seven foot um setback from the rear property line and trees spaced 20 feet on center, 36 inch minimum box size.

Okay.

Do we need to make that a little prettier or are you okay?

Uh with that, uh staff would like to add a condition.

Uh that condition will read the accessory structure garage shall be a minimum of seven feet from the west property line within this area.

36-inch box trees shall be spaced 20 feet on center that conform with the southern Nevada regional plant list.

Okay.

Um with that I make a motion for approval of agenda item 21, project 26-0015 VAR1, and you agree to that condition and all conditions, correct?

Yes, we do.

Thank you.

Motion carries.

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

Thank you.

Thank you.

And with that, we are going to be out going out of order.

I am going to be pulling forward agenda item 49.

So at this time.

Under director's business, item 4926-0123 DIR1.

Applicant owner, the Howard Hughes Company, LLC for possible action on a request for the second amendment of the development agreement for the Summerlin West area.

Staff, may you please get the report?

Uh thank you, Madam Chair.

This request is for the second amendment of the Summerlin West Development Agreement between the City of Las Vegas and the Howard Hughes Corporation.

This amendment in this amendment, the city and Howard Hughes have agreed to the following.

Uh the removal of the existing community sports park requirement for the from the parks agreement, the removal of the existing community center construction and dedication requirement, the addition of a requirement for the master developer to construct, equipped, and dedicate a new fire station to the city, which would be the second provided within the community.

Uh the removal of a third fire station requirement from the agreement, the addition of a requirement for the master developer to build, dedicate, and maintain a dog park within Grand Park.

And it also, this uh amendment will also authorize the master developer to construct a public roadway within village 30 B.

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

Thank you.

Thank you.

May please get your name for the record.

Good evening, Madam Chair, Commissioner Stephanie Grown Our 1980 Festival Plaza Drive.

Here on behalf of the applicant, Howard Hughes.

Really, we'd just like to thank your staff for all their hard work.

It takes a lot of time to come up with these negotiations and agreements, and um, they're the top at everything they do, so we really appreciate it.

And so we'd ask for your approval tonight.

Thank you so much.

This item has been noticed for a public comment.

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

Seeing none at this time, I turn it over to members of the commission.

Is there anyone who would like to give comment?

Commissioner Lebeau.

Sure.

Um, I just wanted to thank both the city and Howard Hughes for making uh these revisions.

I know it's taken a long time to go through the negotiations, and Summerlin continues to be an amazing um community to live and work in.

And I just think it's really important for any community to kind of keep up with what the needs of the residents have and what the needs of the community are.

So just wanted to say thank you to all.

Seeing no other comment, Commissioner, would you like to make a motion?

I'd like to motion to approve item number 49, 26-0123, DR1.

Motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Have a good night.

And that will move on to City Council on June 3rd.

Thank you.

That brings us back to agenda item 22, abeyance 26-0048, applicant owner, Umbra Holdings, LLC for possible action on the following land use entitlement project requests at the southeast corner of Harrison Avenue and H Street.

Staff, may you please get the report.

Madam Chair, Josh Nolan, senior planner at the Department of Community Development for the record.

While the proposed development would introduce additional housing stock into the historic west side and would otherwise redevelop a parcel that is underutilized.

Staff finds the proposed development is not compatible and harmonious with the surrounding area due to the multiple requested waivers and the variance requests to allow vehicles to back out under the right-of-way, which is a self-imposed hardship where the development could have been redesigned to accommodate parking facilities fully on site.

As such, staff recommends denial of all of require uh all of requested entitlements subject to conditions if approved.

Thank you.

Thank you.

At this time, the applicant may come down to present on the agenda item.

Is there anyone in the audience?

Not seeing the applicant.

Turn it over to turn it over to members of the commission.

Sorry, we could oh sorry, this agenda item has been open for public comments.

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

Seeing none, I will close public comment and move it over to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Walters.

Hi, yes, thank you.

So I did talk to this applicant, and I understand that the safety concern about pulling out onto Harrison Street right there at the intersection or backing up, they want to deal with and rework the plan for it.

So maybe the best course of action is to obey this.

Commissioner Lebau, do you have any comments?

No, sorry.

No, nope, not a problem.

Seeing none, you're welcome to make a motion.

I move to obey agenda item 22.

Uh abeyance 26-0048.

Is that to the June Planning Commission meeting?

Okay.

Is that June 16th?

Okay.

June 16th.

I'm sure June 16th.

Thank you.

Motion carries.

Perfect.

That brings us to agenda item 23, abeyance 26-0053.

Applicant Jean-Pierre Piron, owner Jewelry and Minerals of Las Vegas at Al for possible action on the following land use entitlement project requests on generally bounded by Sahara Avenue, Santa Rita Drive, and Santa Paula Drive.

23A Abbey's 26-0053 GPA 1 from L Low Density Residential to TOC2 Transit Oriented Corridor LOW.

APN LO APN's 16203415 021022027 and 028.

23B abeyance 26-0053ZON1 from R1, single family residential, PR, professional office and parking, and C1 limited commercial to C2 General Commercial.

23C, abeyance 26-0053 BAR1 to allow 14 parking spaces where 29 are required.

23D abeyance 26-0053 VAR2 to allow proposed commercial building that does not conform to Title 19.08 development standards for setbacks and residential adjacency setbacks.

23e abeyance 26-0053 SDR1 for a proposed three-story 37,000 square foot commercial development with waivers of the perimeter landscape buffer requirements.

While the proposed buildings are generally oriented towards the major street frontages with parking facilities screened from Sahara Avenue, which meets the intent of transit-oriented development.

The proposed development requires multiple variances, waivers, and exceptions of Title 19 requirements that indicate the proposed commercial development is overdeveloping the site.

Staff recommends approval of the general plan amendment from L low density to TOC2 transit-oriented corridor low.

However, due to the requested variances, waivers and exceptions, staff recommends denial of the requested rezoning variances and site development plan review.

If approved, the variances and site development plan review will be subject to conditions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Please state your name for the record.

My name is David Strait, 1223, Heather Oaksway.

And this is Christopher Eccles.

We're here representing Jean-Pierre Perrone, the owner of Minerals and Jewelry of Las Vegas.

This started this is a 40-year-old business that's been situated on this site.

And uh it began last summer trying to resolve some issues that both zoning and building department issues that we discovered cannot be resolved unless we uh basically redevelop the site.

So we want to um it involves eight separate parcels, uh three of which are two of which were commercial situated on Sahara.

Uh there's two two more that are PR.

Uh the rest are are single family residence.

Um our intention is to combine all eight parcels into one into one, and then rezone it.

Uh to do that, we needed a general plan amendment.

Um the um the zoning we've requested is C2, which is appropriate for what we're doing.

Uh since our last appearance, we've redesigned the buildings to be more attractive and look more like uh um a less like a warehouse and more like a commercial uh attractive development.

We've added trees, landscaping.

Most of the variances that we have are are kind of minor variances, but because we're multiplying it by eight parcels, it looks like a lot more in three buildings.

So we were asked to develop the entire site.

We only want to build uh we want to build it in three phases, starting with building number one.

Uh if we can do that, then uh the existing business can exist on phase two and three until building one is sufficiently developed to accommodate the uh business that's there now.

After that, uh and during that time, the parking that's available for the existing business will remain available, so we won't have an impaired parking condition, at least not until we tear down everything in phase one and two.

So I'm open to any questions.

I I think it's an attractive thing.

And um, no, thank you so much.

And at this time, this has been noticed for public hearing.

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

Please come down and give your name for the record.

Good evening once again.

My name is Eric King.

Um I have uh some real familiarity with this business, a real quality one here in town for so long on a corridor that um I think we all would love to see a lot more great things get even greater.

Um so I'd be all for this beautiful rendering becoming reality from this fine gentleman, one of our valued architects here.

Thank you all for your time.

Thank you.

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

Yes, uh Chair through you.

I if you'll remember last month I held this in abeyance for 30 days.

I wanted to meet with the applicants and city staff and see if we could make this project a little bit better and I feel that we have made it better, as you indicated.

Um, one of my comments was it kind of had a little bit of a warehouse spill and I wanted to, you know, to have more of a uh an office fill or or you know, just to uh something different than just harsh like plain walls.

So uh during our meeting, you you agreed to add windows, and you can see from the one uh renderings that there's windows going around this building now.

Not on the first floor, they're concerned about people breaking in and smashing windows as they have over the past uh 15 years, but upstairs at least we'll we'll have you know some uh relief from that that plain wall with these uh windows.

Also, we looked at the uh landscape and buffer on the north uh at our last meeting.

We didn't have any any landscape.

And if if if you want to, Mr.

Street, if you want to point at that location where we on the overhead, yeah, that location.

It was just a sliver, and we're able to widen that landscape buffer and have trees to to buffer the the from the residential property to the north.

We still don't have any trees uh on that west portion, uh, but there's a block wall right there.

The neighbors have a lot of landscaping in their backyard, and we talked about potentially putting small shrubs in that location.

But what's the purpose of the the for me having bigger shrubs or taller trees and stuff is supposed to be the landscape buffer between the neighbor and us with the tall wall that's providing that buffer and a couple of shrubs isn't gonna help the neighbors out.

It would just basically give the interior of your development behind the gated area a better look.

But that that's why we don't have any landscaping in that one location.

There's overhead power lines that would keep us from putting in anything that was of any any size.

And then the next landscape buffer uh along the parking lot.

We intensified that landscape and we put trees in there, whereas just lower shrubs, and then it had a couple of trees on the parking lot island, but we're we're able to get about five more trees in that location.

And then we we did get a little bit more uh landscaping on the interior of uh phase two building B on the inside of that fence.

Um, and and uh that was just due to the fact that I I feel that you would have a bigger landscape buffer for people that are uh driving down the street and and seeing that.

Um I don't recall if we put anything else.

I think you're already meeting the standard around phase one and phase three uh along Sahara, Santa Paula and Santa Rita.

Uh but anyways, so that that looks great.

Uh and one of the main reasons why there's uh a variance is because a lot of the parking is behind a uh is behind a gate, and so those parking spaces aren't counted.

However, there are 14 parking spaces outside the gate and plenty of other parking spaces for staff or other customers that want to come into this property.

So thank you for holding this uh for 30 days, meeting with staff and myself, uh going back, adding the windows, adding all the additional landscaping, and I feel that we finally have a project that we can get approved and love to see you uh love to see you build the new building and put your museum and everything else in there.

All right, uh Madam Chair.

Uh I'm ready to make a motion on item number 23A through E.

I move to approve uh subject to staff's conditions, and you agree to all staff's conditions have approved.

Yes.

Thank you.

Motion carries.

And that will move on to city council on June 17th.

Thank you.

That brings us to item 24, abeyance 26-0056.

Applicant owner SLC LLC and WIC LLC for possible action on the following land use entitlement project requests at 3230 and 3232 North Durango Drive.

24A abeyance 26-0056 B AR one to allow 118 parking spaces where 146 are required.

24 B abeyance 26-0056 SDR 1 for a major amendment to an approved site development plan review for proposed one-story 118 square foot building expansion of a proposed restaurant with drive-through with outdoor seating areas and a parking lot reconfiguration.

Staff may please get the report.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh the request is for a proposed restaurant within an existing suite and approval of an existing outdoor seating area.

The applicant has submitted a new site and landscape plan date stamped uh 5116, which are provided in your supplemental materials.

The revised landscape plans depict the replacement of the required perimeter and parking lot landscaping that had previously been removed without approval and replaced with outdoor seating areas for mobile food vending.

This request, if approved, will allow for the outdoor seating to remain as it currently exists as well as require uh the installation of trees and landscaping as previously required by the original SDR approval.

The revised plans reduce parking, reduced the parking variance request from 118 to 127 provided spaces where 144 are required.

Um that said, there is no evidence of a unique or uh extraordinary circumstance or circumstance has been presented in that the applicant has created a self-imposed hardship by removing required landscaping park, I'm sorry, removing required parking and then proposing a land use with a more intense parking requirement.

Um as such, staff recommends denial of the request.

And uh because of the new plans, I need to read in a quick amended condition, and that would be condition number four.

Uh, all development shall be in conformance with the site plan, landscape plan, and building elevations, date stamped 5116, except as amended by conditions herein.

Thank you.

Thank you.

May please get your name for the record.

My name is Ken Small.

I'm uh architect here in Las Vegas, 7040 Laredo Street, suite C.

I'm here representing the applicant.

I want to thank staff and uh Chair Casima for helping us in uh many discussions about how to make this more um friendly to the neighborhood and to the area.

Um most recently we have um added some landscaping to the proposed landscape plan.

Let me just find that.

There it is.

So these are all the new trees here.

Quite a lot added.

Um the landscaping that was originally removed was a result of some food trucks that were there, an arrangement that um the property owner had tried to make with them, and the city was not happy with, but that established the uh realistic use of the property for a coffee shop, which is what we're actually proposing.

And um, so what they did is that when they remove the um natural landscaping, they replaced it with artificial turf and picnic benches, and so we're recommending to uh allow the artificial turf and the picnic benches to remain, but they're being extensively supplemented by trees.

We actually have not removed any parking spaces, it's just that the parking requirements for this type of use and the exterior eating are greater than they were for what this space that they are turning into the coffee shop was previously, which is uh auto repair shop, and the auto repair has been underutilized.

There just doesn't seem to be sufficient demand to uh fully utilize it every day.

So this is how they have been looking for an alternative use to um fully utilize the site.

Um with that, I could go into more detail, but I think it'd be better to just stop there and see if there are any questions.

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 over to members of commission, starting with myself.

I just want to say I do appreciate um you we obey this item.

It gave us time to kind of talk through the item more.

I'm appreciative that it's no longer a drive-thru.

I was just worried about some of the um traffic and congestion concerns.

Um, I also really appreciate you submitting the updated plans this Monday for the updated landscaping.

I know that's a concern for myself as well as other members of the commission.

Um, so by addressing the landscaping and having that waiver removed, um, as well as it's also good to know that it's the same owner and operator for the auto body and the cafe, and so I appreciate that you know, through all of this, that there's not going to be an undue um burden on a fellow business owner.

So I appreciate that.

With that, I do turn over to members of the commission if there are any other comments or questions.

Seeing none at this time.

Madam Chair, Lucian Piot Public Works.

Due to the fact that the driver was removed, I'd like to um request that condition number 12 of 24b be deleted because it refers to uh queuing analysis which isn't required since there's no drive-thru.

So requested again condition number 12 of 23b be deleted.

Okay, and sorry, just to clarify condition number 12 of 24 B.

Okay.

Yes.

And Madame Chair, for clarification on my condition I am in it as well.

That'd be number four of 23B.

24B, sorry.

Perfect, thank you.

So with that, I'm happy to make a motion to approve, subject to the staff conditions as they were just read into the record, and you agree with all the staff conditions.

Yes, I do.

Okay, with that, I make a motion to approve item 24, 24A, and 24 B subject to staff condition.

Motion carries.

And that will move on to city council on June 17th.

Thank you.

That brings us to item 28, abandons 26-0093 SUP1.

Applicant Horea Holistic Recovery, Owner LV Reamp Properties, LLC for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for proposed community residents, including family community residents, and transitional community residents.

Use at 2612 West Okey Boulevard.

Staff may please get the report.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Due to the due to an active community residence located 100 feet south of the subject site, staff finds the addition of the proposed community residents will facilitate the saturation of community residences in the immediate vicinity.

And as such, staff recommends denial.

Please note that the a revised staff report provided in the commissioner's supplemental packet amends finding number four to read as follows.

Due to an oversaturation of uses in the immediate area, the approval of the special use permit will compromise the public's health safety and welfare.

In addition, uh the request is inconsistent with the overall objectives of the general plan.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Please give your name for the record.

Jennifer Eden Joy Nelson.

I'm the owner of the property.

Do you want to go ahead with the so in behalf of Heraya?

Our purpose of the rest of this residence for the special permit use is to provide safe, stable, and structured housing for veterans who are transitioning toward long-term independent living and permanent housing placement.

Many of our veterans face challenges related to housing stability, social reintegration, mental health concerns, financial hardship, and limited support system after the military service.

So our program is designed to help bridge that gap by offering a supportive residential environment focused on stabilization, accountability, life skills development, and community reintegration.

It is centered on collaboration with behavioral health professionals and veterans advocate to ensure residents' appropriate support services while maintaining a residential low-intensity living environment.

So our goal is to provide a free um screening and intake protocol so we could check their behavioral assessment and to uh to ensure that each resident is appropriate for the level of care provided within the home and compatible with the safety and well-being of other residents and the surrounding community.

So that's all I have.

Thank you.

This item has been noticed for public hearing.

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

Yeah.

Sure.

Um please come down and state your name for the record.

Hi, my name is Melor Riola.

I live at 2613 Gilmary Avenue.

I've been a resident of McNeil States for 20 years.

I don't need this whole holistic thing in the backyard of my house.

I've lived there and brought my kids, you know, all my residents, and I know everybody, and I like to read some things right here for you.

Um assuming a silver home is just another single family home, our business's restrictions.

Um McNeely is known for a historical place.

It's all for an R1 and RE, which is restricts commercial businesses.

And for the record, they tried to do the same thing 15 years ago, and we shot that down.

And I don't know why they're trying to do this again to us.

I love that place.

It's an historical site.

I want to grow my kids there.

I don't have to have to look over my shoulder.

And by the way, when they built the wall and extended it, they had never have an approval from me.

Ruined my pool, all the cement went over my house.

I was really upset, and nobody had to fix it.

So why would I have a resident come in and build a holistic place that we don't know nothing about?

And uh I'm sure my neighborhood, we all agree on this.

We don't want anything like that.

It's a very beautiful place.

I want my kids to grow up there, not over looking over the shoulder in all this.

Thank you.

Yeah, thanks.

Um sorry, we have uh still public comments, so we have someone else who's coming down.

Thank you.

All right.

Good evening, Eric King.

Um, I mentioned earlier I'm all for more wonderful veterans' housing.

And uh have a holistic background is uh uh just tickles my heart even more.

Knowing uh many many veterans over the years, I've volunteered 10,000 plus hours of my life to help them and first responders too, and learned a lot along the way in and out of hospitals and such.

Um holistic health, wellness, no stranger here in Vegas is also on the rise, and I understand not in my backyard.

All respect to the gentleman here.

Absolutely.

And other and other and other neighbors.

So I'm and I promise I'm no authority on the neighborhood or um the lives well lived in there.

Um, but I did want to make a plug for more veterans housed.

Please, and if there is any ways to find joy out of this rather challenging situation right now.

I look forward to that for all.

In fact, her name is Joyce, so it seems to bode well for some some resolution if possible.

And I can't speak for all these fine folks over here, but thank you all.

Thank you, and please come down and state your name for the record.

Yes, good evening.

Um thank you for letting me uh get the opportunity to speak today.

My name is Stephanie Hills, and uh I live next door at 2616 West Oakie.

Uh I want to begin by saying that I deeply respect and support veterans.

My husband and my father both served, and I fully believe they deserve safe, stable, and well regulated services.

My concerns today are not about the individuals this program aims to help, but about the ongoing inconsistencies and how the property at 2612 Oaky has been operated.

Over the past several months, there have been multiple documented issues, several LLCs tied to the home with few or no corresponding correspondence licenses that I can uh validate, shifting statements about who lives there from alleged managers and new LSE registered to the home during a short uh short-term rental period.

There have also been conflicting representations from individuals associated with the property.

Recent police presence and involving someone who is allowed to temporarily stay at that residence there in December, an unpermitted wall height increase across all three perimeters, um, me being one of them.

Additionally, our surrounding area has also um has several transitional or group style facilities already operating nearby.

Uh adding another would meaningfully change the um overall character of our historic single family neighborhood.

Uh taking all these things into consideration, all these think patterns reflect you know unclear uh oversight and management in my perspective, and then I fully support programs to help veterans that are in need.

Um, but you know, any program operating residentially should really be licensed, transparent, and really most importantly, responsibly managed.

Um, for these reasons, I respectfully ask the commission to consider the full pattern of activity and the impact to our historic neighborhood before approving the special use permit.

I appreciate your time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Please come down and state your name.

If there are other people that would like to comment, you're welcome to line up as well.

My name's Monique Thomas.

I live uh right behind as well at 2613 Gilmary Avenue.

I'd like to thank you guys for listening to me and for taking the time.

Um I have children, and I really do not want this situation pushed to my backyard.

Um, my family lives in a residential area that's not familiar for commercial licensing.

I feel like it will also depreciate not only my house but as well as my neighbors if this is allowed.

Um, homes we've had for years, homes that we've invested on upgrades and upkeeps.

Um, our neighborhood is well known for strong family values, and I honestly don't know how this would not be a zoning issue in such a historical establishment where we live.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any others who would like to speak at this time?

Please state your name for the record.

Hi, my name's Alexis Tenner.

I'm also a neighbor in the McNeil neighborhood.

And while I have ultimate respect for veterans currently serving and retired or disabled, my concern comes with you're gonna try to make sure you run background and and pair with psychologists and whomever you need to behavioral specialists, but who is policing the whole situation to make sure that they're actually working with the people that they should be working with to really be looking at these applicants, and then if for some reason the house does get the special use permit and there is activity there that is not normal for a residential neighborhood, who is making sure that everything's still being run properly after the special use permit is given.

And that's where the concern comes in is retroactively what's going to happen to the neighborhood if these special use permits continue to get approved.

That's it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any others that would like to speak at this time seeing none?

I will close public comment and I'll give the opportunity for the applicant to address some of those concerns.

Do you want to go with the fence first?

Yeah, you can go.

Okay.

I just uh placed here.

Um I don't know if you can see that, but um, what this is here is the architect engineer uh design for the fence.

And the oh yeah, there we go.

Sorry.

Um there we got some misinformation originally from the city and acted uh based on that information, but we resolved this immediately.

So we actually did get architect design, engineer design, and uh submitted a permit, and then we were supposed to have an inspection yesterday, May 11th.

And I'm thinking that Jennifer Rabanes has possibly just approved us.

Um I'm gonna follow up with her tomorrow.

I couldn't get a hold of her today.

So the fence issue has been resolved to the best of my knowledge.

Um and as far as the Airbnb, I just thought I would mention that that's how I met Jessina.

I was actually renting the Airbnb, but which was uh sorry.

30 day midterm rental.

Yeah, sorry.

Um she brought receipts from that, and I actually just got passionate about this because I have a huge passion for veterans.

They are a protected class of citizen.

We are not intending to change the outside of the building during the time that I've been there, which is since I think January 10th.

There's been four attempted break-ins, including one which I posted on the community um site because we're on OK, it's a very, very busy road.

Um, so I understand the need to protect the neighborhood.

I believe that this won't really change the function of the neighborhood.

Yes, and I will answer the um Airbnb and the ownership.

I just obtained this property um back in um July, and as you know, as a as my second home in the beginning, I wanted to do um midterm rental Airbnb for corporate rentals, specifically for travel nursing, because I'm a nurse.

I've been a nurse for 15 years.

I run veterans home.

Can you sorry?

Can you please address the members of the commission rather than the audience?

Oh, okay.

Sorry about that.

So um, so I I did rented it for midterm Airbnb for two months, and after my first break in January, um, my my tenant was actually a domestic abuse violence running away from the spouse, and that person is actually the spouse who is also disabled vets.

So this people needs help.

And when I when when she mentioned when I met with the doctors from the VA, I decided to do it as a transitional housing program and reintegration program to support veterans because of that one incident.

I have my mom was a domestic abuse violence survivor, so I I really went for that.

Um, and with the concern of the 24-7 supervision and operational oversight, um, we plan to designate the house manager and on-site supervisor 24-7.

We would structure house rules and resident expectations.

We will be zero tolerance for substance abuse while they're in the facility.

Like I said in the beginning, I would have a pre-screening checking their drug use, their their wellness, and bringing them back to the community so they can get back to you know to working, building their resumes, credit repair, and all that.

That's why I partner up with the professionals so it's not just housing that I will provide, it's also to reintegrate them and provide support for them.

So I'm not quite sure what who is the owner 15 years ago, but you know, we're only doing six beds, it's not going to be a 10-bed facility.

And you know, the the rules is I could have co-living with four underleaked and guests in the house.

So I'm only asking for a special permit use to have two more in the in the home.

So I hope it's not much to ask.

One of the things I wanted to comment on to expand on that is if she only has four, like having staffing and stuff, so the extra two individuals, so getting the special use permit allows her to expand, like we're expanding the house just by two bedrooms on the interior, so that she can then um afford to have staffing because this is a passion project of hers.

You know, this is not um, I mean, I'm a volunteer position person.

Um, it's it's a very passionate project for her, and I think that this community, you know, the gentleman, I can't say for sure, but I do have video of the man that tried to break in, and I'm pretty sure he had a veteran um tattoo on his arm, very big fellow tried for about seven minutes to break in.

Um the issue already exists in Las Vegas and specifically in this neighborhood.

And you know, this is a solution.

This was completely unrelated.

I don't know this gentleman over here.

But as he was saying, veteran housing is necessary.

Thank you so much.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Um I can say that uh since being on the Planning Commission since 2019, and I'll obviously defer to Commissioner Schlottman, who's been on the Planning Commission since about 1950.

The this is one of the most difficult decisions that I've I've had to make because on the one hand, I see the need for these types of integrated housing.

We've we've moved away in our community in our state and our in our federal system from putting folks in long-term nursing homes where they're not living like regular people, but they're institutionalized.

And we've decided that that's not a good thing for their health and for um uh the health of their family members and and our community.

And so we've moved towards this community-based model where folks are integrated into the community so that they can live normally and have access to the same things that we have access to.

And I think that's a good policy.

I don't think that just because a person has a disability, um, whether it's mental health, whether it's um recovering from drug abuse, whether it's just simply that you've grown old and you can't ambulate or function, um, that you should be institutionalized.

Um, I think this again is is a is a good idea.

That being said, it doesn't mean that we need to accept every single group home in a specific location.

I understand the neighbors' concerns based upon their fears that a group home that comes in is going to be full of recovering drug alcohol uh uh drug addicts or alcoholics, and there's gonna be problems.

I mean in McNeil, I know that that I lived in that neighborhood.

I know we've experienced that in the past with other group homes, but we don't know anything about this group home, and we can't just take into consideration that because there are some bad operators elsewhere, that this group home will also be a bad operator.

We can't we can't rely on on that prejudicial belief.

We have to look at these on a case by case basis.

Um but in the city of Las Vegas, the the one issue that I've been hung up on, and I've told this to Joy, and I've told this to Jesse since we first met.

The one issue that I've been hung up on is the city has a 660-foot distance separation.

And you have one that's across the street.

And I understand that when you bought that home, Jesse, that one had not applied for their conditional use permit to operate.

Um, and then after you bought your home with the intent of opening this, they got their group home uh conditional use permit.

So it was just a poor timing, the unfortunate issue of timing.

But my one hang up has been that 660-foot distance separation, and I think that that 660-foot distance separation is in place because we're trying to promote the integration of disabled people into the community, and if we suddenly have an overconcentration of group homes in a specific area, then it defeats the purpose of integration.

Um that's been my one hang-up.

I nothing else, nothing but that.

And so in looking at that, I think that because you don't meet this 660-foot distance separation.

I I don't think I can give you that special use permit.

I've granted in the past when it's been on the line, where you've had 640 feet or 650 feet, and I thought that's a reasonable accommodation, but you're 100 feet away, it's a house across the street.

And I think that they're providing elderly care, and it's a different type of community residence, but you've you've got that across the street.

Um, in addition, I also take into consideration absent that 660-foot distance separation, um, some statistics that the city has pulled for me.

Um, and I want to put those on the record because I think it's important to talk about when we're considering over concentration of group homes in particular areas.

And so um the city has pulled and has found that between 2020 and 2025, there's been an increase in community residence applications, group home applications to a total of 128.

Um, from 2022 to 2025, we've had an increase of 146%.

And ward one, where you're trying to locate, is where most of these applications have occurred, followed by ward three and ward five.

And ward six and the other wards have had the fewest applications.

Ward six has had the least, I think, with eight in that five-year period.

So, in putting that percentage, ward one has had 375% more approvals than ward six.

And the city has a map that shows each and every group home, and I want to incorporate into the record this this map by reference, and if we could print it up later on, that shows every location.

And if you look at this map and you put in that 660-foot distance separate uh distance separation, you can see this the saturation that you have in ward one, particularly along this Oakie Boulevard where you want to locate within the one to one and a half mile radius of of your location.

There are already 15 group homes of varying nature, whether that's elderly care or whether it's um any other type of disability.

And that's by far the most that I can find in the entire city.

So I don't take this consideration lightly.

It's I I think that what you're trying to do is very noble, and I think that you should be able to do it.

I think that you just need to do it in a location that's a little bit less saturated with group homes for the benefit of your residents that deserve to live or potential tenants that deserve to live in an integrated community.

Um perhaps you can look in places that don't have as many group homes.

I can see from looking at this map that ward three and ward one do have locations, but in this particular specific location along that Oakie Boulevard, you've got you've got just so many.

I mean, and just looking at this map, just counting it up as you were speaking, even from the 95 down to just below Sahara, and from the 15 to Decatur, there's 40.

40 group homes in that area, where others have one or two within that same kind of location.

So that's the only consideration that I'm taking in, uh, or the only factor that I'm really taking into consideration and recommending denial tonight.

And I don't, again, I don't do that lightly.

I I do want to hear if there's any other comments before I make this decision, because I'm I'm honestly heartbroken about it, but I just think it's the right call, but I just want to hear from other folks.

Vice Chair?

Yes, uh, Commissioner Rogan.

I I I feel the same way.

I I you know how it is.

I'm uh represent ward three, and I I see more uh group homes and just about anybody other than yourself.

Um I I support him, I support him in my ward.

I've supported them year after year after year.

Um but whenever we get to a certain level of saturation, you've seen me uh deny some of these applications.

And um I and and I'm with you when it when it gets to 640, 620 feet away.

Um we we can look at it and we can look to see what level of saturations within that neighborhood.

Um but I I feel when it's right across the street.

Um I I mean we've seen probably five applications come before us over the past 12 months that uh I I denied due to the same reason.

So I I do support um uh your comments and what what I feel that you're gonna do tonight, but uh anyways, I I do feel that we there is a good way to integrate these into the community.

I I do welcome them in my ward.

Heck, I even have them right across the street that's a lot more concentrated than this, and it it's been a good thing for our community.

Seeing no other comments, Commissioner Rogan.

All right, well, um with reluctance, I will make a motion to deny agenda item 28 project 26093 SUP 1.

Motion carries.

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

That brings us to agenda item 2925-0290 VAR 1, applicant owner Medina Trust for possible action on land use entitlement project request to allow an existing patio cover carport to encroach into the front yard setback area where such is not allowed, and to allow two existing residential accessory structures, shed one and shed two, to not conform to Title 19.06 for aesthetic compatibility at 1113 Silver Lake Drive.

Staff may please get the report.

Madam Chair, this is a result of an open code enforcement case for an unpermitted carport located in the front yard.

Staff finds that no evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance has been presented, and that the applicant has created a self-imposed hardship by constructing a carport and two sheds that do not meet Title 19 development standards.

Removal of the carport and painting the sheds to match the primary dwelling would allow conformance to Title 19 requirements.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is the applicant in the audience?

Please come down and say your name for the record.

Good evening, Roy Medina.

So I want to know what was the main issue, but it's not my own mom's house.

Um my father did that carpool, no bad intentions.

He did it for her.

She disabled arthritis level 10.

So he did it for good intention with the shade for her to be walking around the front front of the house.

And those uh backyard shares were already in the house when they bought that property over 10 years ago.

So I went and moved them how they told me to move them off the wall seven by seven.

So yeah.

Okay, thank you.

So at this time, this item has been noticed for public comment.

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

See, oh, please come down.

And please give your name for the record.

Current Hernandez.

Hi.

Um I'm having the same problem as he has for my mother's house, like a 1117 Silver Lake.

Uh I think in one of the pictures, you can actually see my mom's house.

Um I haven't done the paperwork or anything because I've been trying to, I don't know how to.

So I've been struggling at that to make sure it goes through.

Um, me personally, I went over to several of our neighbors, uh, asking them if there's an because when my mom told me that she has the same problem.

I asked the neighbor, I asked them twice actually, once for my mom's house to see if anybody has a problem with, which almost everybody said they don't have a problem.

They're actually happy for my mother for having that because they know Vegas gets stupid haul.

A hundred and um, let's say a hundred to a hundred and fifteen, a hundred and twenty-five was the highest that I've remembered.

And um, I also asked, sorry, I also asked for our neighbors at 1113 as well, and they say they have no problem with it because they understand that most of the people who live there are older people around 55 plus, so they understand that she actually does need it, and they also don't have any problem.

Plus, most of the neighborhoods do talk to each other, they do hang out uh like under the carport whenever they talk because it's too hot to be uh close to the sidewalk because like I said, it gets very hot in Las Vegas.

No, I appreciate that.

And so a couple of things.

One is you're welcome to reach out to one of our staff members and they can provide contact to help you point you in the right direction for that paperwork in the process that you're going through.

Um, what I do want to clarify though is so I just want to assume and clarify for the record that you are in support for your neighbor.

Yes, that's correct.

I'm in I'm in support as well for my neighbor because like I said, he has an early mother, 55 plus.

I'm not sure how old are she, plus she has arthritis, which we and my mother also knew about that, because like I said, they they talk to each other.

She tells me I don't live with my mother anymore.

So I just want to say that they should keep it.

Most of almost all the neighbors that I talk to say they have no problem with it because they understand that most of the people who live in that area are 55 plus, and most of them do need the shade because as I repeat, it gets hot in Las Vegas over 100 degrees to 125 the last time I remembered.

No, and thank you for your comments.

And so if there are no other comments to be had, I will turn it over to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Walters.

Hi, hello.

Um, I was able to go by the property and visit it, and um your carport is much nicer than many others on the street.

I will say that.

And also uh several of your neighbors' carports project out much further than the carport at this particular address.

So um it I I don't really see issues with the carport as it stands.

It's also behind this wall, and um seems like it's in the aesthetic of the house and very nice overall.

Uh the sheds in the back, I appreciate that you moved them from the edge.

Is painting them uh a similar color of the house uh an option for you?

So she lives I could if that's an issue, I can take care of that for her.

That's their house, so but I can't take care of if it's a problem to fix that issue.

Yeah, I think your mother would appreciate that.

And um I think that if uh I don't see any issues with this particular applicant as long as the sheds can then get painted to match the the color of the house.

If any other commissioners have any comments, I could um okay, madam chair.

Three years.

So um we are going to strike conditions one or two and three.

Uh therefore that those were the variances to allow the the non-esthetically compatible structures.

Those will be removed, therefore they'll need to meet current code, which would be aesthetically compatible.

Uh we could add a condition if you so choose.

We could add a condition to require the painting of the sheds to match the uh existing home, if that's what you'd like to do.

Yes, yes, I think that's a good thing.

So, yes, let's go ahead and strike conditions two and three uh for 250209 VAR1, and then we'll add a new condition stating that both sheds one and two shall be painted to match the existing uh house.

Do you agree with those conditions?

Yes.

Okay.

You're welcome to make a motion.

Okay, then I make a motion to um approve agenda item 29 uh 25-0290 VAR1 uh with staff conditions with staff amended conditions motion carries.

And that will move on to city council on June 17th.

That brings us to agenda item 30 26-0026.

Applicant don't pass, don't pay Inc.

owner 4275 West Bell Drive LLC for possible action on the following land use entitlement project requests at the Southwest Corner of Vegas Drive and Buffalo Drive.

30 A26-0026 BAR1 to allow zero additional parking spaces where three additional spaces are required for a parking impaired development and 30 C 26-0026 SUP1 for proposed motor vehicle smog check use.

Staff may please get the report.

Uh thank you, Madam Chair.

Uh motor vehicle smog check is a conditional use in the C1 zoning district.

The proposed smog check facility does not meet conditional use regulation number one, which requires a minimum of 200 square feet within within an enclosed structure.

The proposed facility provides two stacking spaces.

Conditional use regulation number four requires either three vehicle stacking spaces or two regular spaces in addition to a standard testing space.

Uh pursuant to 1912 040, a special use permit is therefore required for this request.

Uh revised plans were submitted on 512 2026, which are included in the commissioner's supplemental packets.

This evaluated the need for the setback variants.

In addition, revised elevations now indicate that the smog check building is compatible in appearance with the on-site convenience store.

Those changes aside, the site is deficient in the amount of required parking due to the loss of spaces where the smog check is physically located.

There are no extraordinary circumstances, and the hardship is deemed to be self-imposed.

As such, staff recommends denial of the parking variants and associate special use permit.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Please give your name for the record.

I'm a little I've suffered under COVID for the last nine months, and I'm a little hard of hearing, so please speak up.

It is true that the city ordinance requires 400 and 200 square feet for a building for a smog station, although 60 square feet is more than adequate to put the equipment in and make the necessary connections.

So we're asking for the variance of one space because we provide two additional spaces there.

And the reduction in size of the actual smog center to be compatible with a lot of the smog centers that are throughout the whole valley.

If any other questions will be pretty glad to answer them.

Thank you so much.

With that, 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 Lebau.

Um yeah, thank you so much.

I just wanted to say thank you for working with us on making the revisions that we requested.

And I I think that you know you've addressed some of the main concerns of which were site egress on this already tight and underparked site.

Um it's great that you were able to get those two additional stacking spaces so that customers at the smog station won't have to walk across any e-grass points through that parking lot.

Um we just you know really want to ensure that pedestrian safety is is first and foremost there, and I know how busy um that those smog stations can become during the day.

Um, and I think that was critical to get those spaces in there.

Um and then in addition, making those small changes uh to the to the smog station design itself and making sure that it was compatible with those um existing Pueblo style buildings.

Um I think that'll be a much better look for that site.

So appreciate your work on this, and thank you so much.

With that, I think I'd like to make a motion to approve unless anybody else has comments.

All right, I motion to approve item 30 26 dash uh 0026 30A and 30 C.

I believe 30 B was stricken.

And was that subject to conditions subject to conditions motion carries?

And those items are final action unless appeal to the city clerk in 10 days.

Uh uh thank you.

By the way, I have enormous respect for the last 50 years for the planning commission's county, city, and the municipalities.

I don't normally dress up for a planning commission meeting, but I have another meeting to go to after this.

Thank you.

We appreciate it.

Thank you.

And with that, that brings us to item 3126-0051 applicant, Silver State Contracting and Development LLC owner, A D N N I LLC for possible action of the following land use entitlement project requests at 2167 North Decatur Boulevard, 31A 26-0051 VAR1 to allow proposed commercial development that does not conform to Title 19 development standards for on-site minimum parking requirements 31B 26-0051 SDR1 for the proposed conversion of an existing 3,224 square foot motor vehicle parts and sales development into a convenience store with fuel pumps and parking lot reconfiguration with waivers of Title 19.08 perimeter landscape upper requirements.

Staff may please get the report.

Madam Chair, the proposed general retail other than listed convenience store land use is permitted in the C1 limited commercial zoning district.

Pursuant to Title 19 on-site parking development standards.

The development is required to provide a minimum of 19 parking spaces.

The proposed site design proposes 12 total spaces which do not conform to Title 19 minimum requirements.

In addition, the applicant is requesting waivers to allow a one-foot buffer on the east perimeter where 15 feet is required, zero foot buffers on the north and south where eight feet is required.

And staff has concluded that these reductions will create an unconattractive uh commercial frontage along a major arterial street that are inconsistent with the intent of Title 19.

Staff notes that there is no unique hardship that has been demonstrated.

The need for variances in waivers results in the applicant's proposed site design and intensity of the proposed use rather than any exceptional condition of the property.

For that reason, the hardship is considered self-created, and the request does not meet the criteria for the variance variance approval.

Therefore, staff does not support the requested variance in site development plan review.

Please note that additional documents for protests were received after publication.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Please give your name for the record.

Tony Gillerson with Silver State Contracting.

Um yes, we're proposing to um renovate the existing uh mechanic shop to a convenience door with a small like ice cream polar in it with uh and we wanted to add four uh fuel stations.

Uh with that being said, we um added all of the landscape barriers around, um, went through numerous uh revised drawings to accommodate um what to to get it approved.

Um talking to Commissioner Walters today.

Um we we we kind of spoke about um the fuel stations, which is one of the reasons why it's so tight when it comes to the the parking and the the variances.

Um so you know we've decided that we can get rid of those those uh those fuel pumps and be able to accommodate all of the um parking zoning, loading.

We do have a smaller zoning um that that's on the that's on the drawing that we revised.

Um I don't know if that was adequate enough, but I know the the the parking was uh what was the biggest issue?

All right, and with that uh this item has been noticed for public comments.

Or anyone in the audience who would like to speak at this time seeing none, I will close public comment and turn it over to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Walters.

Hi, yes, thank you for uh for speaking with me on this project.

I appreciate uh your willingness to I think remove those fuel pumps and revisit this project in order to allow for the the uh parking, allow for the landscaping requirements that are needed here.

Um was there a new plan submitted today?

I they're working on it as we speak right now.

I was gonna um I was confused.

I was just texting them.

Um we we thought we were gonna have it done, but it does look like we will be able to get the parking spaces that that's needed because now the parking spaces can go in front of the building now.

Um so we so we'll be able to have a lot more spaces available.

And then that will allow you to account for that delivery uh space as well, correct.

And accommodate some of the landscaping needs around the property.

Yes.

It looks like we did did we uh not for the landscape, and I know we added as much as we could around for the the back of the property, like we spoke about the the barrier from the the homes.

Um we added some greenery behind that, uh some palm trees, and then coming around the perimeter also.

Yeah.

So we're also going to ask that you do not use palm trees.

They they don't really provide a lot of uh coverage for our so you could um maybe I'm speaking too soon.

So the SNWA um approved list of trees would be a good resource to find and and notate the kind of plants that would get you through the requirements.

Okay, um, so is perhaps the best course of action to bring this back within a uh updated plan and to give you a time for that to submit that so that would be an abeyance likely.

I can yeah, I can have the plan.

I'm actually trying to get the plan here shortly, like tomorrow by by Thursday.

Uh I can have a plan that we're actually working on it right now.

I just didn't want to delay it anymore, but um I don't know what we could do to make that happen.

Madam Chair, through you, what we can do is add some conditions to um require some of these things, and in between is this going to council?

Yes, if it's approved, it goes to councils in between council and planning commission.

We can work with the applicant to update the plans and get it ready for city council.

If that's uh that's an option where you can obey it for 30 days as well.

Um I think it would be fine.

I think it will go through council anyway.

So if we can what can I do today in order to move it forward without the fuel pumps and notating right?

So we can add a couple conditions to uh 31 B.

Um condition would read um prior to the submittal or prior to the issuance of building permits, uh the fuel canopies shall be uh removed from the site.

Fuel canopy and fuel pumps.

Fuel canopy and fuel pumps, correct.

Um and then the second condition I I noted you were concerned about the species of trees, so we can just add to condition 11 uh again for 31B, and just add that uh all tree species shall be in conformance or or or or or be in uh in compliance or conformance with the uh Southern Nevado uh regional plant list and then between uh we'll be in contact with the applicant and between uh now and city council we'll get those revised plans and get everything updated for council.

And then between uh we'll be in contact with the applicant and between uh now in city council, we'll get those revised plans and get everything updated for council.

And would that also include uh that they would meet the parking requirements or that uh uh the 19 and the no uh unless they revise their plans to meet their requirement uh as of now it doesn't meet it, and the variants would move forward as well.

Okay, are those conditions that you can agree to?

Yes.

Do we have any other commissioner Rogan?

Do you have a comment?

I I I'm just there's a lot of moving pieces to this, so I'm just kind of hesitant to move it on to council without knowing the full extent of what he's planning to do.

I mean, my major concerns were the lack of landscaping along the I guess north and south um property lines and whether this is just overbuilt.

So I I mean I'll I'll be a no on moving it forward.

It doesn't mean that I'm a no on the project overall, but I I'd prefer to ebay it just so that we can take a look at it.

Yeah.

Um but it's up to you, Commissioner.

I think that's probably yeah, and I I will echo, I I would I would support an abeyance as well, just because to your point, if the updated plans haven't been received and kind of to Rogan's point, a lot of moving parts.

I think obeying it for 30 days just gives a little bit more time to flesh it out and also work maybe on the facade as well and kind of tidying it up and then sending it on to city council.

Yeah, so um is it possible for you to bring it back here next month, or would you need extra time?

You said that next month.

Yes, I I can.

So then let's move to obey it, which means that it would just come back to the June 16th meeting before you move on to city council.

Okay.

Uh yes.

So I'll make a motion to obey um item 30.

31, thank you.

Which is 26-0051.

Um to the June 16th meeting.

Motion carries that brings us to agenda item 32, 26-0061 SDR 1.

Applicant owner Henry Dennis Thorns for possible action on a land use and timeline project request for proposed five-story 11-unit multifamily residential development with waivers of Title 19.09.

Form base co-development standards at 508 Van Buren Avenue staff meet.

Please get the report.

Madam Chair, the proposed development would introduce additional housing stock into the historic West Side District and would provide much needed subsidized affordable housing within a mixed income project that includes eight market rate units and two subsidized units.

Further, the proposed units are two and three bedroom units, and these family-friendly housing uh types are identified by the hundred plan as meeting a particularly critical need in the area.

The proposed development meets all required development standards except for the requested parking waiver, which is a request to allow eight parking stalls where ten are required.

Uh as such, staff recommends approval of the requested site development plan review subject to conditions.

Please note additional documentation of protest has been received since publication.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Please give your name for the record.

Uh my name is Andrew Nasserala.

I'm with KME Architects.

We're here on behalf of the client uh Henry Thorns.

How are you doing?

I'm Henry Thorns.

Nice to meet you guys.

Thank you for your talk.

Uh we're really excited to bring this project to everyone here.

Uh this is part of the reinvigoration projects that are happening on the historic west side.

Um there's a couple things that I'd like to draw your attention to on this project.

There's 11 uh really ample-sized uh two and three bedroom uh units that are are gonna be provided.

There's a really nice amenity space uh for those residents.

There's also gonna be an internal parking structure uh for uh covered parking.

Now along with that, we want to be respectful to our neighbors.

So there's a couple things that we've provided is uh deep setbacks for um all the balconies and windows so that there's no overlooking onto the neighbors.

We've also provided a breeze block uh divider to additionally create um separation between us and our neighbors to be to be good neighbors in that way.

Um we've really focused on adding as many trees and screen walls as possible, and uh I think that about covers it.

Uh this project basically started uh my family owned this land for since 1980s.

Uh I grew up in this neighborhood.

Uh I know what it takes to keep this neighborhood safe.

Uh anybody in this neighborhood will know me.

If we walk around familiar with the churches, I'm familiar with everybody around.

I've even reached out and had the opportunity to uh be mentored by Sam Cherry and Cherry Development, which he's uh a project two blocks away.

So we're talking about partnering and things going on in the community, and we're just here to help.

This is a this is a dream come true to me.

I will love to provide in a community that I was raised in, that I grew up in, and I think it's important to inspire and let the community know that we can do it, you can do it, you can look like me, you could be from here, and we could do it.

So thank you for that.

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 close public comment, turn it over to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Walters.

Hi, thank you for your presentation.

Um yes, this this housing development does provide a lot of infill uh needs for that area.

And um my only my only concern is if you have I I know that there are two one-story homes next door.

Have you um spoken with them?

And have you heard any concerns specifically from briefly spoken with the neighbors?

Uh the only concern was hey, we don't want people looking over into our backyard.

So we already made those adjustments by pushing things back so that they can't have their privacy.

So we've done that.

Yeah.

Um, okay.

I I have looked at this project.

I have um I have went to that area.

It's in real need of this kind of development.

And so um, if there are any other comments or questions, yeah.

Cena, please make a motion.

Oh, Commissioner Taylor.

Thank you, madam chair, through you.

Um great to see this kind of development going on in this area.

Just I'm I'm guessing this is these are rentals, correct?

Yes.

Okay.

Um, and I'm looking at your supporting documentation, and I know that this is a little bit different in terms of the landscaping requirements, but I'm just not am I missing it?

Do we have any actual landscaping for the perimeter of the building?

Because I see like three trees in your rendering, but I always get very concerned in this area because it is one of the highest mapped heat urban heat island areas, and we just you know want to do what we can do, especially in some of these higher heat island areas to try to mitigate that.

Um, especially when you might have you know radiating heat up into the building and cause additional costs to your occupants.

So I didn't see it, so if you want to show me what you've got for landscaping, that would be fantastic.

Bless you, Commissioner.

Yeah, absolutely.

So uh we due to the size of the site, uh, we are providing as much as possible.

We have uh one pistache tree with a 24-inch box, and then we have uh three 24-inch box mountain laurels as well on the small site, and then along the sides of either side of the building, uh, we're packing in as many oleander trees as possible uh to provide as vertical uh break in that thermal barrier as well.

Okay, yeah.

I mean, I will say I wish that I understand it's a small site.

I understand you've got constraints on your layouts to maximize the site and the and the costs and all of that, but I do wish that you had more landscaping and and I will just say that because again, it's always a concern in these areas.

So but it is a the renderings are beautiful, so it's gonna really I think be a great uh visual addition to the community.

I just wish that you had more landscaping in there, trees specifically.

But with that, Commissioner Walters, if you'd like to make a motion.

Yes, I uh will motion to approve item agenda item 32.

That's 26-0061 SDR1 with staff conditions.

Do you agree to staff?

We agree to the conditions, yes.

Motion carries.

And that will move on to city council on June 17th.

Thank you.

That brings us to item 33 26-0078 SDR1 applicant owner Maria Emma Griselda Cuivero Diaz for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for proposed two-story, five-unit, multi-family residential development with waivers of appendix F, interim downtown, Las Vegas Development Standards, Area 2 at 617 North 10th Street.

South, maybe please get the report.

Madam Chair, uh, well, the proposed development would introduce additional housing stock in the downtown North Master planned area.

The proposed waivers and exceptions are evidence that the subject site has been overbuilt and is encroaching into required setbacks through the addition of a fifth unit and the existing storage shed staff recommends denial of the requested set site development plan review, subject to conditions if approved.

Staff recommends denial of the requested set site development plan review subject to conditions if approved.

Please note additional documents of support have been received since publication.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Please give your name for the record.

My name is Maria Emrice Lakerville, yes.

Because I can understand all the things in English.

Translate.

Please give your name for the record.

And you can take this opportunity to present on the agenda item, or if you have no nothing to present at this time and just want to take questions, I can turn it over to public comment real quick.

Okay, we'll save that then for the dialogue of the commission.

So at this time then this item has been noticed for public hearing.

Is there anyone who would like to speak at this time seeing none?

I will turn it over to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Walters and Commissioner Walters, you can have staff also help answer his question.

Yes.

Is it possible to first provide some clarity about why staff recommends denial?

Sure, Madam Chair, through you.

So in the rear yard, there's the requirement for the 20-foot uh setback, and then they've only been able to provide eight feed with the addition in the rear.

Um, and then uh a couple other waivers in the front yard setback area.

There's that uh shed that's built and it doesn't meet our aesthetic compatibility requirements.

Um and so just as a result of those uh waivers and and the parking count waiver as well, uh staff recommended a denial on this application thank you.

I I think I can also provide some some further um understanding for that.

So um I I went by this property and I understand that you purchased it around 2019 and then built a unit in the back of it.

Is that correct?

Yes, yes.

They made a mistake.

Yeah, I I understand.

Um so that that unit uh requires you to get a permit for it.

But because of the location of that unit, it's now triggered uh several other violations that you need to overcome in order to what would be get a permit to build that unit.

One of those, for example, is that you you need 10 parking spaces uh on that site.

And uh right now you're suggesting five.

Well, that's because the others would fit in the back of the property as many other units, uh, many other multi-family complexes on that street and in that sort of small area do.

But you have a unit there.

Um there's a 20-foot rear setback that's required, and you're asking for eight.

That one is okay, except it's for the unit that you've built, which is also the problem for all of the other uh variances being requested.

For example, the shed that's in the front.

It doesn't, it's not set back from the wall, and so my question about the shed is it can it be moved over?

Yeah, but yes.

Yes, it could be.

Yes, it can.

Okay, it could be moved, and can it be painted to match the color of the building?

Yes.

Um we need a three, I think a three-foot uh setback from the sidewall.

Is that correct?

Yeah, so so madam chair, through you, so I believe we're speaking of the structure in the front of the so our code doesn't permit a structure in the front at all.

So one of the waivers that they're requesting is to allow that structure in the front yard of the of the home.

Ah, as opposed to the backyard.

Correct, correct.

Can't be in front of the house.

So the waiver again is is to allow that in that location.

So um the other issue on that street is that there isn't a lot of available parking around there for residences anyway.

So I'm not sure that you would have been successful in reducing the amount of parking to build uh this building in the back.

The other difficulty is that this is an urban heat heat zone, and there's no trees or other landscaping, and um and because of the structure and the and the rest of the property being taken up by the few parking spaces that you're providing, there's then no uh ability to put much landscaping on the property, and so it's sort of a domino effect.

And um, I think that there's just several things happening um happening here that maybe if I I would not be able to support at this time moving forward on uh allowing the permitting in the face of nine or ten variances, including including all the parking and landscaping and placement that this has triggered on the property.

Okay, back to that landscape.

Commissioner Walters, is there a motion that you would like to make?

Are there any other comments on the commission that would like to speak on this item?

Um I do have a question.

Commissioner Lebaux.

Is there um is there a tenant currently living in that space?

No.

No, okay.

I just wanted to make sure that there were no long-term leases on place or anything that somebody would be displaced.

There's none.

Thank you.

I couldn't.

All right, with that, Commissioner Walters.

Are you ready to make a motion?

Um Yes.

At this time, I have to make a motion to deny uh agenda item.

3, thank you.

33, which is uh 26-0078-SDR1.

Motion carries.

And that we'll move on to City Council on June 17th.

Thank you.

That brings us to agenda item 3426-0085 SDR1 applicant, Trout Electric Owner, Jackson Hotel LV LLC, and uh ST612 E L L C for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for a proposed permanent parking facility with waivers of Title 19.09, form-based code development standards at 612 and 620 Jackson Avenue staff.

May you please get the report.

Uh thank you, madam chair.

The request is for a parking facility with electric vehicle charging stations and to revert the existing building into a customer lounge.

There are several requested exceptions and waivers, including the reduction of perimeter and parking lot landscaping.

Jackson Avenue is central to the on growing ongoing redevelopment efforts in historic west side, and this autocentric proposal is in compliance with the 2050 master plan and the 100 plan, both which envision Jackson Avenue as a walkable main street with a variety of mixed-use commercial and entertainment type development.

Overall, the development does not meet the development standards for this zone and does not meet the long-range planning goals for this area of the historic west side.

As such, staff recommends denial of the request.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Please state your name for the record.

Pernella Christensen of Trout Electric on behalf of the applicant.

We are actually after speaking to the commissioner today, we're gonna request to remove this from the agenda.

Okay, so request to be struck from the okay, got it.

So with that sorry, one moment.

Then um, Commissioner Schlottman, would you like to make a motion to strike?

Yes, madam chair, on item 34, make a motion to strike motion carries.

Thank you.

And with that, that takes us to agenda item 3526-0088 BAR1.

Applicant owner Alan Goodall for possible action on a land use entitlement project request to allow proposed residential accessory structure shed that does not conform to Tile 19.06 development standards for setbacks and separation at 6141 West El Campo Grande Avenue.

Staff, may please get the report.

Uh thank you, Madam Chair.

No evidence of unique or extraordinary circumstances are presented in that the applicant has created a self-imposed hardship by proposing to construct a residential uh accessory structure, a shed that does not meet the side yard setback and separation from the main building.

Relocating the shed would allow conformance to Total 19 requirements.

In uh view of the absence for any hardships imposed by the site's physical characteristics, it is concluded that the applicant's hardship is preferential in nature and is therefore thereby outside the realm of uh NRS 278 for granting variances.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Please state your name for the record.

My name is Todd Argrove, representing Tough Shed on behalf of Alan Goodall.

Thank you.

Is there anything you'd like to present on this item?

I do.

So we plan on doing an accessory building.

It's gonna be architecturally compatible, it's gonna be painted to match the existing residents.

And we're looking to get the setbacks reduced from the sidewall on the west side and the east side towards the house.

And as you can see where we plan on putting the building in this location here, it's zero low impact on the neighbors on this on his west side, his south side, and we got like an asquarian little center right there.

This kind of gives you a little bit of visual.

So it's gonna be behind the gate here, and we need the setbacks because the way the house is offset to the house, but we're gonna make it all architecturally compatible, painted the same to match.

Thank you.

And I would also like just to mention, we did have for the same project back in 2017, got approval, but due to financial situations with the customer, we did not move forward, but we like to move forward again.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

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

Seeing none, I will close public comment.

Move it over to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Taylor.

Thank you, madam chair, through you.

Um thank you for the presentation.

Um I'm obviously familiar with the the projects that you do at Tuf Shed and what they look like, and I've been by this lot um to see this sort of layout.

Was there any objection from your neighbor to the west on Maverick?

Not at all, not at all.

There was not an objection back then, and there's not an objection now on that.

And there's a picture of the front of the building.

Okay.

And uh for the that's okay, I don't even need to ask that.

I'm gonna be gonna answer my own question.

All right.

Um, I don't really have any other questions for this project again.

I mean, I've seen the site, so um, and if you don't have any objections from that neighbor on Maverick, I'm I'm not that concerned.

Um, and I didn't see an objection in the record.

Um, so anybody else have any questions or concerns on this one?

Okay, then I'm prepared to make a motion.

Um I'll move to approve item 35260088 VAR1, uh, subject to all staff conditions, and you agree to all staff conditions.

Of course.

Thank you very much.

Motion carries.

And that is final action with field the city clerk in 10 days.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That brings us to item 3626-0094.

Applicant Cardin Punjabe.

Owner Cascade Valley Medical Holdings LLC for possible action on the following land use entitlement project requests at 7180 Cascade Valley Court, suite 280, 36A 26-0094 VR 1 to allow zero additional parking spaces where one is required on a parking impaired site.

36B 26-0094 SUP1 for a proposed general retail store other than listed pharmacy.

Staff, may you please get the report?

Uh thank you, madam chair.

No evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance has been presented in the in that the applicant has created a self-imposed hardship by proposing a use with a greater parking requirement than the site can accommodate.

As such, the applicant hardship is deemed preferential in nature, and staff recommends denial of the request.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Please give your name for the record.

Gardan Punjabi.

Thank you, everyone.

Um so this uh is a place which uh I'm gonna I'm the tenant, so I'm gonna rent it.

And my future my plan is to open up a pharmacy which is gonna be in the medical hub, which is the Tenaya Way is considered as a medical hub.

So my uh pretty much my basic goal here is primarily delivering the medication.

So the space which we gonna need is not the as much as what a medical I mean uh a doctor office needs.

So my primary focus is gonna be delivering to all the one who has problem with uh transportation or chronic conditions for any individual who needs delivery.

So our goal is gonna be hundred percent delivery delivery.

So we're not gonna need as many space to uh to go uh to cover up.

It's gonna be mostly uh delivery.

Uh they're not gonna come pick up and even if we set up a pickup, it's gonna be scheduled on certain times so they can come.

So the turnaround time will be less than five minutes.

They we call them we schedule pickup, which is gonna be very rare because my business model is gonna be about delivering anywhere in Las Vegas.

It's gonna be free delivery.

So that's the main reason it's on the second floor as well, where people don't even have to come, even though there's an elevator, it's gonna be pretty much focused on delivery anywhere in Vegas.

Who has patients who has chronic conditions, individual who cannot go or they cannot have any transportation?

So that's my uh uh goal.

Um also we're gonna minimize the traffic by not having people come to that location.

So yeah, please consider uh thank you for listening.

Thank you.

This item has been noticed for public comments or anyone who would like to speak at this time.

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

The only reason that this is on for denial is that they're providing 81 parking spaces where 83 are required, so I have no problem um approving the variants or supporting the variance and a special use permit.

Are there any Commissioner Taylor?

Do you have any comments?

If there's no other comments, Chair, I'm ready to make a motion for approval on agenda item 36 uh 26-009 for VAR1 and SUP1.

And sir, you agree to all of staff's conditions.

Is that a yes?

Yeah, can you just say it a little louder?

Okay, uh, yes, yes, thank you.

Okay.

That's my motion.

Motion carries.

Uh Madam Chair, that will move on to city council on 617 26.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, guys.

That brings us to agenda item 37 26-0100 SDR1.

Applicant owner, Destiny Christian Center for possible action on land use entitlement project request for a major amendment to an approved use permit and plot plan review.

UC 017684 for proposed one-story 12,595 square foot building addition to an existing one-story 10,322 square foot church house of worship.

Development and parking lot reconfiguration at 6210 West Cheyenne Avenue staff.

May you please get the report.

Uh thank you, Madam Chair.

A proposed 12,595 square foot building addition is proposed along the southern portion of the existing church building closest to Cheyenne Avenue.

Purther submitted justification letter, the existing module buildings on the subject side will be demolished to accommodate the proposed development.

While this addition includes a slight reduction of landscape planting materials, the proposed development generally meets Title 19 development standards, and staff recommends approval subject to condition conditions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Please take your name for the record.

Yes, hi, good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Stephen Ward, uh 1514 Gora Street.

I am the architect for the project from Banneker Architecture.

I'm here representing the applicant Destiny Christian Center.

We have actually some of the members uh in the audience today.

If I'm not able to answer some of the questions that you may have.

Um the project is a one-story sanctuary and supporting space addition to a existing church on Maverick and Cheyenne.

Uh the proposed addition has been designed with materials and an architectural character we feel will make a great addition to the surrounding area.

Additional on-site parking and site improvements have been added uh for the increased square footage, and we have been working with staff and officials over the past couple months to work out any issues that we have had, and we are prepared today to move forward with the conditions of approval.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you so much.

This item has been noticed for public comment.

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

See none, I will close public comment, move it to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Walters.

Hi, this is a large development right on Cheyenne.

Um I think it'll be a very big improvement to that area and a large investment.

Uh and I don't have any concerns with it.

I had some questions about trees because they were so hard to see by now that I can zoom in.

I see that it's full of trees in this um that conform.

So I don't have questions at this time.

I don't have concerns if anyone else has comments.

You're welcome to make a motion.

Right.

I uh would like to motion for agenda to approve agenda item 37.

That's 26-0100 SDR1.

Um with staff conditions.

Do you agree to staff conditions?

Yes.

Thank you.

It's not popping up on my screen.

Would you like a verbal?

Yes, please.

Verbal for uh three commissioners Schlottman Alters.

Aye.

Aye.

That motion did pass unanimously.

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

Okay, thank you.

That brings us to agenda item 3826-0104 SDR1 applicant owner Charlie LLC for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for a major amendment to an approved site development plan review 21-0310 SDR1 to allow required planting materials to not be installed for an existing parking lot with a waiver of the appendix F permanent parking lot development standards at 212 East Charleston Boulevard staff.

May you please get the report.

This reduces aesthetic quality along Charleston Boulevard, which is a key arts district corridor, leading to visual blight.

Therefore, staff recommends denial of the requested site development plan review.

Please note additional documents for support were received after publication.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Please give your name for the record.

Chris Lexus.

Good evening.

Perfect.

And with that, I'll turn it over to members of the public.

This has been noticed for public hearing.

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

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

Yes, Madam Chair.

I remember this parking lot when we first approved it years ago.

It was uh way too tight, and uh I I took a chance on it.

And uh like a lot of our parking um parking lots downtown, they're tight and don't have the uh the right amount of landscape and I I think that in uh it could potentially cause a site visibility issue with the traffic coming down or eastbound on Charleston.

Um if we put a tree on the east side of your site, it it's gonna be the only tree within like three blocks on Charleston.

The the Charleston corridor um is really tight.

I mean it it's a three or four foot sidewalk.

Um hopefully we have a new plan one day, Mr.

Pyatt, uh, where we can revitalize Charleston and put in a little bit wider sidewalks and amenity zone.

We did such a good job with uh commerce and main street, and uh we're doing such a uh you know public works is doing such a great job with uh all the capital improvement program uh projects on Utah and uh the California that's already gone in and um some of these other streets and uh I know that Las Vegas Paven is Las Vegas paved and bringing the uh the storm drain that you could drive a truck down um all the way down to this location.

Uh to you, Memor I actually am not sure who the contractor is on the storm drain project.

I could look it up if you I could tell you after probably.

Yeah.

I uh hopefully uh hopefully we can we can look at something for for Charleston going through the arts district.

It's just not enough room to have all the all the street trees in the small and the amenity zone within the existing sidewalk.

So for those reasons I'll be supporting this, and I'm ready to make a motion.

Please do on item number 3826-0104 SDR1, move to approve subject to staff's additions and uh based on my testimony tonight.

And you agree to the conditions.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

It's not popping up on my screen, but I'm yes.

Commissioner Walters.

Yes.

Yes.

Motion carries.

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

Thank you.

That brings us to agenda item 40 26 0105, applicant owner at Lazaroo Real Estate LLC for possible action on the following land use entitlement project requests at 1701 South Decatur Boulevard, 39A 26 0105 VR1 to allow proposed 50 foot tall off-premise sign where 40 feet is the maximum allowed.

39B 26-0105 SUP1 for proposed 50-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 Chair, one moment.

Yeah.

There is no unique or physical characteristic for the subject property that warrants the requested variance for the construction of a new off-premise sign that exceeds the height requirements.

As such, uh the applicant's request is self-imposed, and staff therefore recommends denial of the variance and the special use permit requests.

Subject to conditions if approved.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Please give your name for the record.

Good evening.

Marissa Furman, 1980, Festival Plaza Drive here tonight on behalf of the applicant property owner.

We are on the southeast corner of Oki in Decatur.

This application relates to an existing billboard for which there are two components of this application.

First being the special use permit.

Turning to the site plans, you can see here there's been an existing billboard for the last 30 years that the applicant has maintained.

The purpose of this application is because the applicant would like to convert the existing billboard to have an LED display.

In order to do that, it has to be relocated.

So you can see here the existing billboard is uh just south of an existing trash enclosure.

Um for this conversion, it has to be moved 10 feet to the north in front of this enclosure, as you can see here.

Now the purpose of that is because of the weight associated with the LED display.

Um the current footing and piping with the existing display cannot handle that additional weight.

Um in order to uh modify that existing footing, they would have to go in and dig up the uh concrete and asphalt here.

Um it'd be extremely difficult and costly to do that for a new sign.

Um, and so that is the reason why it is going to be moved uh 10 feet to the north.

Um, secondly, we do have a variance for height.

It is currently at 40 feet today, and we are requesting a height variance to go up to 50 feet.

Um you can see this sign uh just uh on the other side of the uh building on the subject site.

Um the reason for this height increase is to accommodate the existing mechanical equipment on top of the roof.

Um you can see here um there's some equipment you can see here.

Um turning to an aerial, and I apologize, it's a bit blurry.

So where it currently is um at 40 feet, um it's able to exist uh without touching any of the mechanical equipment.

When moved 10 feet to the north, there is um AC units on top of the roof that will be too close to the sign at 40 feet.

So after moving the sign uh 10 feet to the north, we will need to uh go up a bit to make sure there's enough separation distance between the mechanical equipment and the sign.

And just to show you, and I know this is quite blurry and it's uh as uh zoomed in as we could get off of Google Earth, but the new location would be about here, and there's an existing AC unit that you can see here.

And um, if you were to pull this up on Google Earth, it probably would have been a little bit clearer, but again, this is the best we could do.

So if you could imagine this sign being moved up about 10 feet to the north, um it would uh clash with the AC unit on top.

So staff is recommending uh denial as I understand um the height is an issue, um, but again, this is a minimal increase in height, and it won't have any negative impact to the residential in the area.

Um, with that, I will conclude my presentation, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

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

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

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

Thank you, Chair.

Um that billboard has been there for a long, long time.

There's a lot of billboards in that area.

I have no problem with um with uh new billboard going up with the electronic sign.

I think it's it's fine, it's far enough away from residential properties that it's not gonna be a problem.

The height that's really self-imposed.

I mean, you're you're really just subject to a business decision at this point.

It's expensive to build it in the same location.

I understand that's an expense your your client may not want to bear.

It's expensive to move AC, but again, all of these things are with within um his or her control and can be adjusted just depending on spending how much money they want to spend.

There's not a situation where there's um you know the government has taken an action by putting up a sound wall that's blocking a billboard that's existed, and so there's a necessity to raise the height.

Um that's out of the control of uh a person in that situation, an owner of a billboard in that situation, and and your proposals entirely different.

You just gotta make a call on whether you want to spend the money to move the AC, whether you want to spend the money to to build the billboard in the in the same location, but but justifying an increase in height based upon things that are purely in your controller are not something that I'm willing to do.

I I told you on the phone, I don't want to go tit for tat when you get a height increase.

The seven or eight billboards that are within a thousand feet of this are gonna come in and asking for the same uh consideration and with same justification.

So I just I can't do it.

Um so are there any comments before I make a motion?

Nope.

Nope.

All right.

So sorry, may I um if if height is the issue, are you able to vote um on the item separately?

The he's permitted.

Okay, okay, great.

Thank you.

Um, which is what I was about to do.

So um on agenda item 39, we'll have to take them individually.

I'm gonna vote uh I mean a motion for denial on 39 A, the variance 26-0105 VAR1 that motion carries.

Okay, and then on I'm gonna have to strike, I think condition.

No, I don't have to strike any conditions.

Okay.

Um, for I'll make a motion as well to um for approval of agenda item 39 B pri uh 26-0105 SUP1.

Uh Madam Chair three, you we may want to strike that condition number two that requires the approval and conformance of conditions of VAR since we are denying that.

Okay, um then I'll ask that that be stricken condition two.

Yeah, for um that would be uh 39B.

Okay.

Emmerissa, you agree to that striking of condition two, understanding that you don't like that I'm denying the variance.

Yes.

Okay, and you agree to all the remaining conditions.

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And those items will move on to city council on June 17th.

And that second motion uh carried.

I'm should carry.

Thank you.

All right, that takes us to agenda item 40, 26-0107.

Applicant owner RDC LLC for possible action of the following land use and timeline project requests at 2101 South Rainbow Boulevard.

40 A 26-0107 BAR1 to allow a zero-foot side yard setback where 10 feet is required.

40 B 26-0107 VAR2 to allow 26 parking spaces where 35 are required.

40 C 26-0107 SDR1 for a major amendment to approve plot plan review Z001688 for the proposed addition of a one-story 6,000 square foot building to an existing building maintenance service and sales development with a waiver of Title 19.08 development standards for building facade.

Staff may please get the report.

Uh thank you, madam chair.

The request is for a proposed single-story 6,000 square foot building addition to an existing 4422 square foot building maintenance and service maintenance and service sales use.

An existing coverage storage area will be removed to accommodate the proposed building, and a condition of approval has been added to ensure there's no outdoor storage outside of the enclosed building.

No evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance has been presented, and that the applicant has created a self-imposed hardship by proposing a 6,000 square foot building and does not meet required setbacks and parking.

In view of the absence of any hardships imposed by the site's physical characteristics, is concluded that the applicant's hardship is preferential in nature and staff remake recommends denial of the request.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Please give your name for the record.

Yes, it's Daniel Downey.

I'm the architect representing the owner RDC.

Um the uh to talk about the the setback requirements.

Uh, the it's an existing condition you have on the north property line that's both buildings there were granted a zero um set back when those are put in.

All we're doing is adding on to that with the same materials, the same farm protection.

And then as far as the the vehicles, uh it's because of the the two separate buildings that uh that we need it.

Uh and and to be very crystal clear, I want to first thank Commissioner Rogan for meeting me out there and meeting the owner and going over this whole thing uh in completeness.

But his his facility is used primarily for wholesale, where he has very few uh patrons come in and actually use parking.

He he goes to the uh developments and the um and redoes apartment building complexes as well as large casino projects, and so this is a truly a carpet storage facility that is a small prep area before it goes out there.

If you go by there during the the most of the days, most of the parking stalls out in front are filled by his neighbors uh you utilize and uh the parking stalls.

Um I'll I don't know if that's gonna be enough for you or not.

So if you have any other questions, go ahead and appreciate it.

This time, so this item has been noticed for public hearing.

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

Seeing none, I will close public comment and take it to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Rogan.

Thank you.

I did meet with the um with with Dan and the applicant with regard to this um application.

Did you submit new landscape plans to this?

I'm sorry, did you submit a new landscape plan showing um a landscape plan?

Yes.

Yes, I did.

Okay.

But uh it's it it shows that I intend to complain combined.

You go ahead and make the condition is that I'll provide a brand new landscaping plan for both the east and west planner areas that we just talked about.

Okay, well, it's going to city council, so you can do that between now and city council then.

Um so the the idea for that landscape plan would show landscaping on the rear property line, correct, um, as well as the front property line, since that's deleted that's been um deteriorated over the years.

So um in looking at this, the the neighbor has a zero lot line.

This existing property has a zero lot line.

If we imposed, in my opinion, if we imposed the the setbacks, the side yard setbacks for this new structure, it would be very awkward and strange to have um an alleyway running between these two buildings of ten feet in width.

I think that um a zero lot line where the buildings are practically touching is is better than that.

Um and we've approved such things in the past.

So um I'm okay with the the variances uh with the site plan.

I think that the uh blank expressionless wall in the back is not appropriate, so you I'm not gonna approve that condition.

I think that was um I'm sorry if staff could help me find that condition.

I wasn't prepared.

Um but you understand that that would be moving forward to city council without that condition, correct?

Correct.

All right.

Okay.

Fred, can you help me find sure?

That uh was uh the SDR condition number five.

Okay.

So if we could strike condition number five, please.

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

So we are striking condition number five on 40 C and do we want that landscape condition?

I'm gonna I'm gonna let him put it in the a new landscape plan.

He understands what I want.

Okay.

So okay.

Um with that record being made, um with regard to agenda item 40, project number 260107 um VA1, VR2, and STR1, and make a motion for approval subject to the conditions and amended conditions this evening, and you agree to all those conditions and amended conditions, Dan.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Motion carries.

And that those items will move on to city council on June 17th.

Thank you.

That brings us to agenda item 4126-0113 SUP1, applicant partners, auto services LLC, owner Cardona and Cardona LLC for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for proposed motor vehicle sales parts, installation and repair, motor vehicle repair major use at 1250 Northeastern Avenue Suite Number Three.

Staff may please get the report.

Madam Chair, while the subject site is developed and utilized for motor vehicle par sales, installation and repair uses, the proposed motor vehicle repair major use intensifies the services allowed to be formed on the site.

Staff finds the proposed use cannot be conducted in a manner that is harmonious and compatible with the surrounding area, as evidenced by the need for the special use permit approval due to the site's proximity to R1 single family residential zoning.

Also, during a full field check of the subject site, staff observed multiple vehicles that appear to be disabled vehicles parked on the eastern portion of the site.

A code enforcement case was open to ensure the property is in compliance with on-site parking requirements.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Yeah.

Thank you.

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

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

Seeing none, I will close public comment, turn it over to members of the commission, starting with Vice Chair Schlottman.

Yes, uh Chair, through you.

I this site's already a auto automotive minor, it's going to an automotive major uh it's adjacent to R1, which isn't allowed, but which is a church.

Um I don't have a problem with this since the use is really not changing that significantly.

Uh just a question for staff.

Um what was the comment about the uh cars that were parked out outdoors?

Uh yes, during your recent field check um during our site visit, we observed that there were multiple uh disabled vehicles which were parked in the parking lot on the eastern perimeter of the site.

Okay, and is there some condition that exist uh previously that states that there won't be any um any cars parked in the process?

Um what we did is we opened up a code enforcement violation so that code enforcement can go out there and monitor the situation and make sure that they bring the site into compliance.

Okay, thank you.

And chair through you.

Um yeah, if you could just make sure that you you work with code enforcement, make sure there's not abandoned vehicles sitting out there for extended uh periods of time, and you just have to see what code enforcement says about this.

But I'm I'm not in support of seeing abandoned vehicles or vehicles just being worked on just being stored in parking lots and um and having all the neighbors uh look look at those vehicles.

So uh work with them, work with them closely.

Madam Chair, Red Make a motion.

Please do on item 41, 26 0113 SUP1 move to approve, subject to staff's conditions, and you agree to all staff's conditions of approved.

Can I get a yes?

Yes, yes, sir.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Motion carries.

And that will move on to city council on June 17th.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That brings us to agenda item 4326-0120 SDR1.

Applicant Jean Coraseratore, owner, Rebong Seratory, Irrevocable Trust et al.

for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for proposed one-story 4,914 square foot commercial development with waivers of appendix F interim downtown Las Vegas Development Standards Area 1 on the west side of 3rd Street, approximately 135 feet south of Garcia's Avenue.

Staff may please get the report.

Madam Chair, uh, as demonstrated by the lack of an articulated building entry, the absence of architect of architectural projections or trade structures, and the lack of consistent treatment of architectural details.

Staff has determined that the proposed development fails to provide the visual interest or walkable environment required in the downtown area.

Also, while projects within the downtown Las Vegas overlay area one are not automatically subject to parking requirements, the complete absence of parking where 17 spaces would otherwise be required is not compatible or harmonious with the surrounding development.

If approved, the site development plan review will be subject to conditions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is the applicant in the audience at this time?

Seeing no one come down, I will open it for public comment.

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 close public comment and turn it over to members of the commission, starting with Vice Chair Schlottman.

Yes, uh Chair through you.

This is downtown on Third Street.

Um, you know, uh as a lot of our properties have or built to the zero lot line as this properties built to the zero lot line.

Um there's not a lot of opportunity or if you put the additional money into the uh into the facades on on the side, likely another building is going to be built right next to it and cover those improvements as we want to see more buildings built closer together and taller and especially on some of these corridors.

Um you know, not that slate is my favorite uh material to put on a facade front facade of the building.

Um you know, whenever I first seen this, I I almost fell over backwards thinking the whole thing was just one big yellow building.

But um really the the portion that you're gonna see is the slate with the covered on and the rooftop deck and all the storefront windows facing outwards.

So um, whenever I finally got my bearings set on this property, I was uh I was better with it.

Uh but I I have to say last night I was a little bit confused when I was looking at this uh a little differently.

So um I I don't have any other questions or comments or or issues with this.

Any other comments?

Okay.

I I just have a quick question since you've looked at it.

I mean, so I'm I'm just scrolling back through this, and it's a zero lot line development, which means the only I see there's landscaping, but they're not trees, so you're relying on the street trees as the actual shade and walkability for this property.

Yes, and this uh property is uh on the west side on third street, approximately 135 feet south of Garces.

I think this is where the city put in the third street uh park.

Is that correct?

Yes, that's correct.

So years ago we spent time going to Manhattan looking at all their parks and everything, and this is one of the parks that uh come about from that trip.

And so um I'm on the next downtown tour, I'll bring you down third street and show you what the city uh put in there.

Really wide 15, 20 foot wide sidewalks with tons of street trees and park benches and everything else.

All right, look forward to that next tour.

Okay, madam chair, ready to make a motion on item 43 26-0120 SDR1.

Move to approve, subject to staff's conditions.

Motion carries, and that will move on to city council on June 17th.

Thank you.

So at this time we are actually going to go back and we are going to be reopening agenda item 40, 26-0107.

Applicant owner RDC LLC for possible action, the following land use and titlement project requests at 2101 South Rainbow Boulevard.

And I will turn over to Commissioner Rogan to rescind and rehear this agenda item.

Thank you.

Um, after it was called a I found the landscape plan, he did submit it, it's in their backup.

So um I'm gonna make a motion to rescind the approval of all items on agenda item 40 motion carries, right?

And then if we could amend uh condition four under the SDR conditions to reflect um date stamped 5126 rather than 31926, and with that amendment, I'm ready to make a motion again for approval of agenda item 40 260107A through Cam Chair.

I think we have to restrike condition five.

Uh the okay, yes, and also with uh condition five being stricken.

Thank you, Fred.

Motion carries.

And that we'll move on to city council on June 17th.

All right, that brings us to agenda item 4526-0127 SDR1 applicant Trout Electric Owner Novak Holdings LLC for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for a proposed parking facility with waivers of perimeter landscape requirements at the northeast corner of Lake Meet Boulevard and San Simeon Street.

Staff me, can I please get the report?

Madam Chair, the parking facility is proposed on vacant property zone C1.

Uh this site is directly adjacent to a single family residential subdivision to the north and a shopping center development to the east.

The vehicle charging operation is intended to serve the general public 24 hours per day, seven days per week.

The facility is proposing to contain 16 electric vehicle charging posts, specifically serving Tesla vehicles and four Tesla power cabinets.

Although it will be screened from view, the location of the proposed mechanical equipment near residential property is a concern.

Pad mounted transformers and the proposed Tesla power cabinets are typically low noise generators under normal operation and generally meet noise requirements per Title 19.

However, the equipment should be sited away from residential property to minimize nuisance.

In addition, the proposed development proposes waivers of perimeter landscaping buffer requirements and exceptions of parking lot landscaping in trash enclosure location, which staff does not support.

Please note additional documents for support were received after publication.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Please give your name for the record.

Pernella Christensen of Trout Electric.

Thank you, Chairwoman, for this opportunity.

In 2025, there were only 22,000 electric vehicles registered in Nevada, which was a 70.3% increase over the previous five years.

As of May 11th, 2026, Nevada ranks in the top three states nationally for AV adoption with over 65,600 EVs registered.

Roughly roughly a 13% EV adoption, nearly doubled the previous year.

To sustain this adoption and support clean cars Nevada standards, additional infrastructure is required.

Without the resources made available to the public, the initiative has no legs to stand on.

Also to can be be considered in Vegas, batteries can reduce an efficiency up to 15% due to heat.

Increased charger density is a safety necessity for drivers who may not anticipate the sudden drop in range during high temperatures.

Also to be considered as a sustained spend effect.

EV drivers spend an average of 30 minutes or more while charging, and during this 30 minutes, they spent on average at $30 during their charging sessions at near nearby restaurants, casinos, and shops.

The proposed chargers will bring in additional business for the established business commercial district.

Future proofing tourism, 30% of Vegas visitors come from California.

11% come from Arizona, where adopt EV adoption rates are high and are projected to continue and increase.

It is important to fulfill these drivers' needs.

Without the necessary infrastructure to support these drivers' needs, they may choose to travel elsewhere.

Vegas is also the home to conventions such as CES and the EV Charging Summit Expo.

The city must maintain its reputation as a high-tech city to keep these lucrative events secured.

These will be the fastest chargers in Vegas, delivering up to speeds of up to 500 KW.

The surrounding area has a density, high density of multifamily homes.

Where charging privately is unavailable.

During a search of the neighboring 60 square miles, we found less than 27 level 3 EV chargers.

To put that into perspective, on average, there are roughly 3,300 gas pumps and a 60 mile radius in the Las Vegas metro area.

We believe this project is a clear solution for Ward 5 while simultaneously alleviating the issues that an empty lot can create.

Due to the configuration of electrical equipment completed in tandem with NV Energy, we are asked for asking for a variance to allow for a small section of the landscape buffer on San Simeon to have a depth of five foot as shown on the plans.

This allows for clients clearances required for NV Energy's electrical equipment as required by utility standards.

Not approving this waiver will have an advice adverse effect on the amount of infrastructure available and slow EV adoption in Ward 5.

With that, I will ask if there are any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

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

Seeing none, I will close and move it over to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Walters.

Hi, hello.

Yes, uh this is a really small plot of land.

Uh I know, but I want to ask uh because there's lacking some dimensions on the plans.

How much space is in the back of that property that's unfilled, like from the dumpster to the We're gonna have an eight-foot buffer from the residential to the electrical equipment.

All right.

Is that a landscape buffer?

No, that is just a buffer.

Okay.

Can we can create a landscape buffer?

Yes, I think that needs to be uh trees and and some landscaping there, especially to separate.

I think that will also help you um uh separate for that resident who lives right there on the edge of the absolutely.

We are going to be adding some privacy screening on that wall as well.

Oh that's great.

Um, my other question is that some of these trees, it's hard to tell which ones are trees.

Uh I see that you have Palo Verde.

What are the other uh plants that are included in this?

See not familiar.

Daisy Little We have a uh Daisilerion Willary, those are part of the shrubs, and then we also have a euphoria terricale.

Uh there's 20 of the desolarians, and there's 40 of the euphoria terricales.

Okay.

So there is four shrubs per tree.

And there are a total of 15 trees.

So there should be 60 shrubs.

15 trees, 16 shrubs, and then how many on the back across?

That includes the back.

That count does include the back, the back area.

The back area of the northern to the resident.

The northern uh landscaping buffer.

We have no landscaping buffer on the northern parcel line, but we can add that as a contingent.

Yes.

Or condition.

The width of that space.

Hold on.

It's eight feet.

It's 80 feet across, though.

Uh it is 80 feet across from east to west, and then the buffer from the north residential parcel line to our electrical equipment.

That buffer is eight feet.

Okay, so I'd like to stipulate how many trees you'll put along that landscape buffer in the back.

Staff is there.

I'm sorry.

Uh yeah, 3D monitor.

Um so we can add a condition.

So standard code requires an eight-foot buffer adjacent from commercial to residential uh with a tree spacing of 20 feet on center.

So is that what that's the standard code if if that's what you're looking for?

Um yes, so then the condition could be an eight-foot landscape buffer in that back that conforms to this is the way I was I was thinking about uh uh riding it or the way I wrote it.

Eight foot uh condition number four would be amended to state an eight foot landscape buffer um is required along a north property line in conformance with all Title 19.08 landscape buffer requirements, and that would that would bring the northern portion um up to Kurt to standard code along that along that property line.

Okay, can we also stipulate the SNWA compliance?

Uh sure trees and plants.

We can give me one sec at the craft to make it nice and so it flows and then I'll we can read it.

24 in boxes.

Yeah, I know we have to get rid of it.

Yeah, the north part because the east is still still there.

Okay.

So I think that just needs to be revised when we take out the long north, and then you have the condition to the eight foot landscape buffer.

I think I'm just gonna do another condition, so I'll just do number four, get rid of the north, and then do another add another condition, yeah, and then do the yeah.

Uh okay.

Madam Chair, oh, I'm sorry, yeah.

While you were drafting that, I had a couple questions if you wanted to draft if Madam Chair has I have a couple questions about the project itself.

So I understand these are gonna be Tesla charges.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

Are they gonna have all the requisite adapters to ensure that vehicles other than Teslas can charge?

Yes, that is correct.

I have them built in.

Drivers will not need to provide them.

Okay.

And then you talked about the impact to um surrounding businesses, but as I look at the um some of the mapping, the parcel immediately to the east, um, between San Simeon and Jones, looks like there's a lot of out-of-business designations.

Have you actually been out to that site and seen whether there are businesses in that space?

There are businesses.

There are on the other side of the wall to the east parcel line.

There are a couple of health clinics.

Okay, but oh there are also out-of-business empty buildings in there as well.

They we didn't go investigate too thoroughly, but it looked like they were up and running.

All right, and then um it I know you also mentioned so I mean I I know that it's very important to be able to provide charging, especially where there is multi-family.

Um, but this looks like a lot of single family residential, or is there multifamily immediately adjacent to the proposed charging site?

We did.

We looked on the south side of Westlake Mead, and there is a high density of multifamily houses.

Okay.

Okay, and then I just want to make sure I'm understanding what we're crafting for um landscaping um requirements.

So where your chargers are, the actual charging bank is that the east side of the project?

That's correct.

Okay.

And are we I I think Commissioner Waltz was talking about the north side, but are you able to provide any type of shading on that east side so that people aren't sitting in their cars just getting baked by the sun if they're not able to go and get retail chart, you know, retail shopping done?

We did discuss uh gazebos, would be sturdy enough for this climate, um, and that would be our our choice.

We have an area on the northern uh landscaping buffer by the trash enclosure where we can put some shade, and and we've also incorporated one in the bottom um east corner.

Okay, wait, so you're saying you're gonna put gazebos for people to go sit out in the heat while their cars are charging.

Yes.

Okay.

Create some sort of shade.

Okay, but can you do anything to shade the cars as they're charging?

Can you put carports there?

That is something that we can definitely look into, yes.

Okay, well, this is the time when we're either approving this or we're not approving this, and I know it couldn't potentially I don't know, is councilwoman want this to go to city council commissioner?

She's unverse.

She's uncertain.

So I, you know, I think then my Commissioner Taylor, it is going to city council.

It is going to city council.

Okay, great.

So then that would be something that in order to get my support, you would need to commit to working on before city council.

We can do that.

Okay.

Um and that is again just to make sure we're both on the record on this, that you will look at um and propose ways to shade those cars as they're being charged.

Yes, absolutely not just provide because it'll be great in October for people to sit out at the gazebos, but not in August.

Sure.

Okay.

Um, I think that was all I had.

So, Mr.

Solis, if you had conditions, if I've given you enough time to write conditions.

Yes, you have, thank you.

Um, so Madame Chair through you, we will be amending uh condition number four.

Um to read a waiver of title 19.08070 is hereby approved to allow a zero foot permanent landscape buffer along the east property line or eight feet is required.

And then we're gonna add another condition to read an eight-foot landscape buffer shall be installed along the north property line in conformance with title 19.08070 landscape buffer requirements, including adherence with the SNWA approved plant list.

Um I think that those trees also we need to stipulate that they're 36-inch box trees.

We can do that with the three-inch caliper and six planted six inches above grade.

Okay, so let me uh so we will go to the standard condition.

Thank you, Nicole.

Uh it will read um the new condition will read along the north property line, um, an eight-foot landscape buffer shall be provided in accordance with title 19.08070 for a landscape buffer, including fast growing large shade trees with a minimum three-inch truck caliper measured six inches from the base of the trunk and be planted in the required landscape buffer.

Um with the exception, uh that's not yeah, so it's so it's three with a yeah, so let me let me start over again here.

This isn't um so all trees.

All right, one more time.

Scratch all that, start over.

An eight-foot landscape buffer with 36-inch box tree shall be located along the north property line in conformance with Title 19.08 landscape buffer requirements, including adherence to the SNWA proof plant plant list, and these trees shall be uh fast growing uh large shade trees with a minimum three-inch truck caliper measures six inches from the base of the truck.

Commissioner Taylor?

Sorry, I just had one other question if we were adding conditions.

Since we're not gonna get to vote on any proposed shade over the charging stations, would you be amenable to a condition that's that requires you to put that in prior to city council?

Yes.

Yes, yes.

Sorry, Mr.

Solis.

Can you can we add another condition related to um incorporating shade structures over the actual charging stations?

And I don't know if it makes sense to maybe just trail for a minute and you can draft that so that we can keep moving since I threw this in at the end.

Yeah, no, I I think we can we can accommodate.

Uh so are you looking just for shade over the proposed parking spaces?

Correct, yeah.

So like some type of carport, shade canopy, something over each of the charging stations so that there's shade for the cars as they're charging.

Yeah, sure.

That that's not too difficult here.

So we'll just add another condition stating that car ports or other shade uh structure shall be located over each of the proposed electric vehicle charging stations along the east portion of the site.

Okay, and then I swear I I won't ask any more questions, but just on uh do we need to put any type of condition?

I think it's not really a land use planning condition, so we're just going with your representation that all appropriate adapters will be provided.

Yes, correct.

Okay.

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

With that, are you ready to make a motion?

I am, yes.

Uh I'll motion to approve item 45.

That's 26-0127-SDR1.

Uh with amended staff conditions.

Do you accept the amended staff conditions?

Yes.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

And that I will move on to city council on June 17th.

Thank you.

That brings us to agenda item 46 26-012.

Sorry, agenda item 4626-0128.

Applicant High Suk Kim.

Owner Survivors Trust at Al for possible action on the following land use entitlement project requests at 919 East Bonneville Avenue.

46A 26-01280N1 from PR professional office and parking to R4 high density residential.

46B 26-012A WBR1 to allow five-foot front yard setback where 10 feet is required.

Area 2.

Staff may please get the report.

The proposed rezoning is compatible with the surrounding zoning designations and may provide greater housing type flexibility, which is needed in downtown Las Vegas.

In addition, the waiver request is minor in nature and would further support the city's goals as expressed in the Vision 2045 downtown Vegas master plan regarding additional housing stock.

Staff recommends approval of the request.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Please give your name for the record.

Hi, my name is Ricardo Jasso.

I'm here on behalf of the owner of the property at 915 East Bonneville Avenue.

Um Chair and members of the commission, thank you for the opportunity to present today.

I'm here on behalf of the owner uh to request rezoning from PR professional office to R4, high density residential, and a waiver to reduce the front yard setback from the required 10 feet to five feet.

Uh we feel rezoning will allow future development in that location and bring additional needed housing to the area.

And we are requesting the five-foot um setback so that uh any future development would be able to utilize uh the existing structure that currently exists.

Um I respectfully ask for your support of the rezoning and setback waiver, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you so much.

This item has been noticed for public hearing.

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

Seeing none, I will close public hearing and take it back to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Schlottman.

Thank you, madam chair.

I pass by this property on a daily basis.

Um I know this property well.

I have no problem with this.

Staff has no problem with this, and so I'm ready to make a motion.

Please do.

Madam Chair, on item number 46, 260128, 46 AMB move to approve, subject to staff's conditions, and you agree to all staff's conditions, sir.

Yes.

Thank you.

Motion carries.

And that will move on to city council on June 17th.

All right.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

That brings us to agenda item 47, 26-0144 applicant, KB Home Las Vegas Inc., owner KB Home Las Vegas, Inc.

et al.

For possible action on the following land use entitlement project requests at the northwest corner of log cabin way and alpine ridge way.

47A 26-0144 VAR1 to allow proposed perimeter retaining and screen walls that do not conform to Tile 19.06 development standards for high proposed common element AA.

47B 26-0144 VAR2 to allow proposed perimeter retaining and screen walls that do not conform to Tile 19.06 development standards for height, proposed LOD 57.

47C 26-0144 VR 3 to allow proposed perimeter retaining and screen walls that do not conform to Tile 19.06 development standards for high, proposed lot 58.

47D 26-0144 VR4 to allow proposed perimeter retaining and screen walls that do not conform to Tile 19.06 development standards.

For high proposed lot 67.

47E 26-0144 VR5 to allow proposed perimeter retaining and screen walls that do not conform to Tile 19.06 development standards for high proposed lot 74.

47F 26-0144 VR6 to allow proposed perimeter retaining and screen walls that do not conform to Tile 19.06 development standards for high, proposed lot 136.

47G 26-0144 VR7 to allow proposed perimeter retaining and screen walls that did not conform to Tile 19.06 development standards for height, proposed lot 137, 47H 26-0144 VR8 to allow proposed perimeter retaining and screen walls that do not conform in Tile 19.06 development standards for height.

Proposed lot 138.

47i 26-0144 VR9 to allow proposed perimeter retaining and screen walls that do not conform to Tile 19.06 development standards for high, proposed lot 139.

47J 26-0144 VR 10 to allow proposed perimeter retaining and screen walls that do not conform to Tile 19.06 development standards for high proposed lot 140.

47K 26-0144 VR 11 to allow proposed perimeter retaining and screen walls that do not conform to Tile 19.06 development standards for high proposed lot 141.0144 VR12 to allow proposed perimeter retaining and screen walls that do not conform to Tile 19.06 development standards.

For high proposed lot 142.

47M 26-0144 VR of 13 to allow proposed perimeter retaining and screen walls that do not conform to Tile 19.06 development standards for high proposed lot 143.

47N26-0144 VR 14 to allow proposed perimeter retaining and screen walls that do not conform to Tile 19.06 development standards for high proposed lot 144.

470 26-0144 VR 15 to allow proposed perimeter retaining and screen walls that do not conform to Tile 19.06 development standards.

Proposed lot 147.

47P 26-0144 VR 16.

To allow proposed perimeter retaining and screen walls that do not conform to Tile 19.06 development standards for height.

Proposed common element N.

Staff, may you please get the report.

Madam Chair, on December 17th of 2025, the City Council approved a tentative map for a proposed 232 lot single family detached residential subdivision subdivision named the Creston on the subject site.

The applicant is now seeking to construct perimeter retaining and screen walls on 16 lots within the residential subdivision that exceed the maximum allowed height in the RCL zoning district.

Staff finds that no evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance has been presented in that the applicant has created a self-imposed hardship by proposing perimeter uh retaining and screen walls that exceed Title 19 requirements.

Therefore, staff recommends denial of the requested variants.

Please note additional documents for support were received after publication.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Please give your name for the record.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Commissioners.

My name is Bob Gronau, we're 1980 Festival Plaza Drive.

I'm here representing KB home on these matters that are before you.

As I was here representing KB homes, this is uh located in the Cal Canyon area.

As you can see, there's already been construct uh homes under construction or homes that are existing.

Uh this was approximately a 30-acre project that was just recently approved.

And although I don't have to show on the overhead here, there is a uh tripoint development that is actually being developed right adjacent to us.

Uh the first thing that I want to mention is with respect to the variances that we are requesting.

Um it sounds uh on the face of it, it's a lot worse than what it really is.

And and let me explain.

First of all, with respect to the uh legal hardship, we do have a unique and unusual circumstance.

As I'm going to show you on the property here, as you go from west to east, there's a significant slope on the property.

It slopes anywhere from 24 to 30 feet in certain areas here.

So first of all, we have unusual topography issues with the property just uh just by a loan.

Then you take in consideration that you already have the grades that are set out here on the east, west, and south of our boundaries.

And by that, what I mean is Alpine Ridge, the center line grade has already been set for us in this area.

Log cabin way, the grade has already been set by the tri point development under construction, and the homes that are adjacent to us has an elevation that's already set.

So as you may know, if you're familiar with construction, not only is it difficult when you have topography that drops about 24 to 30 feet across your property, but it even becomes more difficult to meet code requirements when you have grade that's already set around you somewhat in a in a sandboxes usually as I explain it.

Uh but because of that, we feel that we these are not self-imposed conditions, and with respect to the variances that we're asking for, they are for specific lots.

And with respect to the variances that we're asking for, they are for specific lots.

And what I have here, these are this is the uh tenative map uh that was approved in the site development plan that was approved a couple months ago.

Um again, this is the 30 uh 31 acres that we're discussing.

Um the lots that are in yellow here that are highlighted, um, these are for the most part, these are all internal lots.

And what I mean by internal lots, meaning that if you're driving on log cabin or alpine ridge in this area or across some of these streets in here, you're not going to see the the um exterior uh wall height increase as you would if you are adjacent to each other of homeowners in this area.

Uh there may be a question with respect to the wall height increase about the lots being adjacent to each other.

If you're familiar from a disclosure standpoint, before uh homes are sold, especially the way KB does it, they build out the roads, the they grade the pads, and they build the walls that are located in the property.

And what will happen is a home buyer will come out and look at that specific lot.

They'll already see where the walls are actually positioned and how high those are.

The second part of that disclosure process is before you actually go vertical in any of these 232 lots.

What you'll have is you'll sign off on a plot plan.

And the plot plan will explain to you the retaining walls, the wall heights, the setbacks to the house, and everything else that is a part of what is going to be part of that construction.

Um as I mentioned, so it will not be a surprise to a home buyer when they're out there purchasing a home and be surprised that in the certain areas, the highlighted areas here will have anywhere from an eight-foot high uh retaining wall up to a 10 foot high retaining wall only in those areas.

So it's not across the entire property.

Um this doesn't affect all uh the all the 232 lots, but just 16 of the lots that we have on the plan.

And uh, with that being said, I'm here to answer any questions that you may 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?

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

Uh thank you, madam chair, through you.

Um thank you, Mr.

Grohnauer, for describing the disclosure process.

Um, if you could just for the record talk about the um requirements for wall construction when you have that kind of a retainer, again, for purposes of making sure that the homes behind those high retainers are not subject to degraded block walls and retaining walls.

Yes, um, so first of all, the geotech uh goes out there on the on all projects, and based on the geotechnicals uh report, uh the builder in this case, KB Home will comply with those recommendations.

As part of those recommendations, uh we have third-party inspectors that will come out and inspect the walls.

And those walls are there are set standards within the the code requirements and building code, and as a part of that is all these walls would be waterproofed, and some of them will have uh drainage or not some, they'll also have drainage pipes in there.

Those are requirements.

And obviously, for liability purposes or future potential liability issues down the road for construction, uh, you have these third-party inspectors outside of the cities, inspectors that come in and review the um the quality of the walls that are being built.

So that is the overlapping of care that is taken by the builder to ensure that these walls will not prove be a problem somewhere in the future.

Okay, thank you.

I don't have any other questions anybody else.

Have any okay?

Then um if not, I'm prepared to make a motion.

Um so on item 47A through P.

Like Peter, uh item 26-0144 and all of its subparts I make a motion to approve subject to all conditions, and you agree to all conditions, Mr.

Granauer.

Yes, ma'am.

Thanks.

Motion carries.

Oh, sorry, those items will move on to city council on June 17th.

Thank you.

Have a good night.

Thank you.

That brings us to agenda item 48, 26-0149 SDR1.

Applicant YNCA of Southern Nevada, owner Clark County for possible action on land use entitlement project request for a major amendment to an approved site development plan review.

Z0086991 for the proposed edition of three one-story modular buildings and parking lot reconfiguration at 2900 North Torrey Pines Drive.

Staff me, can I please get the report?

Madam Chair, staff finds the proposed development meets all applicable Title 19 development standards for the Civic Zoning District, and staff finds that the development is compatible with the existing and surrounding land uses.

And staff finds that the development is compatible with the existing and surrounding land uses.

Therefore, staff recommends approval of the requested site development plan review subject to conditions.

Please note that a revised billing building elevation uh changing the color of the building to tan has been provided after the agenda was posted and this is in your supplemental documentation.

And please also note that additional documents of protest and support have been received since publication.

Thank you.

Okay.

And with that, please give your name for the record.

Stanton Snow from the YMCA.

I'm just here to answer any questions you have and thank staff for their working with us on this project.

Thank you.

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

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

Seeing none, I will close public comment, turn it over to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Walters.

Um I don't think I have any questions on this project.

Uh there's it's an undeveloped lot that I went by and saw, and your plans are very thorough, has a lot of um Southern Nevada water approved trees on it.

And um I'm ready to make a motion unless anyone else has questions.

Commissioner Rogan.

I don't have any comments.

I just um I I need to abstain from this item considering that the owner of the property is Clerk County, and I'm attorney for Clark County.

I've um routinely abstained on any uh similar items where Clerk County has been the owner of the applicant, and so I'll be abstaining on this one as well.

Thank you.

With that, Commissioner Walters, you're welcome to make a motion.

Yeah, I just want to say uh also that it's an early childhood learning center, and so it's much needed in that area as well.

Uh I'll make a motion to approve agenda item 48.

That's 26-0149.

Um with staff conditions.

Do you agree to staff conditions?

Yes, ma'am.

Motion carries.

And that will move on to city council on June 17th.

Thank you.

With that, we are done with the public hearing and move on to director's business agenda item 50 26-0103 TXT1, applicant owner city of Las Vegas for possible action on a request to amend various provisions and definitions of uh of LBMC Title 19 and to provide for other related matters.

Staff.

Uh thank you, Madam Chair.

This amendment will clean up various provisions in Las Vegas Municipal Code Title 19 that contains misleading or incorrect language and resolve potentially conflicting development regulations regarding allowable light levels at residential property lines.

Staff recommends approval of the request.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh this item has been used for public hearing.

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

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

Are there any comments or concerns?

Seeing none, Vice Chair Schlottman.

Yes, Chair, I'd like to make a motion on item 5026-0103 TXT1.

Move to approve.

Motion carries.

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

Thank you.

And then we conclude with citizens' participation.

This is public comment.

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

Seeing none, I will close public comment.

And with that, this meeting is adjourned.