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 Two.

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

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

Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Present.

Commissioner Walters.

Present.

Thank you, Chair.

You have a quorum.

Thank you.

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

Please read this carefully.

And if you have any questions, staff is available.

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

Please come forward and state your name.

Okay, not a problem.

So I there we if you'd like to come forward.

So each individual item will have its own public comment.

This is general public comment.

Not a problem, thank you.

With that, we will move on to agenda item five.

Maybe have a motion to approve the minutes of the planning commission meeting of June 16th, 2026.

Move to approve.

Motion carries.

We are moving on to our housekeeping items.

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

Madam Chair Nicole Edoes for the record.

The applicant is requesting to hold item number seven to the August 11th planning commission meeting.

The applicant is requesting to hold item number 23 to the August 11th planning commission meeting.

The applicant is requesting to hold item number 26 to the August 11th planning commission meeting.

The applicant is requesting to hold item number 32 to the August 11th planning commission meeting.

The applicant is requesting to hold item number 35 to the September 8th planning commission meeting.

And staff is requesting to hold item number 38 to the August 11th planning commission meeting.

Staff is requesting to hold item number 39 to the August 11th planning commission meeting, and staff is requesting to hold item number 40 to the August 11th planning commission meeting.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone who would wish to speak on any of the housekeeping items?

See none.

Vice Chair, can I have a motion?

Yes, madam chair, through you on items 723, 26, 32, 38, 39, and 40.

I move to hold those items in abeyance to the August 11th Plan Commission meeting.

And on item number 35, move to hold that in abeyance till the August until the September 8th Plan Commission hearing.

Motion carries.

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

Yes, madam chair.

Through you, I move to approve consent agenda items number eight and nine.

Thank you.

We now move on to one motion, one vote.

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

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

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

Any person representing an application or a member of the public or member of the planning commission non agreement with the conditions and all standard conditions for the application recommended by staff should request to have that item removed from this part of the agenda.

Item 10 26-0191 SUP1.

Applicant Better Days Recovery Center, Owner Infinity LLC for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for a proposed facility to provide testing, treatment, or counseling for drugs or alcohol abuse use at 2330.

Baseo del Prado Suites 107 and 109.

Item 11, 26-0245, SUP1.

Applicant Bad Ash Group, LLC.

10 26 0191 SUP1 Applicant Better Days Recovery Center Owner Infinity LLC for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for proposed facility to provide testing treatment or counseling for drugs or alcohol abuse use at 2330 Paseo del Prado Suites 107 and 109 item 11 26-0245 SUP1 applicant Bad Ash Group LLC owner Gurby Investments at 2 LLC for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for a major amendment to an approved special use permit 21-0673 SUP1 for a proposed 3,000 square foot expansion of an alcohol on premise full use with a 525 square foot outdoor patio area at 1606 South Commerce Street and that is the end of our one motion one vote chair may have a vice chair may have a motion public comment yes that now is the time for public comment on any of the items under the one motion one vote is there anyone in the public who would like to speak at this time please come forward and please state your name for the record good evening madam chairman chairwoman Kristen Schuler Heights I am a resident at 2209 Paseo del Prado which is extremely close to the location of this proposed rather large facility we are a very small neighborhood on a very small street and you are proposing to substantially increase the amount of traffic in a small residential neighborhood that where we have already had a number of accidents from people driving far too fast down this little street and now you're proposing to put a drug and alcohol treatment center maybe 250 feet from my front door um this will also run along the back of all of my neighbors yards where these people will have court ordered drug and alcohol treatment uh there is already a surgery center there that has controlled traffic because they have a very limited footprint we have a huge problem with the homeless and now you want to add more people with mental health issues uh into my neighborhood I do not appreciate it and I vehemently oppose it thank you thank you please state your name for the record good evening my name is Jeffrey Stafford I all I also live at 2209 Paseo del Prado I am also an educator I teach at a neighborhood school Rex Bell elementary that school is less than a half a mile from the proposed site I also school buses drop off for the high school right in front at Sahara which is less than 200 yards away next year Rex Bell elementary school will be transformed into a special education specific school and I am concerned about the certain the center being there with the influx of special education children coming in I am very opposed to this facility being put in this location thank you very much for your time thank you staff I'll recommend pulling the item number 10 to a public hearing item yeah so with that um should I all right so with that we will be pulling agenda item 10 but we will be closing the public comment at this time for one motion one vote so vice chair may please have a motion yes madam chair through you uh on item number 11 20 260245 SUP1 uh move to approve subject to staff's conditions excuse me madam clerk my computer is frozen I'm gonna have to voice vote and wouldn't request some help for my T-pression oh never mind vice chair fixed it he does everything motion carries uh madam chair that item is final action unless appealed to the city clerk within 10 days thank you thank you that brings us now to public hearing items and with that I'm going to reopen agenda item 10 26 0191 SUP1 applicant better days recovery center owner infinity LLC for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for proposed facility to provide testing treatment or counseling for drug or alcohol abuse use at 2330 Paseo del Prado suites 107 and 109 staff may please get the report yes madam chair this is Christian Gates uh department of community development for the record staff has determined the proposed use is compatible and harmonious with the surrounding area as there are care related uses and other commercial uses within the shopping center and surrounding area as such staff recommends approval of the requests that special use permit subject to conditions thank you thank you at this time I would ask the applicant to come forward in the audience if there is the applicant thank you and can you please address some of the concerns from the previous public comment thank you um how are you doing well uh for one uh I wanted to say

Staff has determined the proposed use is compatible and harmonious with the surrounding area as there are care related uses and other commercial uses within the shopping center and surrounding area.

As such, staff recommends approval of the requested special use permits subject to conditions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

At this time, I would ask the applicant to come forward in the audience if there is the applicant.

Thank you.

And can you please address some of the concerns from the previous public comment?

Thank you.

Um, how are you doing?

Well, uh, for one, uh, I wanted to say it said that the owner is infinity LLC.

Um we addressed that.

That that's actually the um uh that's the the landlord of the buildings.

Um can you also please give your name for the record?

So I'm Gary Jackson with Better Days Recovery Center.

Okay, and we um I will coordinate with staff to understand the owner that is listed on the record, but we understand now that it is the landlord.

But can you please give a little bit more background about what you're trying to do at this center and address some of the concerns?

Thank you.

Yes.

Um, first off, um, good evening, uh, chairperson and members of of the planning commission.

My name is Gary Jackson, and I'm the owner of Better Days Recovery Center.

Thank you for um for providing the time for our request for a special use permit.

Um we provide individuals struggling with substance abuse, uh uh disorders, a safe and professional and supportive environment where they can begin the journey of lasting recovery.

We recognize that addiction affects not only individuals but also families and neighborhoods, workplaces, and communities that as a whole.

Our goal is to help rebuild their lives through evidence-based treatment, accountability, and education with compassion and care.

Better Days Recovery Center will operate an outpatient only treatment uh facility.

This means that clients will come to scheduled appointments and counseling sessions, and they will return to their homes afterwards.

This is not a residential facility, a sober living home or overnight program.

The services we intend to provide is uh substance use assessment, uh, individual counseling, group counseling, intensive outpatient uh program, uh, relapse prevention education, case management, and support uh recovery support services, DUI education, counseling and treatment services as permitted and light and by by licensing requirements and domestic violence education and treatment services as permitted by licensing uh requirements.

Our jet our objective is to help individuals develop a uh sorry, healthy coping skills, maintaining long-term recovery, uh, and improved family relationships, reducing criminal behavior, and become a more productive members of our community.

We understand that operating that that operating responsibly within the neighborhood is extremely important.

Because of that, we have developed policies and procedures designed to ensure our program operates professionally and respectfully.

These include scheduled appointments to mat to uh scheduled appointments to manage client flow, uh staff supervision during all uh operating hours, a clean, safe, and well-maintained facility, compliance with all local, state, and federal regulations, cooperation with the city of Los City of Las Vegas and all applicable regulatory agencies, and respect for the for the neighbor uh neighborhooding businesses and surrounding property owners.

Our goal is to be a positive community partner, not a burden to our surrounding area.

We believe that the that access to quality behavioral health and substance abuse strengthen strengthens communities, every person who successfully completes treatment represents another individual who is healthier and more stable and better equipped to contribute positively to our society.

This special use permit is an important step in allowing us to bring these much needed services to our community.

We are fully committed to uh operate responsibly, maintaining high professional standards and complying with every condition placed upon our our approval.

On behalf of Better Days Recovery Center, I respectfully ask for your approval for the special use permit for our application.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And besides the ones who have already spoken during the previous public comment, is there anyone else 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 Rogan.

Madam Chair, I got a question for the applicant.

Oh, yes.

Uh, question I have is uh you say to be therapy, so uh I just want to know does this location will it have narcotics on site, or your therapy strictly uh like a one-on-one type of therapy.

Oh no, this is counseling only.

Um we don't prescribe any medications.

This is not a um like a methadone clinic, there's no drugs on hand.

We don't prescribe any medication whatsoever.

Okay, then the reason why I asked that is I think the person that came before uh they gave public comment.

I think just by the tone of her voice and being around long enough to understand, I think that was one of the concerns, probably which she was worried about is if there was going to be some type of medications on site, which is gonna, you know, maybe somebody might want to try to break in at a facility, and then you know that kind of stuff.

So this is strictly therapy as far as one-on-one counseling that you would be providing.

Strictly um counseling, so uh we'll do in individual um counseling and also group and like in group settings, but small groups.

And as far as uh you talked about uh you would have a uh controlled scheduling.

So explain to me like staff wise at any given time, how many patients would you see a day and and what is your staff look like?

Okay, so at the most, we'd have up to between eight and ten patients a day.

Um when we do our our our group sessions, that's gonna be the largest uh class size on the days we do the group therapy, but even on the days that we do the individual therapy, it's still gonna be limited to between eight and ten patients a day.

Okay, and and then what is your projected uh uh business hours?

It's not a 24-hour thing, right?

It's like a 95 no from uh 8 a.m.

to uh 6 p.m.

8 to 6.

Okay, that's my questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Rogan.

Um Sir, if you could just come back.

You can hang out there for until we're done.

That's fine.

Absolutely.

So just to follow up, I've I've looked at your application.

Um it looks like you're just you have a very small office within there.

Very small.

Okay.

So I don't anticipate that you're gonna have a lot of traffic with eight to ten patients per day showing up.

No.

Okay.

And just in terms of of what you're doing, the way you described it, it sounds like uh you're gonna be doing things that are very similar, if not the same as holding AA meetings or NA meetings, which are routinely done in you know, community centers and churches.

Is that right?

Yes.

Okay, and then and then you may have individual therapy, but it's it's not with a licensed doctor.

Oh, uh it's uh it's with uh uh a licensed um uh with a uh licensed therapy counselor, yeah.

Right, but not a not a prescribing MD or DO.

Okay.

We won't be prescribing any medications and also um we're not gonna do any testing uh in in-house.

All any testing is gonna be um uh it's gonna be uh outsourced out.

Okay.

And just from your description too, it sounds like what you're also gonna be doing is you know, say somebody picks up a DUI and as the court orders DUI counseling, you'll be doing that as well.

Correct.

Okay.

I mean, this seems very similar to things that we've approved in the past in in areas like this.

Um they're all over the place.

I I don't know why this we treat this one any differently than um than any other type of counseling agency that does this.

Most of these counseling agencies operate without a problem.

I've never seen one come back to us for a revocation of an SUP since I've been on this body in 20 since 2019.

So I'm comfortable making a motion for approval at this point.

Please do.

Um with regard to agenda item 10, project 26-0191 SUP1 and make a motion for approval of the SUP subject to any of staff's conditions.

Motion carries.

Madam Chair, that item will move forward to the August 19th, 2026 City Council meeting.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That brings us to agenda item 12, abeyance 26-0013, applicant owner 2331 MLK Investment LLC for possible action on the following land use entitlement project requests at 2333 North, Martin Luther L Martin L.

King Boulevard.

12 C abeyance 26-0013 SDR1 for a proposed one-story 2921 square foot auto repair garage development and parking lot reconfiguration with a waiver of Title 19.08 development standards to allow bay doors to face the right-of-way where such is not allowed.

Staff may please get the report.

Madam Chair, staff finds the proposed use to be too intense for the subject site as evidenced by the requested parking variants waiver to allow service bay doors to face the right-of-way, an exception to allow zero parking lot trees where six are required.

Therefore, staff recommends denial of the variance, special use permit and site development plan review.

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

Thank you.

Thank you.

With that, I will ask the applicant to come down if they are in the audience for agenda item 12.

Thank you.

Please state your name for the record.

Commissioner Libo DeSalvio, Rogan, Lowenstein, Chair Casama, Commissioner Taylor, and Commissioner Walters.

I would like to read a statement and I have picks of the improvements that were made at the property and of the adjacent corridor, other properties that don't uh comply with what we're complying with, or my clients complying with.

So I would like to say that uh at the previous city council meeting hearing, the applications were held in uh abeyance allow to allow additional uh review review parking last landscaping and site improvements.

Since that meeting, the property owner has worked diligently to address the council's uh comments to improve the sites on the comments that were addressed.

Um that revised site plan, you can see it right here.

Right here.

Here's the picks I'm gonna discuss.

Here's the improvements that the owner did diligently.

And here are the other properties that have garages facing the right-of-way, with uh one particular one here that's 23 feet from uh the CMU or the concrete missionary unit to the back of the sidewalk to have three 23 feet, plus or minus.

The other one, uh the other uh uh facility here um doesn't have as much parking also as the as the MLK investment has here.

If you see on the site plan with all the trees, all these trees have been planted, as you can see here, and he's gonna plant two additional ones over here.

He has handicapped parking also that the other ones don't have, and they are fully operational uh along the corridor of MLK.

So the parking and site design, the revised site plan demonstrates that the property uh provides ample off-street parking compared to the other properties that are doing business.

This has four bay doors, this one has one, and uh the one that we're proposing.

You can see what the owner has done here.

He has absolutely cleaned the property, and uh he's 80 feet plus or minus from the back of sidewalk when this one is 23 feet, and this one I didn't measure this one, but uh it's uh probably around 50 feet or maybe 60 feet by looking at it.

So um with this comparison.

I don't see why you would deny um in this exhibits.

The he has ample umple parking and ample uh turnaround for traffic, which other properties don't have and their existing doing business.

So I move this to for approval.

I don't see why it would uh uh it would be uh declined when he is in compliance, he's worked very hard.

He's repainted the and uh cleaned up the property as you can see here.

It's all cleaned up compared to the prior uh picks that uh were uh demonstrated.

And uh so I move if you can or will uh so this uh folks can go to work and and uh the establishment looks nice and there's trees.

We took that seriously, or the owner did, he took it seriously, he planted trees, and uh the food truck will be moved if you see the site plan here.

Um the site plan shows that the food truck will be 20 feet from the back wall right here from the back wall, and uh that would be a way uh in compliance with the fire uh with the fire requirements.

So the food truck will be moved after uh getting approval.

So I move for approval.

There's no reason when you can see the other comparisons of the other properties that don't uh come near to what the owner has uh presented here.

Thank you.

And with that, I will open up for public comments.

Or anyone in the audience who would like to speak on agenda item 12 at this time.

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

Hi.

Um I I first want to start by saying there are some great improvements.

Uh the tires have been removed, and you guys have painted the building.

We appreciate that.

Um, and I see in your plan here today that you have uh six trees marked out.

Is um does that mean you'll be closing off the entrance uh the second entryway into those lots because it is combined entryway with the business next door.

Is that correct?

Uh it there's uh there is a entryway here that I I'm not familiar uh as far as the history of it.

Um and that would be right the right here, and that uh it's it's a property line, so we wouldn't touch it.

Uh that uh that is adjacent to the property that was done uh in the past.

So I mean, if you have a recommendation to close it, uh we would address it if that's gonna clear the opening or approval, then of course we would comply.

The two trees are not planted yet.

There's ones on the north side.

These are not planted.

They planted two in the rear back there, so they're they are planting uh by the uh container.

There's two additional trees back there, but they will comply with this other two.

They they work very hard to, and then they're gonna continue to work to to keep this site in uh in uh in a manner that's acceptable and uh not an annoyance, but an improvement to the corridor of MLK.

Okay, um is there irrigation to the trees that you have recently planted?

There's no irrigation at this moment.

No, that they they didn't have the time to cut all that, and uh they couldn't find uh the additional, but they will put that on a clock in the a clock, and they they will do that, and you can have an inspection on it or have court enforcement check or whoever checks it.

So we had a lot of I I had a lot of concerns with this property as we discussed, uh, including with a lot of the the code and violations.

And one of them was with landscaping and and others were with compliance issues.

Um at this planning commission meeting, we are supposed to approve the plans, which your updated plans were received this morning.

Um at this point, I don't think that these plans adhere to all of the requirements that we discussed last time.

If we were if we you know we want we want you to have a successful business, we want to move this forward, but we still need to be in compliance, especially at this property as we as we discussed.

What's what's lacking on the on the plan on the on the site plan there?

Um there are several landscaping concerns that that this plan does not adhere to.

Um and what are what are the concerns on the landscaping besides the irrigation?

Ground cover.

Um yeah, well, that will be uh that will be addressed.

The ground cover will uh they were put in and they have to have a berm to because of the heat to keep them wet, very wet.

Um, but uh they will they will uh do the uh the covering the with the uh landscaping to to beautify the sidewalk and in the back.

So um in this plan, I also want to ask about the gate in the back.

Is that it's not shown on the plan, but it's at the property.

Uh is that something that it that would come down?

That would be removed for the truck, yes.

Unless the truck was stayed there, that would be a security issue then.

And the food truck, which is often sitting out in the front, uh very on top of the parking spaces on the south side along uh the property line, and often blocking this area and partially in the driveway in, the only one that would be available now.

Uh I see that you have that move to the back.

I did come to the property and talk to the food truck owner who was unaware that their food truck would be moving to the back, very back behind the building of the property, and um was was unwilling to do that.

So I think there might also be some communication issues with the plan and well the it's not up to him.

He's paying the owner of the property, and and we don't report, I didn't report to him on the plan, so he's unaware of uh even of this meeting.

So uh he has a move, a permit, uh he has a moving permit and a permanent permit.

Uh uh, I didn't see it myself exactly, but I have pictures of uh picks of the uh the A uh all the permits on the truck.

I do have that on my phone if you like I can pull them up.

And uh he does have a moving permit and a permanent permit.

And uh the owner said he could have them uh relocate also, so he doesn't have to be in the rear of the property or so that the owner of the uh the uh MLK investments LS said that he could be he could relocate if that uh did not bring him any business because of moving it, but he would have to move it, yeah, to be in compliance so we could so they can open.

Well, one of the concerns, and the reason I bring it up is because there have been multiple um uh business license applications and also uh code enforcement on the open air vending and that food truck there.

So I'm not familiar with with uh those code violations from the food truck, only with uh the doors.

That's the only one I'm familiar with with the doors with which would be uh uh a building issue, I suppose, to to address and to turn in plants with uh architectural engineering and and get a permit for that.

Okay, let me ask one one more question.

You said that there were trees planted in the back of the property.

Um well, in uh let me see it's on the site plan, it would be it would be right exactly right by the right here by the container.

I'm sorry, by the proposed uh garbage uh enclosure.

Right between that and the open space by care that there are two already in place.

These two are missing right now.

These are not planted yet, but they will be planted.

And as far as the landscaping, the the ground cover, that's the minimal now.

That's just right now to get those trees out of shock.

And uh as far as what the owner mentioned to me, because I did mention that part, they probably went all cleaned up.

So, well, we will, it's just we will uh so based on our conversation last month uh at this meeting and the abeyance to this month, uh, the expectation was that you would come with a plan that was fully fleshed out and adhered, as I stated, adhered to the all of the guidelines that were being presented.

And this point I'm just not really sure that all of those have been fleshed out on this plan.

So well, he uh um the the owners um uh the meeting was to go for approval.

We we went ahead and and and and uh he he wanted to uh address this of being compliance, so he um the owner he uh went ahead of time, not promising that the trees are going in, but he put them in.

He put invest in investment in there and uh he cleaned up the property, painted it, and I said, Well, uh the the painting makes a big a huge difference the cleanup and uh for the corridor, it's uh it's it's clean, and uh then uh the the ground the groundwork we'll need to do the parking, the the as far as the the the asphalt can be repaired where it needs repair.

So all of that I've mentioned already, and he's willing to comply.

He's he has put time and money into this already, and you can see the difference from the other picks, it's a huge difference.

Yeah, so thank you.

Chair, if anyone else has questions.

Is there anyone else in the commission?

Commissioner Rogan.

I mean, I I I I echo the same concerns of Commissioner Walters.

I mean, I think the only reason that that you're actually here is because of the numerous code violations that were reported in our staff report.

I mean time after time, uh, operating a business without a license, operating a business without a license, code enforcement case opened, and and finally in December of 24, so a year and a half ago, unlicensed business, the resolution of this code enforcement case is pending the outcome of our decision tonight.

And then to understand that what you're telling me is that he's put a lot of investment into this property already.

What you're really saying is he was putting investment into this property while operating without a business.

Like without going on without going through the proper processes again and again.

And I note that your client has owned this property since 2015.

So all of these code violations from 2015 to today were all on your client's watch.

And so I don't want to put words in Ms.

Walter's mouth, but what we're asking you to do and what we asked you to do last month was come and show us that you're serious about complying with the code.

And what you submitted to us tonight is not.

You've only, you know, you're you're making minimal efforts here to comply with the code by putting these street trees in, making little effort to bring up that area to to an acceptable level of development.

Simply painting the building and and putting in six street trees without irrigation is just completely insufficient, in my view.

And so I I can't support your application until you show me through a different site plan or a landscape plan that you're serious about this corner, the this this property.

And I know you're adjacent, right?

To the Pearson Community Center.

We really need this corner brought up to code.

The last thing I want to point out is great that you brought comparators to us to look at, but we don't have any context.

I don't know what the code was at that time.

They may have been fully compliant with the then existing code.

They wouldn't be compliant now.

I don't know whether they got any variances or waivers as you were asking for tonight.

So while while I appreciate that you're trying to say don't treat me any differently than these folks, we don't have the full context to really take that into account, so I'm not taking that to account.

All I'm taking into account here is your minimal efforts to comply with our code.

Okay.

Ummissioner, I appreciate your opinion, and uh that's uh a good opinion.

But as far as all the violations, uh uh the owner recently took it over himself, the the property, and he's been renting it, and he did he did violate the law several times.

But before that, all the other violations, those he rented though to other parties, according to what was said to me.

I didn't read all the complaints or what uh uh or most of them or any of them except for the code violation.

Uh I spoke with the code enforcement regarding the the garage.

But as far as all the other ones, I'm not familiar with, but he was renting it to different parties, and they were applying for permits.

So that's why you have the monumental, probably uh, I don't know how many you have there.

So they were denied and this and that, and uh, but that's that's why you have them, because he was renting it to different uh folks.

So now he wants to himself run it as uh the the tire place, he has someone to run it.

So that's that's the reason.

As far as minimal uh compliance, uh I I don't believe that's minimal compliance.

They put a lot of effort into it.

They were reporting to me, which they didn't have to.

Um I'm I'm doing the presentation for them.

And they they said, Yeah, we would plan the trees, we're gonna do the landscape.

And I said, Well, you'll make sure you clean it up.

I said, Well, we will, we'll do that.

Okay, well, I was acting as the inspector for them, and where they were asking me, and so they were they weren't working hard and trying hard.

But like I said, he rented this prior, and those were applicants before, and they were turned down, of course, and they operated without a permit, and then they were shut down eventually.

But uh, as far as the effort, there was an effort put into this.

You can see there was an effort put into it.

Not maybe the effort that uh uh uh um uh I'm not gonna say you also uh mean meaning uh uh that you you were expected.

I I can see that yeah, that I would need uh uh a stop on each side and the landscaping in between and and of course the irrigation, and and he can comply with that uh to uh open this this corridor.

Um the other, like I said, the other ones uh if that doesn't matter, these other ones don't have any landscape, they don't have any trees, and and after going through all this, he's gonna be under the microscope.

He will be uh addressing this more seriously as he started to already.

Uh he wants to open, and uh the behavior will change the behavior.

Uh and if he doesn't change, of course, uh if the attitudes and behaviors of uh conducting yourself in a manner that's uh approved uh and uh uh by the city, then uh the there's consequences, and that's with anything with anybody.

So uh I still would like like I said that to consider this since he did put an effort to it, uh uh the painting that that is an effort, uh the removal of the the tires that were in the in the in the landscape uh uh they were there for safety.

Uh it was brought out to I believe you're you drove by there, you said they were there, they need to be removed.

Uh or uh uh yeah, well, they were there so someone wouldn't fall in.

So what I did, I mentioned to him, I said you need to put some yellow tape and some stakes with some cones on top, and that's what I said.

So he said, I'll remove them, and and that was the reason that we're there, those tires.

So just for someone at the fall, somebody drunk, walking by the sidewalk and fall in the hole, there you go, you have a lawsuit, and you know, so that was the reason.

So um, as far as the effort, there is effort uh, Mr.

Rogan, uh, that they are put into it.

Thank you.

And with that, are there any other members of the commission that have any other comments?

With that, Commissioner Walters, are you ready to make a motion?

I'm ready.

Yes, I make a motion on advance 26-0013 for denial.

Motion carries.

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

Thank you.

We move on to agenda item 13, abeyance 26-0048, applicant owner, Umbra Holdings LLC for possible action on the following land use entitlement project requests.

The Southeast Corner of Harrison Avenue and H Street, Ward 5.

13A, abeyance 26-0048 VAR 1 to allow vehicles to back out onto right of way Harrison Avenue, where such is not allowed.

13B, abeyance 26-0048 SDR1 for proposed three-story six unit multifamily residential condominium development with waivers of Title 19.0109, form-based code development standards.

13C, abeyance 26-0048 TMP1.

Residence at Harrison for proposed six unit condominium subdivision.

Staff may please get the report.

Yes, madam chair.

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

The proposed development is not compatible or harmonious with the surrounding area.

Thank you.

Thank you.

With that, is the applicant in the audience and would they like to come down and speak on this agenda item?

Seeing none, I will turn it over to public comment at this time.

Is there anyone in the audience who would like to give comment on agenda item 13?

Seeing none, I will close public comment.

Turn it over to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Walters.

Thank you.

Um this particular abeyance, um, we have not heard from the applicants in a while, and we do have safety.

I do have safety concerns about backing out onto the right of way.

It is much too close to the intersection, and uh for that reason I'm ready to make a motion.

Anyone else has comments?

Seeing no no other comments from any of the commissioners.

Are you ready to make a motion?

I make a motion on advance 26-0048 for denial.

Motion carries.

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

Thank you.

Thank you.

That brings us to agenda item 14, abeyance 26-0073.

They are one.

Applicant Sam Dunham, owner SC Dunham Revocable Trust for possible action on a land use entitlement project request to allow an existing residential accessory structure, carport that does not conform to Title 19.06 development standards for separation and setbacks at 4016 Villa Flora Street, Ward 5.

Staff may please get the report.

Madam Chair, this is Holden Weissman, Department of Community Development for the record.

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

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

Thank you.

Thank you.

With that, please give your name for the record.

Sam Dunham, good evening.

Um obviously on this application.

And uh, this is a carport on the side of my house.

Um it's in a small community of 59 lots.

I have approval from my HOA.

I have approval from my five adjacent neighbors.

And uh there's within this 59 lot subdivision, there are two car ports exactly like this.

Uh, one just north of me and another one just northeast of me.

Within the notification area, I counted probably another 10 or so car ports with with the same conditions.

So uh, and then Commissioner Walters came out to the house one afternoon.

Thank you for doing so.

She probably has an opinion on this, uh, but I'd like your approval.

Thank you.

And with that, I am going to open up for public comments.

Anyone in the audience who would like to speak on agenda item 14.

Seeing none, I will close public comment.

And oh, was that a hand raise over there?

Nope.

Okay, with that, I will close public comment and move it over to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Walters.

Yes, thanks for meeting with me and supplying the letter from the HOA and from your neighbors.

I don't know if we need to give that to anybody.

If you would you like a member of staff?

Sure.

Hold on.

Yes.

I'll give that to them.

Um, I did also I did see numerous other um uh car ports in the neighborhood and did look at some of the um postcards that were received that were opposed to it.

They lived in completely different neighborhoods, and your immediate neighbors were in favor.

So uh if there are no other questions, I'm ready to make a motion.

See none, would you like to make a motion?

Sure.

On abandons 26-0073, I make a motion to approve with staff conditions.

Do you agree to staff conditions?

Do you agree to staff conditions?

Yes.

Motion carries.

Madam Chair, this item is going to move forward to the August 19th, 2026 City Council meeting.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

With that, we move to agenda item 15, abeyance 26-0162 VAR 1.

Applicant Shirley Hughes, owner of Hughes Family Trust for possible action on a land use entitlement project request to allow an existing patio cover carport that does not conform to Tile 19.06 development standards for setbacks at 4329 Eugene Avenue Ward 5.

Staff may please get the report.

Yes, madam chair, this variance is the results of an open code enforcement case.

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

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

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is the applicant in the audience at this time?

Please come forward and give your name for the record.

Hi.

Helps take care of me.

And she has a small car.

And we didn't have shade for this little car.

As a result, we had to get a brand new top, convertible top for it, which was quite costly.

And when I had this uh put up, I had no idea that it needed a permit because I've lived in that neighborhood for 50 years.

I'm one of the I think there's two, three other people that live in that neighborhood that have been there that long.

Um it was a very nice neighborhood, family neighborhood, but it has since become quite run down, and there are other similar car ports and structures that are on properties that I know there's no way that they have they could have passed.

Uh there's one in particular that has been put up with corrugated uh metal and plywood and uh some kind of a screening type thing.

It goes right up to the property line uh to the fence.

Now on this one, I had uh it's it's very nice looking.

I had it conformed to the uh uh the way the house looks.

Um and I made sure that any runoff of rainwater would not go over onto my neighbor's property.

Um so I had a gutter and drain spout put on it so that any if if we ever get any rain, uh it would drain onto my property and not onto my neighbors.

Uh I've had no complaint from any of the neighbors.

As a matter of fact, some of them stop by and they say they mark how cute it is that this little car is sitting in this little car port.

So, you know, I I had no idea that I needed a permit, considering some of the other properties there.

Yeah, she's basically just requesting to keep the carport as is.

Um, she had it done professionally done years ago uh to help with out with my sister.

Uh we got a letter from the next door neighbor who's on the um on the property line, and they said that it was fine, they didn't have a problem.

And I think someone else had turned in a uh card saying that it was fine.

Um, and I believe Commissioner Walters came out the other day and spoke to my mom to see it and my my sister.

So we're just requesting approval for it.

Thank you.

And with that, I will open up for public comments.

There anyone in the audience at this time who would like to speak on agenda item 15.

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

Commissioner Walters.

Yes, hi.

Um, as I understand you had a licensed contractor build your uh carport.

Is that correct?

I didn't understand that.

Uh uh.

Yes, I think so.

She has the but they didn't get a permit at the time.

Okay.

That's okay.

Um, I I did uh there was no objections from your neighbors.

I think you're being generous when you say that there are similar ones in the neighborhood because I thought yours was far nicer than many of the ones I saw on that street in next door.

So if anyone has any other questions, I'm ready to make a motion.

See none, please do.

On abeyance 26-0162, um, I motion to approve with staff conditions.

Do you agree to staff conditions?

Yeah, what are the conditions we have in their condition?

May staff please read conditions.

Yes, madam chair, through you.

Um I can go ahead and read the conditions if you want me to.

Please do.

So starting with condition number one of application 260162, that condition reads I variance is hereby approved to allow zero-foot site yard setback where five feet is required for an existing patio cover carport.

Condition number two of application 260162 states this approval shall be void two years from the date of final approval unless exercised pursuant to the provisions of LVMC Title 1916.

An extension of time may be filed for consideration by the city of Las Vegas.

Condition number three states all necessary building permits shall be obtained and final inspection shall be completed in compliance with Title 19 and all codes as required by the building and safety division.

Condition number four states these conditions of approval shall be affixed to the cover sheet of any plan set submitted for a building permit.

And condition number five states all city code requirements and design standards of all city departments must be satisfied except as modified herein.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And with that, do you say right are you a yes on the stock conditions?

Well, what exactly does that mean she doesn't understand what what she has to do?

Is it just applying for the permit to get the permit?

Nicole, or yes.

That's accurate through you, uh, Madam Chair.

So it is saying that the approval is good for a two-year time frame.

In that time frame, you're must go get a permit.

That's the part where it says comply with all the city codes.

Once you get the permit, the time frame stops, and then it is uh final.

Okay, that point.

Yeah, so you just have to apply for the for the permit.

Okay.

Okay.

So do you agree?

I have a choice.

Dare that.

I don't think that'll work.

So you agree to staff conditions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Motion carries.

Madam Chair, that's going to move forward to city council on August 19th.

Thank you.

And with that, we move to agenda item 16, abeyance 26-0184, applicant Black Development LLC owner Bismey series holding series two LLC for possible action on the following land use entitlement project requests on the south side of Sky Point Drive, approximately 315 feet west of Tana Way, Ward 6.

16A abeyance 26-0184 SUP1.

For proposed auto repair garage minor use, 16B abeyance 26-0184 SUP2.

For a proposed restaurant with drive-through use, 16C abeyance 26-0184 SDR1.

For a proposed one-story thousand eight hundred seventy-two square foot restaurant with drive-thru and a one-story 3,285 square foot auto repair development with waivers of town center development standards manual.

Staff may please get the report.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Good evening, Madam Chair.

Commissioners, my name is Tony Celeste, address 1980 Festival Plaza Drive here on behalf of the applicant.

If I can direct your attention to the overhead.

Thank you.

As you can see right here, the site is highlighted in yellow.

It is about one acre.

It is part of a larger commercial subdivision that you can see parcels that are located to the west and then several parcels to the east.

Just to orient you first with this request, or the property you can see it on the west side is the US uh 95 or I-11 and the on-ramp uh for traffic heading north to the south is Anne Road, and then to the north is Sky Point.

Um what you'll notice here on our site plan, as you can see, is that our parcel does not have a specific curb cut to Sky Point.

Rather, as I mentioned, this is part of a larger commercial subdivision.

There are multiple access points with uh cross access and cross parking throughout this site here, in particular one immediately to the west, and then several to the east.

With respect to some of the uses that surround us, um, just starting from the west working east.

You can see to the west right here is an existing animal hospital.

Immediately to the east is a tavern.

It is called the Lodge.

Uh just east of that is a hotel that is a Fairfield Inn, and then east of that, really at the corner of Sky Point, and is a uh 711, a gas station that is branded by Chevron and several other inline retail commercial uses.

And is a uh 7-Eleven, a gas station that is branded by Chevron, and several other inline retail commercial uses.

Our request uh we have two use permits that we're requesting.

Um the first is with respect to the southern portion of the site located here.

It is a proposed minic key, or rather under the Title 19 in Town Square or excuse me, town center development standards.

It is an auto repair use characterized as minor.

You can see it'll be located in this building to the south.

We will have a total of six bays, three facing to the west, three facing to the east.

We think this is a very good location for it.

It is tucked back on the southern end of the property.

You can see right here would be the on ramp to the uh I 11 or US 95.

Again, as the staff notes in their report, um, it is meets all of the minimum separation requirements in particular to any residential use.

The next uh use permit is the northern building right here.

It is a proposed quick service restaurant.

It is this building right here that triggers two of the waivers that are before you.

The first one is with respect to the building orientation or location uh per town center.

The building should be located along the property line at this point right here.

However, as I mentioned earlier in my presentation, this is part of a commercial subdivision, and part of it there is cross access and cross parking.

As you can see, how the site has developed out.

Um right now, the cross access point is right through here, drive aisle.

We do not have any ability to relocate that existing condition.

Um, as you can see right here, for example, this is along the west property line or line that we share with the animal hospital.

There is already landscape easements, parking.

Uh, you can see uh curb returns already located, various improvements that we have inherited.

Um the same goes for the east side of the property.

You can see right here, this is looking again along our east property line where the tavern is, and you can see we have two cross access points.

This is um on the south, and then another portion on the north right here, and again, you have landscaping, parking, and a curb curb through there.

Um so really we are limited to where we can build because of the cross access that currently goes along the north, and then kind of like an A S shape along our east property line with two points uh to provide farther to the east location here, and then a secondary uh access point here.

And these already right here are the improved areas on other property.

So, really, we have pushed positioned this building as far to the north and as close to the property line as we can.

So, again, we don't feel like that is a uh something that we um can overlook.

We cannot build on top of this cross access, so this is something that is not self-imposed in our opinion.

The second uh waiver is with respect to the drive-through configuration.

Um preferred to have the drive lane only rotate around two elevations or two portions, two faces of the elevation.

As you can see right here, we do have a third right here that loops around heading uh to the north.

We think this is a very important drive aisle.

It it's this location right here is it provides um safety and prevents any conflicting traffic moving from the cross access easements that is in this location.

The uh call box or order window would be located to the south, and the pickup window is along the east elevation through here.

Um we did hold this application a month ago because much to my surprise, we were quite deficient on the landscaping.

Uh, so we did revise our landscape plan, and as you can see from your staff report, we no longer have any waivers with respect to landscaping in particular.

We buffered extensively the landscaping along the uh south property line here, adding the trees that were required as well as trees required through here in our uh drive-through and the turning lane area.

Um, with that, we do um accept all the conditions of approval or the if approved conditions, and I'm more than happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

With that, I will open up for public comments.

Is there anyone in the audience 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 Taylor.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good evening, Mr.

Celeste.

Um, thank you for all the work on this on this project.

Um still a little bummed that you don't have an end user for your restaurant, but that's that's okay.

Still a little bummed that you don't have an end user for your restaurant, but that's that's okay.

And I thank you for adding all those for all the trees in.

And I will note, and this is really maybe for a follow-up conversation with staff.

Um I I'm really familiar with that area.

Um and as I was looking at your neighboring businesses, they seem to be incredibly deficient in landscaping.

And I don't know what the status of their approvals were, whether they are in violation right now, um, but possibly staff and I can have a discussion about that.

But I I really appreciate what you've done.

Could I impose upon you one other tree though?

Oh, sure.

Um, and it's in your triangle um, if you could put one in the middle of those parking spaces so that you've got some coverage on those parking spaces.

Because you've got one on the end, and then you've got you've got one by the minicy, then you've got one on the other end.

Yeah, yeah, basically right where your pen is.

Yep.

Yes, that's acceptable.

Okay, great.

And I think if it's not already in there, we can do the language about large fast growing trees on the Southern Nevada Water Authority list, uh three inch caliper at six inches above grade, no palm trees, no pine trees.

Yes, I forgot we did remove the palm tree as well.

I think that's a good thing.

Thank you.

Well, as yeah, and thank you.

I hope that's not gonna create an issue.

But uh, Madam Chair, through you, um, if I could ask, please, if Mr.

Celeste has a copy of that landscape plan that we could submit to the clerks.

Yes, of course.

And then um with this moving on to city council between planning commission and city council, if we could uh we'll have that on the record, and then we can get the staff report updated.

Um, and then if he could also possibly get us a revised landscape plan demonstrating that extra tree that you have um indicated tonight.

And then I will just read into um the record and added condition for to address that additional tree you were asking for.

Um so on the SDR 26-0184 SDR 1, we would need to amend condition of approval number four, which states all development shall be in conformance with the site plan, date stamped June 15th, 2026.

Landscape plan date stamped uh July 14th, 2026, and building elevations date stamped April 22nd, 2026, except as amended by conditions herein.

And then an added condition would read uh one fast growing large shade tree with a minimum three-inch trunk caliper measured six inches from the base of the trunk in accordance with the southern Nevada regional plant list, shall be planted within the landscape buffer area south of the auto repair garage in order to shade the parking stalls.

The use of pine and palm trees shall be prohibited.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And before moving on, Commissioner Lebaux, did you have any questions on this item?

Um yeah, so I actually wanted to bring up um something that we discussed uh earlier about the site.

Um I understand that um, you know, it's it's a unique site where you have two tenants um that are stacked on top of each other because of the length of the property.

And one of my concerns was um with that drive-thru lane, having traffic um possibly backing up into the main egress through that commercial shopping center.

And so one of the suggestions that came up was to potentially put in an escape lane um on that drive-thru.

And I'm just curious if you were able to explore that at all.

We uh we did, and I do actually have a draft of of one where we can see right here where where it does do that um in additional conversations with uh Commissioner Taylor.

I I guess we're we're amenable to uh to either way.

Uh we can do the escape lane, we can't.

We're we're open to what the direction of this board, though.

So I do uh we had uh right here out a draft.

I don't know if you can see it, Commissioner Lebo, but right here is where um I believe when we discuss potentially having that relief or uh emergency exit through there.

So again, we are amenable to either one as well as adding that additional landscaping um tree in the southern parking area there.

So I will I guess defer defer to you guys on which which site plan you prefer.

Madam Chair, if I can just if Commissioner LeBeau and I can just sort of and staff if I can just ask a couple questions because I I think it's a really good idea because how many times have you been stuck in a line in a drive-thru?

Um I guess my concern on this was just did we lose landscaping?

Did we if we do this, do we lose landscaping?

Do we um sort of impinge on the city's view of wanting to have um what's the word I'm looking for?

Like a screen for the drive-through.

Does it in this particular location create any other sort of traffic clog points?

Um, but I think that going forward, I think it's a really fantastic idea, Commissioner Lebeau, to have these and to think about them early on in project development because I I think that you're right that you know it does alleviate some of the potential for overflow, and I know that early in our discussions with with Mr.

Celeste, one of my concerns was he is right next to an animal hospital, gonna have cars potentially stacked up with people walking their dogs in, and does that create any sort of risk or danger to the clients of the animal hospital?

So I don't know, Ms.

Edos, if you can maybe address like any concerns from the city, Madam Chair, through you.

The city does prefer in our uh zoning codes to have drive-throughs screened.

Um it looks, it appears that um the design that Mr.

Celeste is presenting that they would maintain the majority of the landscape buffer and would just create an exit area there.

Um doesn't look to appear to lose any trees.

Uh town center does leave the design of the um drive-thru to to review.

So the planning commission would have the ultimate decision to either approve or deny such design.

Thank you.

And Madam Chair, if I can ask Commissioner Lebeau a question, have you designed these and seen these put in practice before with the escape lanes?

Yes, they are favored.

And and have they been they've been effective in terms of trying to move things out?

Correct, especially if you either have a very short drive-thru lane where people need to pull over to wait for service, um, or if you have an extra long drive-through lane where people are waiting in line too long and they need to get out.

So in either instance.

Do you have a sense in this, you know, and I so I know Mr.

Celeste is still looking for tenant, but do you have a sense that this kind of an option might even broaden opportunities for different tenants to come in there into that side?

I don't know if it will have that level of impact.

I think it's more on maintaining the safety of egress into the site.

Okay.

All right, and then um another question for staff based on the way this is laid out with like the trash and the act and the adjacency to the minicy.

Are there any concerns about additional pinch points or traffic safety if they're coming out of that escape route?

The escape lane.

Madam Chair, through you, my only concern is if somebody was being directed out of this particular drive-thru to go to pull out and wait for food, that would block a drive aisle.

This particular lot, um, the way it was designed, they really don't have the real estate to be able to create a staging area.

Um, they would then need to direct the cars to then go and park into a parking stall so that they did not block that drive aisle.

Okay.

Yeah, I don't think that would be untypical.

Uh I think it's very typical actually from the ones I've been to where you do pull out and you stage in a parking space, not a not the drive aisle itself or some loading zone area, you go to a parking stall.

Okay.

I hate to, I mean, I hate to drag this out, but I'm just curious if any of the other commissioners have thoughts on these two alternatives.

Uh I can chime in.

I can say that perhaps it's an interesting concept to explore at a later point, maybe not for this particular agenda item, but it's certainly happy to maybe have a conversation with staff and see if there's um just more to explore in that for future applications.

Okay.

All right.

Um, thanks so much, Commissioner LeBeau, for raising this as an alternative.

Um, I think then I if there's no other comments, um, then I'd like to make a motion on this item with the original plan without the escape lane.

Um so uh this is and this is final is this final action tonight?

Mr.

No, it's not okay.

All right, it's not final action, so it could be potentially up for more discussion at city council.

But I'd like to make a motion on um abeyance 26-0184 um for approval, subject to all conditions and the added condition of one more tree in the triangle landscaping area to be able to shield the the parking with the standard um conditions and specifications of large fast growing three inches above three-inch caliper at six inches above grade.

And you agree to all conditions.

I agree to all those conditions.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Celeste, for all your work on this.

Thank you.

Motion carries.

Madam Chair, this item is gonna move forward to city council on August 19th.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

With that, we move on to agenda item 17 26-0010 VAR1.

Applicant owner Mitchell D.

Streeter and Charlene W.

Streeter for possible action on a land use entitlement project request to allow a proposed patio cover and existing residential accessory structures, sheds that do not conform to Title 19.06 development standards for setbacks, separation, and aesthetic compatibility at 8400 Mulcahy Avenue Ward 1.

Staff may please get the report.

Yes, madam chair, no evidence of unique or extraordinary circumstance related to the physical characteristics of the property have been presented to warrant the requested variance.

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

If approved, they'll be subject to conditions.

Please note additional letters of protest and support have been submitted since publication.

Thank you.

Sure.

Jessica Lane with Proficient Patios representing uh Mr.

Charlie Streeter.

So we are here requesting a front setback reduction for a proposed um patio cover to be used as like a carport area in the front of his residence.

Um it it would be of the Luma wood product.

Um an 18 foot setback is required, and we would have a 10 foot setback.

As we um well, going into detail on this, so it would be white in color, very similar to this, right?

Obviously, this is showing in an ex um backyard of a residence theirs would be in the front, and white in color to kind of match the color of his residence.

That being said, when we submitted this application, oh, there is no HOA for this community, by the way.

Um, when we did submit this application, someone from the city went out to the property and noticed that he had two sheds on the property.

Um that was the exterior view I was able to get.

We obviously didn't build these, these were already there existing.

So they did request staff did request for this to get added to the application, thus it did get added to the plot plan.

He um having one foot setback on this one on the side and on the rear, having a two foot and a three foot setback for rear.

So those did get added to the variance, I guess, just because they were on the property.

That being said, um, oh yep, this is one other additional item.

This is five houses.

So his property is right on the corner, five houses down.

This is his front um neighbor with pretty much very similar to what we're proposing to build for him here.

U front carport in the front of the driveway.

That is pretty much it as far as my end.

If you guys have any questions, I'm open.

Thank you.

With that, I'm going to open up for public comment on this agenda item.

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 Rogan.

Thank you.

Ms.

Lang, I I just want to start with the the car port.

So your your justification letter doesn't say any reason why this is being requested.

Do you have any insight into that?

Yeah.

So um just with the number of family members, he doesn't have enough space in his garage, so it's attached right to his garage, so it's just for additional parking space.

It's not a situation where they're converting the garage into an additional bedroom or something like that.

Oh, no, no, no.

And you couldn't.

The um this type of a luma would cover it can't support the weight of water.

The garage is not being converted into another additional living space.

Oh no, he told us it was because of the son or something like that was in town.

Okay, what is the what's the actual size of the carport?

I couldn't glean that from the um the uh agenda back up.

Uh-huh.

Let me see if I can give you that.

I believe it's a 20-foot, but let me just take a look.

Your justification letter said 112 feet by 20 feet, so I know that's an error, so I'm just assuming it's probably 12 feet by 20 feet.

Yes, that sounds about right.

Okay, all right.

Um then do you know anything about that adjacent neighbor that has the five houses down that has that car port as well?

Because I I did see that when I looked around.

It's the only house with a similar structure, and and that's primarily what I looked to.

The remainder of this entire development does not have that carport, and I don't see that that person obtained any variances or pulled any permits for it.

So do you know anything about it?

I don't just same thing.

We just drove and he mentioned it to us, so we printed it out for today's meeting, but yeah, I'm not aware.

Okay.

Um, with regard to the sheds.

I I have a question for Mr.

Cross, actually.

Sorry to throw you.

You jumped.

I'm I'm sorry, I startled you.

Um these small sheds, they're very close to the house.

Do they go through any fire permitting process or review process?

They're only about 18 or 20 square feet in size.

Madam Chair, through you, they do not go through a fire department review process.

Uh they do generally go through building review process uh with regards to uh distance to the structure or whatnot.

And then depending on square footage of those, some of them are exempt also.

Exempt from fire rating.

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

Well, here's here's where I'm at, Miss Lang.

I generally speaking, uh, what I look to is to see whether with a carport on the front.

It's much different than a carport to the side.

Where I'm really just looking, does the neighbor oppose it?

Is that okay with the neighbor?

The carports in the front are different stories simply because they they change the character of the neighborhood a little bit more, and then they incite other people to also um justify putting in a carport, usually without a permit, without invariance.

So I can't say that in this circumstance there's a lot of other houses with that similar carport in the front, other than the one that you pointed out.

Um again, that looks like it wasn't built with um with uh proper approvals.

Is there any other reason why I should go against what I normally do and deny this?

Why you should deny this?

No.

Is there any other reason that you can give me why I should approve?

Why you should not deny it.

Correct.

Well, I mean, it's gonna match the color of the residents.

Um he is going the same exact measurement of the width of the house, so it's not like an overly sized structure past, right?

Like if we see on the elevation plans, I mean, it's literally just going from site to site specifically, the measurements of it.

Um I just think I mean it matches the property, very similar.

I mean, the color of the garage.

I don't I don't think it's something like you know, sticking out like a sore thumb, but of course I know that's up to you guys to decide.

Yeah, I'm just I'm just super concerned about other people now wanting to do the same thing and then creating that precedent in the neighborhood.

So I think generally we deny these, they occur more in Ward 3 with Commissioner Schlottman, and we've denied probably 90 percent of those same requests, even when they're built.

It's only the rare instance when we approve them.

Um, with regard to the sheds, they're really not aesthetically compatible.

So, what's the plan to make them aesthetically compatible with the house?

He he doesn't really have much of a plan.

I mean, I guess that was leaving it up to you guys if that you're accept.

I mean, he already had them there years ago.

Obviously, this just came up when this application came in, right?

So I did address that, and he's like, I don't really have anything to make it any difference, either I guess removing or you know, approving as is.

I mean, the good what the thing that I noticed is obviously just like the fire department official stated normally, right?

Um, within under a certain square footage, it doesn't even require a permit as long as we have the proper setback, right?

I know that's the issue we have here, right?

Where we're not within the foot or even here.

Um, you know, maybe perhaps I don't even think he has enough space.

Maybe I mean we'd be all the way close to the house.

So I don't know.

That's up to you guys on that one.

Okay.

Well, here's where I'm at on that.

I mean, I think they're too close.

You're in a corner lot here, and you're too close, and it's visible over that block wall, and it's not aesthetically compatible either of them.

So you know, I'm I think I'm in the unfortunate situation where I'm not in support of anything that you've brought forward tonight.

Um, does anyone else have any comments before I make a motion?

Seeing none, ready for a motion.

All right.

Um, with regard to agenda item 17, project 26 just 0010 V A R1 and make a motion for denial for the entire project.

Motion carries.

Madam Chair, thank you.

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

Thank you.

Thank you.

With that, we move on to agenda item 1826-0121.

Applicant owner Lee J LLC for possible action on the following land use entitlement project requests on at 731 South 7th Street, Ward 3.

18A 26 0121 W VR1 to allow a 50-foot lot width where 60 feet is required.

18 B 26-0121ZON1 from PR professional office and parking to PO professional office, 18 C 26-0121 SDR1 for a major amendment to an approved rezoning and plot plan review Z001285 for the proposed conversion of an existing one-story 1498 square foot office into a rental store and parking lot reconfiguration with waivers of appendix F interim downtown Las Vegas Development Standards Area 2.

Staff may please get the report.

Madam Chair, staff finds the proposed conversion and parking lot recon reconfiguration is compatible with the surrounding low-intensity office developments and will further economic diversification in downtown Las Vegas.

As the requested waivers are minor in nature, staff recommends approval of the rezoning waiver and site development plan review.

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

Thank you.

Thank you with that.

And may please state your name for the record.

Good evening again, Madam Chair Commissioners.

My name is Tony Sless, address 1980 Festival Plaza Drive.

Along with me is Diana Schiller, who is the owner of Lee J LLC as well as the applicant and property owner.

As you can see, the site is highlighted here in yellow.

It is located on 7th and gas.

This uh has a little bit of history leading us to this zone change.

I think this board is fairly familiar with the background of this, so I'll just be high level and what has led us to here today.

Um back in 2023, Ms.

Schuler uh purchased this property and did a it was able to uh successfully transfer her the what was left of her business license term to the site from where she was renting previously on uh at 6186th Street.

Um that property I would note was zone or is zoned commercial.

This is zoned uh a legacy zoning district called PR.

When it came time to renew that business license, it was flagged and discovered that a dress rental shop is not permitted in the PR or today's PO equivalent zoning district.

Um so what uh we have done with the help and assistance of councilwoman Diaz office and uh planning is process a text amendment that would allow under kind of specific guidelines a ability to do a dress rental in a PO zone district.

This board did see that proposed text amendment last month, did recommend approval.

It is now scheduled for tomorrow at the city council uh agenda.

In September, you will see us back again for a special use permit to actually allow the dress shop.

What is for you tonight before you tonight is really I would consider more housekeeping.

We are asking for that zone change from the legacy zoning district of PR to PO, and then it is the site plan development review for the uh 1200 square foot what was a former resident that has been converted to an office or commercial building here, along with just shy of a 300-foot shed behind it for a total of less than 1,500 square feet.

We do have a waiver with respect to the parking.

We are deficient one.

Uh, we're providing four or five is, however, um, as staff has noted, there is um plenty of reason as to why that parking waiver is appropriate.

First, there is uh a lot of on-street parking for the public available, and number two, based on the size and the fact this is an appointment, generally appointment only shop that the parking that we have along with the street parking would be sufficient.

We do agree with all the conditions of approval, and we are more than happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

With that, I will open up for public comments.

Anyone in the audience who would like to speak at this time.

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

Yes, madam chair.

I remember the text amendment last month and read through everything that we're doing here, and I I completely understand where we're going.

We're going here one more item next month, but uh this is compatible.

Uh your use is compatible with the neighborhood.

And um, and I know you're operating with your your temporary license or whatever.

So uh I'm ready to make a motion on this.

Please do.

On uh Madam Chair on item 18 260121 18AB and C.

Move to approve, subject to staff's conditions, and you agree to all staff's conditions, ma'am.

Okay, yes, we do.

Motion carries.

Madam Chair, that's gonna move forward to city council on August 19th.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, guys.

I appreciate it.

Have a good night.

Thank you.

And with that, we move on to agenda item 1926-0140 WVAR1.

Applicant owner, 1420 Commerce LLC for possible action on a land use entitlement project request to allow proposed front yard fence that does not conform to Title 19.08 development standards for height and materials razor wire at 1420 South Commerce Street, Ward 3.

Staff, can I please get the report?

Yes, madam chair.

While the eight-foot-tall-iron front yard fence is not detrimental to the public health safety or general welfare razor is a prohibited fencing material and does not reflect the high level of concern for architectural and urban design principles.

As such, staff recommends denial of the requested waiver is subject to conditions if approved.

Please note an additional letter of support has been submitted since publication.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And is the applicant in the audience at this time?

Thank you.

Please, when you come down, please state your name for the record.

Michelle Horton for 1420 Commerce.

And is there anything you would like to present on this agenda item?

The razor wire was as a last resort.

We currently have a six-foot chain link fence with razor wire and have considerable theft as in that area.

The tenant of the last 10 years is an auto body and a towing company and rims and tires and key fobs and considerable expenses are going over the fence with that existing height and the razor wire.

We would prefer not to use the razorware.

We want to replace the chain link fence with a custom wrought iron um shepherd hooked uh eight foot fence.

My request for the razor wire was down the road.

Should we need it if the security isn't able to be maintained with just the fence alone?

Thank you.

And with that, I will open up for public comments.

There are anyone in the audience who would like to speak on this agenda item at this time.

Seeing none, I will close public comment.

Turn it over to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Schlottman.

Thank you, Madam Chair, through you.

Um I I have no offense with the shepherd fence and I eight foot and all being open.

I I know this area very well.

I pass by this uh site daily.

Um, but razor wire I I can't get behind.

I never have ever approved it.

I've been on this board for 14 years, and there's today is not gonna be the day that I I start approving it.

So if if you were willing to get rid of the uh the razor wire, I can approve this fence.

Okay.

Um if I can ask plan staff to tell us how we're gonna handle that.

Yes, madam chair, through you.

So we could amend condition number two of application 260140 to state instead a waiver of title 1908.040 is hereby denied to allow razor wire along the proposed front yard fence where such material is not allowed.

And you agree uh with that uh with that amended condition and all other conditions of approved.

It's eight foot.

Am I understanding it correctly?

You're approving eight feet, but not the razor wire.

Yes.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Um Madam Chair, I'd like to go ahead and make a motion.

Uh uh move to approve on item number 19 26-0140 W VR1 move to approve, subject to status conditions and amended condition as read into the record by plan.

Thank you.

Commissioner Walter.

Yes.

Motion carries.

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

Thank you.

Thank you.

We move on to agenda item 20, 26-0157, applicant owner, Church of God and Christ, Inc.

for possible action on the following land use entitlement project requests at 839 Balzar Avenue, Ward 5, 20A 26-0157 VR1 to allow proposed building and an existing residential accessory structure.

Patio cover to not conform to Title 19.06 development standards for distance between buildings and separation.

20 B 26-0157 SDR1 for a major amendment to an approved site development plan review and special use permit U005300 for the proposed edition of a one-story 1800 square foot building and parking law reconfiguration to an existing church development with a waiver of Title 19 development standards for landscape buffer requirements.

Staff, can I please get the report?

Madam Chair, staff finds that no evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance has been presented to warrant the requested variances for the proposed building and for the patio cover.

As a result, staff recommends denial of the variances and the major amendment to the previously approved site development plan review, subject to conditions if approved.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is the applicant in the audience at this time?

Thank you.

Please come down and state your name for the record.

Good evening, Madam Chair and the Commission.

My name is David Webb.

And this is a first for me.

And as far as the patio, um wouldn't didn't know that I need a an approval for the patio to be there.

And as you stated, is mainly concerning the distance.

And she just said, you know what?

Um it looks as though that um you're headed in the right direction, but there's some things that's going to um come up as far as um the distance and also the patio um cover.

So um we did everything that they requested of us, and um we just asked them to move forward.

Perfect, thank you.

At this time, I will open up 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 move to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Walters.

Hi.

Um, so I wanted to ask uh the building that you're bringing in is standard sizes, correct?

Yes.

And that's why the walkway between the two buildings can only be the six foot nine inches.

Correct.

Yes, yes.

Okay.

Um, so on the next page, you have landscaping in that area.

Uh that obstructs that walkway between the two buildings.

Um so I would ask as one of the conditions that that landscaping at the corner of that building, literally between the two buildings, those I think that they I can't tell.

Are they trees, plums?

It's four.

There's five.

It's five five plants.

Those plants be moved to a different location, such as potentially uh the north side of the sanctuary or somewhere else on the property.

Okay.

Is that something that you think can be done?

So that that walkway is wider.

Absolutely.

In that area.

Um, I understand that the awning, uh, that variance is because typically it's it needs to be a six foot distance from the building.

It's not attached to the building, correct?

Correct.

And it is permanently attached in the ground.

Um it's not permanently, it can be removed.

It can be moved.

Yeah, but it's not permanently.

I mean, it's bolted down.

It's bolted.

Is there an ability to move that?

Yes.

Would it obstruct the landscaping and the rest of the yes?

But um, it can be moved, but um, the whole purpose of that is when we have a little gathering, that's where we went to because of the smallness of the building.

Um, we went back there and did fellowship.

Okay.

So based on my uh based on my understanding of this, the portable building is a standard size that you want to add.

You needed certain room for parking.

You can't move it away much more from the other building because then you begin to hinder the amount of landscaping.

So at this time, uh, you know, I I think that for me, if you just move that landscaping and and widen that walkway between the sanctuary and the fellowship hall, uh, I would I would be inclined to support this.

So are there any other questions or conditions?

Oh, yes.

Thank you, madam chair.

Um I guess I just want to I've got a couple questions on your landscape plan.

I was if you can just kind of explain to me, like you've got some of your species, you have nothing listed, but then some of the species do have a quantity.

So, for example, your Mexican fan palms, which I would, if they are going to be put in humbly request you select a different species because they don't particularly provide shade.

Absolutely, right?

They're just basically big sticks.

Um, and you're in an area that is a very high urban heat area, so anything you can do to try to provide shade and mitigate some of that urban heat impact is great, and I am a strong believer that Mexican pan fan palms do not do that, and Mondel Pines do not do that.

Um so anyway, but I want to go back to the commissioner's suggestion about removing the landscaping.

Um, how many uh how many trees would you then lose since you're already short a couple trees on the well those are not actually trees that that provide shade?

Um so we wouldn't lose much there.

Um, and I'm in full support of removing um the palm trees.

I mean, we'd need something that's going to provide shade, and um that's not a tree that would provide shade, so I'm in full support of that.

Okay.

Um, and then so you had four palms listed, and then you have Mondel Pines, but you have you don't have a quantity listed.

Are you putting pines in there as well?

I'm looking at your landscape plan, and it says Mondel Pine, 24-inch box, and then it has two dashes, which to me is indicative of I think those are the boxes that will be on the corners.

Um that's something that um can be considered, and and and we need to um possibly look at that because we want to make sure that we provide um what the city is requesting of us.

Um also make sure it's enough shade because just like you say it's uh is a desert area where we add, and um um that's the whole purpose of us moving to this project because we want to beautify the um the location where we at.

Okay, yeah, and again, do whatever you can to reduce reduce that urban heat island impact and reduce any energy burden on your buildings as well, because if you have shade, that means you know you're not getting as much heat into your building and as much air conditioning and all that.

Okay, so um is this have to go to city council?

Is this final action tonight?

This is city council.

Okay, so could that be something that can get worked on between now and city council is switching out your palm trees and your pine trees?

Yes.

Okay, and then the other request, and I recognize it's an additional cost, but the standard language that we use in ward six for trees, and again, it gets you a better head start, is rather than 24-inch box, because that box designation doesn't always mean you get the size tree that we're anticipating.

So the language that we use is a large fast growing tree with a three-inch caliper, six inches above grade.

And so if you're willing to accept that condition and still have your instead of your 24-inch box tree designation, um, I think that would be very helpful for again making sure you're getting the right size trees and to get a good start on that.

That's shade.

Okay, can I get a copy of that language that you just gonna ask um staff if they can craft a couple craft that as a condition?

Um, and maybe if you're comfortable with it, sir, we can just also put the condition about the ponds and the pines, and then you can work on different species.

Yes.

Okay.

Um staff, are you able to craft a language?

Madam Chair, they're working on it.

Yeah, thank you.

Yes, so the standard tree language, no palms, no pines.

Okay, madam chair, through you.

I think we have a few um added conditions to read into the record, if I may.

Um application uh 260157 STR1.

Uh the first one being um fast growing large shade trees with the minimum three-inch trunk caliper, measured six inches from the base of the trunk, shall be planted in lieu of 24-inch box trees.

The next added condition would then read the five gallon shrubs located at the northeast corner of the fellowship portable building, shall be relocated to the north northeast corner of the site where space allows.

And the last added condition would be the use of Mondel Pines and Mexican fan palm trees shall be prohibited.

Thank you.

And it's not my motion, but are you okay with those conditions?

Absolutely.

Okay, thank you so much, sir.

Thanks for bringing this forward.

Thank you.

And with that, see no other comments, Commissioner Walters.

Are you prepared for to make a motion?

I I appreciate your conditions.

So thank you.

Um, yes, I move on um item 26-0157 to approve with staff conditions.

Do you agree to staff conditions?

Yes.

Motion carries.

Madam Chair, this item will move forward to the city council on August 19th.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And with that, we are going to do something a little bit different.

I will be hearing agenda item 21 and also 24, given the nature of both applicants being on the same street, and in order to have just a little bit more efficiency and avoid redundant commentary.

So with that, I will be opening up agenda item 21, 26-0160, VAR1.

Applicant owner Richard Paul Vandenberg for possible action on a land use entitlement project request to allow existing residential accessory structures to Tash Carport and Sheds that do not conform to Tile 19.06 development standards for separation setbacks and aesthetic compatibility at 6512 Echo Crest Avenue.

Also opening it up for agenda item 24, 26-016A VR1.

Applicant Owner Miller Living Trust for possible action on a land use and title and project request to allow existing residential accessory structures to Tash Carport and Perg Pergola that do not conform to Tile 19.06 development standards for setback separation and aesthetic compatibility at 6504 Echo Crest Avenue Ward 6.

Staff, can I please get the report for both agenda items?

Thank you.

Madam Chair, no evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance related to the physical characteristics of the properties have been presented to warrant the requested variances.

As such, the hardship is self-imposed and therefore staff recommends denial.

Please note additional documentation of support was received after publication for both items.

Thank you.

Can I also receive a staff report on agenda item 24?

Thank you.

And with that, I'll turn over to the applicant.

Please state your name for the record.

Madam Chair, members of the commission, Denise Obordio, 9500 Hillwood Drive, suite 2042, Las Vegas, Nevada 89134.

Uh, here on both of these items representing the property owners.

First, I want to express my thanks to planning staff, the building official, and the code enforcement officer for the patients that exhibited in dealing with these two projects.

So one shed has been there since 2001.

The second shed and the carport have been there since 2005.

So pretty much over 20 years for these two structures on this on item number 21.

Um I would submit to you that the length of time that they've been there, painted to match the house, that they are in fact compatible with the area, have not created any negative impacts to that neighborhood.

It's a it's a cul-de-sac here, uh very tight-knit neighborhood.

They're all in support of both of these applications, 21 and 24.

Uh so there have been no negative impacts that have been associated with these structures in 20 plus years that they've been there.

Um so we respectfully request approval of item 21 first, and then I'll get to 24.

Um, with and we we agree with all conditions of approval.

On item 24, same thing.

Uh both the pergola and the um carport have been there since 2005.

And actually, what I did is some case history research on this, and it looks like a construction company which is no longer licensed, came into this neighborhood.

Well, not just this neighborhood, but the adjoining neighborhoods as well in 2005.

So if you look at the aerials in 2005, you'll see all these accessory structures that were constructed at that time in that same year, various parts of the year.

So with um Miss Miller, same thing over 20 plus years painted to match.

I don't know if we can bring up the here.

Let me see if I can bring up the uh the picture for the front.

It's painted to match.

The home we appreciate, we understand staff's recommendation of denial, uh, but again, in this case, there have been no negative impacts associated with the structures 20 plus years on this neighborhood.

Does it increase traffic?

Does provide a reasonable alternative use to the property as well?

Both of these property owners are elderly, they appreciate the shade.

Uh we worked with the building official to ensure that after your consideration, should you consider an approving these applications?

We are able to get permits for both of these.

We have to do kind of a reverse engineering, so that'll take some time, and that's where the patients came in with your staff.

So we appreciate that as well.

Item 24, respectfully request your approval as well, and we will comply with all conditions of the if approved.

Thank you so much.

So with that, I'm going to open up for public comments.

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

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

Thank you, madam chair.

Um thank you, sir, for um bringing these forward.

Uh and we've already approved two of these, one on uh Dana Springs, another one on Echo Crest.

As you noted, there was a contractor back 20 years ago putting these up at you know a pretty good clip uh and a good percentage of these houses in this area actually do have these um these carports, and so while if it was a one-off, it may not be harmonious and compatible.

I would say that I believe that the sort of pervasive nature now of these structures has made it sort of the character of the community, and it is harmonious and compatible with the pergola um on item number 24 and the shed on number 21.

You know, I recognize um the shed is very close to the house, but I don't believe that it is a problem.

I don't believe that it is um not harmonious or compatible with the neighborhood, it's not even visible from the front.

Um and so unless any of my fellow commissioners have uh comments or questions, I'm prepared to make a motion on 21 and then a separate motion on 24.

Seeing none, please make a motion.

Okay, um, for item 21, which is 26-0160 V A R1.

I'd like to make a motion to approve, subject to all conditions, and you agreed.

You already said it, but you agreed all staff conditions.

Yes, we we do.

Okay.

Motion carries.

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

Okay, thank you.

And then for item 24 26-0168 V A R 1.

Um, I would like to make a motion to approve um again, subject to all conditions, and you agree to all conditions.

We do as well.

Thank you.

Motion carries.

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

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioners.

Good evening.

Thank you.

And with that, we move on to agenda item 22, 26 0163.

Applicant owner Suerte Siete, LLC for possible action on the following land use entitlement project requests at the Southeast Corner of Fair Haven Street and Lake Mead Boulevard, Ward 5.

22A 26 0163 GPA 1 from RMP Rural Neighborhood Preservation to TOD2, transit oriented development low.

22 B 26 016 through UVAR1 to allow an 87-foot lot width where a hundred feet is required.

22 C 26-0163 Z011 from RE residence estates to C1 Limited Commercial.

Staff can I please get the report.

Madam Chair, staff finds that the proposed transit oriented development low land use category is compatible with the surrounding land uses and the 2050 master plan and recommends approval of the general plan amendment.

However, the subject lot does not meet the minimum lot width requirement for the current or proposed zoning district.

As such, the proposed rezoning represents a self-imposed hardship, and staff recommends denial of the rezoning and variance requests subject to conditions if approved.

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

Thank you.

Thank you.

Please state your name for the record.

Hi.

Brandon Potts, 4945 West Patrick Lane.

Uh, thank you for having us tonight uh and listening to what we've got.

I've also have the applicant here, Mr.

Adam Patel, who may have some things to talk about as well.

What we'd like to just do is is just make a quick note about the um the surrounding area.

Obviously, to the east and the south, we have commercial use and this corner lot here.

Uh, and in order for it to be operated operate properly.

The east side has uh loading dock area.

Oops, sorry, sorry, and this side right over here, and then on the south side, there are dumpsters and things there that that really make this lot not conducive for for residential, and so the general plan amendment obviously is addressed that somewhat uh making this a lot C1.

The the difficulty is obviously the 100 foot width.

Uh it's 97 feet as it exists now.

Public works uh asked for 10 more feet if they're gonna dedicate that portion of the street, which would make it 87 feet.

And uh I I believe that um the applicant being here and talking about what sort of uses might be conducive to this lot with residences on the uh across the street to the west and to the uh north, but might might be uh beneficial to help uh discuss how we can operate and make this a C1 zoning.

Hello, madam chair and uh folks at the commission here.

It's been a while since I've spoken uh at a commission meeting.

Yesterday I received a call.

Sorry, real real quick.

Can I can you please state your name for the record?

Oh, sorry, Adam Patel.

I'm the uh the owner of the lot.

I've owned this lot for about 21 years.

And uh sorry, can you please state your name for the record?

Adam, thank you.

Oh, okay, easier.

So I've owned this lot for about 21 years, and during this time, I've contemplated many many things to do with it as well.

Um, and I've been waiting for the area to actually accept something that we can do with it, and I think it's now come to the point where it can.

And as I explained to Miss Walters yesterday, I sat down with the planning commission, I think about a 10 years or so ago, and it was in the the county, and one of the suggestions they said well it they would support a C1 zone for this based on uh the if the uh condition that if I annexed it into the city.

So I did that, I annexed it, and then I've been waiting for the right time to actually find a tenant or something to propose to the city, and I've received calls for as I explained to our liquor stores.

This uh drug dealers is what call marijuana dispensaries, uh pain's clinics, and I've refused those just based on my beliefs, and also the neighborhood doesn't need that.

But something has to be done.

I've even contemplated personally building a house to live there, but there's just it's impossible with all the noise, the meat smokers that come into the the shopping center, all the garbage dumpsters that are banked on the south side, and even on the east side, that driveway, it's just like all pick up trucks and delivery.

So as I indicated to her yesterday, if we can find a solution which makes you happy, and I would be more than happy to develop it.

Um I'm open to suggestions, but there's just no way there's gonna be any residents here.

Uh we did discuss again possibly putting apartments, but I don't know who would want to live with meat smokers, industrial trucks coming in day and night, and dumpsters at the garbage end on the south side being picked up.

Um I personally wouldn't want to live there, otherwise I would move there.

Um so I am open to suggestions.

You often you folks are have any ideas, suggestions, uh please share them with me.

My only one condition is if I put my money in here, the property you know has to be leased up.

It's simple math.

Uh, if I spend X amount of dollars and I get an 8% return right now, then I've got to get a return on a property that's better than 8%.

And so I'm open.

Uh as long as I can lease it.

I'm not gonna build a structure there where I build it and then again I can't lease it, and then we go back to the same old nightmare of graffiti, drugs being used, people breaking in, all these empty buildings that get terrorized.

So one of the solutions I've had over the years is we build some kind of proper fence system and a gate system, and we put a business in here that's not open just to the public where they're just driving in there and it's just open season and back to RIFRAF.

Uh so one of my suggestions was possibly like a wholesaler distributor, uh, some kind of a structure here that maybe two bays that can park, they can work there, they can have some kind of a distribution or something that can be done there, or even a small restaurant or something where they open up and you know they close down and they have a clientele that could be whatever type of a service that would add to the area.

So I will write a letter uh to Miss Armstrong as uh I spoke with Ms.

Walters and I've been I was going to do it this morning, but I thought it would be better if we came and visited with you, and thereafter I I properly structure a letter to put this out to the city and say, what would you like to see here?

How would you like me to do it?

Uh I have gotten calls for daycare centers as I discuss with uh Commissioner Walters.

I've gotten calls from general contractors that want their offices possibly there.

Um one of my conditions has always been to have this lot fenced and gated and I'll all lit up all the way around.

That's how I keep all my properties.

And sir, we we appreciate that.

And I would just say at the moment, looking at this agenda item, we're looking at rezoning um, you know, the general plan amendment and the zone.

And so I think you can obviously would by all means I would encourage that you work with ward five and the planning commissioner as well as the city councilwoman's office on potential site uses.

But at this point in time, I think um, are there any other comments you have regarding the rezone?

Or if not, I'm certainly happy to open up for public comment.

Other than yes, you should make it a C1 zone, and you have the power in your hands to always uh have design review to accept and reject.

And I think then we continue move forward.

Perfect, thank you so much.

So with that, I will close and then I will open up for public comments.

Or 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.

Commissioner Walters.

Hi, yes.

So um this is very unique property, as you know.

Because it's it's on this block with the commercial, but it faces residential half acre.

You're absolutely right, it is not conducive to any residential uh establishments.

The neighbors are not thrilled about a continuation of the shopping center, as I understand uh that would not be your intent.

Um and like you, I don't see residential, so it's so it's I don't see residential area right there.

Um so that sort of puts it in this in-between state.

Um, I'm very you know supportive of this transit-oriented development.

And question, you know, C1, even though it is a broad, it's very broad, you know, there are things that I think you wouldn't want to have in that particular location because of the res the large residential half acre and acre lots next to it that it faces.

So um, but you're right, you would bring a site plan at a site development plan at a later date, and we could consider that at that time.

So at this time, um I'm in I'm more inclined to support this.

Uh knowing that with that transit-oriented development, there aren't a lot of other options for what this can be uh zoned.

So if there are any other questions.

See none, are you prepared to make a motion?

I am.

Thank you.

Uh I motion on 26 0163, 260, uh GPA 1, variance one, and zone one uh for approval with staff conditions.

Do you agree to staff conditions?

Yes, yes, ma'am.

That would be a yes vote for Vice Chair Slotman.

And uh yes vote from Commissioner Taylor.

Motion carries.

Thank you, Chair.

These items will move forward to the August 19th City Council meeting.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

And with that, we are moving on to agenda item 2526-0193 SDR1.

Applicant Rancho 95 Capital Management et al.

owner Masonic Memorial Temple for possible action on the land use entitlement project requests for proposed two-story 36,000 square foot office building development with waivers of perimeter landscape buffer requirements and building orientation development standards at the northeast corner of Mesquite Avenue and Rancho Drive Ward 1.

Stab may please get the report.

Madam Chair, staff finds that the proposed office building represents in-fill development of a previously underutilized site that aligns with the revitalization, reinvestment, and corridor activation objectives that are identified in the Charleston area of the 2050 master plan, and that the requested waivers will have a minimal negative impact to the surrounding developments.

Therefore, staff recommends approval of the site development plan review subject to conditions.

Please note that additional letters of protest and support were received after publication, and there is a revised staff report with an updated landscaping analysis in your backup folder.

Thank you.

Thank you.

With that, please state your name for the record.

Goody.

Good evening, Chair.

Commissioners Leven O'Heaney, 520 South Fourth Street, representing the applicant with me is the new property owner as well as developer of the project and the architect of the project to orient you to the site.

The parcel is located on the northeast corner of North Rancho and Musquete Street, adjacent to the existing umic lodge church facility as well as uh a recreational facility.

The proposed project is an office building, two-story, 36,000 square foot office building, uh centralized on the site.

This is Rancho Road.

This is I 11 and 95, and this is Musquete to really the south.

This area is an existing another religious facility, existing one, and to the west, our residences, also farther east of the lodge, which is to our east, um existing residences.

As proposed, this office building will use the existing driveway on Musquete Avenue.

There is another driveway, which is farther east, which is adjacent to the ballpark, and therefore there's circulation to the site.

There's no access on Rancho Drive, which is the existing condition.

The office building as uh read into the record, is two stories and 30 feet high.

There were some waivers requested, waivers and exception requested.

However, um, looking at the plans, we do meet most of those requirements.

On Mosquite, we propose a detached sidewalk in a 15-foot wide buffer area with uh offset sidewalks.

Along Rancho, which is the West property line, there are areas that we may not meet the landscape with, but there are additional areas where we far exceed those requirements.

Additionally, along um the free rail ramp, the I-90, the I-11 site, we also made sure that we provided additional landscaping within areas that were large enough.

Now, according to the staff reports that was posted, there were some waivers that were requested.

Along this east property line, we did provide some landscaping.

Um the intent is to keep this as an existing condition because just a portion of the parcel is being used for the office building.

As you can see along this property line, the existing parking that is actually used by the Masonic Lodge.

And with that said, I'm here to answer any questions, and uh, we do accept all the conditions in the agenda.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

So, with that, I will open up 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 Rogan.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, I I don't really have any questions for you at all.

I think the project looks great.

I think the architecture is perfect for that location.

I understand the need for the specific waivers.

Uh, we did discuss the orientation of the the building to the street, and although that's my preference, staff is supporting that that waiver request, and I trust staff usually to do the right thing and make those calls.

Um as well, I think you've put a ton of trees and uh landscaping in there, even though you you do because of that that east property line do need a little bit of an exception from that requirement, which I'm supportive of.

And I hope Commissioner Taylor is also supportive of that request.

I I think it's relatively minor.

Um she's ready to pounce, so I'm gonna turn it over to her to talk about the trees.

So Commissioner Taylor.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for that just wonderful intro, Commissioner Rogan.

Um, no, I just wanted to make sure I I was concerned because your east perimeter has zero trees, but I'm understanding that because it is essentially like you cannot put trees there because of the Masonic Temple.

Is that right?

Well, um, there are a couple of issues.

There's the existing driveway, which lines up.

That's one, and secondly, a portion of our property is actually used for parking, and then there are utilities actually under this existing uh paved portion, which is access for both.

So trying to redo that and providing the landscaping.

Now, our plans do show landscaping.

Uh, we would rather there are smaller trees than the large trees, um, just so we don't disturb what's existing in that driveway.

I'm sorry, what was the last thing you said about what's there is some landscaping.

Right.

Can yeah, actually, put your landscaping plan up if you wouldn't mind.

Okay.

Um are you not you're not able to put in like parking lot island trees on uh that eastern boundary because that's existing parking with an existing building, is that right?

Correct.

Okay, I understand that.

So given that and the fact that you are looking for I can't do math, but about a 20% reduction in the trees because you've only got 45, we're 61 are required.

Madam Chair, if I may, in your supplemental packet, there was an error in the staff report.

And we have an updated staff report.

They're actually exceeding the required trees.

Well, then thank you for pointing out.

Yes, they um they're required to have 50 trees and they're providing 54.

Oh, fantastic.

Okay, so then with just that clarification.

I and you mentioned that you wanted to put the smaller trees instead of the larger trees, which is along the building.

Okay, and why is that that you're not able to put the larger trees or the trees that we have the to have a condition on regarding the sizing of the trees as opposed to 24-inch box?

Correct.

Um, we would prefer medium-sized trees, they will comply with um the trees tree requirement, but because it's a longer building in that area.

If you put in very large trees, as we all know, sometimes um you lose them, so we would rather put in okay.

Then here is my proposal to you is um if you are willing to put in the um fast large growing trees with the three-inch caliper at six inches above grade along 95 rancho and mesquite, and then the interior trees can be smaller.

Is that a condition you're willing to accept?

That's correct.

Okay, great.

Sorry, Commissioner Rogan.

And um, real quick, I'm gonna also jump in.

Um, may you please also can the applicant can you also state your full name for the record?

Lapeni Ohini L E B E N E last name O H E N E without an apostrophe, please.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And with that, Commissioner Rogan, do you have any other comments?

Are you prepared to make a motion?

I am well.

I think we're waiting for staff to craft.

Sorry.

Madam Chair, through you, then that added condition would read fast growing large shade trees with a minimum three-inch trunk caliper measured six inches from the base of the trunk in accordance with the Southern Nevada regional plant list, shall be planted along Rancho Drive, Mesquite Avenue, and I-11.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I mean, Commissioner Rogan.

Okay.

And Commissioner, we will provide revised plans to staff as soon as possible.

Thanks very much.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you, Commissioner Taylor.

Um with that amendment, um, do you agree to all other staff conditions as detailed in the revised staff report?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um, with that, then with regard to agenda item 25, project 26-0193 SDR1 to make a motion for approval subject to uh the conditions and amended conditions read into the record this evening.

Motion carries.

Um thank you.

And if I may, can um staff send me the revised staff report that they have.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, that item will move forward to city council on August 19th.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And with that, we move on to agenda item 27, 26-0201 SUP1, applicant Posari Salon, owner 1993, Miguel Family Trust for possible action on a land use and titlement project request for proposed massage establishment use with waivers of distance separation from an individual care center license for more than 12 children and residential zone properties at 5855 West Craig Road Suite 105 Ward 5.

Staff may please get the report.

Madam Chair, staff finds that the proposed massage establishment use can be conducted in a manner that is harmonious and compatible with the existing surrounding land uses, and that the requested waivers of distance separation are from uses that do not have direct access to the proposed massage establishment.

Therefore, staff recommends approval of the special use permit subject to conditions.

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

Thank you.

Thank you.

Please state your name for the record.

Good evening.

I'm Carrie Catafemo.

I am the owner of Pisari Salon.

We are applying for the massage license.

Um we just need an SUP distance waiver as we have the child care facility within roughly 400 feet of our facility.

We do have Jones Boulevard, a major throughway that's kind of a buffer.

It's a good 100 feet of street.

We also are a full service salon.

We do nails, skin, and hair.

And adding massage would just be so beneficial to our business.

It would help with everybody there.

We also do have one massage therapist.

That's all we're requesting right now.

She's been licensed for 12 years, and she has spent the last four years at JW Marriott.

So she's well established, very professional.

And with that, I will open up for public comment on this agenda item.

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

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

Hi, I um thank you for coming.

I I also think that this is a harmonious and compatible um request for this shopping center, which is commercial, and the salon is well established with uh normal operating business hours.

So are there any other seeing no other comments?

You are welcome to make a motion.

Yes.

Um I motion to approve uh item 260201 SUP1 with staff conditions.

Do you agree to staff conditions?

I'll agree to anything, yes.

Motion carries.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

That item is moving forward to city council on August 19th.

Thank you so much.

With that, we move to agenda item 28, 26-0208 applicant owner Canyon Walk LLC.

For possible action on the following land use entitlement project requests located at the terminus of Centennial Parkway west of Clark County 215, Ward 4.

28A 26 0208 MOD1 to amend the Sky Summit Design Guidelines, Master Land Use Plan, Master Trail Plan, Master Street Section Exhibit, and to read redesignate parcel 3.3 from ML medium low residential to MLA medium low attached residential sky summit special land use designation 28B 26 or 26 0208 DVN1 to allow a section of the Sheet Mountain Parkway perimeter, wall that does not conform to Sky Summit Development Standards for height 10.27 acre portion of APN 126 23 30104 28C 26 0208 TMP 1 Sky Summit Parcel 3.3 for a proposed 130 lot single family attached residential subdivision 10.27 acre portion of APN 12623 301004.

Staff, can I please get the report?

Yes, madam chair.

With respect to the requested modification and deviation, the master developer has provided an architectural review committee letter in support of the requested changes and increased wall heights along Sheet Mountain Parkway.

As such, staff recommends approval of the application in which the deviation will be subject to conditions.

Additionally, the proposed tenant amount meets the Sky Summit development standards, and staff also recommends approval of the tentative map, subject to conditions.

Please note additional letters of support and protest have been submitted after publication.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Please state your name for the record.

Thank you, uh Madam Chair, Commissioners.

My name's Bob Gronauer, 1980 Festival Plaza Drive.

I'm here representing the master developer here, uh Southern Olympia companies.

They are the master developer of this piece of property.

It's about 505 acres.

We call this Sky Summit.

This is actually just across the way is Sky Hills, and just to the north of this northeast is uh Sky Canyon.

Uh this this master plan community was approved about a year ago.

Uh we spent a long time working with your staff and the councilwoman um in this area to get this development ready to go.

Uh we do have a few preferred developers already that have already purchased some properties in here.

We've and we actually have some construction moving along.

Um, this application that's before you today is only a little small portion of our property.

You can see I call this if you guys get your attention to the overhead.

Um what I'm pointing out here is we have about a little over 10 acres of property.

It's an upside down L as you can see here.

Uh, this piece of property, we're asking to change the land use designation from uh uh medium low to medium low attached.

Um we're coming in with 130 townhomes that we're proposing, which I'll go through the elevations and lay out the site plan here.

We appreciate staff's recommendation for approval.

Also with our minor modification and ten of a map.

Uh the developer here, the preferred developer that will be uh developing this property is gonna be Beezer Homes.

Um what I'm gonna show you here next is just some of the amenity outlay here on the property.

So this is what is being proposed as I go through.

The three-story in the middle will be no more than up to 33 feet in height.

This gives you an idea of just the entryway here for uh the property that's located in the master plan community.

Um we will have some amenities located in here in the townhome project where we're gonna have some barbecue stations, some tot lots, a designated park area, uh dog park, et cetera, in the area here.

So this is part of the package that we're proposing.

Um these are the elevations, these are the rear elevations.

What's unique about this is for those of these townhomes, you do have a driveway in here, and it's part of the requirements that we're coming in a driveway to the garage that is instead of like a three foot or five foot driveway.

Uh, you have where you can park your cars in here, and in the rear of these, we do have landscaping in the back here, which is something that we've added in the townhome development standards and guidelines.

Um, again, here this is along the street scene of the rear elevation of the alley that you see.

Um, this is the front elevation.

As I mentioned to you, this is the highest point here, it's just shy of 33 feet, and then the two-story areas uh that I'm showing you here, they come up to um 27 feet.

Last thing I'd like to just point out is on our tenant map, and as I'm gonna show you here again, we have 130 lots.

Um, we have access coming in on the west side of our property located here.

We're actually this is the uh the water tank that's located here, uh, which is property owned by the water district.

So we have Sheet Mountain Parkway, which runs uh north-south here.

Um, as you guys know, that's gonna be the major arterial to connecting from the north to the south in this area, um, which we are working with the city in constructing certain segments of the Sheet Mountain Parkway in this area.

So we are just the entryway into this master plan community of Sky Summit.

Uh, this is the to the south of us is a centennial hill uh centennial alignment.

Um, but as you go on the west side of the Sheet Mountain Parkway, that's where we have the new name change, which is uh called in this area Sky View Ridge uh Parkway located here.

Um what I do want to show you is because as we negotiate these development agreements, and as you know, there are a lot of things that are done in the development agreement, and then there are special development standards and guidelines in those uh guidelines and standards.

We deviate from what your your current zoning code is.

And when we do that, we put that package together.

One of the things I do want to note, because I know there's uh uh typically some concerns with stub streets, and in here, what I wanted to mention here is as you see in our development here, we do have a stub street which is located here, and then we have the um down in this area here, the hammerheads down in this area with stub streets.

Um, one that I do want to point out that we do have public works and fire.

They've reviewed these applications, and actually they reviewed the standards before we had these modifications put into the development agreement as a part of this package.

Um that's what you do when you have these special agreements with between a private developer and the city when you come in with these type of developments.

But in addition, uh, what we have had here is we do have um emergency access.

So as you come into the subdivision here, you do have emergency access that comes out on the street located here.

In the red areas that I'm showing you is because we're required to conform to the uh code requirements of a three-point turning radius that is approved by fire and public works, and in those areas, we are providing the required radius in those areas for turning of big trucks and vehicles as required by public works and fire.

Um, that being said, I'm excited coming in with another development here uh within the master plan community, and I could answer any other questions that you might have.

Perfect, thank you so much.

So at this time, I will open 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 I will take this one.

I just want to appreciate all the hard work you guys have done on Sky Summit in general, but also I appreciate working with Ward Force office, offering tours to the site and everything.

Um, with that, I have no issues with the retaining wall.

I understand you know, elevation and the height variance from that perspective.

Um, I appreciate you addressing some of the questions.

The only questions that I had as well was just the terminus uh onto Centennial Parkway, you know, sans the name change.

Um so I appreciate that.

There is the exit for emergency vehicles if needed.

Um so beyond that, I do know that there might be a few questions on the commission.

I have no issues at this time with us this application.

So are there other members of the commission who would like to speak?

Commissioner Taylor.

Uh thank you, Madam Chair.

Good evening, Mr.

Groenauer.

Um it's a nice looking project.

Um I just have a couple of questions.

Uh on your amenities for your tot lot, are you gonna have that shaded?

Is that part of the plan?

Yes.

Great.

And then um, you may have said it, and if I miss it, I apologize.

How long are the driveways?

I believe they're I believe there are 20.

It says 20, but I I that's that's where I guess and then what kind of curb are they?

Especially in a compact area like that.

I have no idea.

I I'm only laughing because I was preparing for other things and uh I didn't even think about the curbs.

Okay.

Um have you done your civils or your surveying already on this?

I have no idea where engineering is.

I know they're moving along quite a quite quickly.

Given the concerns that we've discussed in these sort of more compact subdivisions with our curbs, um, would your client be willing to do the rolled curbs that we have up in ward six?

You know what?

I don't I would say yes, but I'm afraid that if I say yes and I find out that they're already going through plan review and I gotta come back for a condition review if if that's my only fear.

I I and that's fair.

That's why I asked if you knew if your civils were done.

So if that's something that you can check prior to to city council, that would be my only concern because otherwise I you know, I think it's a nice looking project.

So and and I recognize that this is ward four, but just for purposes of like circling back, if you could let me know, I'd appreciate it.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

And also I believe we have a comment from staff.

Pyot?

Sure, I was just gonna Madam Chair Lucian Pyot for the record.

I was just gonna jump in, just let you know on the tentative map, cross sections B and C, or at least B, they have rolled curbs.

C is an inverted crown, so that it goes into the middle of the street, and that's just a ribbon curb, six inch ribbon curbs there.

There won't be any bumps, if you will, on the ribbon curb.

Okay, so wait, so the rolled curbs are not though into the residences.

They have rolled curve for the private alley sections, and they also have ribbon curb.

So this this would be the in the in this.

I'm sorry to interrupt it.

I was gonna say the inverse.

Cross sections B and C of the tentative map show their curbing.

Okay.

And I believe the you won't have a concern with them.

Okay, they're not the curbs that basically drop down that round.

Okay, all right, great.

Thanks.

Okay, and are there any other questions from any of the commission?

Commissioner Walters?

Yes, I have a question about um the layout of the roads.

Why is this um okay?

I'm sorry, it's on the west side, right at the entrance of the gate.

There's a stub street that ends rather than connecting.

In this area here, yes.

Yeah, I would believe there would be a conflict with the traffic coming in at that location there to have that street come out there.

There may be a conflict.

Um that's the only thing I think from a circulation standpoint.

So my concern is that all of it is a drive-in community and ends in a in a um stub street in various ways, even like delivery vehicles or you know, of course, public safety, but also moving vans and things like that.

Um, there is no circle, everything has to back up to get out.

Uh I don't have as much of an issue on some of the smaller substreets, but I do think if there's a possibility to attach that it's street E to the entrance, and then um at the very southern side, there's a hammerhead.

Um there are approximately 60 homes along that long stretch, and then um every vehicle would have to pull in and back up and move out.

So the reality of putting like a cul-de-sac or something there that allows you to make a circle and drive out since this is a one entrance community, right?

Yeah, and we we've had two options.

One, we could have done Cold Sachs or what we've done with our guidelines that we're allowed to do is on the stub streets.

We got to make sure we show a three-point turning radius.

And so what the developer is showing in these areas here, I've highlighted in red, and even though that's three-point turning radius out here coming out on emergency, we do provide those with what's uh approved by public works and fire department.

So that's the design by the developer on that.

I I understand, but I'm in my mind that's not that's not really something that I'm inclined to support.

That's a lot of homes uh and a lot of movement with one entrance.

Is there a way to connect the E Street to the entrance so that at least those other hundred or however many homes in the in the northern square of the community can it can be a full circle?

They could drive all the way in and around and out, because at this point it's a one entrance in, and then everything is just a long extended stub street.

Yeah, I I don't I don't know from a safety standpoint because uh again the entryway coming in here, if that is to connect there.

I don't I don't know if that's from a safety perspective in circulation, if that works, I don't know.

Yeah, well, I will also chime in that this is not final action tonight.

This is going to city council, and so there is room, uh Commissioner Walters for to explore some of these questions.

But at this time, looking at the agenda item before me, I can't understand that due to also the grading on this side and the elevation, there's a lot of complications as well as the water um the drainage.

And so from that perspective, I am comfortable as long as you have the escape route, which you have shown.

The three-point turns are able to be handled.

I understand the gate and it's not really conducive.

You would probably have to reject this entire thing, and this is a very unique parcel um given some of the complications on the site.

Um, I just at this point in time I am comfortable making a motion to approve.

I understand, Commissioner Walters, there might be some concerns, but like I said, this is not final action tonight.

So there is also some room for additional conversations if needed.

Yeah.

And at this time, seeing no other comments from the members of the commission, I am ready to make a motion to approve agenda item 28.

26-0208.

Applicant owner canning walk LLC for possible action on the following land use entitlement project requests, located the terminus of Centennial Parkway west of Clark County 215, and that includes 28A, 20B, 28 C, subject to staff conditions.

And you agree with all staff conditions?

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you so much.

Motion carries.

Thank you and have a good night.

And madam chair, that item is going to move forward to the August 19th City Council meeting.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That we move to agenda item 29, 26-0223, Vierra 1.

Applicant owner John M.

Bailey for possible action on a land use entitlement project request to allow existing perimeter walls that do not conform to Tile 19.08 development standards for height F 5455 North Rainbow Boulevard Ward 6.

Staff, can I please get the report?

Madam Chair, the requested variants is the result of an open code enforcement case that cited razor wire on a perimeter wall at the subject site.

Staff finds that the addition of new courses of brick in place of the removed razor wire is in excess of the maximum height standards for a perimeter wall, and as such is a self-imposed hardship.

Staff recommends denial of the requested variants.

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

Thank you.

Thank you.

Please state your name for the record.

My name is Paul Liebig.

I'm in here for uh representing John Bailey.

Thank you.

Is there anything you would like to discuss on this project?

Yeah, um we had put the barbed wire up and we were asked to remove that, which we did, and then we continued to have some breach over that wall to the north of us that's uh uh adjacent to uh uh terrible herbs.

And uh so we looked in the the uh online and we thought we were able to go up to eight feet.

So we went ahead and we had the uh the work done, and what it ended up doing is in the back of the property on the east side on that wall that uh is adjacent to terribles, like the last 30 feet, it ended up being closer to nine and a half feet.

So obviously that's why we're here to see if we can keep that.

I mean, because it's for the safety of our employees.

We run 24 hours a day, and when I say 24 hours, our night shift leaves and they come back and forth throughout the night.

So we've been broken into a couple times to have them run into somebody in the lot or something like that.

And also, I mean, just the cost of some of the stuff that's been stolen, batteries out of vehicles, blowers, equipment, so forth.

So that's why I'm here.

Thank you so much.

So with that, I will open for public comment.

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

See none, I will close public comment, turn it over to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Taylor.

Um, thank you, madam chair.

Uh good evening, sir.

I I am very familiar with this area.

Um we've done a couple of applications up and down Rainbow.

I understand your concerns.

Um, I would just I know we've had discussions about walls and lots of questions on this commission about security and height of walls.

And so I just would be curious from some of my fellow commissioners if they have any input on the status and on the application.

May I add one more thing?

Um real fast.

Uh the the elevation on the other side by terribles because they've had it graded and they have conquer asphalt there.

The side on that side is about a foot and a half uh shorter than what it is on our side.

So I mean that's why it you know, just to make you aware of that as well.

Okay, because they did have that graded filled in, you know, for the okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Rogan, did you have any comments?

No, I I think it's I think it's fine, even though you you built it without permits.

I mean, it's towards the back as I understand it.

Where yeah, it's like the it's like the last 30, 40 feet, I think it is towards the back east.

And it's just between you and the commercial property to the north, right?

It's it doesn't, it's not adjacent to the residential in the rear.

No, it butts into the the rear community wall there, but we have a great relationship with all the people behind us, and there's been no voiced issue or anything.

So thank you very much.

Okay.

Um thank you, Commissioner Rogan.

Um, okay.

If nobody else has anything, okay.

I'd like to go ahead and make a motion to approve uh item 26-023.

And that's subject to all conditions, and you agree to all conditions.

Is that correct, sir?

Uh yes, subject to all conditions, and you agree to those, yes.

And motion carries.

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

Thank you.

Thank you all.

Thank you.

With that, we move on to agenda item 30, 26 0225.

Yeah, one applicant William Hagood, owner of the Haygood Family Trust.

For possible action on a land use entitlement project request for proposed home addition that does not conform to Tile 19.06 development standards for setbacks at 4225 Leon Avenue Ward 5 staff.

May please get the report.

Yes, madam chair.

No evidence of unique or extraordinary circumstance related to the physical characteristics of the property have been presented to warrant the proposed construction of a garage addition that will not conform to setback standards and does not meet the intent of the rural preservation overlay district.

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

If approved, it will be subject to conditions.

Please note additional letters of support and protest have been submitted after publication.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Please state your name for the record.

Uh Jason Mayhew, 652 Middle Gate Road.

I'm uh here representing the owner on this project.

I do have two additional letters of approval here.

Yes, you can turn it to a member of staff for the record.

Thank you.

Um we are asking for a variance in the front setback.

Uh this is uh RE property, so it has a 50-foot front setback.

Uh we are asking for a reduction to a 27-foot front setback so the owner can add a garage to park his vehicle in in the front of his house.

Uh through the past years, I don't know if he owned the house at the time.

The existing garage that was there at one point was converted.

Uh this is a kind of a unique lot because uh down to the south of them is uh a lot higher density housing there.

And on the block on this block of uh Leon, there's only three houses that actually or three lots that face Leon that are RE zoning.

The other one of them's vacant, the other one has about a 40 to 42 foot setback from the front, so that doesn't meet the 50-foot setback that is required.

Uh so that is that's what we're asking for is the reduction in the front setback so we can add a garage.

Open for any questions.

Thank you.

And with that, I'm gonna open up 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 Walters.

Hi, thanks for being here.

Um I I also live a few blocks away in the exact same neighborhood.

So um I want to ask if one of those letters is from uh NARA or anyone.

I don't recall the names.

I don't recall the names on them.

Okay.

I did I did receive some uh letters both from a neighbor, uh the one neighbor whose property faces it, and um the NARA community signaled that they told me that they don't have any concerns with this.

It is a unique property, it has a very tall high density on one side, and none of the other homes face it.

What one home, but it is the applicant's mother across the streets.

So uh I don't have any concerns with this particular property.

There are other area uh properties in the area that have slightly different but similar uh variances.

So if anyone has any other questions or concerns, seeing none, you're welcome to make a motion.

Okay, I motion uh on item 26-0225 variance one to approve.

Subject to staff conditions, thank you.

Uh do you agree to staff conditions?

Absolutely, yes.

Thank you.

Motion carries.

Thank you very much for your time.

Madam Chair, uh this is moving forward to city council on August 19th.

Thank you.

And with that, we will move to agenda item 3126-0232 VAR1.

Applicant owner, just two of us trust for possible action on a land use entitlement project request to allow proposed front yard wall fence to not conform to tile 19.06 development standards for height and visibility at 422 South Rancho Drive Ward 1.

Staff, can I please get the report?

Madam Chair, staff finds that no evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance related to the physical characteristics of the property has been presented to warrant the requested variants.

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

Thank you.

Please state your name for the record.

Um Doug Hughes, I'm the owner of the property.

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

Um I um I just try I wanted to make it look like every other house on the street.

You know, and and it is kind of loud, so it's really more for like it being loud, Rancho, you know.

Okay.

And I I always thought it could be eight feet already, but I didn't know that it couldn't be because I looked at all the other houses that were built in the you know on that street.

There's like three lots on one side, three lots on the other.

So that's I that's why I'm here just to ask to see if I can build it.

I don't know really why.

I can't.

Okay, maybe I can, maybe I can't.

I don't know.

No, thank you.

Thank you so much.

Okay.

So with this at that time, I will turn over for public comments.

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

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

I I think two people have said to me tonight, didn't we already do this one?

It seemed like it, it seems like it was a little earlier last time.

Yeah, if you remember uh Doug was here a couple months ago when we had the neighboring property that was asking for something similar, it's the one that I denied and then reconsidered and gave him that that wall height.

And so when um Doug had come to that meeting and when we had discussed it afterwards, and he initially had opposed that, and when I told him what the application was actually for, he's like, I want to do that with my house too.

And I told him, Well, you better come back quick and get this, and so he did.

Yeah, so it's a similar height, it's a similar condition as to the neighboring property and the properties down the street that all have the taller wall heights along Rancho.

It's a very busy street to justification for it, unlike other neighborhoods is appropriate that we that people be allowed to build um the solid wall a little bit taller than normal.

So I'm I'm comfortable with it.

Does anyone else have any comments?

Nope.

Okay.

Um, with regard to your agenda item 31, project 26 test 0232 V A R1.

Make a motion for a approval subject to all of staff's conditions.

And Doug, you agree with the staff's conditions.

Yes.

Thank you.

Motion carries.

One little question.

Um, so do I at this point my permit was just held up for my block wall because of variance.

So now I just go to the back to the permit and say I got my variance.

So uh this will be final action unless I'm peeled within 10 days to the city clerk.

So within that 10-day period is an appeal period.

So after 10 days, then the review can be released based upon if that was the only outstanding comment.

If not, you still have to address any other outstanding comments.

I understood.

So wait, I got a time, I got a couple weeks and then I go back over there.

Is that what you're saying?

Yes, the 10 there's a 10-day appeal period for this application.

So during that time frame, the review won't be reopened and re-reviewed until such time is lapsed.

Okay, thank you.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

And with that, we move on to agenda item 33 26-0237 VR 1.

Applicant owner Kindy Cowl Revocable Trust for possible action on land use entitlement project request to allow proposed residential accessory structures, garage, and pool house that do not conform to Tile 19.06 development standards for setbacks at 7400 Whittag Avenue Ward 6.

Staff, can I please get the report?

Madam Chair, no evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance related to the physical characteristics of the property has been presented to warrant the requested variants.

As such, the hardship is self-imposed, and therefore staff recommends denial.

Please note additional documentation of protest was received after publication.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Please state your name for the record.

Jason may use 652 Middle Gate, and I have the owners of the property here if we need to answer any questions.

I have an additional 16 letters of approval here also.

Perfect.

Please submit it to a member of staff.

Thank you.

Okay, for this particular project, uh, the only thing that we are asking for is a reduction of uh five foot in the side setback.

So that way we could uh add a detached garage here in a pool house that are a little bit more usable than a one-car garage.

Um we are not asking for any other variances or any of that sort.

Uh back in 05, the uh there was a easement that went through here.

It was a 20-foot easement that uh was vacated in 2005.

Uh previously, uh the owners have permitted and installed and had inspected a masonry wall around the back side of their property there in the vacated easement that was permitted that is not part of this project at all.

Uh we are only asking for the five-foot reduction in site setback here at for this project, which doesn't impact any site visibility zones or anything like that.

Perfect, thank you so much.

So, with that, I will close and open up for public comments.

Or anyone, please come down and state your name for the record.

Uh, good evening.

My name is Camille Kelly, 7021 Girani Street.

Good evening, council members.

Thank you for letting me speak.

I am a current member of the Shenandoah Owners Association Board of Directors, and I live close to the side of the proposed projects, as do many of my neighbors.

I am speaking today on behalf of myself and my spouse to request that the proposed variants be denied for the following reasons.

First, it is our position that the proposed variants will cause unnecessary visibility and safety issues for cars traveling through the intersection of Pioneer and Whittock.

The property in question sits on the corner of Whittock and Pioneer.

There is a stop sign at the end of Whitick, and one exiting Shenandoah at Atkins, to Pioneer.

And the cross traffic along Pioneer North and South does not stop at this intersection.

Most of the AD residents inside of our community use Whitdock and Pioneer to exit and enter the community.

The homeowners requesting the variants recently erected an approximate eight to ten foot high wall within three feet of the street, which has already made making a left turn into the community from Pioneer more restrictive.

In addition to blocking visibility from oncoming traffic on Whitick when traveling straight along Pioneer, a garage and pool house closer than the required setbacks from the property edge as requested, will only further impede visibil visibility at that intersection.

Second, we believe that the proposed variants for the garage and pool house additions will affect views in the area, diminishing community aesthetics for surrounding properties and will generate privacy and noise concerns for nearby residents.

Should the proposed structure have windows, this could further intrude on neighboring properties due to the close proximity.

Third, it must be mentioned that for the last several days this week, a car has been parked in front of the signs that the homeowners were required to post, notifying residents of the variants.

This appears to have been done purposefully as in an effort to limit engagement in this forum.

The car in question was parked in such a manner that it impeded a casual observer's ability to read the sign without intentionally approaching it and going around the car.

If purposeful, this act would deny impact parties an opportunity to engage with the proposal and suggest impropriety on behalf of the parties requesting the variants.

Some of the community mailboxes in our community have had master locks tampered with recently, so many of our residents haven't even received mail in over three weeks unless they directly visit the post office.

So they would not be aware of this variance.

Finally, we contend that the home's current layout is more than sufficient to park all vehicles, both for recreation and day-to-day, and as a result, this project lacks the necessity required to outweigh the above referenced concerns.

The home currently has a three-car garage and space for to park additional vehicles on both sides of the home, which was established by the previous owner.

The previous owner comfortably parked an RB in the space without the addition and newly constructed wall.

This variance appears to be nothing more than a tool of convenience for the homeowners to personally expand their home or increase their home's profitability.

The proposed pool house could also potentially be used for commercial or rental purposes, further impeding the single family residential use.

The half acre lot provides ample parking spaces without removing any established setbacks and room for an additional garage without having to exceed the city's established setback lines.

In light of the concerns we've outlined, the variance should be rejected.

It will negatively impact the can't the uh neighborhood character, and this area is characterized by open third to half acre lots, which is quite difficult to achieve these days.

It will be it will create more traffic visibility, possible noise, and privacy issues.

Removing the zoning restrictions could also block a neighbor's view of a nearby mountainous background or infringe on their privacy, especially if those windows are high above the wall or in the plants.

Commission members, we appreciate your taking into consideration the impact these waivers would have on the surrounding communities and those within a thousand feet of proposed variants, as myself and my husband.

We have lived in this area for almost 24 years, and the loss of any privacy aesthetics, aesthetics, I'm sorry, more noise if the additions result in occupancy will negatively impact the quality of life for many of the residents whose properties face pioneer, in addition to those on Whitick and Michelle Avenue.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And seeing no other comments at this time, I'll turn it over to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Taylor.

Um couple questions.

Well, first let me make a statement.

I was out there, I've seen the site, I've seen the street, I made some, you know, I did the visibility check on what on Pioneer to Wittig.

Um, and I did not I did not see any concerns about visibility at the stop sign.

Um my understanding is that the intent of correct me if I'm wrong, these are not going to exceed the height of the existing house, correct?

That is correct, yes.

Okay.

So there is no change in view lines from what is being requested to what exists right now, correct?

That is correct, yes.

And if it weren't for these five, if it wasn't for this five feet variance request, they could put this up without any permission from the city.

Is that correct?

Yes, and we could actually go uh we could max it out to the full height if we really wanted to, but we're not trying to do that.

And the full height would be what?

The height of the existing residents.

Okay.

Um, and so right now it is not even the height of the existing residents.

Correct.

Okay, and so the only difference is is that you're asking for an additional five feet outside the variance.

I mean, outside of what would be normally required for a setback.

That is correct, yes.

Okay.

Um, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not believe that views are something that are guaranteed or in in the city of Las Vegas for zoning purposes.

I mean, I know when I bought my house, I had to sign off on that.

That is absolutely correct.

There are, to my knowledge, there are very minimal uh subdivisions that have it written into the C C and Rs, but uh from my understanding, there's no there's no HOA in this community.

Okay.

I mean, I I have like I said, I've seen this property.

Um, what they did in terms of the permitted extension of their yard and taking advantage of that vacation of the easement, you know, it doesn't seem to be an issue with the safety.

Um I think that the design looks to be very beautiful.

I believe that it is harmonious and compatible with the existing uh character of the neighborhood along Whittig um behind on Michelle and along Pioneer.

And so um I would look to any other questions from my fellow commissioners or uh comments.

Otherwise, I'm ready to make a motion.

See none, please do.

Okay, I would move to approve item 33, which is 26-0237 V A R 1.

Oh, I'm sorry, subject to all staff conditions, and you agree to those conditions.

We do.

Yes, okay, great.

Thank you so much.

Motion carries.

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

Thank you.

Thank you very much for your time.

Have a wonderful night.

Thank you.

And now we move on to agenda item 3426-0242 SDR 1.

Applicant Las Vegas Billboards owner, Foster Day, LLC, Series G for possible action on a land use and timeline project request for the proposed addition of digital LED electronic message illumination to the north and south faces of an existing non-conforming off-premise sign at 2401 North Decatur Boulevard Ward 5.

Staff, can I please get the report?

Madam Chair, staff finds that because the proposed digital sign will not be in direct view of any nearby residential properties, the sign will remain compatible with adjacent development in the area.

Therefore, staff recommends approval of the site development plan review, subject to conditions.

If denied, the existing sign may remain with static sign panels on both sign faces.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Please state your name for the record.

Good evening.

Lucy Stewart, 1930 Village Center Circle.

Um representing the applicant.

And again, as staff indicated, this is adjacent to Decatur.

To the north, we have residentially zoned property and to the northwest, but they're developed with non residential uses.

To the north, I believe is a funeral home and northwest is a church.

And then the property that's in Clark County to the west.

And in addition, it's the 31-year-old billboard.

We think that this improves the appearance of it.

And studies have shown that static boards, because they have the lights that shine brightly on them continuously, are actually brighter and have more light pollution than the electronic boards do because they adjust, they have a sensor on them and they adjust it in the evening and at night.

So, or and when it's overcast day, the lights become dimmer.

Also, the the um the applicant is a local, so if there's ever a problem, they can be easily contacted and they have sensors on it in case there is a problem, it's immediately taken care of.

Um again, it is a local company, and even though this can't be a condition, um, I do always kind of state that they sort of self-regulate the content of their boards, and they won't um they don't allow any advertising for strip clubs and similar type uses.

With that, we agree to all staff's conditions, and we respectfully request your approval.

Thank you.

At this time, I'll open up for public comments.

Anyone in the audience who would like to speak.

Seeing none, I will close and then I'll move to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Walters.

Hi, I uh I agree.

I I went by here.

There are no residential properties that face it, they're all commercial, and uh I'm ready to make a motion if any anyone else has a question.

Uh sorry, Commissioner Schlottman.

Yes, uh, before we make a motion on this, question for plan and staff.

Um condition four that says all necessary building permits shall be obtained and final inspection shall be completed in accordance with Title 19.

Does that cover the uh the amount of illumination and the nits that they're allowed to illuminate at night?

Yes, our code does address the the nits as you as the technical term is that controls the the amount of um errant light that is allowed to escape from the signs perimeter.

Okay, so that's all captured in in there.

All right, thank you.

Lucy, make sure that they don't blind us at night going down the street because I get annoyed every time I go by one of these, and they're blinded.

I mean they change the message so quick that you you get blinded when it goes from like a darker message to a lighter message.

So anyway, just keep that in mind.

And with that too, that I think the standard is I think they keep their message on like a few seconds longer than the standard is.

So hopefully it's not our boards.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

And with that, Commissioner Walters.

Yeah, on item 260242 SDR1.

I uh motion to approve with staff conditions.

Do you agree to staff conditions?

Yes, Commissioner.

Motion carries.

Thank you very much.

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

Thank you.

Thank you.

That brings us to agenda item 36, 26-0248 SUP1.

Applicant owner R T house for LLC for possible action on a land use entitlement project request for proposed 8,950 square foot alcohol on-premise full use with a waiver to allow zero foot distance separation from a church house of worship where 400 feet is required at 1122 D Street Ward 5.

Staff, can I please get the report?

Yes, madam chair.

The proposed alcohol on premise full use is part of a larger five-story mixed use development and the proposed use is consistent with the redevelopment objectives for the area and along D Street.

Overall, the proposed special use permit is consistent with the Jason development and the intents of Title 1909 requirements.

Staff recommends approval, subject to conditions.

Please note additional letters of protests have been submitted after publication.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And is the applicant here at this time?

Seeing none, I will move it over to public commons.

Or anyone in the audience who would like to speak on this agenda item at this time.

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

Yeah, I don't I don't have questions on this.

Uh thankfully, it is a mixed use development, and I and um I understand that this is harmonious and compatible with the use of this property.

So make I can make a motion.

All right.

Uh item 260248 SUP1.

Uh I move to approve.

With staff conditions.

Motion carries.

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

Thank you.

Perfect.

And then we move on to agenda item 37, 26-0250.

Applicant Charleston Mob Holdings, LLC, owner, Shadowland, LC et al.

for possible action on the following land use entitlement project requests at the southeast corner of Charleston Boulevard and Westwood Drive, Ward 1, 37A 26-0250 and 1 from T3N, T3 neighborhood to T4C T4 Corridor, APNs 1620411009 010011013 and 014, 37B 26-0250, VR1 to allow an eight-foot perimeter landscape buffer adjacent to a T3 designated or single family residential district parcel where 15 feet is the minimum required.09 form based code development standards.

Staff, can I please get the report?

Well, that was a mouthful.

You did very well.

Sorry, real real quick.

We'll have the staff can report and then we'll have to.

Oh, you want to do that first?

Okay.

Yes.

Madam Chair, due to the requested variance, multiple waivers and exceptions.

Staff finds the proposed development exceeds the intensity of development that residential adjacency protections are intended to protect.

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

Please note there is an updated staff report in your supplemental packet.

Was received after publication.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sorry for jumping the gun there.

Um good evening.

And in the interest of time, we'll move through this pretty quickly.

But Edward Vance with EVA architects representing the applicant.

I'm at uh 1160 North Central North Town Center Drive.

I don't even know where I live.

Um suite 170.

Um and our applicant is behind us, right over here.

And so if you have any questions for him, he'll be here for those answers.

Um we're here to present what I consider to be a world-class medical center.

Um it's eight stories, it's over 200,000 square feet.

Um, and I believe it advances the city's vision for the medical district.

Um we're we think the architecture is modern and beautiful.

Uh the landscaping is significant improvement over what you've seen there now.

And it provides over three times the required public plaza space that's required.

There are a number of waivers we're asking for, and in some cases, um, we're giving more than we're expected to, including parking, wider drives, and and uh and again plazas.

So in the interest of time, I'll I'll really turn it over to you to ask any questions of us.

Perfect, thank you so much.

So with that, I will be opening up for public comment.

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

Please come down and state your name for the record.

Oh, my name's Aaron Zoll, and I'm a resident of the Scotch 80s neighborhood that this project is gonna abut up to.

And we would just like to express our concerns on the overall scale of the project.

Um both in regards to the height, the eight-story um building, and then the magnitude of the parking structure and close the proximity of it to our residential neighborhood.

And um we feel that you know it's it's a lot, there's a lot going on there, and um we're worried that uh the reduction of the landscape buffers with the scale of magnitude of this development um would gravely impact like the quality of our neighborhood and uh kind of hover over our backyards and you know limit our enjoyment of our of our residences there.

And I mean, if anything with something of this scale and such close proximity to this historic neighborhood, I would feel that there'd be a more intensive landscape buffer with like staggered mature trees and um just something to really provide an extra buffer with between the height of this structure and the proximity to our um our residences.

It it the eight-story there's a five-story medical building just to the east of there, and um it's it's rather large.

Uh well, I live right in Ellis, and you know, you can see people moving around in the in the building on the upper floors.

So eight stories in that close of a proximity to this residential area with the lack of the you know, the reduction of the landscape buffers, I think would be would really be a negative, you know, a detriment to the quality of life of this of this residential area.

I mean, having said that, you know, we're in construction, we're pro development.

We love what what they're doing with our medical district and what they've done across the street at UMC with the landscape and that extra barrier between the buildings and the and the street and everything they've done to integrate that.

So we'd like to see that continue, that same spirit of more landscaping with this medical district and kind of improve our our neighborhood as as opposed to being a detriment to our quality of life in there.

And uh I do appreciate the opportunity to express our concerns and look forward to seeing what progresses in the future.

Thank you.

And is that a card you would like to submit to staff or um I did the online.

Oh, okay, very good.

Yeah, so I was just trying to keep track of like the different things.

Oh, nope, not a problem.

Thank you so much.

Is there anyone in the audience who would uh please come down and state your name for the record?

And if there are additional people that are going to be giving comment, feel free to line up as well.

All right, thanks again.

Hello, my name is Stacy Spale.

I live at 1223 Park Circle in the Scotch 80s neighborhood.

Um thank you very much for giving me the time to comment today.

Um the homes that are in the Scotch 80s neighborhood are for the most part all over 50 years old.

It's a historic neighborhood.

Um the the homes along Westwood that they've actually been tearing down for this project were actually built in the 40s and 50s, and they had been in reasonably good condition.

Um building a very tall building next to primarily mid-century one-story private homes eliminates the privacy of surrounding homes, yards, windows, in a way that significantly devalues the property and is not harmonious with the environment.

Additionally, the traffic, both foot traffic and car traffic that will be generated will cause issues for residents of the neighborhood, including uncontrolled street parking throughout the neighborhood.

Everything surrounding it on the south side of Charleston is predominantly one and two stories.

As the last commenter mentioned, there is a larger medical building, but it is further east and it is set back quite a ways from the neighborhood.

Pressures along the if they rezone this, it will place um it will be offensively out of place, and rezoning will result in aggressive developmental pressures along the rest of the Charleston frontage, inevitably resulting in the loss of more historic structures and built context that defines the character of the area.

Not to mention the vibration of such a large construction project could be very detrimental to the older homes and foundations in the area, which are already sus, you know, suspect to the way they were built 50 years ago.

Um, as the last commenter mentioned, I'm not against um development in the area.

I think what's being done in the medical district is great.

However, on our side of the street, we don't have these large buildings.

It looks like a beautiful building, it just doesn't belong right there on Westwood.

All of the homes across the street from it would be just completely obscured from having any kind of a view at all.

It's way too big a building, and it's way too big to put adjacent to single-story single-family homes.

So I would respectfully ask you, please deny the application and ask them to find another location for it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Seeing none, I will be closing public comment.

Turn it over to members of the commission, starting with Commissioner Rogan.

Thank you for for coming out tonight.

I have a few questions for staff and for the applicant, and then I have a few comments and some direction that I wanted to provide moving forward between now and city council.

So I guess the first question is the residential adjacency.

And do you have can you actually put up do you have the elevations in your packet there?

I want that to be displayed.

Yeah, they're all here.

Okay.

Keep going to the big fancy picture at the end.

Thank you.

So I think when you when you look at this photograph and it's in our backup, you can see what what we're talking about here.

You have a larger eight-story building there that I think is about 135 feet tall, 137 feet tall.

And so that would require a residential adjacency setback of just over 400 feet, which I think is pretty much the distance from the back of that building to the nearest property line to the south, just south of Ellis.

Is that correct?

Can you just answer aloud?

I'm sorry, I see your head nodding.

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

So absent the parking garage, you we would meet the residential adjacency setback to the Scotch 80s to the south with that building being constructed.

So the real issue is are two.

One is um there are still some single family residential along Westwood, uh, including one property that's remaining that was not assembled into this larger um larger project, and then um the houses across the street on Westwood.

Correct.

Uh and then of course the the parking garage itself, which is at the the closest part to the Scotch Asias is 35 feet tall.

Is that correct?

That's right.

Three decks, three decks overgrade.

All right, I'm looking at the revised report, and I just wanted to make sure that I understood the faxes uh that I understood them are correct.

So there's there's a couple comments that I want to make and and why I think that that this is okay.

Um first is with regard to the the homes that are on on Westwood.

For those of us that were on the planning commission when um the form-based code came along Charleston, it was a major discussion in in my neighborhood in McNeil and in the Scotch 80s, and for those of you that are here tonight that remember that back in 2019.

Um there was the intense question about should we be building these taller buildings along uh Charleston Boulevard adjacent to a uh historic residential neighborhood like Scotch 80s, and with the passage of the form-based code, the answer was yes.

Um there were protections put in place for that, primarily the residential adjacency, um, as well as you know, pretty much commitments that we'd buff up as much landscaping as we possibly could to provide a visual shield between the residential properties and these taller buildings.

Um with regard to those homes along Westwood, along Payhor, at that time we knew what was going to happen, and what happening here, which is the pri the those old homes would be sold, they would be assembled, we would have holdouts, we'd have this period of transition where you're gonna have a large building across the street from a home that was built in 1940.

Um, and we anticipated that.

We knew that, and we went forward with form-based code anyway.

There was a different understanding with the Scotch 80s and the neighbors, the neighborhood just to the just to the south, not those homes along Westwood, not those homes along payhor, that they would be protected as much as we possibly can.

And that's what I think the the neighbors are asking for tonight is do something a little bit more to protect their their neighborhood.

Um so considering that the office building would meet the the residential adjacency or approximately meet it.

I'm thinking might be a couple feet off.

That's not really the concern.

400 feet away from from the backyard and uh along those homes along um uh along Park Circle.

That that's a sufficient distance.

I'm not concerned about people being able to look into backyards and to peer into backyards.

It's so far away, it's not gonna be a pr an invasion of privacy.

That the issue is with your garage.

Your garage is 35 feet tall, 43 feet away, and you're only providing an eight-foot landscape buffer because you want to give us Ellis, which I'm sure we appreciate.

I don't think that we need Ellis, it's not on our plans.

We don't need that street.

I agree with Mr.

Sol, we need some more landscaping back there.

We need as tall trees as we possibly can.

And I think that the way you accomplish that in talking to public works is do something with Ellis.

I think you can get rid of the way that it's planned out is two sidewalks.

I don't even think you need any sidewalks along Ellis.

You could build it as an alleyway if public works approves, you can keep it as um some sort of fire lane and make that street or make that fire lane as small as possible so that you can extend your landscape buffer.

Are you willing to do that?

I think I can do a little better than that.

Tell me without reducing, because I think our friends in public works are gonna have a order that's making that any less than 24 feet.

There is a seven-foot space we have between ourselves and the adjacent property.

We sandwiched that garage between the two.

You notice we put eight feet on one side and seven foot ten on the other.

We're really not required to do the seven ten.

I like to balance things, but in this case, if you look right here, uh, and I and I know it's small, but there's seven ten there.

We're really not required, and Peter, correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think we have a setback requirement there.

We love we love planting.

But I think I I appreciate that.

And I think what's we can push the garage this way.

Okay.

Seven foot, and that gives us the 15.

And then we can increase the landscaping and we can make those adjustments before city council.

Okay, great.

I think I think you're putting staff in a panic because they're not prepared to, they don't have that in front of them now.

So I appreciate you doing that, but I also want you to take a look at Ellis, because I really don't think you need Ellis to run through work with PublicWorks to find something in there.

And what I'd ask for you to do, and since we're not prepared to to look at new plans tonight, is maximize as much as possible if you can get to 20 feet on that landscape buffer and get to 20 feet so that you can put in as many tall trees as you possibly can.

Yeah, yeah.

No, if the if if they don't wanna require that sidewalk, we're gonna get 15 plus five, we'll have 20.

That would be amazing if you could do that.

And and I think if you do that, you're you're going from eight to twenty.

You're gonna be able to put in large, fast growing trees, and and I'm gonna use the tailor approach to trees.

Yeah, I'm gonna need you to put in what is it?

Four inch caliper trees, six inches from grade, fast growing approved from the SNWA list at least of an average height of at least 30 feet.

Are you willing to do that for me?

Yes.

Okay.

And I think that would provide the kind of landscaping um buffer that Mr.

Sol and Miss Stable, I think, would appreciate and would shield those neighbors and provide the um the neighborhood that kind of protection.

The other issue that I had with the plan is um I wasn't quite sure about the the cladding, and that's the word that I use.

I don't know what the architectural word is for the for the parking garage.

I'm not quite sure that's compatible with the neighborhood, so I'd ask you to take a look at different options.

I think you have a perforated metal, which I think is great, probably if you weren't so close to that residential neighborhood, and if um if your building weren't so massively long, I think the width of it along Ellis is or proposed along Ellis is 500 feet.

Maybe take a look at something else and maybe extend it more from I I think you're only doing it on the first floor of the parking garage on the on the Ellis frontage, so maybe think about extending it higher so that it's a little bit um more compatible with the residential neighborhood.

And I again I'm not an architect, Miss Libo is, so if she has any thoughts that she would like to add to this, okay.

Thanks so much.

Um I think that between now and City Council come up with some different ideas that might be more compatible with um with that residential adjacency rather than the perforated metal, which which may not, even though it may look great in some circumstances, may not be great adjacent to the sky.

Well look at that, yes.

Okay, agreed.

Um the last question that I have is you're still your building's still gonna be about 43, the parking garage is still gonna be about 43 to 50 feet away.

It's a large parking garage.

Sometimes when I'm driving through parking garages, I just hear those squeal of those tires when people are driving on it making turns.

Is there anything is there any concern that you have as the architect designer of this building that that the structure itself is gonna have any kind of noise issues with those residential adjacent these adjacent neighbors?

Yeah, the smoother we make the contract, the the concrete, the the more the tires squeak.

So I guess we could tell the contractor to do a crappier job.

Rougher, you know, and that's kind of what you end up doing.

Yeah.

Um we could let me let me look at that too.

Okay, sure.

Great.

So those are the three things that I want to that I'd like for you to look at between between now and city council, because I do think that those um would mitigate the the issues that neighbors would have.

I don't know if I can invite Mr.

Sol and Ms.

Stable back up, if they have any other issues or concerns or suggestions, I'd be happy to oh, and just please state your name once again for the record.

Oh, Aaron Zoll.

And um so they waive the landscape requirements for that um medical office building complex and garage that front Ellis that are to the south is between uh shadow and MLK.

So it's just to the just to the east of you guys over there.

Yeah, for Alice.

So what one of our concerns with the with the landscape and and thank you for you know, we would definitely appreciate the more intensive, is we'd like to see something wherein it's not just a single row of trees.

Um it's like a more intensive where you have like the staggered rows.

Well the problem becomes over time nobody wants to maintain that so half of those trees have died and being that they're single trees now we have this glaring huge you know that one's just a two-story garage and it's it's it's pretty massive when you're sitting at your house looking at this concrete structure fronting you with the lack of landscaping and then you have the lighting the other aspect of be on a commercial property with lighting we'd like to see specific like down lighting only no broadcast lighting no intensive like stuff that lights up the garage at night and then we also would need a shield like you touched on when you're making those corners in that garage say somebody's working late and they come out of the garage fire up the car start driving off you have this sweep of headlights across our bedroom windows and our yards and it it becomes light pollution and um we're gonna probably we're gonna probably screen that completely so you won't see anything that would be great but on a five story parking garage on the levels headlights LED headlights protruding screened on the level of this I'm just gonna make a suggestion that things like that perhaps the two of you can get together and discuss other other issues and concerns that the neighborhood has that that can be addressed.

We don't have to have this entire conversation here tonight but I think we get the gist Mr Zoll and I appreciate you coming back up.

Taking it all in okay great and thank you for the opportunity and we appreciate it.

All right thank you and and I'm happy to meet with with you as well and Miss Stable did you have anything else to add yes I I have concerns about obviously I have concerns about the project as a whole being too massive for where you're talking about putting it but um outside of that the street frontage along Westwood it looks like based in the drawings it's just going to be a big bunch of concrete the whole length of it um it that is not at all conducive or harmonious to our neighborhood you know we we moved into this neighborhood reinvested in downtown because of the historic nature of it and I would we're I would respectfully ask that you reconsider the scale of this project and and not make it eight stories is is ridiculous in that area other than that one building that he's talking about um that Mr.

Zoll was talking about further down everything else in that area is like two stories two to three stories max is an enormous building that you're sticking right in the middle of a one story historic neighborhood you know it it just it it I am still very opposed to it I know a lot of my neighbors are opposed to it that couldn't be here today um but I don't know if we get another chance to oppose this at the city council meeting but you know this is just not a great development for this spot I understand the medical district and what you're doing there is great but you're you're shoving this in the middle of our neighborhood and I just I'm still very opposed to it.

Yes trees would be nice but they're not gonna cover up the fact that there's a hundred and whatever you said hundred however many feet an eight story building is gonna be um right now from my house in my family room I can see the fireworks of downtown all of that will be gone I won't have any view other than this giant building out of my out of my windows at night so you know I guess I oppose this and um I really would urge you to please think harder about this I don't know about the form code you passed but this isn't a good idea at all.

And Miss Stable I'm happy to meet with you after the meeting if you hang out.

Thank you.

Thanks and I just I think we we've addressed the issue of revisiting the the exterior of the parking garage to make it more compatible as Miss Stable said with with a neighborhood and I know Miss Libow wants to Commissioner Libra wants to say some things so if chair is okay if we could turn it over to her.

Just wanted to say thank you for bringing this to us um I think the the building is actually beautiful um I think it's you know it it has a great modern design to it um and really you know kind of contrasts with what's going on in that neighborhood and I think we need to see see more of that.

So one of the suggestions I have is instead of using um a painted off-white um perforated metal, maybe doing something a little bit darker, like a bronze that kind of goes along with the mullions that you're proposing on the main structure.

Um, and maybe potentially bringing in some of those angles that you have um with the mullions and doing something a little bit more decorative on the perforated metal for that structure.

Um the other uh question I had is you know what what exactly is that perforated metal?

What is the openness of it and what can we see through that that structure?

Are we going to see you know the concrete through that metal?

Um are we going to see the cars through that metal?

Um, because that openness really transforms how that metal appears from a distance.

And so doing something maybe a little less open um on the residential side to kind of screen that garage and the cars a little bit better might be beneficial.

So that was it.

It can be tightened up a little bit.

Yes.

Appreciate that.

If I if I could add something, Eric Swinside uh EVNA architects, same address as Ed.

Um we did think about the the parking garage and those materials, the perforated material.

We haven't picked that perforation, the density of it yet.

Um we've layered it, it doesn't come across in these um far away elevations, but it's kind of it's got a rhythm to it.

Um we chose white um so that we we could do a darker color on the tinted concrete beyond, so that you're not seeing uh I was afraid that you'd see with the perforation a dark perforation, you'd the the light colored concrete would just come through.

And so we try to do something different so the light hits it and you see that the perforation stands out, that panel stands out.

So we could look at it and do some daylight studies and see try to park some cars in our models and see what it would look like, um, especially at nighttime when you have lights on and kind of uh some of those perforations, the effect goes away because it's nighttime and lights coming through.

So uh we could certainly look into that a little more.

Appreciate that.

Thank you.

All of your comments have been very helpful, and we will take them all into account Commissioner Schlottman.

Yes, uh, Madam Chair, through you.

Um, and reviewing this, and to echo the uh comments from Commissioner Rogan.

We we've had the transit-oriented development and uh and the form-based code, which is looking at you know, more of these structures as they're going up and down Charleston on both sides of the street, and there was a lot of discussion um on this before that was actually passed.

Um my bigger concern is um one, do we have the required number of trees um uh on that south property line?

Well, you're gonna get more now because we just got another eight to 15 feet.

Okay, we're gonna we're gonna have to relandscape that whole edge, and that'll probably be more than you require.

Okay, and then we'll stagger them too if he recommended.

That'd be great.

Number two, I I don't have as big of an issue with the perforated still.

Uh, I feel that you know, you could you could you could make this work, you could make a lot of things work.

Um, we I was involved with a uh uh parking garage a few years ago, and uh one of the things that I told the architect was you gotta make it look good from the outside.

I'm tired of looking at these parking garages that look like they were built back in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, where they just built the concrete structure and they didn't do anything to embellish the outside.

Um and that doesn't just go for the side that faces Charleston or that faces Westwood or faces the highway, it also goes for the side that faces the residents, right?

Because um, you know, the residents that live back there on Westwood and Park Circle and that whole Scotch 80 area, they don't want to look at that.

And and you know, you you have it on the first floor, but you don't have it on the second and third floor facing the Scotch 80s.

So I would I would want to see you spend a few extra dollars adding that on the second and third floor.

That and as Aaron was saying, you know, the the LED lights and stuff like that that that come through a little perforate it still or things like that that goes a long way to blocking you know these bright lights on these brand new vehicles uh shunning into a dark neighborhood.

And then somebody else made a comment about the squeaky tires, and you said you really can't do anything about that, but you can.

I mean, think about it.

Go into the cosmopolitan and pull into the valet, it's polished concrete and polished concrete that's waxed and sealed.

It's real squeaky.

And if you go into a paint it like uh uh an epoxy floor, it's really squeaky.

Go into another parking garage that has a broom finished floor.

Right.

You don't have that squeak.

That's right.

So that I mean, that's something you can call out in Synarchitect to make sure you have broom finished concrete, and we're not sitting here listening to all these squeaks all night long.

So it's a very quiet neighborhood over there.

I agree.

So those are my comments.

Thank you so much, Commissioner Taylor.

Uh thank you, madam chair.

I guess my first question is we've had this whole discussion, and it's gonna be out of our hands.

You guys are taking notes, but all of our advisory thoughts may or may not make it over to city council.

And I don't know if Commissioner Rogan plans to shepherd this up to city council and make sure that some of those very pointed notes make it into revisions.

Um, so that's my first concern, and I didn't know if it made sense to try to craft any conditions with a motion with this just to make sure.

Not not saying I don't trust you, but I'm just saying the frankly, like as I sit right now, I I'm not in support of this.

I think it's too big.

I understand the TOD, I get it, but I feel for these neighbors.

I think this is oppressive for them to have to deal with.

But I also understand the importance of bringing new development into the medical district, and I think it's it's critical for our city.

However, I I am really torn, and I, as I'm sitting here right now, I just don't think I'm a yes on this.

But and that is why I really want to make sure that these things that we're talking about make it in as a condition, not as a oh, we'll think about it, because then it's gonna go to city council, and we've had this great robust discussion, and it may not be there.

Um so those are that's sort of my opening thought.

Um, I had a specific question on uh some of your plans to Commissioner Schlottman's comments about parking uh structures.

You've got this mural, and I didn't know which way it faces.

Does the mural face in to the development or does it face out towards the residences?

It traces it faces.

I mean, maybe the residents don't want actually but that one's on the zero lot line, the current zero lot line that's yeah, kind of facing east.

And so we'd very likely have another mural if we if we got rid, like I'd say got rid of that seven foot buffer between this parking lot and our garage, we'd have to enclose that whole thing.

It's a code uh adjacency issue.

So you'd we did close that.

That's why we had the mural, so that you didn't have just a big wall of concrete adjacent to those those properties as an eye sore along Charleston.

So certainly understand the desire to to keep this aesthetically pleasing from a number of scales to a number of different users, so we're open to those.

Yep.

Okay.

So I mean, I and then the other uh the other question that I had, um, and I know it's getting late, was we talked about the landscaping, um, we talked about conditions.

What was the other question I had um specifically on this?

Um so I guess maybe I don't know, Commissioner Rogan, if for the record we could just identify your bullet list and the bullet list basically of things that have been discussed, so that then that is a specific inventory of items that they have to take back and work on before it comes to city council.

Um and maybe that's something that we can do.

Oh, I know what it was.

Um, I appreciate very much Commissioner Rogan putting in my uh language about tree calipers and distance and everything because it is gonna be important to make sure that these are um decent sized trees.

But the other thing is that I know it's not on your landscape plan, but just in case anybody thinks they want to put a pine tree or palm tree in, I would appreciate it if you could not do that because they don't create shade and they are messy and high maintenance from the pine side.

Of course.

Um Commissioner Taylor, are you done?

Or I think so.

I just want to see if Commissioner Rogan thought that that was a smart idea to at least inventory the things we want them to detail or bullet list the things we want them to go back with if we're not in an appetite to actually create conditions.

Right.

And and I'm not in an appetite to create conditions because I think that the primary idea of increasing that landscape buffer, there's a lot of moving pieces that there's gonna have to be a lot of work, I think, with public works and with fire that you know we weren't prepared to do in the past week, and I'm not prepared to do tonight, which is why I went with the direction route, and I'm happy to be a shepherd and and bring the lamb to the city council, if you will.

So to that extent, I will want to meet with you after this meeting to see the progress along these these topics.

One is maximizing the landscape buffer through whatever means, as long as you're not coming back here for any waivers, exceptions, or variances.

Um, you've gotten some direction on what types of trees and the size of trees, large, fast growing.

I don't need to repeat myself on that.

So that's the second bullet point.

The third bullet point is with regard to the parking structure itself.

Make sure that the again, I'll use my word that the cladding material is something that's compatible with the neighborhood, not so much the architectural desires, but something that the neighborhood would would be inclined to support and because they're the ones they're gonna have to look at this every day.

Right.

Also, with the added um concern that we want to make sure that the lights at night are shielded the um from uh the adjacent neighbors as well.

Fourth is um along with you'll have residential adjacency standards on lighting.

Um please comply with those.

That's that's a given.

And then I think fifth was am I missing anything?

Oh, the noise, the noise mitigation.

Let's investigate that.

I want city council if they can to make that a condition.

Right.

So I think those are the main concerns that I have, and and and I say this to the neighbors.

I live in a house that borders commercial property on Charleston, so I am very cognizant of residential adjacency as our code enforcement knows.

I'm very cognizant of light issues, of noise issues, um, and of uh landscape waivers, so I and variances.

So I want to make sure that those concerns are addressed.

But considering that the volume of requests that we have tonight, just moving this forward to city council and you working on it between now and city council, and if you need a can uh continuance at city council, please avail yourself of that so that this is done right.

Any questions for me?

Another bullet point that he made.

We will not light this the side of the rear of the garage.

Okay, that's another thing you didn't like.

So yeah, well, and I just want to make sure that we address that appropriately so that there's not security concerns on a dark Ellis.

Um that's for you to discuss, and then we can have that discussion before city council, okay?

And Commissioner Rogan.

Yes, and item number six or seven uh to screen the rest of the south elevation of that parking garage.

Thank you.

Yes, screen screen the entire building.

Um, if you folks could hang around and you folks can hang around since this is the last item, I'll have a discussion with you afterwards.

But unless there's any other comment, I'm ready to make a motion with the direction that's been given and the existing conditions, knowing that they're gonna change between now and city council.

You agree to the existing conditions in this amended staff report today.

Yes, okay.

All right.

With that being said, I'm make a motion to approve agenda item 37 project 26-0250 uh parts A, B, and Crawling Sandy.

Um, but I am a yes.

Yes.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Madam Chair, uh, this item will move forward to the August 19th City Council meeting.

Thank you.

And with that, we move to our final item for the night, citizens' participation.

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

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

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

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

Seeing no one coming down for public comment, I will close the public comment and the meeting is adjourned.