Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. It's time to start our meeting. If you would please be sure to silence your cell phones so we don't have any noise out there. That would be appreciated. I would like to now call this evening's meeting of the Planning Commission to order. Before we begin, please note that this meeting is being video recorded and streamed live to the Internet. May I have confirmation and roll call? Chair Volkeman, the agenda has been posted according to the Nevada Open Meeting Law. All commissioners are present except Commissioners Dave Beeson and Jennifer Lewis who are excused and you have a quorum. Thank you. Will you please join me in stating the Pledge of Allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Staff, are there any changes to the agenda? Yes, Mr. Chairman. The following memorandums have been included in the backup documentation. Item number 10 for Horizon Ridge and Erogyi. The memo is revising the justification letter and a lot fit exhibit. There's additional background for both those items. And item number 11 for CT Realty. There's a memo modifying condition number 12 for ZCA 2025016803 and deleting conditions 52 and 53 for DRA 2025016804. Thank you. Since there are no continued items, is there a motion to accept the agenda? I'll make a motion to approve. The agenda as amended. So the motion was made by Commissioner Humes. Please vote. And that item passes. This brings us to the consent agenda consisting of items one through four. Is there anyone here who wishes to have an item pulled from consent for discussion or public comment? Seeing no one, may we have a motion on the consent agenda items one through four? I'll make a motion to approve all of the items on the consent agenda. Commissioner Brunson made the motion. Please vote. Staff, may we hear the first item? That brings us to item number five. Item number five is a petition to vacate a portion of right-of-way and non-exclusive utility easement along the east edge of properties located at 545 Eastgate Road and 568 Parkson Road in the Eastgate redevelopment midway planning areas. Staff recommends approval, and this item is to be heard at the July 15th City Council meeting. Thank you. Do we have an applicant on this item? Okay. No applicant. I think considering it's just a vacation and it'll be heard by City Council, I'm going to go ahead and open public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to speak on this item? Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing. Commissioners, comments, questions, or a motion? Make a motion to approve. VAC-2025016152, subject to findings of fact. COMMISSIONER GRIZMANOUSKIS, May the motion please vote. That item passes. COMMISSIONER GRIZMANOUSKIS, Commissioner Item 6. is a request for a master sign plan approval that includes seven modifications which are A through G from the former 2018 Development Code Standards in conjunction with an approved commercial development located north of the intersection of Via Inspirata and Via Centro. Modifications A and B are combined the same to increase the allowed sign height from 16 feet to 30 feet and allowed sign area from 160 square feet to 390 square feet for a free-standing multi-tenant sign and these are signs B and D. Modification C is to increase the allowed sign height from 6 feet to 8 feet and sign area from 24 square feet to 40 square feet for sign E, which are directory signs. Modification D is to increase allowed height from 8 feet to 11 feet 8 inches and and allowed sign area from 80 square feet to 307 square feet for a free-standing single-tenant sign, and this is sign F. Modification E is to increase allowed sign area from 6,147 square feet to 6,720 square feet for wall signage for the project. Modification F is to increase the allowed sign height from 16 feet to 56 feet and allowed sign area from 160 square feet to 630 square feet and this is for freestanding sign A and the last modification is to increase allowed height from 8 feet to 30 feet and sign area from 80 square feet to 165 square feet for single tenant sign C. Staff is recommending approval of the first five modifications. These are A through E in support of the commercial development. However, staff is recommending denial the final two modifications which are F and G. because of their excessive size, modification F, which is sign A, is three times the allowed height and proposes a 400% increase in area. Modification G, which is sign C, is about four times the allowed height and double the sign area. Staff finds that also increased visibility for this sign is not necessary, and this action would be final unless appealed. Thank you. applicant name and zip code for the record please. Neil Sansone 89074. And do you agree with staff's recommendation? I do as to items A through E and on F and G respectfully we believe that they are justified. Okay. Any other comments? I want to first and foremost ask if following the briefings if there are any additional questions regarding the two specific signs that I can address. If not, I have just a couple of general comments. Okay. We'll have the questions after the open and close the public hearing. So if you've got some comments you'd like to make, go ahead. Unless you want to wait for questions. I'll go right ahead. Okay. So I just wanted to boil it down to two main points. Regarding staff's denial on these two items, the height on the main sign A, which is listed as exception F, is not excessive and justified due to the specific conditions of the site and the constraints put by the build to zone from this specific site. This practical hardship makes it very difficult as the corner that every other commercial property would put all of its normal signage becomes not only impractical, but generally impossible due to this requirement. As such, it makes it ineffective for vehicles approaching this as a key corridor to particularly see pedestrians, landscape, and other site obstructions while also trying to see any signage. Additionally, this sign and its specific height allows it to interface with the adjacent commercial project that will soon be in Sporata Stations, which is a major commercial development in this large urban-scaled environment. This demands a proportionate signage to the impact of the area, given that it is the Inspirata Town Center and that it is a high density, major impact commercial future development for all of West Henderson. And the second main point I would like to bring up is regarding staff's comments that the wall signs are sufficient. Generally speaking, while it is helpful for identification when you are on site, it is not ultimately determined as a primary locator for first time visitors or thorough traffic for the site. The primary function of the pylon sign is not necessarily to supplement this wall signage, but is to guide and attract customers prior to entering the site and offer often at key decision points about when they must choose to enter a driveway and where they are going. Now as such, these wall signs are generally parallel oriented to the road and as I had mentioned before, That parallel visibility of signs makes it incredibly difficult to make them legible, yielding less than a second of visibility as you're driving down the road and these wall signs sit out of your peripheral vision. And ultimately in this, what will be a high-density competitive corridor in the fast-moving traffic environment, one station casino goes in, advanced visibility and decision time are not only critical to drivers, but critical to the success of the tenants in the shopping center. This elevated pylon sign provides a central high visible reference point that no combination of wall signs can replicate and is a key factor into some of the prospective tenants that we are working with including the grocer anchored tenant at this site. It is a key factor in their decision about whether to move forward. And with that I will yield to questions. Thank you. At this time I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to speak on this item? Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing. Commissioners, I'm sure there's some questions. Are there questions? I do. Mr. Sansone, I want to just, I want to say that I found your arguments compelling enough that I took the time to kind of drive the comparison site that you pointed out during briefing the other day along St. Rose that also has that minimal setback requirement for the buildings as they rear the roadside. And I agree with you, I couldn't see the signage for the buildings as I was passing them at speed. I couldn't do so safely. So I've looked at your plans again, and I find myself in a quandary because the sign is gigantic, and it is three, four times? taller than it's supposed to be. That said, there's really no other place for you to put it. And then to my fellow commissioners, I'll say, listen, I'm a real estate appraiser. And so recently, I've been doing feasibility analyses and things like that on commercial projects here in Nevada and elsewhere. And it's interesting to me as I'm reading the leases for these key tenants and how much emphasis these key tenants are putting on signage and literally A lot of times these projects simply don't pencil without that key tenant, that anchor tenant. And if they don't get their sign, we don't get a project. So it's not that we need the project or anything. For me, more than anything, I think this is another thing where I'd love to see some reconsideration at some point of our overall sign plan. I know this may not be the place or the time to... ask that thing, it's just a comment, because I'm looking at the unique characteristic of this particular site, and your arguments make sense to me. I just don't know that they make sense enough to go so blatantly against the sign code. Any other questions from my fellow committee? I agree with you. I do need to look at our sign program a little bit. But that's me. MR. So I have a question. Is it, I know in briefing we talked a little bit about maybe putting the sign on the side of the building instead of being on top of the building. Is that a possibility? What are the limitations on that? Why would that not be a good place for it? MR. Unfortunately, Commissioner, that was our first idea. But essentially the build to requirements that the code requires us to adhere to puts our property within five feet of a property line, and everything else is public right away. And unless you want the Inspirotic Trail to have a 20-foot sign looming over pedestrians walking through, it's just we didn't think it was the right idea. And what I meant is putting it on the side of the building as you're headed south, that building that's on the corner there, that the sign's above, instead of having it above it, could you put it on the side of the building instead of sticking out? I mean, just on the side of the building, it'd be one-sided, but you'd have something there. That height from our initial discussions with the anchor tenant and some of the others, if I may use this exhibit as reference to show you. So this being Stations Casino site, under what they currently have planned or developed under most recent entitlements, As you can see for their site, they have a sizable setback. And if it is going to be any indication of their other sites, we'll likely have a 40, 50, 60, 80-foot sign. I don't know the exact measurement of Durango stations. I just know it's big. And with that said, the anchor tenants for our site in particular have indicated the need to capture all of this visibility because for most people, they will drive to Inspirata and they will stop at stations and not know that there is more further. Going beyond that is going to be difficult for a lot of people, because our project is going to compete with the titan at his station's casino. And we think it is going to be synergistic, and we look forward to having them develop their project. But ultimately, for the survivability of our tenants, and to make this project not only pencil, but for the anchor tenant to want to finalize its decision to go here, one of the key things they said day one was, I need signage. Regardless of what that data says about cell phones and visibility and driving. It is a core principle to every deal they do across this entire country. Without signage, they won't go. Would you be willing to reduce the height and maybe, because right now you're gonna have an LED display up top, and then you were going to, if you can put that, if you've got that and show it, so I, do you have a picture of that by chance? If you could put it down there on the document. So you've got the LED where it shows the silver Knights or the Golden Knights logo. And then you've got slots for different retailers there. And my thought is you've got a similar sign which has the slots for a retailer near the driveway. Would you be willing to reduce the height of this sign so that maybe just the LED, if you had a preference, would you go with LED or would you go with the, for lack of better words, the reader board or the static sign? I think a reduction in the overall, whether a combination of just the LED or I think what is referenced is the EDG component or the static signage is something that we would be able to accommodate. The exact amounts of which is not my forte. get with our signage team and look at what that would look like to make sure we're complying with code in terms of scaling that sign. But I do think it's something we'd be open to. Okay. I'd be a little bit more willing to have something that's a reduction in size versus the height right now. I mean, basically you're requesting numerous waiver of standards for this project. And I understand the importance of signage, and I agree with Commissioner McEwen. Brunson on that. So just trying to find a solution that possibly can satisfy the city code and the commissioners here. So, you know, that we could look to doing that in lieu of having such a high, large sign above a building. And then I also, during briefing, we talked about the pylon sign or the the one sign that's to the right of this one, closer to where your next project is? And that's one of the ones that is recommended for denial. Is that something that we could include in your future phase signage package? Because it will probably be within code at that point because you have enough building to do that. If ultimately denied, then if we have to include it with the next signage package, it's something we'll definitely consider. But ultimately, one of the things I wanted to, if I may, bring up for this particular sign. As mentioned at the briefings, due to the unique site conditions, this sign's location is meant to go where there is an 11 foot retaining wall. And the request is to make the sign about the same size as other signs that staff has already approved, the 30 foot height, and to match the height of the adjacent building that it's next to. And ultimately, these monikers of this visual site identification is not so much about a tenant name. This sign makes us no money other than it creates a feeling of branding for the site. And the idea came from the wildly successful downtown Summerlin site. This is also seen throughout California, Texas, many jurisdictions. They use these signages, signage just like this to create a brand and a feel. And it's not this ugly thing. It's this very unnecessarily expensive thing that we invest in because it feels good for the site and it makes it feel more than just strip retail, which generally I have no opposition to, but we can we try to spend our funds above and beyond what is required because we want our shopping centers and developments to feel unique to feel special and to match the places that they are going and so because of that the reason we designed this sign in particular was as people are coming down excuse me coming down silver talon and eventually from what will be silver valor and driving to and from stations casino maybe if they stopped at stations and wanted to drive through our project, which we went out of our way to make sure we aligned with Station Casino's drive aisle all the way through the adjacent neighborhood community, which, by the way, will help a lot with this. You know, Via Inspirata is a one-way street with a, you're kind of stuck unless you use our site for ingress and egress, which we designed particularly for that. But as you're traversing through these private streets, the sign C that we're talking about here will help serve as an identifier and branding for people and tenants to say, I'm at this site, I'm at the Centurion site in Inspirata. And they'll know what they're looking at. Otherwise, it'll just be a bunch of tenants' names. So for those reasons, we believe this sign will be a great addition to the area. Obviously, it's just facing a non-impactful area as terms to Station Casino's parking lot in their building. So it's not going to be visibly, I guess, offensive to to anyone in the surrounding community, but. Mayor Redekopoulos, Mayor Redekopoulos, Mayor Redekopoulos, Mayor Redekopoulos, Mayor Redekopoulos, Mayor Redekopoulos, Mayor Redekopoulos, Mayor Redekopoulos, Mayor Redekopoulos, Mayor Redekopoulos, Mayor Redekopoulos, Mayor Redekopoulos, Mayor Redekopoulos, Mayor Redekopoulos, Mayor Redekopoulos, Mayor Redekopoulos, Mayor Redekopoulos, Mayor Redekopoulos, Mayor Redekopoulos, Mayor Redekopoulos, Mayor Redekopoulos, Mayor Redekopoulos, Mayor Redekopoulos, Mayor Redekopoulos, Mayor Redekopoulos, Mayor Redekopoulos, Mayor Redekopoulos, Mayor Redekopoulos, Mayor Redekopoulos, Mayor Redekopoulos, Mayor Redekopoul Is Centurion what you want to brand? Or is Wes Henderson what you want to brand? Is Inspirata what you want to brand? And, you know, this is Inspirata Station. It would be across from Inspirata Station. And so I kind of concur with Commissioner Boekelman on that, that maybe in a different sign package. The example you put up there for the Summerlin signage that you're referring to is a piece of art. And that's what, you know, in the... what you presented is more like a singular pylon. And so I think along with your sign package, maybe bring more to the table. Like I don't see enough in that rendering to say, hey, let's move that forward. So. If I may quickly respond, Commissioner, we originally did have three signs for this, two additional signs flanking this for more of an architectural feature. It was under the recommendation of staff that we reduce it more. which is why it is what it is today. So from our original package, we've made a lot of concessions to try to appease where we thought we could on staff's recommendations. So the one comment I heard earlier was that you'd be open to considering making sign A smaller in some way, shape, or form, but you would have to consult with your signage people first. That is correct. Do I understand that? Because, you know, I commend staff too because they are already like going above and beyond as far as allowing exceptions to the existing sign codes. So I don't want my comments earlier to in any way, shape or form make it seem like I'm disparaging staff because I do understand their position as well. Are we at a position where it might be best to push pause on this? or does this urgently need to move forward? Unfortunately, our group has to have a decision today from Planning Commission, and under what you're suggesting, what we have understood is any sort of pause or continuance of this would just put us on another Planning Commission, and in the event that was ultimately not an outcome that our group desired, we would then have, I mean, that would be sometime in July, and then we would have to appeal to the Commission, or excuse me, to Council, which would put us out even further into August. And we have some very strict deadlines we have to adhere to, unfortunately. So given that fact pattern, you've got a sign right now that is likely not going to pass at 117, what, 1,176 square feet and almost, what is it, 55 feet, four inches tall. Can you make a command decision that might make staff nod their heads about- I'm sorry, what was that? Can you make some sort of a command decision without talking to your sign company that might make staff nod their heads so that we can find a way to yes, or is it- Commissioner, just from staff's perspective, just to be clear, we're not in the- we're not going to negotiate on the dais right now. Our analysis is based on what's in front of us, so there's no- back and forth that we're going to go into at this moment. And if denied today, our goal would be to discuss with staff and continue that conversation, but we understood the same as this is not necessarily, even if we wanted to have time to work that out with staff. I'd like to make a comment. I can appreciate what you're trying to do, but this isn't just a little bigger sign. It's huge. And if we give you the green light, what's going to prevent everybody else from wanting to do it? And unfortunately, if there's no further comments, I'd like to make a motion. I'd like to make a motion for final approval of facts and conditions A, B, C, D, and E of MSP 2025016700. Subject to findings of facts. So the motion is made by Commissioner Grzmanowskis. It's MSP-2025016700. Subject to the findings of facts, conditions, and modifications for A, B, C, D, and E only. Please vote. What was the action on the F and G portion? Say again? There's two other portions on the request that we would need a motion on. Just to be clear, are you withdrawing F and G then? We're making a motion. The motion is to approve only items A through E, excluding F and G. Except for E. Please vote. That motion passes. Good luck with your project. I know you're disappointed in probably our decision, but you'll have an opportunity further down the road. Hopefully you can work with staff and figure out a solution. Thank you very much, Commissioners. And I also wanted to extend my gratitude towards staff and all the work, which was a lot getting to where we are today. And for all of you taking the time to ask some questions and work through this with us the best you can. Have a nice evening. Thank you very much. Commissioner, that brings us to item number seven, flyaway golf. This is a request for a conditional use permit approval to operate an indoor golf simulation bays under the land use category of indoor sports, recreation, and entertainment. This is located in Suites 150 at 1371 Raiders Way. The proposal complies with all applicable provisions of the development code and no material requirements. impacts to the site or adjacent tenants are anticipated as such staff recommends approval this action would be final unless appealed and staff has received zero responses from the public notice for this item name and zip code for the record and you agree with staff's recommendation and conditions I do commission okay at this time I'll open the public hearing is there anyone wishing to speak on this item see no one I'll close a public hearing I just have a comment. I'm excited because I'm a golfer. So hopefully I get to come over and see your new facility if the commissioners vote to approve this. Any other comments or questions? Okay. Would somebody like to make a motion? Mr. Mayor Paterson. Mayor Paterson, Chair 2-6, subject to the findings and fact and conditions. The motion's been made by Commissioner McDonald. Please vote. That item passes. Good luck with your project and I look forward to seeing you again soon. Thank you. is our next item. This is a two-part request from the Southern Nevada Water Authority on 10.6 acres located approximately 3,100 feet west of the intersection of Paradise Hills and Nevada State Drives. Request A is for conditional use permit approval to operate a pumping station as a major utility, including dimensional and development standards. Request B is for architecture and site design for the new pumping station. The proposal complies with all applicable provisions of the development code and no material impacts to the site and adjacent properties are anticipated. As such, staff recommends approval. This action would be final unless appealed. And staff has received one response from the public notice in opposition for the project. Thank you. Name and zip code for the record, please. Zach Hill, Southern Nevada Water Authority, 100 City Parkway, Suite 700, Las Vegas, Nevada 89106. And you agree with staff's recommendation? Absolutely. Okay, great, thank you. Is there, I'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to speak on this item? Seeing no one, oh wait, you wanna come down? Great, if you'll step aside. Hello, I'll just need your name and zip code for the record. You'll have three minutes, there's some lights right there. Please keep an eye on them, right on the podium. Name and zip code. Good afternoon, Chairman. Commissioners, my name is Alex Kleidman, 89002. For the record, I am president of Mission Paradise Rural Alliance, and I'm here to speak on behalf of my community. If I share this with the... This was the notice that was posted in the desert for the homeless to see and come and visit and hear about this project. Now, I... head voice my or the community displeasure to Councilman Seabock because if you stand on outside of however many feet that is, this is what the notice looks like. We were under understanding that this is going to be FYI for the community to see what the project is, but based on the agenda, it's a final approval by the commission. As you, Chairman, Mr. Chairman, if you recall, two years ago the community came out here to voice their displeasure against the Nevada State College desire to build a road in through our neighborhood. And to your great job, this was voted down. We're really concerned how this is going to affect our community. And I'm not really sure if anything could be said or done since this is a final approval. by you guys. So it's just kind of voicing my displeasure from the community that a huge project is coming in our neighborhood and the residents are still kind of concerned that there may be a road that could be planned to make sure that this project by the Water Authority goes through. So just a concern. I didn't realize that this was going to be passed on tonight. Had we known that this would be passed tonight, this room would be filled with capacity with the residents wanting to know a little more details. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to speak on this item? Seeing no one, I'll close a public hearing. Commissors? Questions, comments, or a motion? No, if Mr. Hills could come to the diocese and just to help some of the... constituents out in the, or people in the crowd. So to understand, it's not a huge project. I heard your concern as being the road that's going through and that's talked about every month, every day, every year. I live in the area as well. And so Mr. Hills, just tell us a little bit about the project, about the impact you think it's gonna have for access. Like what is, there's already next to a detention basin. What will this additional infrastructure piece add to the community. If you don't mind, I present, give my presentation on the background of the project. Is that okay? So again, I'm with the Southern Nevada Water Authority. I appreciate this opportunity for us to present this conditional use permit associated with the SNWA Paradise Hills Pumping Station Project. As the region's water supplier, the SNWA initiates projects and programs to meet the changing water needs of its member agencies and the community. This includes infrastructure investments to strengthen water delivery. The Paradise Hills Pumping Station will improve the redundancy, reliability, and flexibility of the area's water delivery system to nearly a million existing residents and businesses in the city of Henderson. The pumping station will work with the existing water delivery improvements, infrastructure to protect, strengthen, and ensure continued reliable water service to Henderson in case of system outages and emergencies. So I don't know if you can see this here. Again, by way of background, the water will come from the existing River Mountains Water Treatment Facility, which is up at the end of Burke Holder Boulevard. 120 inch diameter steel pipeline will head south along the Foothills Drive alignment and then converge onto the Paradise Hills Drive alignment in public right away. From that point, the pipeline will extend across the front edge of the Nevada State University and make its way to the project site. The Paradise Hills pumping station will be built on city of Henderson land south of the Mission Hills Detention Basin. As you can see here, the location, the pumping station will be a 35 million gallons per day facility inside a single story building with landscaping and security walls. Access will be via a paved and gated 32 foot access driveway. So the gate will be situated at the end of the current Paradise Hills pavement limits near the university and will be treated like a private drive. On-site buildings, materials, and colors will complement the aesthetics of Nevada State University. Landscaping will match the desert environment. The site will be unoccupied and remotely operated. SNWA operations and security staff will visit periodically. Construction is expected to start in early 2027 and be completed in the year 2030. So as mentioned, we used the Nevada State University as a starting point from an architectural standpoint as shown here. And then we added our little splash of water with the blue accents, given it's a water infrastructure facility. To give you a sense of what the exterior will look like, it'll be completely encapsulated with a 10-foot security perimeter. On the east, west, and north sides, it'll be a 10-foot CMU wall. And then on the front edge, which faces the south, it will have a nice, I like to call it like a hybrid CMU slash tube steel fence with man gates and motor-operated gates for for larger vehicles. And we recognize there are concerns associated with the roadway improvements, east-west connectivity. What I was hoping to do is to, we've been working very closely with City of Henderson staff for years on this project. And if there are any particular details associated with the roadway, I'd like to defer to City of Henderson staff. I think they're here. if that more explanation is warranted. I understand it. I really appreciate just like the highlight for the people who came tonight to understand that it's a private drive and it's fenced off and that I appreciate from being a resident here to have that safety and have that security and that it's not a thorough way. And I think that actually helps what a lot of the neighbors are looking for actually, having associated with that detention basin. We've got lots of stories in that detention basin as a younger person. But I have no further questions or comments. Just a comment. With all the water issues ever present, especially in Henderson and the growth in Henderson, I commend you and the Water District for doing this. Thank you. Yes. And again, the objective of the project, just to reinforce that comment, is to enhance the redundancy and reliability of the water in this area. We do have some vulnerabilities from an infrastructure standpoint, so this will help provide that needed reliability. I've got a comment. Is this man 24 hours a day? No, it's unoccupied. What about security? So we will have security personnel that will monitoring. I believe they swing by like once a day to check on it, but it will have cameras monitored 24-7 by our security remotely. If there's no further comments, I'll make a motion for final approval of CUP-2025-016400 and DRA-2025-016325 subject to findings of fact and condition. Commissioner Humes made a motion. Please vote. That item passes. Good luck with your project. Thank you for your time. That brings us to item number nine. Nine is a four-part request that's on 1.3 acres located on the southeast Located southeast of the intersection of Boulder Highway and King Street, it's also 1104 and 1120 North Boulder Highway. Request A is conditional use permit approval to operate a tavern. Request B is a conditional use permit approval to operate a motel. Request C is six waivers from the development code. These are waivers A through F in support of the site. A is to reduce the parking from 73 to 53 spaces. B is to eliminate internal site landscape fingers. C is to increase the front building setback from 20 feet to 68 feet. D is to reduce the pedestrian amenity zone along Boulder Highway from 30 feet to 18 feet. E is to reduce the required number of loading spaces from two to one and reduce the loading space dimensions from 12 feet by 35 feet to 10 feet by 20. F is to reduce the required surface parking setback from a public street from 40 feet to 18 feet. And then request D is for architecture and site design approval for the tavern and motel expansion. Staff recommends approval of all applications in support of the redevelopment of this site. The action will be final unless appealed. Staff has received one response from the public notice in support of the project. zip code for the record. Levinio Haney 89109 Las Vegas here representing the application. Do you agree with staff's recommendations? We agree with all the staff's recommendations and we appreciate all the staff's work not only law res but all the other departments including fire department and real property working with us on the project. Thank you. Great. Thank you. I'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to speak on this item? Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing. Commissioners? I do have one question. Yes, sir. Landscaping. Are you putting any additional landscaping in? Yes. As this site exists, as you know, this is Boulder Highway and Mugshot and then the adjacent existing motel. So there was no landscaping in this area. And along the frontage, there were just a few trees. And so with this development, we're meeting landscaping requirement along this boundary, this boundary, that boundary, and that, as well as that. Here in front, we did ask for some waivers and push the building back a bit so we could meet fire and public work requirements. We combined the two driveways to serving the two lots into one to meet public works requirements. So we believe we've done the utmost work to optimize the size, especially based on its shape, to bring in a project that redevelops the site in conjunction with the existing motel. Great, thank you. I'd just like to make a comment. Yes, ma'am. Keeping Pittman, Pittman. I like it. Thank you. Make a motion to approve. CUP 2025016617, CUP 2025016900, W0S2025016620 and DRA 2025016621, subject to findings and facts. Conditions and waiver. Commissioner? It's also conditions and waivers. Is that what you wanted on your motion? The word? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Grzmanowskis made the motion. Please vote. That item passes. I think it's a great improvement to the Boulder Highway reimagined corridor. So we appreciate what is happening down there. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you to Laura. I think this is one of her last projects for the city, so we appreciate and congratulate her. Thanks. Chairman, our next item is item 10. This is a four-part request on 1.9 acres located at the southeast corner of Horizon Ridge Parkway and Orogee Street. Request A is a land use designation change from PS to public semi-public to low-density residential. B is a zone change master plan amendment from PSMP to PS on the site to remove it from the Black Mountain VISTAs master plan. Request C is a standard zone request for that 1.9 acres to go from PS to RS6 in support of a residential development. And the final request D is for the approval of a six lot single family residential subdivision. Staff recommends approval of all applications in support of this subdivision. This item is to be heard at the July 15th Council meeting. Staff has received three responses from the applicant in support of this project and two were opposed. Thank you. Name and zip code for the record. Susan Florian 89118. And you agree with staff's recommendations? Yes, I do. Okay. At this time, I'll open to public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to speak on this item? Seeing no, I want to close a public hearing. Commissioners, questions, comments, or a motion? Hearing no comments from my fellow commissioners, I would like to make a motion to approve CPA 2025-016-796, ZCA 2025-016-891-A1, ZCA 2025-016-891-A1, 2025-016797 and TMA 2025-016800. Subject to findings of fact and conditions. There is a motion made by Commissioner Brunson. Please vote. That item passes. Good luck with your project. Thank you, Planning Commissioners. Our next item is item 11. This is a three-part request affecting approximately 38 acres located west of the northwest corner of Boulder Highway and Warm Springs Road. Request A is to change the land use designation on 37.6 acres from transit-oriented development to business industry. Request B is to rezone 8.2 acres from mixed- use zones on 29.6 acres and 8.2 acres to IGRD PUD overlays to support the future industrial park development and request D is for the approval of architecture and site design for building five site which is on 8.9 acres of the proposed industrial park PUD. Staff recommends approval of all applications. This item is to be heard at the July 15th City Council Meeting staff has received one response with a public notice in support. Thank you. Name and zip code for the record. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Michael Tassi, 218 Lead Street, along with Tom Amick and John Marciano. We're representing CT Realty. The applicant on this project with us tonight is Chase Watson from CT Realty who have developed over 30 million acres since 2009 across the country of commercial and industrial development. ALSO WITH US TONIGHT ARE LEE FERRIS FROM THE LANDWELL COMPANIES AND JIM GIBSON REPRESENTING THE ELLIS FAMILY. BETWEEN ALL OF US WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. SO AS SHAWN INDICATED, WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS AN INDUSTRIAL PARK THAT IS ABOUT 37 ACRES HERE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF WARM SPRINGS AND BULDER HIGHWAY. WE HAD SPENT QUITE A BIT OF TIME WITH STAFF and with the city trying to, one of the, one of our goals here was not to turn our back on Boulder Highway re-imagine, but rather engage the transit corridor. And so for that effort, what we did was push the buildings forward towards Boulder Highway. We, um, the architecture to another level to a higher level the 12-foot trail that is along the south side of boulder highway also has feeder pedestrian access to each one of the buildings and so the the buildings are more of a pedestrian scale not your typical tilt up concrete that you will see as you know i believe sean showed you some of the images that we have of the buildings you can see there's glass and metal and a variety of colors on the elevation along with the landscaping and berming that will be along Boulder Highway engaging the trail. I did want to talk a little bit about the zoning request. As the staff report indicates, this is reverting back to the original zoning that was there prior to the city applying this regional mixed-use zoning. So we're requesting IG. What's important here is the planned unit development overlay. And what that means, it's kind of a master plan light. Master plans require 50 acres and a set of development standards. This is not acreage specific, but it still has a set of development and design guidelines that are really the foundation of these guidelines was the West Henderson Global Business District standards that the city produced for the industrial development on the west side. So we took elements of that. AND WE PUT IT IN THIS PLAN, WE HAVE SOME PROHIBITED USES, AND THE DOCUMENT THAT IS IN YOUR BACKUP, THAT WILL BE PART OF THE ORDINANCE, SO IT'S GOING TO BE RECORDED ON THE PROPERTY. IT ALSO DESCRIBES THE PROCESS FOR HOW BUILDINGS ARE APPROVED OVER TIME. THIS IS GOING TO BE A PHASE DEVELOPMENT. PHASE ONE, AS MR. ALLEN INDICATED, IS GOING TO BE BUILDING FIVE, WHICH IS RIGHT AT THE CORNER BEHIND THE APPROVE CIRCLE K. So building five will be the first phase, and then buildings one through four will be part of the second phase. When those buildings come in for designer view, they'll be evaluated by staff, and they'll be evaluated against the set of development standards should this get approved tonight. We believe that this zoning, along with the PUD, is more appropriate for the area than the current zoning, given the design some of the types of development that are out here with the auto yards and that sort of things. There's, you know, behind Dottie's, there's a junkyard. I have some photos. Those were put in your backup. I can show them as you have questions. So I also wanted to thank staff for their recommendation of approval and for the conditions. There is a memo in your backup. Thank Mr. Allen for his patience working with us and getting those conditions rewritten so that they satisfy both us and the city. So with that, I'll end, and we're happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. At this time, I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here wishing to speak on this item? Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing. Commissioners, questions, comments, or a motion? No comment, just really appreciate the project. I'll make a motion to approve, recommending approval, subject to findings of fact and conditions, CPA 2025-016802 to be heard by the City Council on July 15th, 2025. Commissioner Humes made a motion. Please vote. That item passes. Good luck with your project. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to clarify, that was for all three items? I think only one number was read. There was only, to clarify, it was for CPA 2025016802, CZA 2025016803, and DRA 2025016804. Thank you. Is that all of the staff? Is that all of them? Thank you. Appreciate that. Okay. Do we need to take another vote because it wasn't read in the record originally? Or I'll go ahead and I'll ask for a motion for approval. It doesn't hurt. Okay. So I'm just going to ask for a voice approval on this. All those in favor of all of those items, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Opposed? That item passes. That brings us to item number 12. This is a request for conditional use permit approval to operate a liquor store located in suites 120 and 130 at 3255 St. Rose Parkway. The proposal complies with all applicable provisions of the development code. As such, staff recommends approval. This action would be final unless appealed. Staff has received five responses from the public notice in opposition for this request. Thank you. Name and zip code for the record, please. David Brown, 89101. We're in agreement with all of staff's conditions and appreciate the recommendation for approval. Okay. At this time, I'll open the public hearing. Is there anybody wishing to speak on this item? Come on down to the podium. I'm going to ask for your name and zip code for the record from both of you if you're going to speak, and then if you'll be aware of the lights that are there on the podium. We'll start with green, go to yellow, and then red. So name and zip code for the record, please. Hi, my name is Danielle Mateo. My husband and I are owners of the Coder School, Henderson. Zip code? Sorry. 89002. Okay, 89002. Thank you. The Coder School is a kids' computer programming tutoring program that offers a comprehensive range of coding classes and school break camps for kids in kindergarten to high school. We offer after-school coding classes and summer camps from 8.30 in the morning until 7 p.m. Monday through Saturday. I'm here to testify in opposition to granting IDS Food and Beverage, LLC, a permit to operate a liquor store at the place at Seven Hills College. in units 120 and 130, as our children's computer programming school is located directly adjacent to the proposed location. So this is a picture of our school. We're in unit 140. Right here, this is unit 130. This is unit 120. We share a common wall in between the liquor store and also the entire backside of the building is also part of the liquor store, which I noticed was incorrect in the permit application. So the entire backside of our unit is also part of the liquor store. We have no exit out the back. That's the liquor store. Our establishment has been open since February 2020. We opened the height of COVID and the first year was a great struggle for us, but so far we've been very successful. We have over 70 students. We offer summer camps, winter break camps, and spring break camps. And I'd also like to say that I'm a full-time computer science teacher for Liberty High School. We chose this location because the shopping center is located in the Henderson family neighborhood of Seven Hills. The shopping center contains family-friendly businesses that correspond nicely with our school. We are a business that specifically teaches and supervises children, so we signed our lease agreement with the owners of the place at Seven Hills when we signed the lease agreement with the owners. We specifically told them that we would only agree to the lease if it was assured and written into the lease agreement that the landlord should not lease space within the center to a marijuana dispensary, adult bookstore, adult nightclub, liquor store, emphasis on liquor store, or tattoo parlor. I brought a copy of our lease agreement. If you look at section 7.2 in our lease agreement, it explicitly prohibits the leasing of the space, again to certain businesses. The landlord shall not lease the space within the center to a marijuana dispensary, adult bookstore, adult nightclub, liquor store, or tattoo parlor. Before I show you where that clause is in the lease, I'd like to share with you our business. I'm sorry, your time's up. So if you could wrap it up in about 30 seconds. All right. I have a copy of the lease right here. It's the clause where it states that we're not allowed, that the owner was not allowed to sign a lease with a liquor store. It's written right here. And I do apologize that I didn't submit this ahead of time, but nobody informed us of this permit. We weren't sent a notice in the mail. Nobody in the building was sent a notice in the mail. This is a copy of our lease agreement. It's on page seven right here. If the permit is approved and this unit is leased to this liquor store, the owner of the supermarket will be in breach of contract with us. Again, I just want to show you, here's one of our winners for the Congressional App Challenge. There's Dena Titus presenting the winner of the Congressional App Challenge that we have every year and we have contestants in it and we win every year. Here's a picture of our classes with our students. I know, I'm sorry. everyone does. So that way we don't have that confrontation in our lease and that's why we're asking to oppose. Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to speak on this item? If you come on down. Sorry, we did have a couple other of our tenants not notified but they would be against it. Assuming they're the folks back here. No, you're not. Okay, come on down. Just if you're if you want to speak also, please go ahead and make your way down the aisle and wait for your turn. Name and zip code for the record. Again, you'll have three minutes. Keep an eye on the lights there. Okay. My name is Mary Rosetti and I am the agent property manager for the landlord, Waimea Falls LLC. Two years ago, I believe, Niagara Property sold the property to Waimea Falls. We, as the property manager, are responsible for abstracting leases and pulling all the information we can from the leases. So, Cotter School, 48 hours ago, sent a certified letter by email to the landlord, and the landlord copied me, and needless to say, I haven't slept since then. Okay? Nigro's leases were all consistent and had in paragraph 5 on the front page that liquor stores would be permitted. Well, lo and behold, Cotter School, paragraph 7.02, buried with a very small, as you saw, said that it shall not be permitted. So I'm in agreement with them. There is a clause in the lease that says that landlords shall not lease. The unfortunate part of this is that the landlord has a signed lease. in the haste of leasing agents sending over leases quickly, DocuSign, get it signed, you know, they're commissioned, right? The landlord, you know, looking at me to make the decision or tell somebody that there's a clause that says we can't have a liquor store. It was clearly missed. Clearly. An accident, certainly nothing intentional. So... there lies the issue. We have a signed lease with the liquor store. The conditions are the permit and plans must be submitted by July 1st of 2025. I got an email this morning from the tenant liquor store's broker stating they've already spent $80,000 on planning. And my question is why would you plan when you don't have final approval, but none of my business. So that's why I'm here. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Hello, I just need your name and zip code for the record please. Vanessa Flores 89183. I am opposed to having a liquor store. There are already 19 liquor stores within a five mile radius of this area. There are a lot of There's a high school not far from here. There's a lot of schools, and traffic is already kind of an issue. Having a liquor store where 7-Eleven already sells liquor, which is directly across the street from this proposed site, where, and it's not even a street, it's kind of the parking, across a parking lot. On top of that, there is a bar, Remedies, in the same parking lot. There is already significant access to alcohol in this location. Having yet another liquor store is already, our insurance, sorry, I'm a little all over the place, our insurance is very high in this area due to a number of dispensaries currently, a number of liquor stores, and insurance is going up all over the place. My feeling as a community member is adding yet another liquor store is already going to put our neighborhood in a detriment of having yet another liquor store. business that is saturated for insurance premiums to go up. Accidents are already a problem in this area. Kids are getting hit. If you look on Nextdoor, there are kids that are getting hit by cars or going in and out of traffic because the middle school is right on Silverado Ranch and the high school for Coronado is around the corner. My concern with having yet another liquor store is that it is going to increase that kind of activity that would indicate more drunk driving, more inebriated personnel on the streets in an already congested area. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to speak on this item? Seeing no one, I'll close a public hearing. Commissioners, questions, comments? When for the applicant, did you have the landlord or the property manager sign the conditional use permit and have it notarized? It was submitted previously. We didn't learn about the issue with the landlord or the leases until today. I know they called your chambers as well. We just learned. And the woman, I have no reason to doubt anything she said, but she was not part of the negotiations with my client and the landlord entering the lease, and he had never heard her or met her. I don't think she came up here to lie about her position. I'm just saying we had no idea today. I just say clearly there's an issue between the landlord, whether he breached the lease with my client or with the coding school but I don't think that's for this body to determine. I could tell you if you look at the map, in addition, there's a tavern, as they said, right here that will have far more impact on the coding school than the liquor store. You can't consume liquor at the store. That's a huge violation that they would never permit. The 7-Eleven that was mentioned obviously is not a liquor store. They're entitled to sell, I believe, beer and wine. We met every distance separation requirement. There's no reason for this to be denied. And if the landlord is in breach, whether it's with us or with them, they'll have to work out a resolution, either peacefully or through litigation. But I don't think that's for this to be heard tonight. I'll make a motion for denial. I see you. I've got one more question, actually. So, staff, on the distance separation from schools, Does this qualify under our code for a school? No. So the development code does require a 1,000-foot separation from liquor stores to a school, but looking at the business license for the coder school, and it's called the coder school, but their business license is a gross revenue license. It's an instructional service facility, so it doesn't qualify as a school, and therefore they don't have to meet a distance separation to that. So while their name says that it's a school, it wouldn't qualify as a school for the zoning code requirements for distance separation analysis. And just to follow up on what the applicant said, we did get a signed application. The property owner had a representative of YMA Falls LLC, Chad O'Hara, signed and notarized the application on behalf of the property owner. But to answer your question, Chair, no, there's no, this met all distance separation requirements in the code, and that includes to a school, religious assembly, daycare, and a sexually oriented business, which are the four uses that you would require a distance separation analysis from. Given the circumstances that we've heard tonight, and it seems to me that maybe there should be some cleaning up of the lease agreement before we even as a body vote on this, and my recommendation would be to continue this item for 60 days. Mr. Chairman, if I could just restate a provision of the code. Our code requires you to administer the code pursuant to its terms and conditions. There's a condition in the code that says the city is not a party to private agreements. In this case, that's what we're talking about, a lease between a tenant and a landlord. It is not up to us to enforce that lease or to even read the lease or to abide by any of the terms. So it's up to you. Like that lease should not affect your decision. Clearly there was a mistake made and it's unfortunate and they're finding out about it at the last minute. but that doesn't need to influence your decision. You're here to administer the code. A question for Council. So what would be the, so we know it meets the code within the distance of what would be a religious or educational. What is the phraseology of an incompatible use given the area that it's in? what would the code say to maybe is an oversight of what is a compatible use for that area? Or do we simply can make a motion based on our direction? Ms. I'm going to defer to staff as to the uses in the area, but you already heard from staff that this met the distance separation. So it's not a saturated use based on that, but I'll defer to staff. That's correct. A liquor store is considered a Category 1 use in our development code. We have a Category 1, Category 2 alcohol use. Category 1 are the lower threshold. The Category 2s are your taverns and your restaurants with bar. But they both have their own Distance separations, I'm looking at our code right now. The four, again, I'll repeat it, the four uses that we have distance separations from are a school, both public and private, religious assembly, daycare center, and sexually oriented business. The applicant submitted a distance separation analysis, a DSA application here with the city. We ran it through our GIS team to ensure that no businesses are within those areas. those areas and if they were that could be something they could ask for relief from but that would have to be through the conditional use process but since it met all of the separation requirements there was no need for them to ask for any relief from those standards from the staff's point of view this liquor store complies with all of the city zoning code requirements. I have a question has the liquor license been issued? No. It won't be issued. And what I would ask today is for approval. There are issues, as you suggested, that need to be worked out, and those are going to be worked out before they spend more money than the $80,000 to do it. You can't get the liquor license until everything is essentially ready to open. You pass all your health and your fire and whatever other inspections. My only comment is I would make a motion for denial of CUP 2025016784. conditional use of permit based on incompatibility, but that's my, if I can make a motion, that would be my motion. That's fine, that's a motion. There's a motion on the floor. I get, I'm so sorry. You're in the middle of this motion, but I would ask, Commissioner, that you specify the incompatibility for the record. Yeah. Since that's not going to be in the backup. Thank you. And, yeah, based on my interpretation of I think there's a grander scale of incompatibility for this conditional use permit. I don't know how I can word that, but it's incompatible for the tenants that are next to it. How is it incompatible? Do you want me to get really passionate about it, or how specific do you want me to be? I just want you to get on the record the basis of your... My feeling for my basis for this is that this would be... so erroneous. This would be a classic Las Vegas error on our part, and this is an oversight, and maybe just like we talk about revamping different codes, this would be so erroneous to have an award-winning educational facility, whether it's a school or whatever you want to term it, right next to a liquor store. And I feel like that's an incompatible usage next to of the contract, impervious of the leases, because I'm actually very familiar with that as well. And so that's why I asked when it was notarized. It was actually a mistake. Like this permit, like if they want to resubmit it, they should have. It's actually on the basis of the owner who signed this conditional use permit made the first mistake. And so this permit shouldn't even be before us, in my opinion. Number two is it's not a compatible use in And maybe the code doesn't specify it enough, but as my position as a planning commissioner, I feel like this is an incompatible use given the location that it's in. I've got a comment. Is that okay if I stipulate my comment? Well, we are in the middle of a motion, but I think we're taking... No, it's fine because I think we've sort of gone off script anyway. So I guess I would just ask perhaps, Commissioner, could you just... and stay your motion just for a moment to allow the continued comment and then reinstate your motion perhaps. I'm making a motion to deny CUP-2025-016784 for the reasons previously stated. For reasons previously stated verbally. Thank you. Did you have additional comments or discussion you'd like? I think I've been shut up. Do I need to stay my motion, Sally, so Commissioner McDonald can give his comments? I'm so sorry. We had to inject some kind of interest into this meeting, right? It was a little bit too smooth. So I said stay the motion. Oh, I didn't hear that. I'm sorry. I think you probably thought I said state. I wasn't shutting down, Commissioner McDonald. State. It was very close. I'd like to stay my motion of CUP 2025-016784. So additional comments can be made. So additional comments can be made. Did you have a comment, Commissioner? Yes, I do. It sounds like to me that the three parties need to get together and sort this out, then come back. Somebody's got something in their lease that says you can't be there. You can't be there because there's something in that lease. The owner has got to make a decision. When you get your stuff together, back and do it again. One of you won't be here. I'm just going to remind the commissioners that we are voting on a conditional use permit regardless of what the police say. That is a private matter. So whatever the vote is made is you're either approving or disapproving a conditional use permit for a liquor store. I made my motion. I'd like to continue my motion for denial. of CUP-2025-016-784. So, Commissioner Humes has made a motion for denial. Please vote. So is the no vote for what? Tell me the yes and the no. Yes is for denying. Yes is for denial. Yes is for denial, okay. And that motion indicates that the conditional use permit has been denied. Okay, thank you. item please. I apologize, Ed. I'll be more patient. Next item please. Next item is item 13. Item 13 is a request for a master sign plan amendment adding four new modifications which are D through G and for the Skyline Hotel and Casino sign plan, located at 1741 Boulder Highway. Modification D is to increase the allowed area for an EMS sign within a pylon sign from 50% to 83%. E is to increase the allowed sign area from 840 square feet to 906 square feet for that same pylon sign. F is to increase the height from 8 feet to 13 feet, six inches, for a monument sign. And for that same monument sign, modification G is to increase the allowed sign area from 94 square feet to 151 square feet. Staff recommends approval for all four modifications in support of improving the overall signage for the site. This action would be final unless appealed. Thank you. Name and zip code for the record, please. Ed Stagner, 89118. And we agree with all staff recommendations. Just here to answer questions. Great, thank you. I'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to speak on this item? Seeing no one will close the public hearing. Commissioners, questions, comments? How long has the skyline been there? I can't tell you. A long time. I've been at Yesco 45 years and it was out there before I started. I moved here in 49 and it was right after that. I'm just curious. Yeah, I don't know. A long time. Yeah, because I go by there frequently and truthfully, I miss it sometimes, and I know it's there. John Kish used to own it, and I think Jim Marsh bought it like 20, almost 25 years ago. That's correct. And I worked with Mr. Kish for signage back then, so it's been a long time. Do we have questions about the sign package? No. The only question I had was, I'm just curious, do we know what the height from the ground is this sign is? The LED one? I'm not positive because they kind of built that hotel up against it. You know, up against the sign. We're not increasing the height. We're not increasing really any of the square footage except for the two little pylon covers that were on the outside. Didn't go all the way to the top, which meant there was no structure of pipe going all the way to the top. So we're adding that to tie that top in. I just found it interesting. You know, it's another sign on top of a building. But it's really not on top of the building. Those pipes go all the way into the ground. They're just built to it. I think a lawyer would say distinction without a difference. I'm not voting against it. I just found it interesting. It's not connected to the building at all? I'm not sure if it is or not when it goes in that. When it comes down and it hits the building? goes through the structure? Yeah, they built, they allowed and built around that when they built that hotel on there. Because that sign was just the outside of the casino area and they built that up and put the dock, the loading dock and all that stuff back there. So, yeah. I didn't do that, so I'm not positive how they built that building around it. Did they do a dog leg on it? Is what? Do they do a dog leg on it? I don't know. I don't know. How can you build an addition up above it without knowing what the structure itself holds? We've engineered it. It's been engineered. We're going right against it. We're going with what's there. Except we're redoing the engineering inside of it to make it fit. That's it? Yeah. Okay. Existing. Yeah, it is all existing except we're going to re-modify some of that existing up top, yes. Okay. I told you he was going to have some questions. And the one on the back? Yeah, that's all going to be different. Do you want to make a motion? No, I don't. I don't know about the one on the back because I'm going to put new pipes in behind it. Okay. Excellent. If there's no other comments or questions? Did you want to make a motion? MS. Yes, I would like to. I'd like to make a motion to approve MSP2016500213-A3, subject to findings, facts, and approval. MR. Conditions and modifications. MS. Thank you. MR. Yeah, two. There's a motion made by Commissioner Grzmanowskis. Please vote. Good luck with your project. Thank you. Thank you. Next item. Next item is item 14. It's a waiver to the development code standards to increase the maximum allowed size of an accessory dwelling unit from 1,000 square feet to 1,516 square feet. And this is located at 670 Patty Ann Woods Drive. Staff recommends approval finding the applicant has provided acceptable compensating benefits. The action will be final unless appealed. And the applicant has provided three letters in support from the neighbors and staff has received zero responses from the public notice. Thank you. Name and zip code for the record. Travis Martin 89044 and we agree with staff recommendations. Great, thank you. Is there anyone wishing to, I'm going to open the public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to speak on this item? Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing. Commissioners? I would like to make a motion for final approval of WOS 2025016712, subject to findings of fact, conditions, and a waiver. Commissioner Brunson made the motion. Please vote. That item passes. Good luck. Thank you very much. Next item is item 15. This is a three-part request on five acres. Located southeast of the intersection of Burkholder Boulevard and Racetrack Road, request A is to rezone five acres from RS1 to RS6 for a single-family residential subdivision. Request B is for three waivers from the development code A through C for the subdivision. A is to reduce the pavement width from 76 feet to 24 feet along Burkholder Boulevard and 51 feet to 32 feet along Keele Street. Request modification, I'm sorry, waiver B is to remove the requirement to construct half street improvements along Brookholder Boulevard and Keele Street. And waiver C is to reduce the rear yard setback for lot 16 from 15 feet to 14 feet and for lot 17 from 15 feet to 12 feet. Request C is for a 20 lot, 17 single family, three common lot residential subdivision. Staff recommends approval. of all applications in support of the proposed subdivision, and this item is to be heard at the July 15th City Council meeting. Staff has received zero responses from the public notice. Thank you. Name and zip code for the record, please. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Commissioners. Tom Amick, 1980 Festival Plaza. I'm here on behalf of the applicant, which is Beezer, who's done a few projects out here in this area before. This is a quick aerial. This is the site we are talking about right here. You can see immediately adjacent to us is a very, very similar project to the one we're proposing. So this is essentially a phase two to that project. 17 lots. The land use here is all compatible with the proposed zoning. This is Burkholder. Everything, as you guys know, north of Burkholder is in the RMP. So our two lots on the end, I'll show you the site plan real quick, have to be 10,000 square feet. which they are right here. This is the big, huge power easement that runs through this area out here. You can see from this aerial that those lots are graded, and that's currently under construction. And then here's kind of the open space park area. Sorry, the open space park area that's already constructed, so we're essentially matching that. So these next two are very similar to each other, but that is the first one at Burkholder in Keele. Thank you. I'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to speak on this item? Come on down. You'll have three minutes to speak and keep an eye on the lights on the podium there. They'll go green, then yellow and red. Yellow is 30 seconds. Ron Erskine, 890189015. I live across the street. right across the street from this project. I live across the street from the park that he pointed out. That park is owned by our home association. So we are Somerset and they are building right across the street off of Venice. I oppose the project and the reason I oppose the project is because they're chewing up this R1 repeatedly. Right now on the other side of the park, on the east side of the park, there's multi-million dollar homes being built on the same side of the street. They're selling for two and a half million dollars to a million and a half dollars, probably less than a thousand feet from this proposed project. There's also million dollar homes further west. And they are building, they're just chewing up the desert with these small homes on these five-acre parcels. This was a DLM land, and they've already graded it before they even got approved. So they know this is a walk in the park. But in my opinion, it's not suited for this kind of development, and I'd like to see it not proceed. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to speak on this side? I'll close a public hearing. Commissioners? No questions or comments or motion? Commissioner McDonald, did you want to make a motion? COMMISSIONER MCDONALD, I'd like to make a motion to approve. C? C? I can't even see it. COMMISSIONER MCDONALD, I'll get those glasses on. ZCA-2025010780. And W0S2025016782. And TMA2025016781. subject to all the conditions and finding of facts and waivers. Thank you. There's a motion on the floor made by Commissioner McDonald. Please vote. Thank you. Next item is item 16. It's a three-part request on five acres located southwest of the intersection of Burkholder Boulevard and Orleans Street, which actually this project is just down the street from the one that you just heard. Request A is to rezone five acres from RS1 to RS6 for a single-family residential subdivision. Request B is for two waivers from the development code A and B and A is to reduce the pavement width from 76 feet to 24 feet along Burkholder and 51 feet to 32 feet along Naples and Orleans Streets. Waiver B is to remove the requirement to construct half street improvements along Boulder Boulevard, Naples Street and Orleans Street. And then the final request C is for the 22 lot, 20 single family, two common residential subdivision. Staff recommends approval of all applications in support of this subdivision The item is to be heard at the July 15th City Council meeting and staff has received two responses from the public notice and opposition of this request. Name and zip code for the record, please. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Commissioners. Tom Amick, 1980 Festival Plaza, again here on behalf of Beezer for this application. Very similar story to the previous item. This time we're up the road a little bit, Venice in Orleans. It's this project or this piece right here. This is also Beezer. This is a little dated, but that is the same 20 lots that we are proposing here. That is pretty much completed. There are people living there now, so it's basically a second phase. We're just kind of folding it over. Again, the land use supports this zoning and the slot size. Same deal with the RMP on the other side of Burkhardt. We have... 10,000 square foot lots that we are required to have along Burkhart. And just so I don't brush over those waivers, those waivers are necessary because we are doing rural standards out here. So no street lights, no curb gutter on the north-south streets. The only improvements we're doing are along Venice. So that's it. Happy to answer any questions. And you agree with staff's recommendation? We do, thank you. Okay, thank you. At this time I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to speak on this item? Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing. Commissioners? I'd just like to say it's actually bringing benefits when a builder comes in and we're developing that. A friend told me years ago, you can't stop other people from coming in and joining. And I think by adding these type of developments, A, Beezer's bringing the value in by adding infrastructure. We're actually saving money on power and on water by, these are coming in, putting in municipal water, municipal sewer, as well as one of the jewels of Henderson is Heritage Park. And Heritage Park is a well-being skip down the road from this. It's literally part of it. And so the fact that we can bring more people closer to having the experience of the Henderson lifestyle, I think is always a benefit. And in that case, I'll make a motion recommending approval of CZA 2025-016-786, WOS-2025-016-788. and TMA 2025016789, subject to findings of facts, conditions, and waivers. Commissioner Humes has made a motion, please vote. That item passes. Thank you very much. That brings us to item 17. This is a three-part request for the existing Bella Vista Estates subdivision located off Poncho Villa Drive, and Giovanni Lane. Request A is a waiver from the Development Code Standards to increase allowable lot disturbance. B is to amend the TMA, I'm sorry, the tentative map to allow the same lot disturbance and this is for lots 1 through 12 and 18 through 24. Request C is for a design review amendment to reduce, I'm sorry, revise the perimeter landscaping to include accent lighting and additional plantings related to the waiver request. and to include a typical backyard exhibit. Staff recommends approval of all applications having acceptable compensating benefits for the waiver and support of lot owners having a more equitable use of their backyard or yard areas. This action is final unless appealed. Staff has received one response from the public notice in opposition to the project. And just to clarify, the description for B said 18, lots 18 through 25, 25 is not included. It's just 18 through 24. 18 through 24. Thank you. Applicant name and zip code for the record, please. It's Lou McNabb. My zip code is 89102. Thank you. And do you agree with staff's recommendation? I agree with staff's recommendations. Okay. Do you have any other comments you'd like to share? I'll just show you what we're talking about here. Oh, okay, good. You know, this is... proposal for one of our lots, lot number two. And what we proposed was to use 60% of the undisturbable area. So when you see this design here, everywhere from the pool all the way to the back, which is back here, is all supposed to be undisturbable and just desert. So I think this clearly improves a lot. And if you look at the back here, this is a This is the landscaped undisturbed area. So that's improved. We're going to improve the landscaping along Pacho Villa Drive. These trees are all existing. We're going to put these other trees in. And then we are going to provide accent lighting all along Pacho Villa at the four corners of the intersection. I'm sorry. four corners of the intersection. So that's it. There is one thing I would say. I think there's one slight issue. It's lots 1 through 14 and lots 18 through 24. 13 and 14 are also in the end have a disturbance issue. In all of your recommendations and everything you had the right number of lots. I think it was just a typo. So it's lots one through 14? One through 14 and lots 18 through 24. 25 is already 100% observable. All right. Chairman, that's correct. I can verify that. Okay. Thank you. Okay, well thank you for the information. I'm gonna go ahead and open the public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to speak on this item? Seeing no one. We've got so many people out there. Mr. Chairman, if I could just ask a question, sorry about that, because staff seem to know of the typo on number 24, 25 should have been 24, but was this proper? In that case, you over-noticed the item, whereas here, if it's 14 instead of 12, we've under-noticed this item. I don't know that proper public notice was provided. Yeah, lot 25 already has 100% disturbance, so that's why it's not included in the sequence of numbers. I would have to defer to your counsel if so. Yeah, I guess what I'm saying is if we noticed it out to lot 25, but we really didn't need that, we kind of overextended. Anybody interested would have showed up. But here, anybody interested in lots 13 and 14 didn't have notice. So I do notice in the staff summary report under the waiver of standard that it includes lots one through 14 and 18 through 24. But that's not on the agenda. What's on the agenda says one through 12. Sally, can I just ask if the notice went out from the perimeter of the subdivision boundaries, would that satisfy that notice requirement? Are these lots... vacant lots? Yes. I think it's still technically an issue because even though it went out to all the same people, they got incorrect notice of what's being changed. They didn't have notice of it. Can we have a copy of the notice card by chance? Well, it matches with the agenda. It matches these days. And not even the notice card, I'm sorry, the publication of the agenda itself is incorrect. And people would have been reading this incorrect notice. The tentative map doesn't require a public notice, right? But the waiver does. It's the agenda. Yeah. So, Council's recommendation is we continue this item? I think we need to. Yes, I think we need to correct them. Allow re-noticing? It's really the agenda that needs to be correct. And so since we're going, if we have to continue this to have a correct agenda, we should probably re-notice it as well. How much time do we need to allow for that? Can we do it in 30 days? Yes. Yeah, if we continue it to a date certain to the next meeting, that would be okay, right? Okay. Well, certainly apologize for the error. Can I ask a question? Yes. Can you approve it the way it is, leave 13 and 14 out, and then we'll come back and ask for a waiver for those two lots. Is that doable? I understand what the developers ask. If you only take action based on what was agendized, I'm fine with that. I'm good with that. Okay. I don't know what staff thinks. That could work. It's just the applicant has to be aware that they'll have to pay fees for a new waiver for the new two more lots. So you'd be basically paying for another... waiver of standards application just for the two lots. If you wanted to continue it to the next meeting, then we could just add it and get the notice correct for the July meeting. But you may have some time constraints that I'm not aware of. I'd rather, time is of the essence right now. As you know, we've been in this project for a long time. I hear you. And also, it seems like, was this our application? Please. So we would waive the application fees for the remainder two lots. For the two extra lots. And we can make a motion depending on, so we could make a motion as what's listed on the agenda then. Great. Okay? Okay. All right. Is there any other comments? You want to make a motion, Commissioner? Yes, I do. I would move to approve WOS-2025-016636, TMA-2015-500242-A5 and DRA-2018-001031-A3, subject to findings of fact, conditions, and a waiver as it was agendized. Okay. There's a motion made by Commissioner Brunson. Please vote. out and passes, I guess we'll see you next month. So sorry for the confusion. Thank you. With that, this brings us to the public comment portion of the meeting. Items discussed are under public comment, cannot be acted upon at this meeting. Is there anyone here wishing to address the commission? Anybody out there? Going once, going twice. Okay, I'll close the public comment. Staff, do you have any things you want to share? It was an interesting meeting tonight with some of the nuances. No, I think I'm good. Everything good? Yeah, it's great. Okay. Well, once again, I'd like to thank staff for all the work you do. I know it's a lot. And for those in the back, again, thank you for sitting through the meeting. I was hoping to get you out a little earlier than this, but, hey, we're done. So with that, I'll adjourn the meeting. Thank you. Can we get through zip codes? No. All right, take my looking.