what now we're gonna know you gave me a thumbs up okay good evening everybody I'm gonna call the Planning Commission meeting to order at 6 o'clock would everybody please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance okay this meeting has been properly noticed and posted in compliance with the Open Meeting Law these proceedings are being video recorded as well as presented live on KC L V cable to channel 2 please no customers have searched the CenturyLink and Cox communication can view this program in high definition on channel 1002 and in standard definition on channel 2 you can also watch this meeting live on Apple TV Roku amazon firetv on the gopro vegas app the Planning Commission meeting as well as all other KC LV programming can be viewed on the Internet at wwlp.com Calvi and the web the Saturday of the meeting at 10:00 a.m. Monday at midnight and the following Tuesday at 6 p.m. madam clerk can you please call the roll chair de Savio president vice chair schlattman prison Commissioner Jarry president commissioner Toussaint present Commissioner Williams present commissioner rogen present Commissioner Chadda president thank you thank you item number 4 Jen item number 4 all comments made under this item for specific action items will be cross-referenced to those items this is public comment anybody wish to be heard during this portion of the agenda seeing none I'll close the public comment moving on to item number 5 for possible action for approval of the final minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held January 14th vice chairman Solomon yes mr. chair I make a motion to approve January 14 2020 Commission main minutes you for a demotion please cast a vote and that motion carries okay agenda item six for possible action any items from the Planning Commission staff and or the applicant wish to be stricken or held in abeyance to a future meeting may be brought forward and accepted upon at this time please state your name for the record thank you chair to Salvio jennifer gainer from the law firm dickinson right here on behalf of applicant wal-mart Stores Inc item number 36 we would request to hold this item in abeyance we had discussions with Councilwoman Diaz's office and she just wants some more time to do due diligence before we hear this okay thank you okay okay so we'll move on to the housekeeping mr. mr. chairman staff has some housekeeping arms as well the applicant wishes to obey items 25 to 27 to the March 10th 2020 Planning Commission meeting this is the second abeyance request for item 25 and the first abase requests for items 26 and 27 thank you okay just notice as a public hearing anybody wish to be heard any questioning on those advanced items seeing none I'll close it Michigan chairman Royce chairman Seidman yes mr. chairman would make a motion to hold items 25 26 27 and 36 to the March 10th 2020 plan Commission hearing you've heard the vote please cast and that motion passes moving on the one motion one vote the following items that may be considered in one motion one vote they're considered routine okay they're considered routine now in public and public hearing items all public hearings and non public hearings will be opened at this time any person representing applicant or a member of the public or a member of the Planning Commission not an agreement with the conditions and all standard conditions of this application recommendation by staff should request to have them items for removed from part of the agenda chair if I could quickly disclose on items 9 and 10 I'll be abstaining from that families in the cannabis industry and I shouldn't be voting on that and then items item number 14 I believe a live just else or inside the notification area doesn't affect me any greater or lesser so I will be voting on that thank you for the attention anybody else seeing none I'm gonna read the related items under one motion one vote related items 7 & 8 abeyance su p77 9 0 4 applicant Nevada State High School owner tiene village LLC for possible action under request for a special use permit for for a proposed public school secondary use at 7 - 4 0 west as your drive staff recommends approval a ban side I'm SDR 77092 for possible action or request for a site development plan review for 1409 square-foot public school secondary within an existing building staff recommends approval related items 9 and 10 9 su P 78061 applicant boulevard medical LLC on RG e 714 LLC for a possible action on a request for a special use permit for a proposed 5,000 53 square foot marijuana cultivation use at 7 1/4 South first Street staff recommends approval item number 10 su p 7 8 0 6 2 4 the possible action on request for a special use permit for a 2030 2319 square-foot marijuana production facility staff recommends approval item number 11 su p 7 8 1:07 applicant QC Financial Services Inc owner MBS BN VTX holdings LLC for a possible accidental request for a special use permit for proposed 1160 square-foot auto title loan use within an existing financial institution specified use with waivers to allow 8 foot distance separation from residential use where 200 feet is required to allow a 1,000 160 square foot tenant space debt gated to the use we're 1,500 square foot is required and to allow window signage that does not comply with title 19 point 12 standard at 3149 North Rancho Drive Suite D staff recommends approval I don't number 12 sgp seven eight one zero nine Alba Ken Kesey Financial Services Inc owner by Roberto Family Trust for a possible action on a request for a special use permit for a proposed 1170 square foot auto title loan use with an existing financial institution specified use with the waiver to allow a 130 foot distance separation from a residential use for 200 feet is required to allow a 1170 square foot 10 in its space dedicated to the use where 1500 square feet is required and to allow window signage that does not comply with in title 19 point 12 standard at 1942 ii sahara suite a staff recommends approval item number 13 su p seven eight zero eight zero applicant quickie convenience center on our L case Y Inc for a proposed action on request for a special use permit for an existing 1265 square foot carwash full-service or Auto Detailing use at 4400 North Jones Boulevard staff recommends approval item number 14 su P seven eight one three five applicant owned at Downtown Sanchez LLC for a possible action on a request for a special use permit for a 1235 square foot time limited establishment with use it with three thousand eight hundred eighty square feet on an outdoor seating area at six to three South fourth Street staff recommends approval item number fifteen su P seven eight one four zero applicant Eldorado Cordova owner Las Vegas Arts District Development LLC for a possible action I request for a special use permit for a proposed two thousand five hundred eighty seven square foot Tavern limited establishment use with fifteen hundred square foot outdoor seating that's ten seventeen South First Street Suite one eighty staff recommends approval item number sixteen su P seven eight one four four applicant owner gas station a lot LLC for the possible action I request for a special use permit for a proposed two thousand four hundred fifty square foot beer wine cooler off cell establishment you with a waiver to allow a 343 foot distance separation from city park where 400 feet is required at 2:05 on e Sahara Avenue staff recommends approval item number 17 related 1718 STR 7 8 0 6 8 applicant Volunteers of America National Service ona at Las Vegas vo a elderly housing Inc for a proposed for a possible action our request for a site development plan review for a proposed two-story 43 unit building addition to an existing 75 unit Senior Center apartment development with a waiver to allow a 65 foot residential adjacency setback with 69 feet is required at 4-4 45 Diamondhead Drive staff recommends approval related item 18 TMP seven eight zero six nine for the possible action on the request for a tentative map for a proposed two unit condominium subdivision board three staff recommends approval items related 19 and 20 item 20 excuse me 19 VA C 7 8 1 2 8 Alba canola section 12 LLC for the possible action or request for a petition to vacate public drainage easements and sewer easements generally located at the northwest corner of skycam West Skye Canyon Park Drive and Sky Canyon Sky Village Road staff recommends approval Ward 6 item number TMP 7 8 1 2 9 4 the possible action or request for a tentative mat for a 164 a lot single-family residential subdivision on 30.0 4 acres at the northwest corner of Skye Canyon Park Drive and Sky Canyon Village Road Ward 6 staff recommends approval and at this time mr. chairman a staff would like to add that the applicant proposes the following added condition for items 9 and 10 if the proposed use has two violations from the city of Las Vegas within one calendar year the use may be required to cease and the special use permit may be revoked at a separate public hearing thank you is the applicant representative here for items 9 and 10 please come forward station name for the record and let me know if you agree to those conditions thank you mr. chairman commissioners John Lawrence and see to swan circle Henderson representing the application standing in for Lucy Stewart this evening she had a conflict we are in agreement with the recommendations thank you sir at this time through the sheriff if you don't mind on item number 15 I forgot to disclose that I do have an interest in a parcel within the notification area doesn't affect me any greater or lesser so I will be voting on that one and thank you for that abstention and vice chairman Solomon yes I miss him and I have a couple of disclosures on nine and ten cultivation facility and production facility just one state that have built several facilities in the past I'm not in any way related to this application and as I have in the past I've voted on these items so I'll be voting on those night on Adam 15 Eduardo Cordova I'm under contract on that particular project so I won't be staying on that thank you sir Peter Lowenstein deputy director on items 9 and 10 the applicant agreed to the recommendations I don't if he can just clarify he's agreeing to the added conditions so that the record is clear that they're in agreement with that that would be appreciated thank you please state your name for the record mr. chairman now once again John vorn sand representing the application we are in agreement with the additional conditions as read into the record by staff thank you sir this is public hearing anybody from the public wish to be heard on any of these items seeing then I'll close the public hearing turn over to vice chairman slab yes mr. chairman on items 1 through 130 xx one motion one vote items so I'm sorry 721 motion one vote items I would make a motion to approve okay you've heard emotion with with the to the record by the planning department thank you and that motion carries and mr. chairman items 18 and 20 our final action lists appealed to the City Clerk's office within seven days items seven through ten thirteen teen 17 and 19 or final action this evening unless appealed to the City Clerk's office within 10 days items 11 12 14 and 16 will move forward to City Council and be heard as a part of their agenda on March 18th 2020 thank you okay moving on to the public hearing items related items 21 through 24 item 21 a bands VAR seven eight zero eight eight applicant Mario's market owner Johnson family trust second for the possible action a request for a variance to allow a roof sign wall signs and a marquee sign to cover 100% of the building's elevation where 20 is the maximum allowed and to allow a nine foot tall roof sign where 8 feet is the maximum height allowed at 1960 North Martin Luther King Boulevard and 1425 Lake Mead Boulevard a staff recommends denial item number 22 abeyance sgp 7 7 6 8 6 4 the possible action on a request for a special use permit for a proposed open-air vending transit sales lot Ward 5 staff recommends denial item number 23 advance MSP 7 7 6 8 7 4 the possible action on a request for a major amendment to an existing master sign plan for a proposed LED display roof sign Ward 5 staff recommends denial and item number 24 bands SD r 7 7 6 8 8 4 the possible action or request for a site development plan review for a proposed 250 square foot restaurant Ward 5 staff recommend so now I may have staff report please mr. chairman staff finds no evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance to support the requested variance the proposed the project does not meet conditional use regulations for the open-air vending transient sales lot use as the applicant proposes who operate past 8 p.m. and will be located 0 feet from a residential zone law finally the structure itself is temporary in nature as demonstrated by the need for a temporary power poll and for employees to escort customers to a closed market in order utilize restroom facilities staff finds the existing remote kitchen open-air vendor is appropriate for temporary use and not as a temp not as a permanent structure open for business on a regular basis therefore staff recommends denial of all applications additionally applicant proposes the following added condition to item number 23 prior to issuance ability permits applicant will submit updated elevation drawings depicting wall signage occupying no more than 20% of any elevation a roof sign not to exceed 8 feet and no wall or marquee signage on the West elevation thank you thank you please state your name for the record good evening I'm Laura drea 5:20 South 4th Street and I'm glad to be here with Mario Berlanga for this matter which is a two-part application required to keep an ancillary kitchen with an LED roof sign within the parking lot of his grocery store I'll start with the kitchen but to do so I must first describe Mario's establishment it's one of few full grocery stores in the west side it has produce and a butcher shop with cut with cut cuts of meat that are difficult to find elsewhere it stood as part of the fabric of the historical West Side for more than 60 years 25 of which were presided over by Mario himself it has a separate package liquor area and a cafeteria to style food counter the food counter is the most active part of this business he has cafeteria style of southern food such as okra cobbler hush puppies and he is known for his catfish I personally know people in the ward that shop and eat there regularly but there are a lot of people throughout the valley that make their way to Mario's for his food his catfish has a big following in fact just the Sunday the counter had more than 1,400 receipts at times the cafeteria counter is the reason for keeping the store open late at night and that is why we're asking for this remote serving space the only reason that this ancillary kitchen isn't processed administratively is because per code this church which is directly south of the property is considered an adjacent residential use and it's therefore an encumbrance warranting this public hearing we do have 15 signatures from residents of the nearest three streets supporting this application the petition recognizes that this request closes earlier and adds more no more errant light than the seven franchised drive-throughs at the same intersection these residents have been parted have been patrons of Mario's for several decades they're fought there by compare compelling Mario to adjust his inventory to their tastes which include a lot of Creole products that he brings in from elsewhere in the country it's actually nice to see this symbolic relationship and loyalty that's given to Mario given that we've lost we've all lost so many grocery stores near our own neighborhoods maybe onto the signage portion of the matter after reading the staff report we agree that the murals and photos on the structure in combination with the LED sign is excessive will match the roadside elevations to the existing buildings with no signage the LED sign meets the 200-foot residential separation there's no objection from the neighbors again as it emits less the same or less light than any business at the Menten nexus of two major arterials in addition to advertising the food service the purpose of the sign is to notify neighbors of on-site community events such as the metro back to school backpack giveaways or the Bolden Area Command safe night neighborhood seminars and on-site celebrations of Mario's West Side Las Vegas little league team with that I will submit to the clerk signatures from the nearest residence on this block as well as recommendations sealed by a structural engineer on how to improve the sign we accept conditions to come into compliance with wall and canopy signage we'll remove the temporary power pole and ensure that the LED sign is structurally sound and that concludes my presentation for now if I could pass these to the clerk thank you and that concludes your presentation is right now okay if I can then get have you step back I'm doing this is public comment I'll let anybody wish to be heard on this item please come up I'll give you one minute state your name for the record thank you hello my name is Joseph Abraham and I reside at 125 grand traverse to drive in 8 9 106 I'm the publisher of the urban voice magazine a resident of West Los Vegas I work in West Las Vegas and I worship in West Las Vegas I've had the good fortune of counting Mario's Westside market as a community partner with my publication and for the with the bold little league for the last decade I personally watch any Street spoke to property owners and tenants and heard overwhelming support with Meyers West Side market for this particular sign to memorialize those conversations we provided the written submit all to the clerk thank you thank you sir please come forward we have two mics there come on come forward and state your name for the record please Oh Wendell West I'm a realtor at Berkshire I've lived in Ward 5 for 40 years the stories in 89 106 I'm a realtor I've sold more real estate and they want 9 106 or or 5 did anyone ever board please work with Mario give him what he wants work with him he's a pillar in the community he's a hero he's helped so many kids he's helped seniors he's helped all races of people where people out there trying to raise money for funerals he helps them out there he helps the churches he's the hero of the worid over there just give the guy what he wants all the other communities have nice stuff let's have some nice stuff over there he's not affecting anything across the street as a jack-in-the-box I sold that land for that years ago the Taco Bell and the Panda Express I sold that land the church that was on the South too that behind the store she was talking about I sold that land give this young man wedding one silver man he's a good guy in the community I mean he he really is out there just work with them let him make the approvement that you need to do in my name is Brian Harris I'm the owner of the black book in black book media one of the things I can say about Mario's is in this community especially and especially with the black community the ability to communicate to get information out runs through Mario's market a lot of times we don't know what's going on unless we hear it through Mario's having that sign and the ability of the community can communicate to the community there is essential to its growth for the people who lived there again as a person who focuses on media in the black community I support 100% Mario sign it's needed as we attempt to educate our people that is a sign that will be beneficial for the community to know what's going on in their community so please work with him make it happen Barbara's college and I support Mario he has been in our community from day one I'm a lifetime resident and a proud owner or the first barber school in the state of Nevada and Mario's where all my students go to eat that's the only way we can get some soul in our neighborhood so at the same time that sign would be a very good privilege it shows a potential to be Amber Alert and a lot of other things that we could use from that side so with that I would love to advertise there we need it it's kind of hard for us to be in the unity but we support Mario 100% please come forward stay tuned for the record my name is Andre patís I'm a longtime associate and friend of Mario's I believe that his hold effort here is to serve the community at the best he can I don't know what the code or procedures of policies is for this kind of signage but I would appreciate if all you guys can work with him to make that available for himself as well as the community he is part of the community he serves everyone there and I thanked him for his services thank you good evening my name is pastor James Harden and I represent some of the faith-based community that worships here and the Sundays have been a day where most people who find some good food at his establishment but I've been here for 2 20 years and I've watched this particular business serve our community and and whatever is needed I don't find him to be a man that wouldn't be opposed to working with whatever adjustments need to be made so I did stand and support what needs to happen thank you thank you sir you stay tonight good evening Joseph Sawyer jr. 1327 H Street 8 9 106 Ward 5 I've known Mary on for over 20 years I am prior owner to the Las Vegas Sentinel voice newspaper which that established me was one of many on the west side but a prominent one because of the traffic that goes there mara has been an outstanding individual and a pillar of the community for which we want to continue that flow he has many ideas that he wants to help the youngsters and give him an opportunity to be seen and be heard so we take it upon the mercy of this group to show forth mercy and give it to him but God is the blessing and God is good thank you sir my name is Max Allen I'm the owner big Max's dogs and my being a pillar I've been in the community for over over 53 years and I live at 2204 Traverse Street and I being one of Mario West Side Market ever since I can remember when he was Jimmy's West Side Market and that style helps us out a lot cuz they let us know what's in the inside there's no one one in the community so if you can work with him and and help them out and see whatever we got to do to keep the sign up to go for me to go forth with this appreciate it thank you okay seeing none I will close the public comment turn it over to Commissioner Commissioner Williams Thank You mr. chair before I open on this particular item I'd open it up to my fellow commissioners for any comments or questions they may have I just need some clarification I think on item 21 the variance it seems as though based upon the concessions made by the applicant that we would no longer need that variance correct first half I guess that'll get through you mr. chair they would have to submit new drawings so we could verify that I think before we could eliminate that variance because we haven't seen any new drawings showing the elimination okay from after discussing with the planner assigned to the case that well we wouldn't need a variance to have the wall signage in the canopy signage and we do meet the 200-foot separation from the nearest residential for an animated LED sign because it is visible from more than 400 feet where the nearest residence is that one out of the three components to the variance would still go forward okay what let's see because I'm looking at him 21 minutes to allow to allow the roof sign I see okay so that we that would be the requested variance for item 21 then correct because the roof sign is led and animated that's the only reason why okay and other than that I would just some of the comments that were made tonight were about how useful that sign will be to advertising there was a simple request that someone wanted to use the sign to advertise this is not an off premise on and the applicant understands that right correct we had some discussions with staff over the nuances of this site is located within the historic Westside so therefore community announcements for historic West Side and or children that are missing within the historic West Side would be considered on premise the discussions resulted in saying you know what you can apply for an off premise sign because it doesn't have any other encumbrances for example if there was another billboard within I think it's a 1500 feet radius we would not be able to apply for off-premise ID we were relieved to hear that as of tomorrow we can ask for an off from a sign maybe with the conditions that it not be for profit advertising but that's to be discovered at a later date and more so to discover community events and celebrate the historic West Side and how well their teams are doing etcetera okay so you may apply to for an apprentice sign in the future yes so far we're just limited to the events that are on site such as the Halloween parties and the bicycle giveaways and the backpack okay in coordination with Metro Thank You Laura just in various comments I I went back and forth about this item because to me I really wasn't quite sure what its purpose was it was part sign it was part kitchen it was it looked to me like a food truck at first and so I really struggled with it but at the end of the day we're really convinced me about supporting this item which I do is the fact that on that at that intersection there's a number of different drive-through restaurants and so if you compare this to a drive-through restaurant it's really no different other than that people are on foot so I'm really not opposed to allowing this kitchens used to go forward I'm glad that you're taking some of the signage the percentage down to the allowable percent that was a big concern that I had and I'm hopeful that the conditions will satisfy the securing of that sign so that it's not a hazard so with that being said I would like to share that I will be supporting this item tonight or these items thank you anybody else opposed to be hurt the chair just echo what the Commissioner said I when the application came in looking at us strictly from a planning standpoint it looked out of whack to me but I think with the changes proposed that that they're gonna do with the temporary power pole going away with the signage going down to what it needs to be and the safety of it with the structural component all of those things I can also split thank you and and just for the record I concur with both commissioners I'm glad that after having conversations that that stuff got rectified because I was in the same boat as both commissioners as well with those comments so I'll turn it over Commissioner Williams Thank You mr. chair so at this time based on everyone's perspective and thank you fellow commissioners for your perspective on this project which did start out as a very vague what are we really trying to do here several meetings with the applicants on-site phone calls to really understand appreciate everyone being patient we had a lot of questions so at this time subject to staff conditions and also the additional condition read into the record tonight I'd make like to make a motion for approval on item var seven eight zero zero eight item a one at a time area you've heard the motion please cast your vote and that motion passes I'd like to make a motion for approval on item su p7 7-6 8-6 you've heard the motion for approval please cast your vote and that motion carries I'd like to make a motion for approval on item MSP 7 7 6 8 7 heard the motion I please cast your vote and the next item subject to staff conditions I'd like to make a motion for approval an item SDR 7 7 680 you've heard the motion please cast your vote and a motion mr. chairman those items will move forward to City Council we heard as a part of their agenda on March 18th 2020 thank you at this time I'm going to pull item 38 and 37 forward starting out with item number 38 the IR 7/8 185 applicant 95 Management LLC owner KAG properties LC ET for a possible action or request for amended to amend the section 7.06 of the fifth amendment and reinstatement of the sky carry development agreement at the northwest corner of Grand Teton Drive and Grand Canyon Drive Ward 6 staff recommends approval staff report please Thank You mr. chairman this amendment seeks to extend the date in which all interim improvements of the Sheep Mountain Parkway between Grand Teton Drive and Iron Mountain Road are to be completed so as to eliminate conflicts and reduce redundant roadway construction efforts the language has been agreed to by the city and the master developer and will replace section 7.06 romanette six of the agreement and its entirety thank you thank you applicant please come forward state your name for the record john sullivan 1980 festival Plaza Drive I don't have anything to add just wanted to be available if there's any questions thank you this is notice as a public hearing anybody from public wish to be heard on this item seeing none up close the public hearing and turn it over to Commission seeing none I'll just entertain a motion to approve item number 38 yes excuse me dir 78 185 yes mr. Chairman I moved to approve number 38 and that motion passes Thank You mr. chairman that item will move forward to the City Council be heard as part of their agenda on march 18 2020 okay moving on to item number 37 txt 78 225 applicant on the city of Las Vegas for a possible action on a request to a man L V MC title 19 point one two point zero seven zero permissible use description and applicable conditions and requirements and nineteen point eighteen point zero three zero measurement rules regarding waivers of distant separation requirements and to provide for or later related matters staff has no recommendation staff report please mr. chairman the requested text amendment will propose to do two things the first thing it does is it proposes to remove the non-waivable special use permit a signifier from the distant separations that are indicated for non-waivable 'ti currently what this does this does not provide any new exceptions or any new allowances or approvals other than an applicant can come forward and would have an opportunity to request a waiver of that minimum use minimum special use permit requirement so that if they can make a case between before this Planning Commission or the City Council as to why a unique circumstance warrant a waiver to be granted they would have that opportunity whereas now they do not the second the request also creates for marijuana establishments because marijuana establishments those distant separations are actually established by statute not by ordinance they're just reinforced by ordinance we are also clarifying that for purposes of measuring distance for those marijuana establishments that a record of survey created prior to January 1st of 2020 would be eligible to be used as a part of the creating that what that distance separation would be so it does those two things one of the the outcomes of this ordinance would be if it this text amendment if the ordinance eventually that would go to Council where to pass it does put an onus on Planning Commission and City Council to make very clear findings as to why they are approving a waiver if they is so in fact you do approve a waiver but at the at its most basic level it returns discretion on these these discretionary reviews back to the Planning Commission and to the City Council for their consideration where where those may be warranted thank you thank you this is notice as a public hearing anybody from the public wish to be heard on these items please step forward state your name for the record good evening mr. chairman Ryan Arnold here tonight representing a few different folks first off Fremont Street Experience and all of their members this board knows better than anyone I think that we spent a lot of time working on a variety of different ordinances and regulations to try and control the liquor especially package liquor I maybe this is a good change I don't know so really what we're asking for is just an opportunity to sit with staff and explore this and better understand what the potential ramifications could be the same thing goes for Station Casinos another client the outlying areas we simply don't know what this could change and we've got such a long history and lots of investments that are dependent upon the current regulation so we simply asked that this board hold the item give us a chance to sit with staff and others and better understand it thank you thank you anybody else wish to be heard please stuff vote state to name for the record good evening mr. chair members of the Commission my name is Virginia Valentine and I'm the president of the Nevada Resort Association so I would just like to echo the comments of mr. Arnold and also to ask for a little more time to review how this text amendment would impact some of the area around resort hotels the resort Association has eight members in the city of Las Vegas and those are resort hotels by statutory definition it's also a little unclear to us not having a lot of time just a demo staffer to discuss this how how you would need to change the method of measurement if you also have the ability to grant the waiver so we're seeking an opportunity to have a little more time to have a conversation with staff and get better understanding of not only how this works but how it would impact our members so thank you very much thank you good evening mr. chairman members of the Commission for the record my name is Aaron McMullen mid B I'm here representing the company I work for Boyd gaming I just want to echo the comments of miss Valentine and mr. Arnold and seek some more time to get our hands around this I think our understanding is that this could be more of a wholesale change in that obviously those places where waivers aren't currently required or prohibited are put there for a reason and so taking that away might be impactful and we just want to make sure we fully understand it before we get into anything else so thank you so much thank you good evening to the board and members I'm Phyllis Gilliland with golden entertainment and I echo the statements of the past three speakers as well these have been in place for quite a while again we're not sure exactly what the reasoning for the wholesale changes and we would like the opportunity to do the reviews as well so thank you thank you paying seeing none up close public hearing turn it over to Commission Commission rogen Thank You mr. chairman I'm I'm glad to hear some of the comments about how this the genesis of this text amendment because I was very unclear as to where this is coming from so perhaps staff can enlighten me as to what is the policy reasons behind these changes what is the impetus behind it have you been receiving complaints or concerns from applicants regarding you know the problems with putting nightclubs within certain distances of other uses mr. chairman through you so the impetus of this text amendment was that there were a couple appeals of a director's interpretation as it related to how distance was measured in the city of Las Vegas on to two separate separate matters one of those appeals we the the council and the Planning Commission have already acted upon it changed the clarification what access means there was a second appeal though of the directors interpretation of what of how we do our distance measurement and that centered around the specifics in our code about different lines in and what made a property line for purposes of distance measurement versus what didn't based on that appeal the council actually tabled that item and directed staff to do some more work on digging into our current ordinance why we measure the way we measure things we are different than other jurisdictions other jurisdictions in the region the county for instance on some of their uses their measurement is actually from the nearest face of a building to the the property line of the protected use Henderson has a slight variation on that and I think North Las Vegas also has something else so we do ours probably the most conservative and most defensible by doing property line to property line but the request from counsel specifically from a couple members of council was is there a way though that we can do this better when we do have projects that may may have legitimate reason to request a waiver as you've seen in our code we have created niche exemptions to the distance the non-waivable 'ti of the distance separation so for instance several years ago we had someone that wanted to go into a regional mall so they made a really good case for why are they held to this property because mall sites are so big why are they held to this distance separation when if you put a tavern inside a meadows mall what realistically is the impact on the neighboring properties even though there's a church on an out parcel and something like that and so there's a carve out in our code that allows for instance for a tavern if you are inside of a regional mall you can ask for the distance waiver for that and so we've done that over the years so the question was how can we get to a place that provides the option for a business owner to come forward and demonstrate to the Planning Commission and to the City Council a unique circumstance that warrants a waiver in their opinion and have the council and Planning Commission hear that item and agree or not agree this does not create like I said it creates no new exemptions it does not allow anything to not come forward for a public hearing and again it is the the code is still requiring them to ask for that waiver they have to make a case that allows Council and Commission to make a finding that that waiver is valid as I mentioned in my my trans staff report it does create more work for the Planning Commission and the council as individuals because one of the things that council did when they limited their discretion is they they didn't have to hear these items so they didn't have to make these case-by-case findings any more on where a waiver may be eligible and where not if this amendment were to go through and be adopted by council that that will change and so Planning Commission and City Council they will have to do a more diligent job on making their findings as to why a waiver may be appropriate in one circumstance what may not be appropriate in another I guess that leads to my next question which is what guidance is there either in the code or that can be offered that's going to allow us to make consistent decisions day after day or meeting after meeting and then year after year when the composition of the Planning Commission changes the composition of City Council changes how on earth when there's how on earth are we supposed to make sure that the the types of decisions that we're making have that consistency that will not lead to lawsuits so I think the city attorney once away and I'm going to put one little piece of it and then mr. Scott I'll turn it back over to you for some additional components to that so one of the things that we are doing is staff is if this amendment were to be adopted in the future by council we will be taking that exemption language that exists currently in the code that describes those circumstances like the regional mall that I just described and staff will use that as a part of our analysis so if you are requesting the distance waver because you're in a regional mall we're gonna have those lists of things that the council has already signaled through prior action are things that they want to consider an exemption or waivers for and we're going to include that in our analysis that will come forward additionally for our staff we may have to change a little bit on our staff reports to make a clear record in the background in the history of the site or sites so that again there's a clear record from our standpoint for new council people or new planning commissioners when they're reading through past history on where waivers have been granted but you're right there will be a due diligence component to the planning commissioners and to council offices on being consistent with theirs their findings as well as being mindful of the findings that came before them when their predecessors were in office and then mr. chairman commissioner would I agree with with the plan of directors indicating that it will be up to you and the council to make a really diligent findings to make sure that you're not being arbitrary and capricious between wards between applications so it will be incumbent upon them to make a clear record to make sure that we can withstand any lawsuit in just a couple more questions if before I pass the mic with regard specifically to 2h on the proposed amendment there there seems to be a specific list of uses that are subject to this amendment and then item H says by the way any other use that's in title 19 that's within the intent of this amendment so who is determining that whether a particular use is within the is it staph is it us is it City Council ultimately be up to the City Council to make that determination okay but it comes to Planning Commission first so if it's coming to Planning Commission first and there hasn't been a decision on a particular use that's not specified in here are we able to make a decision or do we just immediately pass it to Council to say this is within the intent of the so amendment mr. chairman if I may through you so there's two prongs to that first off the title 19 and our very special area plans provides for the director to make that first line interpretation of whether something is intended to be or similar enough to some other situation to treat it a certain way all of that is subject to as I kind of preface the history is subject to an appeal of interpretation if somebody feels that they're grieved by that interpretation then they have the ability as City Attorney Scott said to then take that to Council who has the final word on interpreting their code okay it's the City Council's code at the end of the day they they have the final say and that interpretation on what qualifies and what doesn't this language is in here in the text amendment because we wanted to make sure that it's clear that there may have been something in some reference document that we missed and so we wanted to make sure that people know that the the idea here is if it's not specifically precluded in number three that there may be some use that for whatever reason wasn't clearly identified that may also fall into this and between now and the ordinance drafting we'll be doing more work in some of our special area plans and in other documents that reference distances and special use permit requirements to verify where those other places may be that would qualify we don't know that there are any but we wanted to be safe than sorry in drafting this text amendment it seems to me a bit that this this change is placing some more administrative burdens upon you and your staff and the the wholesale change that's being proposed I mean are there any other administrative burdens that are being placed upon your staff with regard to this proposed change that you think we should be aware of no this is again there there is some additional though there may be some shifts in how we document certain things and prepare the staff reports but at this time I don't anticipate that this produces any additional administrative burden on my team in terms of administering this code change versus any other code change we administer and just finally we're there any outreach to I know that the resorts are here and that's great and but they have the staff to kind of monitor what we're doing on a monthly basis now but um this affects not just resorts but it also affects neighbors and neighborhoods was there any outreach that was done - I mean obviously from these marijuana establishments we know how active our neighbors can be and suddenly we're changing distance separations on a lot of particular uses like off liquor off establish off sale establishment liquor sales and nightclubs that our neighbors are gonna be upset about if they're suddenly placed in the vicinity of their neighborhoods was there any outreach that was done but you or your staff to notify neighborhood associations bring them into a conversation about this at all so so it's - part is my answer so one yes there's the standard noticing that we do for all text amendments so this was noticed in the newspaper and the agenda was published and most of our neighborhood associations are actually on the mailing list to receive the agenda but you are right if someone has to pay attention in order to get that notice the second piece though is that this change doesn't mean that a nightclub will go in your neighborhood where it previously couldn't it will mean that a nightclub could propose to go in somewhere where right now the distant separation is non-waivable if they can show to this body in to the City Council that they can be operated in such a way that they are not impactful on those protected uses for which the distance separation was established so they have to be able to show that they can mitigate noise that they have whatever it their story might be as to why they feel that the distance to the protected use is not not going to be hindered that that intent of the distance separation is not going to be hindered if the Planning Commission or Council approved that waiver but again it gives no one a right to move forward without the Planning Commission and councils concurrence with the waiver requests understood and thank you for for answering my questions I do have some comments but I want to reserve those until I can wait to hear from my fellow commissioners since I've taken up a lot of time thank you my understanding is this this is basically for cleanup is that what you're telling us is that this is to clean up the text amendment of the authority there no I don't want to call this a cleanup this is a a shift in policy so this is a at the end of the day this will be a decision of the council that shifts from in the past where council put restraint on their discretion this would be them taking back that discretion that the that is theirs to have if they so chose to do that but this is a response to that appeal but it's not a clean up it's not like you'll get those amendments that will do like the access one that was definitely a clean up where we clarified the language to take that ambiguity that there was believed to be off the table this is a policy question in this amendment you know mr. chairman so I I have some of the same concerns I know of other taverns that shred coming downtown they couldn't couldn't open but they do to distance separation however there's other there's other licenses that they could go after like urban lounge or tavern unlimited I think it's there for a particular reason and I'm just a little bit concerned that we're gonna be opening up another you know slew of short-term rentals or something where we're gonna see hundreds of these things coming before us because they're I think there's a lot of pent-up demand in certain areas where I I know that there's a lot of pent-up demand in certain areas but I want to touch touch on a different part it's section I guess it's for it it's the the part that says have reckon record of surveyed that established the parcel containing the protected or other use was recorded on or before such-and-such 2020 the data adoption of this amendment I think what that's getting at is for medical or not medical I keep seeing medical marijuana but for marijuana use is if this establishes that they can measure from a particular property line to the record a survey within the commercial subdivision is that correct three mister chairman so yes so this this element of this amendment is to address one of the concerns that was in that appeal which is that in the past folks didn't know about the mapping options and the ramification of those mapping options and some folks instead of doing a parcel map which establishes a parcel line did a record a survey in a commercial sub and they thought that that created real property for person purposes of a land use and building but it did not under the way our code currently reads so because distance separations the distance is actually governed by an arrest it's not a it's not a city statute it's a state statute that we memorialize in ordinance to match what NRS has this adjustment will allow now people can't just come to a mind survey today in order to try to create some you know new distance separation so this says historic boundary line adjustments that meet the qualification can be used to create that that property line for purposes of measurement I mean measurement only so you can't you can't do weird things with setbacks and other things based on that line but only for measurement from protected uses so that allows for some of these large commercial centers where they did a mapping action that's maybe not the mapping action today we would have preferred for them to do but some of those existed twenty years ago long before any of these questions were relevant or aware of so this provides a slight tweak to that for marijuana establishments because they can't have a waiver option that would otherwise resolve this issue you know and I don't necessarily have an issue with that I think that I mean just my personal opinion is that we should allow you know the thing these items to be measured to a record or survey because if you have a let's say if you have a something such as the shopping center ed what's a Charleston and Decatur the Walmart Petsmart all the other stuff in there that's fairly large if you have to have a 1500 foot distance separation you have something across the street if it could be three thousand feet six thousand feet before you you get to the next use but if you measured to the record a survey then you know you would have the distance that that's required so I I do like that part I don't know why we have to have a you know why we have to say if it was recorded before this date in 2020 why that couldn't go forward while we can't measure to a record a survey in the future because I think that would be a good tool to use for some of these larger subdivisions so again the reason for that was because there the argument was that they used a mapping tool in the past to create these Lots not to circumvent the rules but to to achieve their you know their parcel not parcel ization but their configuration that made sense financially for them so that they could sell off a piece of the commercial sub but they took that mapping action versus a different mapping action like actual parcel ization creating the Lots that we normally use the the purpose of this setting the date from before this was introduced it means that someone can't come forward today like I said create a boundary line to just are not a boundary legitimate but a record a survey in some attempt to circumvent the distant separation so it provides some level of surety for the community and for the council that we're not creating some loophole for some new person to come and abuse that system that it really is meant what was intended for to address what may be a historic inequity with the previous mapping actions versus what our code called for mr. chairman one more point of clarification this is in relation to a record of survey for the protected use and not for the marijuana establishment so the reason it has a set date is so so money can't carve a box around a protected use and in the interim and circumvent the code as the director is indicated I'm sorry to repeat that so the record of survey is only a relevance to the protected use and having that established part of the date there is in your backup and amended staff report which establishes the January first 2020 date versus the adoption of this ordinance in the future so that someone cannot cut a box around an existing church and then say it's now meeting the distant separation where historically it did not I'm a little bit lost because on the other hand we're saying let's let the everything else be let's get rid of the non-waivable special distance separations in the first part of this text amendment so we're allowing them to come in and ask for you know for those items to be waivable but then we're saying we don't want them to create a loophole by creating this rocket or survey I don't because the problem mr. commissioner is because the marijuana is governed by the state so the council has no authority to waive that distance if that did not exist if that weren't in statute then we would treat marijuana under this ordinance and the intent of this text amendment we would treat it just like we treat the alcohol uses and everything else where again it would be a waivable condition that they have to make their case on why their distance to whatever is not but that is in statute so we cannot we don't have the ability to go around statues so that's why there's that slight adjustment here that does that you know wouldn't exist if it weren't a statutory distance separation okay yeah the cherry threw the chair you know I heard there was correct me if our own two items that were kind of issue that we're driving this change and I feel it's just a small amount to do a wholesale change you heard the word wholesale earlier wholesale change on the ordinance or policy and I just I think you know I was part of the discussion when Fremont Street was talking about package liquor when tavern Limited's were born where urban lounges were born and I can see how it fits in a downtown environment when I just think of something that's Valley wide you know I get concerned of the unintended consequences of this I think Commissioner Rogan mentioned one about home owners out there being noticed and you know it's something where if a person does their homework and they go into a neighborhood and they they do their due diligence and that's where they they plant themselves and then the next day they wake up and everything's changed across the board and granted they have to come before a waiver they have to come up with the waiver before Commission I've seen how lobbying works and I've seen projects get through Commission and City Council with with some with good discussions some without in some cases you know I see a wireless communication facility so now all of a sudden you know we're getting applications for for waivers I would think we get quite a few of them or I think the the current code works well with keeping that distance separation not being able to ask just right off the bat same thing with grocery store with alcohol you have Mario's that just came forward and now the sudden someone can just ask within that thousand feet and something that might be cherished in the neighborhood goes away and I do believe in in open markets but there's a point where you know you look at the suburbs that are try to be stable and you go and open a liquor establishment a tavern you invest a million dollars you look at all the metrics you find your parcel you can get it zoned you open up business and now all the sudden there's this wholesale change and a waiver could be applied if it gets through whether it's 999 feet or two feet that business is going to be affected in a certain way and I just feel like what I was hoping that we would have some time to have some more discussion to see and maybe we would get to the same place of a text amendment that we're looking at now but I was maybe there's some ideas that a little more creative that address the concerns it sounds like there were two that were brought forward to kind of spur this so for example if there was something in a different Ward that planning was seeing you know 1012 requests and we just were denying them maybe that's something that's more focused in that area that gets approved that kind of goes with what's happening in the area but just to go like a wholesale change across the board I just I can't support it the way it is I'm again I'm hoping that there is a chance that there is more discussion and if not that's that's currently what I said thank you thank you chewing through you I tend to believe that non-waivable standards have a chilling effect on businesses that are unnecessary and I think removing the non-waivable 'ti actually compels the Planning Commission and the City Council to subjectively view businesses or the s ups on a case-by-case basis where denial of a waiver or I'm sorry denial of an su p waiver is not it's done more on a subjective man are not arbitrary and capricious I think that would allow and promote business and on a case-by-case expansion and rather than having a unilateral non-waivable distance separation that it creates a stringent environment for potential business growth and that is something that I have an issue with you have a lot of businesses that because distance separations are precluded from opening and it is it's a very stringent non-waivable distance separation and I think if there is a way to modify that and I think this amendment does provide that manner where again it does I don't want to say create a burden on the Planning Commission or the City Council but we would have to really get to know the project and really understand what they're trying to do and whether there's a prejudicial effect on the surrounding businesses or the distant separation and I think with this amendment again not to beat a dead horse but it promotes businesses and it allows businesses to come in and if there is no prejudicial effect on that on that distant separation I think it's a good thing so I would support this amendment thank you anybody else thank you yes I just think that we have a lot of questions with regard to this issue and I think one of the public comments was this is seems kind of sudden to consider and given the magnitude of the change I think that we need to have some more time for all of us to consider this allow further opportunity for public comment at a later hearing perhaps from neighborhood associations if they're notified with regard to this change so unless anyone else has any public comment then I'll reserve and wait okay I just want to make sure that I understand a nuts-and-bolts of this so mr. Sommerfeld then I'll ask you about how the process is okay but I'd like to go into first I need to know and just to make for clarity right now should this should we vote this to go on to City Council they still have to have at City Council they have to talk about this then after they make their decision it still has to go to a recommending committee then after that recommending committee at us we then go back to City Council so we're talking what from today if it moved forward a month and a half two months before which would give Aaron and Vickie and all of you guys ample opportunity to to pound out what your concerns are would that be a fair statement number one yes or no almost okay so so there's actually one more step in there so that actually benefits this part of the conversation so actually after today it would move to the the bill what would ultimately be the bill sponsor they will take whatever recommendation the the Planning Commission has into consideration in the actual drafting of what that ordinance would look like so the comments from today's meeting any recommendations that are made as a part of whatever the motion might be whether it's a motion to deny or to not adopt this change but if it were to go forward XYZ or the reverse if it is a recommendation to pass it with the following changes or what-have-you all of that is forwarded to the bill sponsor for them to advise staff at the planning department and the City Attorney's Office on what they want that ordinance to look like then as you said then it is introduced at a council meeting it goes it has it's on the agenda for what we call second reading it has a another public hearing which is called the recommending committee and then as finally it has the meeting where it's eligible for adoption where big things like this are often also comment is usually accepted by the the City Council and the mayor either through public comment at the beginning of the meeting or she may actually open the item up for additional comment during that meeting as well so there are more opportunities to comment on this at present I would not expect based on where we're at with other ordinances we're working on I would not see this even if we what we call fast-tracked it I don't see this being introduced before at the earliest it would be the second meeting in March probably not until the first meeting in April okay so do state council and then eligible for adoption about 45 days later okay so we're talking at least moving this forward taking that can to the electeds you're looking at at least two months for situations to be hammered out and deals to be cut either way okay number two in order should this pass in order for it to move forward again you stated that you have to have findings in order to justify the reason for allowing it because from what I understand is all this does if we were to move this forward tonight is it gives the ability and should it pass City Council it gives them the ability the discretion to the elected officials to work within each and every owned their awards knowing with the best interest of those people of those warts like Commissioner Chadda said it will help in a way to possibly there's no guarantee here just because this passes doesn't give anybody the right to get anything it only gives them a right to get a bite at the Apple and they still might bite the worm biting that Apple but pushing this forward it just takes the handcuffs off each and every one of these elected officials up here to have the ability to work with their constituents because I mean I'd hate to say if you you got a person I'm just using this as an example you have a person that's a thousand foot distance separation on say whatever and you got the guy next to him that's 998 feet the way it is right now he doesn't get a shot at that meanwhile that might be the best location best thing since sliced bread and he can't move forward but loudness to go forward he can at least come up come up with a good finding to allow him to have that use which then puts somebody else in business which creates jobs and all we're talking is maybe a few feet that would have hindered him prior to that that's where I understand it to be it still has to pass planning they once those findings are made it's now record if I understand that so it has to come before us and it still has to go through the City Council if somebody does come and ask for a specific waiver that right now their hands are tied so in a nutshell this gives the ability to our elected officials to police their wards accordingly with their constituents with no guarantees that if they bite in that Apple and they're gonna get a worm and that's basically all it does they're not taking anything from anybody they're just opening up the opportunity to have conversation because right now there is no conversations the doors are shut and that's why I support it because I like the ability for the people that we elect to have the ability to listen to their constituents and to bring new visions but there's no guarantee and that's what I like about nobody's guaranteed anything here they're just guaranteed opportunity at that Apple and with that I like I said that's why I stand in support of that and I'm gonna go to commissioner Rogan and then I'll come back to you sure I'll go to Commissioner shaman yes mr. chairman fundamentally I agree with you you be almost convinced me and and Commissioner chatted in here so I you know I am pro-business and I do I do I think I can get behind this but I think this is one the most engaged Planning Commission's when the smartest plan Commission's we we come from all different backgrounds from the strip from private industry from public sector and you know I think when the benefit so the Planning Commission is looking at these items that in them and given suggestions to City Council and I think of we I mean just my personal opinion if we took this and we met with staff at a Raven's before the next Planning Commission here and thought about this and could offer advice and suggestions because right now I think we we we offered a lot of comments but no suggestions and there might be certain things that we can add to this so if it was held for 30 days I think I could get behind it but right now I think there's still certain questions in there I would have thank you if I could just answer that's just it though what are you what is your suggestion because all they're stating and just hear me out because that's what I'm trying to understand here all they're stating is saying hey open it up for the conversation but nothing's really changing they're not guaranteeing anybody any waivers what they're saying is you're taking the handcuffs off me and you give me the ability to have that conversation we're not asking if I'm understanding this correctly we're not asking to change anything other than you might have the ability to have that distance separation wave but as far as everything else in there from what I understand it is existing to remain there just saying hey if you have an establishment that's 998 feet and it's a thousands required a can we talk to you right now but I could share this he'll talk to you if it's 900 980 feet and this thing goes for it and I'm just that's what I'm saying it gives the ability to certain areas certain wards to be able to have the ability to have those conversations right now I don't see that ability and it does hinders growth so I mean I just when you're saying let's talk and let's open it up for suggestions we're not suggesting from what I understand anything other than the ability for the City Council each and every elected official to be able to police their area accordingly to see if it works with their constituents with no guarantees I think you're given the city attorney over here a heart attack when you're talking about police and there's their particular wards because what that says to me is each wards gonna be treated differently based upon who the well is the concern that there is going to be arbitrary and capricious decision making because there's going to be decisions made based upon the particular makeup of the ward rather than the consistency that's required between each application and the preceding applications that have come before it and the ones that will come after it and so those are the major questions that I have that I want to be certain of before we proceed and vote on this and and secondarily this is gonna change our meetings this is gonna change as commissioner schlattman brought up so I don't want to just say let's kick this to the electeds without giving this due consideration it has a significant impact on what we're doing and as it was pointed out and I think as staff has made clear it's it's a significant change let's give it 30 days let's think about it let's meet with staff some more so we understand it cuz you know on section 4 I still don't understand that whole boxing out the protected use thing and I want to make sure I understand that before we we proceed and I think that's gonna take some time so unless there's anything else that needs to be said on this would make a motion to obey this for 30 days to the what is it the March 10th Planning Commission meeting I I do I will disagree with Commissioner Brogan I think that paragraph 4 or section 4 has been adequately explained by mr. Sommerfeld in that this is dictated the mandates are dictated by the state so the amendment specifically excludes in paragraph 3 the distance separations between a through D which are dealing with marijuana use and social use venues that being said again I just I really like this amendment I like it because it opens up opportunities for business that have been shut down unilaterally by the text that is on the books right now and again I I think that we have a very pro-business Planning Commission I think that the City Council nobody knows their wards better than the commissioners and the councilmen for those wards I don't think that amending the statute as it is will will have in in effect where the decisions will be made in an arbitrary and capricious manner any more than any other opportunities are given to council the council people and and the Planning Commission I think that the only thing it does is it opens the Ward's up for businesses and again like chairman said they just got to bite at the Apple I like the fact that they get to have a conversation and come to the table and that's where I'm at this is a feel-good statute for me and I'm I'm ready to hear it now and I'm ready to I'm ready to vote on it right now okay so please reinstate the er your motion make a motion obey 30 days to the March 10 to 20 Commission meeting okay so a yes vote would be to obey is that a verbal I'm voting nay on the advance thank you and that motion to obey moves forward passes I just got to say that was one hell of a debate like that first time in two-and-a-half years and stuff like that okay moving on I think that is item number 28 var seven eight zero seven three applicant Robin J Colvin owner of Colvin living trust for a possible action or request for a variance to allow a zero foot front yard setback where twenty feet is required a zero foot distance separation from the main building where six feet is required an accessory structure that is not aesthetically compatible and in front of the main building where such is prohibited for a proposed two hundred and thirty seven square foot accessory structure class two carport at 1425 Norman Avenue Ward three staff recommends the dial may have staff report please mr. chairman staff finds the applicant has created a self-imposed hardship by proposing an accessory structure which is which does not comply with title 19 development standards staff therefore recommends denial of the various requests please note that there are additional letters of protest and support since publication thank you thank you please state your name for the record sir Larry Sanchez 78 44 soaring Brook Street engineer representing the homeowner regarding this staff we're asking staff to request a a variance zero lot line variance at the front setback for this new attached 237 square-foot carport homeowner needs shade for parking their car on the driveway and variance would allow this other than like a detached garage we're looking for approval and I have here the owner as well also for the record we did get one of these approved on 13th Street and I believe a couple months ago this material is made out of non combustible materials so Fire Department has looked at this as well Thank You Larry does the homeowners wish to make comments please state your name for the record yeah I'm Robert Coleman at 1500 South 13th Street and last year at almost this very day I asked for my two car ports at 1500 to be approved and you did approve them and I appreciate it very much I enjoy him very much my daughter lives at 1425 Norman I own the building and I told her if I got mine approved that I would build her so she could have her truck not good deteriorate painted a couple of three years ago because it was in bad need of it it really looks nice so she'd like to keep it that way and I would appreciate it very much if you can get it to prove for her it's my daughter thank you you know other comment this is notice this is notice there's a public hearing anybody from the public wish to be heard please come forward state a name for the record hi my name is Michelle Maddow Cohen and I'm a neighbor different Street I write something in English that it's little bit hard for me to read everything but because take me wrong maybe somebody can read it for me there is a possibility so someone can read this somebody read dirt for appreciate are you before he before he reads that are you for it or opposing are you for for the table for it I suppose is request you support it okay yes but I didn't send it yet but I probably need to send it with the record will submit it after he reads it I had set the clock okay yeah my comments to variance seven eight oh seven three first I support this request I think that the city of Las Vegas needs to change things we the people who live in this old town that are mostly middle to low income will be able to get regular permit to put a shed carport to protect our car in this city weather of Las Vegas without going through all these committees that cost a lots as well as much suffering to the residents as far as I know and if I'm not mistaken the County of Las Vegas do give regular permits for metal carport on the twenty foot setback detached or attached I'm not sure I'm sure that I can arrange hundreds of signatures of this neighborhood residents who would be very happy with this idea to have regular permit to have a carport I hope that the municipalities will be willing to consider the local residents and allow the necessary change in the law regular normal okay anybody else wish to be heard you could submit that to the clerk she'll put that on the record anybody else wish to be heard seeing none I will turn it over to the Commission Commissioner Stockman yes mr. chairman I think you looked at this application I have I don't recall any other carports in the past in my ward that I've ever supported in the front yard this one I mean I think staff has called it out as not being aesthetically compatible there's all the rest of them mr. Coleman mr. Sanchez the up and down that Street there's no car ports and if you look at the the front of the houses all of them are pretty all the fronts of all the houses are pretty much in line it's something that I typically don't support and I don't see anything unique about this that would allow me the right to grant a variance variance is I mean we can't grant variances due to a self-imposed hardship and this would be a self-imposed hardship and there's nothing in our code that says that we can grant a variance due to the need for shade and so it's sorry it's not in our code so considering those things mr. Sanchez through you I think he wanted to make one comment please do state your name though before soaring Brook Street I have here four letters from adjacent neighbors in support of this as well and I have six in opposition okay so if you I mean just seeing that there's other people on the street that aren't in opposition I have no legal justification for granting a variance on this particular application so unless if there's any other comments written to make a motion please do on item number 28 on item 28 var seven eight zero three seven three moved to follow staffs recommendation for denial yes photos for denial you heard to vote please cast that motion carries and mr. chairman that I am is final action this evening unless appealed to the City Clerk's office within 10 days so counsel if you'd like council to consider it you'll need to appeal within ten days Clark's office I'm sorry with regard to if there is a certain date that it would have to be okay thank you moving on item number twenty-nine var seven eight one one nine applicant owner Amir Johnson for the possible action on a request for a variance to allow an existing 8 foot tall fence where five feet is the maximum allowed at 2905 Pinto Lane Ward 1 staff recommends denial staff report please mr. chairman no evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance has been presented and that the applicant has created a self-imposed hardship by constructing a wall that does not comply with the ranch acres development standards staff therefore recommends denial on this application please note that there are additional letters of protest since publication thank you thank you please state your name for the record my name is Amir Johnson okay if you'd like to explain your your application well I'm a professional athlete and I'm really home and my house was burglarized and my wife and my kids are home and they just needed a something for protection and my gait was you know small and a little flimsy from the previous neighbors and you know this is by my first year from being from my professional you know Korean season being around here and I just wanted to have something you know safe you know around my house and I had to you know do the defense okay would you like to say anything you just there for moral support yeah I'm just here so I'm Claire Vaughn Cornelius I'm his best friend so we just built the gate in I don't this I think we didn't understand like what half because we didn't change the structure of anything I spoke with him in the meeting I'm about it and so we just were trying to we submitted the police report for the break-in and just trying to keep people that they jumped right over to gate like it was a small gate so they jumped over so we just brought it up a little bit see your name one more time to make you sucker come on cor VA ughn Cornelius cor in here are us alright thank you very much this is notice there's a public hearing so I'm open it up to the public if anybody wishes to be heard on this item please move forward and if I can get you guys just take a seat till the public comment then I'll have to come back up for a rebuttal thank you please state your name for the record good evening I'm Robin fish nur fi SH NER I live at 2709 Pinto we two were burglarized and the fence that they put up though I wish that they had followed the rules and gotten permits beforehand the fence is is beautiful I do think there's a need for it the neighborhood is changing there are there's more property crime than was before and as being someone who was burglarized I too would feel more comfortable with an 8-foot fence so I understand because they're not here how his family must feel no I I am for him getting his fence that's what I wanted here okay next please state your name I just have a few things that I am her husband according to the police I need your name my name is Mark Wolfson okay I live at the same address and according to the police we set a record here in Las Vegas we were burglarized on the first day we moved here and two people were caught in our house and the house was surrounded by 17 police cars so it was a pretty daunting day for us and we believe and I support exactly what my wife said there follow the rules do what you can do but they mr. Johnson what he did made a beautiful fence that it's a he enhanced the property as well as his protection and we to feel at risk and because there is a lot of crime here and people come to that neighborhood because there is things to have there so I support it I hope that the City Council can understand that and also recognize that in a neighborhood there are a number of properties on Palomino and on all the corners that have fences and gates well beyond the five foot level now I know there may be rules that say well if you're a corner house you could have it or palomino you can have it which is the backyard of us I don't know okay I don't know how that would change the neighborhood okay thank you thank you anybody else wish to be heard please come forward state your name for the record Eric came 26 on Pinto Lena I'm against this doesn't meet the code the reason to have this code the way it is is we have the rural atmosphere no neighborhood it's one of only one or two areas in the city that has this current zoning I think its ranch acres okay people like it because it's open its rural like one of the reasons is you keep your fencing at a proper level if this goes through you set a precedent matter of years the whole neighborhood's gone down the tubes thank you thank you this is known as public hearing seeing no one else I'll close it turn over the commissioners Commissioner Rogan Thank You mr. chairman you know I struggle with these wall height variances and we've had a number of them and Ward one especially an Okie and think of the last meeting this is an older neighborhood and there's a lot of non-conforming structures either and built with variances or built without variances so it's a really difficult question when someone either comes before us for building or gets caught after building and is doing the right thing and asking for variance I think one of the public speakers mentioned there's a lot of non-conforming gates on Pinto Lane itself I walked in on Sunday I met with mr. Johnson on Sunday there are a lot of non-conforming gates in that whole neighborhood I took a look at this fence I don't think the fence is a problem I don't know that it's going to lead to the degradation of the community if if this fences is approved I do think based upon the unique conditions of this land that offense here of this height is appropriate and I would be moving to approve that motion it's emotion thank you okay you've heard the motion please cast your vote and that motion carries mr. chairman then item is final action this evening unless appealed to the City Clerk's office within 10 days okay moving on item number 30 var 71 33 applicant owner Bruce and Lorie winner mr. chairman if I may I apologize real quick I just wanted sir mr. Johnson so I just want to make sure so you have been approved you need to make sure that you have your permit package in and you can get that approved so you can get the property final inspected after a 10-day appeal period okay thank you thank you mr. Sommerfeld okay item number 30 var seven eight one three three and owner Bruce and Lori winner for a possible action on a request for a variance to allow an existing single-family dwelling addition carport with a zero foot corner side yard setback where 15 feet is required in a six foot tall yards fence where five feet is allowed at forty six thirteen Delmonte Avenue award one staff recommends the denial I get a staff report please mr. chairman no evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance has been presented and that the applicant has created a self-imposed hardship by proposing to over develop the site exceeding the title 19 development standards staff therefore recommends deny on this application thank you thank you please state your name for the record Bruce I need you to stand in wonderful front of the mic so we can hear it say it again please this is good Bruce Warner I live at 46 13 Dante we were in front of the city council 15 years ago for this same team same problem I have right here a piece of paper that that they approved it we had the person come out they inspected it they told me what changes to make for the property which I had to put a new roof in I had to take a gate I had a gate that was in the it wasn't really in the right away but it was right on the verge of being in the right away band the guy says we'll remove the gate put a garage door in and call me when you're when you're done and I'll come back and inspect it well he came back and inspected it and he said you're good to go I spent let me see the garage door was 2800 the new roof that I had Dean roofing come out they was $3,300 and he said you're good to go everything's done 15 years go by I don't hear nothing from nobody then I'll have somebody get code enforcement back in June coming up saying you don't have any paperwork for that that structure so now I'm here again in front of the people which back in June I asked everybody who do I go talk to who do I see everybody gave me the runaround of oh there's nothing we can do you have to do whatever code enforcement wants and then I got an attorney and he told me contact your City Council maybe they can you know help you out so I called the City Council and then all of a sudden I get a phone call from the Director of Planning and things got moved along so I could get I guess the paperwork of the appropriate paperwork that I that I needed for this to be all not draining our savings because we're basically going broke with paying for another variance we had to pay for this gentleman right here to do structural engineer plans the drawings everything that we needed for something that was 15 years old now we're going through it again we're paying again fees we're paying all this stuff and now we're here again okay thank you sir so just think this is notice as the public hearing anybody wish to be heard on this item you need this seeing then I'll close the public hearing and turn it over to Commissioner Logan sir I just want to be clear based upon my review of the the case it appears as though what happened was is that this this corporate was built either by you at a previous homeowner no no well I've been there 27 years okay sue I had somebody build it they told me they were getting the permits I had I I worked at though and he said to me let me let me let me speak cuz here turns over the the issue was he had got the variance after you built it and then you were supposed to get a building permit which apparently never happened and so because you didn't get the building permit the variance was not perfected it expired and so that's why you're back here okay alright so now that now that we've got that that cleared up I just want to be very clear that there was no mistake on behalf of staff there was just a situation where you didn't get the building permits and you understand you have to get a building permit that when the guy came over and he said you need to make these changes I got Dean roofing to come over and they changed the roof out I got scrudge door and I called him up I said ok everything that you told me to do is done and he came back out he said ok you're done you're all done 15 years go by nothing ok well I'm sure that I didn't understand that I mean if he would have told me okay you're you're done with everything I told you it's all good to go go down here let's draw out some plan here go down there and file for the permit but why did he come out twice and inspect it without a permit that's what my wife is she's furious because we pay for an inspection fee somebody comes out it tells us what to do and then we're the ones that didn't dinner follow the rules I mean I understand that I'm here again I just want the head all right take a breath yeah thank you it's alright cuz nobody wants to take responsibility for whatever I mean okay I want to work with you alright but I I have some concerns and I wanted to reach out to you before tonight's meeting I actually went out in the audience before looking for you before we started because I wanted to talk to you I want to take deference to the fact that the Planning Commission in 2004 approved this but I have concerns about the way I want to see the engineering reports because it looks as though and I can't look at them right now it looks as though that part of your carport is supported by the perimeter block wall and that that causes me concern additionally back in 2004 when you were first here apparently your perimeter wall enclosed a city street light and as part of the variance conditions you were told remove that wall so that the city street light is accessible by anyone then the city that needs to access it too and you never did that 15 years hold on hold on hold on and you didn't do that 15 years later so if we're gonna consider this variance again I want to make sure that you're doing everything that you're supposed to be doing by getting your building permits paying for them which you got to pay for and also changing that block wall so my request to you is if if you want to work with me let's continue this 30 days I'll come out to your house we'll talk about it we'll figure it out otherwise it's not looking good for you all right so do you want to continue this 30 days all right so my motion tonight would to be a beta stat the March 10th Planning Commission meeting you've heard the motion please cast your vote and then motion passes moving on agenda item number 31 var 7 8 do you have anything ok var 7 8 137 applicant Clark County School District owner school board of trustees for a possible action a request for a variance to allow no offset improvements on Virginia's City Avenue where such a required at 9 5 0 North Tonopah Drive Ward 5 staff recommends denial can I get to staff report please mr. chairman the previously approved site development plan review for the school requires the construction of all incomplete half street improvements on Virginia City Avenue and Tonopah Drive the applicant intends to comply with the requirements for improvements on Tonopah Drive but not on Virginia City Avenue while Virginia City Avenue currently does not have half street improvements north or south of the subject site there are no physical characteristics that would prevent the applicant from meeting these requirements staff recommends do not staff recommends for the implementation of all code requirements and therefore staff is recommending denial please know that there are additional letters of protest and support since publication thank you thank you please state your name for the record Mark pink nt 7250 Pete Drive net architecture represented CCSD if you recall we're in front of this board in June of last year to get all our variances and our design review handled between the Planning Commission City Council last year further information came up from neighborhood meetings well we are actually here defending the neighborhood tonight not picking on the neighborhood the neighbors all came out and asked us not to develop Virginia Avenue we tried to take care of it at the microphone with the City Council which we've then said don't we're going to get where we can and I can come back for another variance s for doing in the meantime the reason that the neighbors pose in our neighborhood meetings they've got to have rules feeling I live in the states myself I love not having sidewalks and and I like the dirt I like to be able to walk the horses on the edge of the road which there's still a couple of that walk horses behind the school on this road and so that's why we were denied to actually support further complications that have arised well when we put this together for this variance the hydrology study when we were that far along now in the drawings we're in with the hydrology study and staff suggested hydrology staff suggested that we talked about not putting in the streets on Virginia and we said wait a minute we're not putting in any off street improvements on Virginia so we got it all got everyone together so we gotta get in there for variance but the hydrology study that the ground was so flat out there literally if you pick it up six inches on Virginia we lose the existing building elevations on don't bow that's how close that's how close we are and usually in development in Las Vegas we don't have flat land this is the flattest land I've ever seen in 36 years of doing architecture in Las Vegas yeah so with that if you support the this request for variance tonight we'll agree to the staff recommendations okay um this is notice as a public hearing does anybody wish to speak on this agenda item seeing none I will turn it over to Commissioner Williams Thank You mr. chair unless we have come further comments from the commissioners I'd like to make a motion I see this item and I'd like to make a motion for approval subject to staff's conditions which he did say you agree with correct sir correct I like to make a motion for approval on var 7 8 137 for a demotion please cast your vote and that motion passes thank you and mr. chairman then item will move forward to City Council be heard as part of their agenda on march 18 2020 thank you all right agenda item number 32 the AR seven eight 142 applicant owner Eric H woods for a possible action on a request for a variance to allow a twenty eight foot tall freestanding sign where twenty feet is the maximum allowed a 298 square foot sign area where 100 square foot is the maximum allowed and a 140 foot separation from an existing residential property where a 200 feet is the minimum required for a proposed freestanding sign with visible internet in internal and external illumination and to allow an external electronic message unit where such is prohibited at 20 55 West Charleston Boulevard Ward 1 staff recommends denial can I get the staff report please mr. chairman no evidence of a unique or extra-extraordinary circumstance has been presented that the applicant has created a self-imposed hardship by proposing to over develop a free-standing sign within proximity to a residential zoned use step therefore recommends denial of this application please note there are additional letters of protest since publication thank you please state your name for the record mr. chairman commissioners John Warren San Juan Circle Henderson representing the application this property is located on Charleston across from UMC it's located in an area where the front 15 feet of the property is being taken for the beautification project on Charleston the existing sign is located in blue here it's within that 15 feet and it has to be relocated it's going to be relocated to East because of the existing building location to the east on the east side of the driveway the sign itself consists of two one hundred square foot panels these panels will remain the bottom panel will remain the sign can be relocated in this existing condition but the applicant would like to modernize this sign by placing a one hundred square foot LED reader a panel on the top portion of the sign replacing the Eric woods sign here but the bottom portion of the lower portion will remain as is no other changes to the sign are proposed the issue as I understand it is the property to the West is still zoned re it's a vacant property its master plan for office and presently for sale with a cyanide er for future commercial uses this is the only residential zone property burning on Charleston within anywhere in the close proximity the closest residential property fronting on Charleston is about three miles to the west at Jones and of course many miles to the east it's extremely doubtful that this property would be developed for residential uses from a practical standpoint the sign itself which will be located approximately in this area is not visible from any existing residences even the vacant property that's creating the problem here you this line here is the 15-foot line as you can see it'll be set back and it'll be a very very limited visibility even to the front portion of this property and it would be the very front of this property I would respectfully request that your your approval of allowing the applicant to upgrade the existing sign would be glad to answer any questions you may have thank you John this is notice as a public hearing anybody from wish to be heard on this item seeing that I'll close the public hearing and turn it over to Commissioner Rowan Thank You mr. chairman so just by way of background and my conversations with the staff is because the city was taking that property if they had simply were taking the sign as it existed and moving it to the location where he wants to move it to we wouldn't be involved in this question at all it would be administrative Lee Han deled it would be moved appropriately but because he's requesting an LED sign to replace that existing top portion he had to come through us with those requested changes I've walked that property just the other day with John he's correct that seems to be a legacy zoning directly to the west it's right next to crossroads of Southern Nevada which is a an addiction treatment center no one is going to build their dream home on that parcel and in the near future it's going to be coming and changed to commercial very soon most likely so I don't think that this is um this is a situation where we should be concerned about this LED sign and I would move to approve the variance var 7 8 142 you've heard the motion please cast your vote thank you very much and mr. chairman that action will go to City Council and be heard as a part of their agenda on March 18th 2020 moving on to item number 33 var 7 8 1 a2 applicant owner Terry R Helms living trust for a possible action or request for a variance to allow a three-foot distance separation from the main building where six-foot is required for a proposed accessory structure class 2 shade structure at 800 Campbell Drive staff recommends that now can I have the staff report please mr. chairman no evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance has been presented and that the applicant has created a self-imposed hardship by proposing an accessory structure that does not comply with title 19 development standards staff therefore recommends deny on this application thank you thank you please state your name for the record sir terry helms 809 up Boulevard Las Vegas Nevada please explain the application yes I paid for this permit back in like September and it got kicked into the billing department and I was actually here in November for a variance to allow the connection from the house to give me 24 feet in the back and that was approved and this was supposed to be on there it was my understanding the best way to get this approved was to do a variance and somehow the language wasn't right so I'm here again for the same thing basically it's it's a shade structure just like you see it that you guys put in the schools and the parks it's got four posts and I what I don't want to do is it get close to the foundation of the the garage in the back or because that's built in 85 and I don't want to get close to the wall along the alley because that was built between those win in the 60s or before so I just kept it in three feet on both sides and and that's why it's not six feet on the one if I push it out six feet that I'm in the middle of the alley and I'm still within the setback but it just doesn't work that way I have my neighbor's approval one of them signed one two postcards so I have no negatives on this at all okay thank you is that it yes okay this is notices public hearing anybody from the public we should be heard on this item see none I will close the public hearing and as the applicant stated this this was actually on some of the drawings that we had considered back in November and I think it it's appeared to be a miscommunication between the applicant and staff as to why or whether this was included or not at the initial time but when we were looking at the variances that he was requesting back in November this was actually on the drawings so I don't have a problem with this neighbor seems to support it and I think any conditions of the land warrant a variance so I would move to approve var 7 8 1 8 2 you've heard a motion please cast a vote and that motion passes mr. chairman that is final action tonight and less appealed to the City Clerk's office in 10 days meaning it provided there's no appeal that you'll be able to finalize your building permits after 10 days thank you I remember 34 var 7 8 1 83 up canola Robert and Pratt jr. and Sandra Pratt for a possible action and request for a variance to allow proposed 1,400 square foot accessory structure class to garage we're 642 square feet is the maximum allowed at 56 16 in for away ward 6 staff recommends denial staff report please mr. chairman no evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance has been presented that the applicant has created a self-imposed hardship by proposing to over develop the subject site by building an accessory structure that does not comply with title 19 development standards staff therefore recommends denial on this application please note that there is an additional letter of support since publication thank you thank you this is notice that please state your name for the record evening Robert Pratt five six one six ember away Las Vegas Nevada again I'm proposing to put up a metal enclosed structure not just a flimsy carport type thing that I can put the truck and the trailer inside of it and that my personal items inside for storage I've walked my neighborhood talked to 12 of the neighbors there I didn't receive any opposition from them they seem to be supportive of it they like the the structure itself that it was going to be conducive and you know aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood and then I wasn't gonna be blocking anything there so okay that's all thank you this is notice as a public hearing anybody from the public we should be heard on this item stay right there sir seeing none I'll close it and turn it over to myself actually mr. Pratt did everything pretty much the right way contacted his H way met with the neighbors I not one person complaining about him moving forward and granting him permission to to do it the property property it'll fit it works it's it's not I don't think it's intrusive to it and with that if there's no other comment I would make a motion to approve it and that motion passes mr. chairman that item is final action this evening and less appealed to the clerk's office within ten days meaning after that appeals period you can move forward to your building permits thank you Miss Sommerfeld okay moving on agenda item number 35 SDR 70809 for applicant on the double d group LLC for the possible action on a request for a major amendment on approved site development plan review SDR seven six four four zero four proposed one unit addition to a previously approved eighteen unit three-story mixed-use development with a waiver to allow zero additional parking spaces where two are required at 625 South 10th Street Ward 3 staff recommends a now may have staff report please mr. chairman no evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance has been presented and that the applicant has created a self-imposed hardship by proposing to over develop the subject site staff therefore recommends denial in this application please note that there are additional letters of protest and support since publication thank you thank you please state your name for the record Kraig Palacios bunny for studio 208 south of Maryland Parkway so what we'd like to propose is that we add one additional unit within the building footprint we're not changing the size shape or anything we're taking a space that at one point we thought might be an amenity secondary lobby may be a sitting room and making it into a rental unit because of the amount of interest he's had in the units I think it makes sense okay do you wish to make any comment sir host happy Charles 1797 and Nellie cord and the owner of the property okay thank you this is notice there's a public hearing anybody from the public wish to be heard on this item seeing none I'll close the public hearing turn over Commissioner slaughter yes mr. chairman just disclosure I've worked with mr. Palacios with bony fish to use quite a bit in the past but I don't have any ongoing business with bony fish at this point I like the project how do you pronounce or what what's the name in the project its larvae old it's like Dutch for a neighborhood friendly okay well I like the project I think it's a beautiful project and I don't think this is going to have any any great impact on the parking and the neighborhood so I could support it for those reasons if there's no other comments ready to make a motion please do on item 35 STR 1709 for we need to approve subject to staff's conditions you've heard the motion please cast your vote mr. chairman and item is final action this evening unless appealed to the City Clerk's office within 10 days participation public comment during this portion of Gianna must be limited to matters within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission those subject may be acted upon by the Planning Commission unless the subject is on the agenda and a schedule for action if you wish to be heard please come forward to the podium give your name for the record the amount of time of any single subject as well as the amount of time any single speaker allowed will be limited this is public hearing anybody wish to be heard seeing that I'll close it and adjourn a meeting