good evening everybody if you could take your seat we're gonna call this meeting to order this meeting has been properly noticed and posted in compliance with the Open Meeting Law the proceedings are being video recorded as well as presented on KC L V cable channel 2 please note customers of CenturyLink and Cox Communications can view the programming in high-definition on channel 1002 you can also watch the meeting live on Apple TV Roku Amazon fire TV and on-the-go Vegas app the Planning Commission meeting as well as all other KL k CLV programming can be viewed on the Internet at WWE TV slash live the proceedings will be rebroadcast Adhan kc lv and the web the Saturday of the meeting at 10:00 a.m. Monday at midnight and the following Tuesday at 6 p.m. would you all please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance madam clerk can you call the roll please chair cherry is excused vice chair Giselle vo further Commissioner Quinn is excused Commissioner schlattman prison commissioner Toussaint present Commissioner Roush here and Commissioner Williams is also excused thank you yeah we do have a quorum I call your attention to the information printed on the agenda concerning our actions and appeals and review process if appropriate please read to read this carefully and if you have any questions staff is available also the second page of the agenda contains the rules of conduct we appreciate adhering to these rules so we can have a smooth meeting sorry this is the item number four is a public comment during this portion of the agenda it must be limited to matters on the agenda for action if you wish to be heard come to the podium give your name for the record the amount of discussion as well as the amount of time for a single speaker will be limited does anybody wish to bring a specific action item up okay seeing none thank you we want to number item five for possible action improve the final minutes of the Planning Commission meeting motion mr. chairman I'd like to make a motion to accept the Commission meeting for March 26 2019 you've all heard the motion please cast your vote and that motion passes item number six we'll move on to the housekeeping any is there any items that the commissioners of staff or applicant or members of the public who like to pull forward for action staff please mr. chairman we have some housekeeping items the applicants are requesting to withdraw without prejudice items 10 through 12 and 19 the applicants are requesting to obey items 26 through 29 and 35 to 44 to the mate 2019 Planning Commission the applicant is requesting to obey items 24 and 25 to the June 25th 2019 Planning Commission thank you go ahead state your name for the record good evening commissioner Toni Celeste address nineteen eighty festival Plaza Drive here on behalf of the applicant for items eight and nine we would request that those items be obeyed to your June 25th Planning Commission hearing okay Thank You Commissioner Tucson would you care to make a motion please make a motion to approve items 10 through 12 1988 and 9 to the June 25th meeting 24 and 25 to the June 25th meeting 26 and 27 to the May 28th meeting 28 and 29 May 28th meeting 35 through 39 May 28th meaning and 40 through 44 to the May 28th meeting a motion to approve and motion to obey was at 8 and 9 yes to June 25th to June 25th oK you've all heard the motion please cast your vote I'm sorry did she stay they were going to be with John items oh they're being a vain but 10 through 12 in 19 mr. chair if I might just again miss mr. chair if you don't mind if the vice-chair if you could just restate the motion please okay items 10 through 12 withdrawn without prejudice 19 withdrawn without prejudice 89 will be Abeid until June 25th 24 and 25 abate till June 25th 26 and 27 May 28th May 28 and 29 idem is number 28 and 29 May 28 items number 35 through 39 applicant requests to obey - May 28th and 40 through 44 applicant requests abeyance - May 28th okay you've all heard the motion please cast your vote okay and that passes mister Sommerfeld mr. chaired so just as a reminder for this evening because we we do have a quorum at four members but we do not have a super majority this evening so any general plan amendment items that are on the agenda this evening while full discussion and a vote can be had none of them can reach super majority so they will move forward to City Council without staff can correct me but I believe it's without a recommendation or tantamount to a denial because we do not have that supermajority so that we don't have to announce that each time just I'm announcing that for the whole meeting Thank You mr. Summerfield okay moving on to one motion one vote the following are items that may be considered in one motion in one vote they are considered routine on public and public hearing items all public hearing and non public hearing will be opened at one time any person representing an applicant or a member of the public or a member of the Planning Commission not in agreement with the conditions and all standard conditions for the applicant recommended by the staff should request to have the iron removed from this part of the agenda the items are as followed item number seven TMP seven five nine five one applicant lacrosse engineering owner of twenty eight hundred Fremont LLC for a possible action for a request of a tentative map for a 1 lakh commercial subdivision at 2,800 Fremont Street staff recommends approval item number 13 VA wvr 75 925 applicant Omen Carmel Canyon HOA for a possible action on a request for a waiver to allow no landscaping along the portions of lecoultre Road and Leon Avenue or such is required for an existing residential subdivision adjacent to the northeast corner of Iron Mountain Road and Jones Boulevard most staff recommends approval under 14 var 75 872 applicant ClearChannel outdoor owner state of nevada for a possible action on a request for a variance to allow an existing sixty three foot tall off premise sign to be increased to 83 feet in height at 1604 west okie boulevard staff recommends approval and item number 15 su P seven five nine six seven applicant onus of Nevada occupational health clinic owner a Knick PC et al for a possible action on a request for a special use for an alternative parking standard to allow 15 parking spaces where 22 parking spaces are required for a proposed night 4928 square foot clinic use that 1640s aheri every hue staff recommends approval do I have a motion let me ask does anybody wish to have any of those items heard ok please state your name for the record Stacey Henry 8820 Monte Oh Doyle Drive Las Vegas Nevada eight nine one three one and this is regarding item 13 he doesn't need unless you're opposing some oh no no I'm not present so okay anybody else wish to be heard on any agenda item to just read okay seeing none sure motion to approve items 7 13 14 and 15 you've all heard a motion please cast your vote and that passes mr. chairman item 7 is final action this evening unless appealed to the City Clerk's office within 7 days items 13 through 15 or final action this evening and less appealed to the City Clerk's office within the next 10 days all right Thank You mr. Sommerfeld okay next is the public hearing items we have related 16 to 1916 abeyance read notifications via r75 123 a bokken ona DZ and rainbow LLC et al for possible action on a request for a variance to allow 25-foot residential adjacent setback with 79 feet is required at the northeast corner of Van Road and rainbow staff recommends denial item number 17 a bansuri notification sgp 75 1 to 4 for possible action on a request for a special use permit for a proposed 2985 square foot beer and wine cooler off sales establishment staff recommends denial and a bansuri notification SDR 75 125 for possible action on a request for a site development plan review for a proposed 19,000 785 square foot commercial center including a 2009 85 square foot convenience store with fuel pumps and a canopy and 288 thousand four hundred square foot commercial buildings with a waiver tonight orient the buildings to the corner of the street front where such is required to allow portions of the landscape buffer adjacent to the west property line to be three feet and a portion of the south property line to be five feet where 15 feet is required for the both and to allow portions of the landscape buffer adjacent to the east property line to be 5 feet where 8 feet is required staff recommends 2 now can I have a staff report mr. chairman a waiver is requested to allow a 0 foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to the East property line staff supports this request as it is due to an existing access easement for an active well however the applicant has provided no evidence of unique or extraordinary circumstances to support the remaining variance waivers or exception staff therefore recommends denial of all three applications please note that there are additional letters of protest since publication thank you please state your name for the record good evening Liz doke 1980 Festival Plaza Drive on behalf of the applicant if I can direct your attention to the overhead this property is comprised of four parcels on the corner of rainbow and an it was previously approved for a drive-through on the southern parcel and for retail buildings on the northern three parcels the property is zoned c1 the application before you this evening is a site development review for two retail buildings on the northern portion of the property and a convenience store and gas pumps on the southern portion of the property we are also requesting a special use permit for the sale of beer and wine from the convenience store so on these site plan as you can see we have two retail buildings on the eastern portion of our property and the C store is also like located on the eastern part with the pumps to the west we've made several changes from our original application after meeting with the neighbors and based on their preference to the site layout first we've moved the buildings from their original location along rainbow to the east side of the property to add an additional buffer for them we've also added an intense landscape buffer on that eastern side we were originally not putting any landscaping there staff was recommending approval of that because of the well easement however we are going to add that regardless we've also added an eight-foot wall along the northern and the eastern part of the property per the request of the neighbors for some additional buffering for them all of our buildings will be one-story maximum feet of 26.4 feet and we do meet all of our distance separation requirements for the special use permit for the beer and wine and there have been a couple additional requests from the neighbors that I'd like to direct to the board we are more than happy to comply with each of them but again I just like to throw them out to you and allow you to move forward or not first one is the request to add an additional four foot of wrought iron the walls along the well again I think that the code for the wall height is eight feet but if the board is inclined to allow us to do that we're more than happy to do so and we're also the neighbors are also requesting that all of the lights be shielded and pointed away from the neighbors which were ok with as well and the last request from the neighbors was to work with them to relocate the electrical for the well not sure if that's something that can be a condition but again we're more than happy to work with the neighbors on that we understand this is a difficult piece and we really appreciate the neighbors working with us and giving an additional feedback on the properties so happy to answer any questions ok this is notice there's a public hearing does anybody wish to speak on these items please come forward state your name for the record three minutes Jim Eppley 56 eighty-six North rainbow Boulevard I'm one of the applicants in this project as well I have a letter here I don't know if this is shown on the screen but this letter is from the school there's a kinder Prep Academy school directly across the street from the proposed retail locations and I'll just read it to you as well it says there they weren't able to come tonight Scott and Jennifer's roads the owners of the school it says this letters to service notice that we are in favor of the development on north rainbow and Ann Road we are in favor of the proposed convenience store in the corner of North Rainbow and Anne Road selling beer and alcohol we also in favor of the proposed strip mall that would be to the north of the convenience store north rainbow over the last few months we have seen more police presence in our area due to the homes across from our school just last week we had police presence at one of the homes that is proposed as part of the strip mall this overabundance of police SWAT and k9 was an upsetting situation for our families staff here at kinder prep academy it is our hope that the council will approve the 7-eleven and strip mall if you need to reach us the phone numbers are there as well so I can present this I didn't get submitted before today give that to staff that be great anybody wish else wish to be heard when is item please come forward state your name for the record three minutes good evening council commissioners my name is Maria Kreischer 5710 north of rainbow boulevard las vegas nevada eight nine one three of Nellis Air Force Base Mack legal I live next to this proposed strip mall we have the community well according to the Nevada regulations it has it cannot develop anything within 1,000 feet and our s and RS for four five a four one five due to the fact that this is a community well it is a proposed interference with the livelihood of an aquifer we'd like this to be in denial thank you thank you anybody else we have three mics so if you do want to speak on this item we got a lengthy agenda please sit in the front row we can get this on thank you state your name for the record Keith Pearson 57:10 north rainbow Las Vegas say the name again for me please I didn't hear it Keith Pearson also lived just to the north of the proposed development I had not seen the change to to the location of the convenience stores last we saw they were supposed to be along the eastern border we've been in correspondence with email with the developers but I've not seen anything on this that really you know I was far more comfortable with the development with the the stores back against the alleyway and the parking lot out towards rainbow boulevard the way it is right now that just seems to me it's going to invite more complications and problems with the alleyway it is it also puts more cars right in line with the well and with the the fencing around that I had not seen any of that thank you sir anybody else wish to be heard on these items seeing none I'll close the public comment have you step up answer the questions please would you like me to clarify please so as you can see on the overhead here so all of the buildings are on the east side and this was the what was discussed at our neighborhood meeting here's rainbow and here's an the homes here are to the east so all this is the c-store in the two retail buildings so they are pushed up against the eastern property line as far as the well we will be required to comply with all of the Nevada Health District regulations for that otherwise we don't have anything else does that conclude yes thank you open it up to the Commission for anything else Thank You chairman through you I'd like to ask staff their position about the community well and understand that a little bit better and how that would be supervisor or regulated when the plans come in and if we can get some sort of clarification on the statute that was cited previously and whether or not this is something that should be of concern to us or whether you're reviewing that thank you sorry mr. chairman I actually don't have any information to share with regard to Health District regulations I'm it's not something that public works really gets involved with maybe they're building Department would but I I don't know the health regulations for Wells Commissioner Commission what else you done all right Thank You commissioners Trotman yeah I was thinking about that myself and I'm not sure the well is anything that this Commission has any kind of ability to regulate due to the fact that it's not on this property which is my understand and so in Public Works or whoever could correct me if I was if I'm incorrect in that statement and noting thing about the fence there's no variance that was on the agenda so this body doesn't have the ability to approve putting another four-foot fence or wrought iron on top of the existing 8-foot tall fence and then there was a third comment that was made in regards to shielding of the lights and absolutely I agree with shielding of the the lights that should happen on every project and I did ask the director earlier about this and in within the conditions and the backup information we do have a title 19 catch-all statement that says anything within title 19 you have to meet all conditions of title 19 and shielding against the residential neighborhood would be one of those conditions so they would we would be requiring them to shield those so I appreciate the person bringing that up but those are my comments on those three topics I just to clarify one things that was asked so looking at the Clark County Assessors the well appears to be on the third parcel north of a van so I mean the Assessors isn't a perfect legal description of where the well sits but it appears to be on the third parcel north of an and you know we would need a survey to determine where things land on property it appears to me that well is actually on that one parcel just to follow up so prior to permitting that would have to be all that would have to be out miss Chad I think the applicant indicated something about the Health District having to require certain they'd have to comply with certain requirements in the health district in order to make sure that that well isn't compromised so yeah I like the idea that you're putting up an 8 foot wall I don't like the idea of iron on top of that III know if I was a 14 year old boy one thing I would want would be iron hooks so I could launch myself over so I I'm in favor of this project I think you've done everything you can and you'll have my support tonight any other comments if not I'll chime in so this one has been worked and worked for some time many homeowners meetings we went back and forth different drawings moved things around this is basically exactly what the consensus of the last neighborhood meeting request was is to flip it and move the buildings closer to the property line so that way it's more of a buffer and it shades the existing properties that are there they requested a gate around the east side of the well you guys said okay the shielded lighting the only thing that I have a rub with as well as Commissioner Tucson is the wrought iron above an eight-foot wall it's just going to turn it now looking into a prison and I don't think it'd be aesthetically pleasing in any way shape or form or a deterrent in any way shape or form somebody wants over something they're gonna get over it so I don't think it should look like a prison because that's exactly what it would look like plus anything above 8 foot would then be considered a would need another waiver or variance so yeah I'm not in favor of that I definitely support the project a lot of work went into it I commend you for having all the neighborhood meetings I attended them I was there I listened I sat back and people gave their input and you guys listened so if there's no other comment I would like make a motion for approval on this agenda item agenda item number 16 var 7 5 1 2 3 motion for approval this year with regard to the additional conditions are those already and part of the conditions or okay so it would be the condition would be the eight-foot wall mr. t Robbie for item 18 for the STR will bring up all those on 18 okay so motion for approval item number 16 var 7 5 1 2 3 please cast your votes and that motion passes motion for approval on item number 17s you p7 5 1 2 4 please cast your votes mr. chairman on item 18 just as you're getting ready for item 18 we like to delete condition 14 with the motion to mr. rauch and that motion passes under 18 motion to approve STR seven five one two five with the leading number fourteen and adding the gate on the east side of the well and the shielded lighting and the eight-foot block wall on the east property line motion for approval mr. chairman before that's done I need my staff to actually verify what the conditions are there so that we can have that articulated as Council are as commissioner shopman mentioned the shielding lighting is already a requirement it doesn't need to be a new condition it's a requirement of our code for residential lighting for the block wall you can make that a condition at requiring it to be at the maximum height and then I apologize what was the third condition the gate on the well okay so yes that you can also make as a condition and they'll reward that so that we get that right so just to clarify we do not want a special condition for the lighting I want to be ready to go if we need one no okay all right so we'll have added condition of a gate will be installed along the property line on the east side of the well and the second added condition and eight-foot block wall will be installed along the east and north property lines and deletion of and deletion a condition 14 you've heard the motion please cast your vote and that motion passes Thank You mr. chairman those atoms are final action this evening unless appeal to the City Clerk's office within 10 days next agenda item related 2223 at Bane's VAR seven five seven five five applicant two stone living Inc owner touchstone Alexander LLC for a possible action requesting a variance to allow a stub Street where a coal de sac is required and allowed 25-foot private street where a sidewalk such as required staff recommends approval item number 21 abeyance var 7-5 7-5 6-4 possible action or request for advance to allow 179 parking spaces where 282 parking spaces are required staff recommends denial abeyance number 22 SD r 7 5 6 3 9 for possible action on request for a site development plan review for proposed 130 unit single-family attached residential development staff recommends denial and number 23 TMP seven five six four zero for a possible action or request for a tentative map for a proposed 130 unit single-family attached residential subdivision staff recommends denial staff report please mr. chairman the proposed development meets density and height requirements for the applicable lone mountain master plan design standards however the applicant has provided no evidence of unique or extraordinary circumstance to support the parking and street standard variances staff therefore recommends denial of all applications please note that there are additional letters of protest since publication thank you okay this notice go for it thank you good evening my name is Wes petty my address is 1555 South Rainbow I'm here on behalf of behalf of the applicant touch-tone living our application has changed slightly since we originally submitted it after meeting with the neighbors we're actually proposing 120 for the single-family attached townhomes now so tonight before you we have our tinted amount for 124 units an SDR 424 units and then two variances one variances for stub streets which is pretty typical with with this type of development and then also the removal the sidewalk within the community and we have walking trails between the buildings and in common spaces and they're all pretty close proximity to the pool area and then the last variance was for parking so based on city code were required to provide 269 spaces the new site plan that we have has 269 spaces but the allocation is slightly different than the way then the code the code wants to unimpeded spaces per unit we're providing three different garage types we have a single car a double car tandem and a double a two-car traditional where they're side-by-side and then we're also providing on street parking which is parking on the edge of the street and then stalls so we are actually providing on 269 spaces which is what's required we just had the variance to address the allocation in the code so if there's any questions I can answer I apologize mr. chairman the project that's being described unfortunately isn't reflective of the backup if I could ask the applicant when did you submit these revised drawings to staff for review I'm gonna say the end of February okay thank you presentation sir okay this is notice as a public hearing does anybody on these items wish to be heard please step forward state your name for the record we have three minutes robin Vitiello 2251 North rampart number 230 I am wholly opposed to this project for all items 21 through 23 I have several complaints first of all my first complaint about this project is that it's just not aesthetically congruent with the area the Sports Park the softball fields the play park I don't personally feel that we should have condo complexes on public park area where people congregate for playing and enjoying sports and being outdoors visitors to the park I believe will be inconvenienced when accessing the sports park even with the adjusted plans that were presented this evening as it is now pedestrian traffic can access the park through the parcel that the proposals coming through if this project goes forward pedestrian traffic bike traffic will have to go all the way to the northern end of the park or the southern end of the park I also don't like the idea of building a three-story structure that's gonna block the view of the the city an additional complaint that I have relates to the variance seventy five seven five five I don't like the idea of a stub Street I think it'll be confusing for folks that are trying to use the public park they're going to pull into a street that they think leads them into the park and it's gonna be misleading they're actually going to enter into a private condo complex the public may think they're turning into the park but they're turning into a private property variant seven five seven five six I'm also wholly opposed to I still disagree that there will be enough parking spaces for this and this is actually my my largest complaint about this project the overflow parking for this project despite the fact that the proposals coming through that there are garages I find it very hard to believe that they can provide enough parking spaces and the owner of the property may think that they can use overflow parking in the public park area and if you've ever been to this park when it's softball competition season when there's sports going on there's no parking there at all when there's sports going on we have a lot of visitors that come to that park from California Arizona that comes in from all the surrounding states for all these softball competitions there's no parking in that sports park that public park and if the condo complex gets full and there's too many cars the overflow parking is going to end up in a public park or it's going to end up on Hualapai and that's where I have another huge problem is the safety a lot if you're in that area Hualapai especially north bound Hualapai a lot of pedestrians walk through that area they walk their pets through that area there's also a lot of cyclists and if the commissioner and the other commissioners are familiar metro police department has their training academy in that area they run up and down Hualapai and if there's cars overflow parking that ends up on Hualapai that's going to be a safety hazard because people are gonna have to go around those cars in order to go north on Hualapai it's a dangerous situation there will never be enough parking there in the park and I don't think that a private property should have overflow parking in a public park finally just one more comment if I you got to keep it going I got a real lengthy I understand has anybody else wish to be heard on these items please come forward all right seeing none I'll close the public comment and open it up for the Planning Commission commissioners Commissioner you know I'm really torn on this one because the the site is so difficult it's very difficult to figure out what to put on a property of this shape and size the location of it is very difficult next to the ball fields there's been some very valid comments made tonight and I have been by there when there are tournaments and other events and when it's crowded the situation is that from my point of view I feel like it's it's a very intense use for something next to a ball field next to family uses next to children I'm worried about the traffic and I'm concerned about the intensity of the number of units on the site but I haven't made up my mind yet what I want to do on this I'd like to see if my fellow commissioners have any comments first and it's not really my area I'd like to defer to the Commissioner from this Ward I just have a question for the applicant when you say that you you're asking you had 179 where 282 is required are you considering the garages as making it up to get that 282 and meet that standard yes no so with 124 it's actually 269 now and so the the codes unimpeded so we have two car tandems but we're only allowed on the two-car tandem to use one of those spaces towards the 269 so if we were able to use that both cars in the tandem we'd be like 312 so we're using the garages as one for the single in the two-car tandem we're counting one and then for the two-car wide traditional type parking we're allowing two and then we're sprinkle throughout we have a bunch of stalled parking spaces and on street parking spaces to meet the 269 required you have to have 282 that was when we had 130 units after meeting with the neighbors at a neighborhood meeting we we changed the site plan considerably added a bunch more parking change the architecture so we could have the two-car traditional type type garage and widen the streets to allow the on street parking so I guess I'm lost because it says here that you are asking for 130 unit yeah we resubmitted new applications after that neighborhood meeting back in so how many units now 124 I guess I have a question for staff then how come doesn't match so mr. chairman said yes that's exactly it that's I apologize I was scrambling around the drawings that he has do not reflect the drawings that we have as of April 2nd 2019 so I this plan that he's presented on the overhead is not what staff has evaluated therefore I'm gonna need to ask that we obey this to allow staff to look at these revised plans I suggesting that they haven't been submitted I'm just suggesting that we'd haven't seen those and that's not what we evaluated our the staff report on and so I see the drawing shows is that is there I think it's the same drawing it's just different colors identified it by building type I'm just gonna we're celebrating the meeting for just a second to pause it for a second we lost quorum don't think we have his drawings all right we will call this meeting back to order again the applicant please come up to the microphone Commissioner Toussaint do you want me to address any of the questions or concerns yeah I have a couple questions for you my understanding is is this community gated it will be gated it will be gated so people driving in there by accident won't happen because they're gonna have to get through a gate to get in there is that correct correct yeah they'll be forced to turn around and I also understand that you have with your original plan you had more units than you have now but you added you took away some units so you could increase the parking is that correct yes yes we we dropped six units uh-huh and we increase the parking from and he was 179 to 269 so almost 100 spaces and like I was saying we don't get an account for this second tandem space so that would be an additional 42 spaces up and above that number that we're not including right and as far as the interior goes you're gonna my understandings you're gonna have a doggie pet lot or a pet lot and you're gonna have a tot lot is that correct for the homeowners that live in in this gated community yeah that's over here the this area right here's the pool this is a big grass area I think they were talking about maybe putting a doggie area over here and then there's some walking trails through here behind the units mm-hmm and we submitted a drainage study already to Public Works and one of the conditions that they they've requested is connectivity to the park through the community for the threats as part of the amenity to the community you know this is a really odd shaped lot and anytime you have infill it's it's an issue I'm on the Hualapai all the time to say I have relatives that live not too far from there they're not in the notification area but they're there I'm close enough where I'm on Hualapai a lot and I and I look at everything as though I'm walking out my front door and I'm gonna have to look at this project because that's the only way I can evaluate anything and I think this is a really nice project I think you have met I know you've met with the neighbors I know you had me and I know there are some people that aren't gonna be in favor of this and that's okay you know you can't you can't please everybody but with this odd shape of an area I think you've actually made the best use of what you could and like you said you're gonna have on street parking now where you didn't have before is that correct correct we widen the streets to address that and that was my first issue really is when I first saw this project when I talked to it to mr. Manning I went it's Thanksgiving I have a big family we're where are these people going to park and I don't want them parking in the park and I don't want them parking in the common any of the other areas and he said you know we're gonna work on this and you did you went above and beyond and changed the project to I believe something that's harmonious and compatible with this area I'd like to hear from my other commissioners if they have anything else to say Thank You chairman through you I just had one question on clarification of the access points I see that there are double gated entries coming in are the exits that are on Hualapai ones on the west end I believe one on the east and then there's one by the ballpark driveway are those exit only crash gates are those also electronic operated gates or how does that work please right now this is the the main entrance and exit yep right here lined up across the street so this one right now is just a emergency access point so accidental trips would not be possible into that gate it would it would be a gate that's closed except for access correct what about the other access points or are there any access points there's no other access points these are just some streets that service the those end units confirming that thank you I have nothing further okay Commissioner yes I'd like to make a motion to approve var seven five seven five five you've heard the motion please cast your vote and that motion passes commissioner yes on var seven five seven five six mister Sommerfeld can you give me an update as to what the parking situation is yes three mr. chairman Vice Chair I'm gonna have staff read those updated numbers so that we we have what the variance that you would be approving is a three chair the variance based on how we count parking for title 19 would be 237 parking spaces where 269 are required are there any other conditions that we should be aware of on this particular item if if there are none I'd like to make a motion to approve var seven five seven five six with the traditions you for a demotion please cast your vote and that motion passes Commissioner on SDR seven five six thirty nine motion to approve for the motion please cast your vote and that motion passes and on TMP 7-5 6-4 o0 rather a motion to approve for a demotion please cast and that motion passes Thank You mr. chairman those items are final action this evening unless appealed to the City Clerk's office within 10 days moving on to items 33 34 GPA 7 5 9 5 8 applicant DR Horton Donna Frank B Jane but not C for a proposed action on a request for a general plan amendment from rural density and our n P rural neighborhood preservation to low density residential on a North Side of Regina Avenue east of T P Lane Ward 6 staff recommends approval 0n seven five nine five nine for possible action on a request for a rezoning from re residents of the our WA one single-family residential staff recommends approval number thirty-two VAR seven five nine six zero for possible action and request for variance to allow 1% connectivity ratio at 1.30 is the minimum required and a private street without access gate not to be constructed to a public street standards staff recommends denial item number 33 V AC seven five nine six one four possible action or request for petition to vacate US government patent easement generally located on north of Regina area east of TP lane staff recommends denial and item number 34 TMP seven five nine six two four possible action or request for a tenth of a map for a proposed 16 lot single-family residential subdivision with a waiver to allow 60-foot in a section offset where 220 foot is required and to defer offset improvements including streetlights for Regina Avenue where off-site improvements are required at the time of development staff recommends denial can I have two staff report please mr. chairman the proposed rezoning would allow six thousand five hundred square foot Lots while the proposed general plan amendment would limit the density to five point four nine units per acre although the applicant is currently proposing lot size is greater than ten thousand feet square feet which is consistent with the interlocal agreement the proposed rezoning would allow a lot would allow lot sizes less than ten thousand feet which is not allowed by the interlocal agreement therefore staff supports the general plan amendment but has revised his recommendation and does not support the rezoning request staff has no objection to the vacation request the applicant had provided no evidence of unique or extraordinary circumstances to support the waiver variances therefore staff recommends approval the general plan amendment and vacation requests but denial of the rezoning variance in tentative map please note that there are additional letters of protest since publication thank you thank you please state your name for the record please good evening mr. vice chair commissioners my name is Tony Celeste address nineteen eighty Festival Plaza Drive here on behalf of the applicant DR Horton Holmes if I could just direct your attention to the overhead our property is located right here where it says sites just shy of four and a half acres we are just east of Fort Apache to the north is Centennial to the south is Regina along our eastern boundary it'd be the chieftain alignment and right here is teepee you can see by this aerial that just to the north would be the 215 right here on the corner of Centennial and Fort Apache is an assisted living facility and then with respect to the zoning you can see right here that the site is adjacent to property already zoned r1 which is our request tonight first when we started this process we actually submitted a 18 lot subdivision map we had a neighborhood meeting based on that neighborhood meeting they wanted to see some reduction in that so we did reduce it to 16 Lots which is now in your backup as a result of that we do know no longer need to go to the GP a request of lo we can actually request that to go down to our the our general plan with cap density at three point five nine units to the acre we are at about three point five so we are within that our designation as you can see we're also requesting r1 zoning r1 is just to the east of us in this location right here we are adjacent to that so we do think r1 is a compatible zoning but most importantly I think is the tentative map that the tentative map you can see right here located here is 16 Lots as I mentioned we have 12 Lots that are accessed off of Centennial via this driveway right here and then we have four lots that are fronting on to Regina most importantly a bit what this map shows is that all of these Lots are a minimum of ten thousand square feet that would comply with the interlocal agreement and actually these Lots would based on that ten thousand square-foot minimum would actually be larger than many of the Lots that are in the r1j adjacent to the east this is the approved tentative map for that you can see the 18 Lots here many of these Lots closer to Centennial are between seventy five hundred and eight thousand square feet and then immediately to the west of us you also have lots that are closer to Centennial that would be less than that 10,000 square foot minimum so we believe our tentative map does show the intent that we are agreeing or complying with the inner local agreement which mandates the 10,000 minimum square foot Lots also with respect to this we have some technical issues that I like to address the first one really and probably the most important one is with respect to the street offset we are proposing our street location right in the middle of the site as you can see from the aerial the development directly to the north and the other side of Centennial has their location not in the middle there their development not in the rather to the east there and because we cannot line up our driveways with that that creates only a 60-foot offset where 220 feet is required staff in their recommendation or in their report suggests that we could flip the design and go off Regina and while that is is true we would not want to burden the RMP with any additional traffic through there like our neighbors to the west well during the design of this the neighborhood had requested not to have block walls they did want some residential to front to front Regina so we're proposing only four of them to go to Regina and with then with the balance of the twelve in the cul-de-sac but nonetheless we do agree with and understand public works and staffs concern about conflicting left-hand turns that could happen here on centennial so as a result we did work with Public Works and you can see specifically condition ten in the back up requires us to do a median through here and that would essentially only allow right in right out and that would help reduce and prevent the or mitigate the the left-hand turns and the conflicting turning movements so not only do we if approved conditions but I specifically wanted to highlight condition 10 which requires the our Horton to make that improvement in Centennial and that that median and thereby mitigating any of those safety concerns to other technical things we have one is the connectivity ratio we're providing one where it should be the one point three generally this this body has been very supportive of those variance ratios primarily because this is a small development if it was a a larger development also closer to commercial that I could you know could see the connectivity issue and then the final one is we have the patent easements that surround the property that we're asking to vacate oh and also finally we do have a variance request or waiver request to not have a gates on a private street so with that we would appreciate your support and I be happy to answer any questions you may have thank you this is notice as a public hearing there's anybody from the public wish to chime in on these items please come forward state your name for the record you have three minutes my name is Brian the Vetter I live on Regina Avenue 932 5 West Regina it's directly across the street from the development I've got some notice cards here I couldn't really process them because the language is a little sloppy I'd like to submit them now if I could how would I refer to this one right here it refers to for all improvements off-off-off the site to the south and we're gonna need some floodwater abatement there because all that's gonna come on the Regina I'm sorry anyway that's the that's the flood water issue do I am I on the overhead or what do I see here okay turn turning it around just just turn it around 180 there you go okay so it looked good for me in general we've been seeing this coming and we know that we need to get in line here but there's a major issue that I'm hoping to illustrate for everyone here this map I think we've already seen versions of it this evening with the the half acre lots all the way around the area and that's that's the legacy so that's why we're also committed to that scheme here's a couple photos that will help really doesn't show up very good doesn't show you why we love our streets so much and why we'd like to keep it that way hopefully you've seen that this is what DR Horton projects look like quite a comparison there I think all agree so that's that's why we cherish it so much and so here we are with some site plants and drawing I did here you've seen this scheme already I think everyone was familiar with it a DR Horton is representing four Lots that face on Regina Avenue the adjoining property that we are hoping could form as a template that could be repeated next door was a huge huge huge controversy arose over this we had close to 50 people neighbors came to City Council expressed their desire that the RMP should not be busted we did not get our way but this is a map that shows what that history was turn that around to the RMP used to be centered on Centennial then in 2014 it was moved down Midway then it was moved down to just a hundred feet or so 90 feet from the edge of Regina and that's all we were able to salvage all right past here a lot of time thank you let me flip this sheet so you can see what we prevent sir that they should match thank you thank you as anybody else to be wished to hurt on them please step forward stay tuned if anybody wants to be heard on this sit in the front row so we can be expeditious on this please say your name thank you three minutes Richard Galecki I live 9 3:05 West Virgina I live next door to Bryan right here basically what he's saying is these houses everybody in our neighborhood is about just keeping our street looking like the rest of the street we don't want to all that traffic flowing in a Regina it was nice over here two houses larger plots facing Regina that's nice we'll have neighbors there that'll be great those two canet our own Regina the rest can go out this way what he was saying is here there's four houses it'd be nice if it were to just so everything conforms and looks the same you know what I would love is if they're all half acres over here but we lost that battle over here so all we're doing asking is if you guys just you know work with us a little bit you know so that's it thank you anybody else wish to be heard on this side please step forward say your name three minutes hi Sharon Craig Olson 6260 Roper corn I represent the same in terms of what we're asking for maintaining the standards of obviously out of the question so we're asking at least continuity so I think the best is just to follow what was presented by the previous gentleman if at all possible obviously the 10 Lots are really what we're looking for to maintain continuity we've seen a lot of improvement of annexation in our area and so we're trying to reduce that and again keep the continuity so I would agree with the gentleman's before me and to ensure that we work with the developer to come up with something that's meeting what our requirements are as well as theirs as well as maintaining the rural environment that's it thank you very much and I turn in my cards as well please anybody else wish to be heard on these items seeing none I'll close the public comment this is less please come up and just I think one point I'd like to to make first I guess two one I want to reiterate the fact that we are in the inner local and 10,000 square foot is is what is expected and that is what we are providing unlike our jacent property owners number to talk about continuity - watts they're directly across the street are three that are fronting Regina we're asking for four again all minimum of ten thousand so I don't know not sure there really is that continuity with respect to that because there are three just immediately to the south of us lots facing Regina our lots would be facing Regina as well to keep that same streetscape instead of providing you know a block wall along Regina in that area so with that I'm more than happy to answer any questions Commission may have Thank You commissioners Commissioner well this is a difficult area it's always historically been controversial because you've got county ownership and County residents that come down to the city and want to tell us how to run the city and then I understand and I'm sympathetic to the neighbors wanting to have a compatible neighborhood I'm from Ward - everything's master-planned in Ward 2 I like curbs gutters sidewalks streetlights I don't understand why people don't want to have streetlights but that's me we all get a different vote up here and so you know I think that what's proposed looks good I think that it cleans up the area and I think that it's a nice development I think there's a lot of people that want to live in that type of development that said we can't control what's on the county side of the road they can approve what they want to have and I do understand the the neighborhoods concern about having a lack of continuity I think it does look bad I'd like to see the county clean it up and put curbs gutters and sidewalks in but I get into that argument all the time with commissioner - Salvio and we we go back to our corners and we agree to disagree so I think that in this particular instance I have one question for the applicant are these two-story homes or single-story homes we do not have a site plan with it so right they they do a mixture of two and three stories so I can't answer that sure it will be 10,000 foot Lots they are tense today they're all slightly bigger than that yes if you came back to me for something less than that I would probably vote no but since you're going to be sticking with your 10,000 foot Lots I'll be able to support you tonight I think it's a good and compatible use for the neighborhoods and that is reflected in the tentative map in your back thank you thank you Commission Commissioner yes I determine through you I just have a couple of the comments I agree with the lunda comments to Commissioner Roush made in regards to off-site improvements I have always been a proponent of putting in off-site improvements and however I do understand what the harm pay and keeping it role in these particular areas is important to a lot in the neighbors so now that the developers are willing to kick in money on every project goes forward with the new text amendment on waiving those I've been able to kind of waiver a little bit on that and seeing as how we don't waver on the the requirement to put in the streetlight conduit was the developers don't put that in and have to donate the streetlights and everything else to the city of Las Vegas you know on the private gate I like private gated communities but then again some of these small communities not having a gate and not being built to you know the public standards being built to private street standards I'm fine with and I'm usually mcgann snow not meeting a connectivity ratio and which is really important to me because in my neighborhood where we have 70 homes and and just seeing how if somebody wants to go around to the charleston side of our project they would have to walk about three blocks to get all the way around or vice versa in and so connectivity ratios mean a lot when they're trying to gain access to commercial developments or other things such as a baseball park or whatever in this particular instance the reason why and be fun with it is because we're having a connectivity to Regina and you know I'm sure academics would argue with me on this but I think the neighbors would probably prefer not to have access out to Regina from within this community so I can support that particular variance on that and the one thing that I was not clear on and I could ask public works or planning on item 33 the vacation what was the reason for denial on the vacation I apologize okay all right no further questions Thank You commissioner any other comments okay so first of all Thank You mr. Celeste I know there's been numerous neighborhood meetings and we were more dense than we are now there's been changes you listen to the community the people that live on Regina didn't want to stare at a block wall flipped it changed it dropped the less intrusive 18 Lots which is just adjacent to it down to 16 I think it's harmonious incompatible ten thousand square foot Lots yes in Ward six we do not like light pollution we like horse trails we like that kind of stuff so we're in I'm in favor of it I'd like to make a motion to to approve item 30 GPA seven five nine five eight with all staff conditions and that motion passes and mr. chairman has mentioned earlier because that's a GPA technically we do not have a supermajority so it's tantamount to a denial all right so it shows us failed how it'll go on to City Council I don't know of a thirty two VAR seven five nine six zero motion for approval with all staff conditions please cast your vote and that motion passes I don't know about 33 V AC seven five nine six one motion for approval with all staff conditions attached to votes and that motion passes item number 34 TMP seven five nine six to motion for approval with all staff conditions please cast your vote and that motion passes did we do do we approve 31 not sure yeah thought was skipped one sir okay so excuse me number 31 zero and seven five nine five nine motion for approval to all staff conditions please cast your vote and that motion passes mr. chairman all of those items will move forward for city council consideration at their meeting of June 5th 2019 Thank You commissioners okay related items number 45 through 50 GPA 75 997 applicant owner TP 1000 LLC for possible action on a request for a general plan amendment from rule density residential to RMP 2sc service commercial at the southeast corner of L corner Hualapai staff recommends denial item number 46 CEO and seven five nine nine eight four possible action or request for a rezoning from undeveloped rural density residential and RMP rural neighborhood preservation general plan designation - c1 limited commercial staff recommends denial item number 47 su P seven five nine nine nine for possible action on request for a special use permit for a proposed 3,500 square-foot liquor establishment tavern used with a waiver to allow a six hundred thirty foot distant separation from a church house of worship where 1,500 feet is required staff recommends denial item number forty eight su P seven six zero zero zero four possible action for a request for a special use permit for a proposed six thousand square foot beer wine cooler off sale sale establishment staff recommends denial item number forty nine SDR seven six zero zero two four possible action on a request for a site development plan review for a proposed 18 thousand five hundred square foot commercial development including a 6,000 square foot convenience store with fuel pumps in a canopy restaurant drive-through lane 3,500 square foot tavern 5,000 square foot restaurant 4,000 square foot general retail space with a waiver to allow buildings not to be obstructed orient excuse me not to be orientated to the corner Street footage where such as required staff recommends denial 50 TMP 7600 one for possible action on a request for a tentative map for a 1 lakh commercial subdivision staff recommends denial and item number 50 0 n 7 6 1 4 5 Alba can own a TPM 1000 for a proposed action on a request for rezoning from undeveloped are n rural neighborhood preservation general plan does a designation to re residential estates on a southwest corner of Elkhorn and Yolo Street staff recommends approval staff report please oh wait one more T p.m. seven six zero zero four four possible action do I do that one I'm going to keep them separate yep yep okay so please mr. chairman the project as proposed generally conforms to title 19 requirements however it is inconsistent with the provisions included in the 2016 interlocal agreement to keep planning area b parcels residential as staff supports the interlocal agreement it cannot recommend approval of any of the applicants request please note that additional letters of support and protest were received after the publication of this item thank you thank you very much please state your name for the record yes thank you very much mr. vice chairman and members of the Commission my name is Richard Brian 300 South 4th street las vegas nevada 89101 I represent the applicants the Becker family who are a longtime developers in the family they are here in the room this evening if there are questions that are directed to them I'm also joined by our planning consultant mr. Greg Borg al the same address as I've just previously given you this project has a considerable history mr. chairman and members of the Commission but let me explain if I may briefly mr. Bourg l will point out the plan that's presently before you which represents a compromise this is a 10 acre parcel owned by the Becker family on the west wall apply on the North Elkhorn to the South Witek and to the east EULA and you can see that in the western portion and we are proposing a commercial development on the east a housing development which consists of six Lots each of which is two thousand square feet or more with respect to the commercial development there is a restaurant lounge a restaurant a convenience market and there are four retail spaces now this represents a compromise from the original proposal which was before the city approximately three and a half years ago and I think by way of contrast it may illustrate what we have tried to do to accommodate some of the neighbors concerns the original project involved requested all 10 acres of the rezone for commercial we had that that was before the City Council it was rejected on a four to three vote we've had meetings with the neighbors we've discussed aspects of this with them on several different occasions and I want to point out what we have tried to do to respond to the neighbors concerns although I want to in all fairness that they do not favor any commercial at all but here's what we've tried the original plan contemplated a car wash the neighbors expressed strong opposition of that we've eliminated the car wash we have provided for a lower density housing on the eastern half as I've explained two thousand square feet they indicated that they wanted to have the rural character of their neighborhood and they wanted single-storey and they wanted a rural feel to it and we've accommodated that there's no access from the commercial development to the residential development and we have planned a more extensive landscape buffer between the two so those are some of the things that we did to address some of the neighbors concerns no ingress or egress from the commercial to the residential now the staff report indicates and frankly we were originally led to believe that there would be a recommendation for approvals only just very briefly with respect to the general plan agreement and the staff report the staff concludes the density and intensity of the proposed general plan amendment is compatible with the existing adjacent land use designations the zoning designations allowed by the proposed amendment will be compatible with the existing adjacent land uses or zoning projects there are adequate transportation recreation utility and other facilities and the proposed amendment conforms to other applicable adopted plans with respect to the zoning the staff concluded that the proposal conforms to the general plan the uses which would be allowed on the subject property by approving the rezoning will be compatible with the surrounding land uses and zoning districts growth and development factors in the community indicate the need or the appropriateness of the rezoning with respect to the special use permits that are sought the proposed land use can be conducted in a manner that is harmonious and compatible with existing surrounding land uses and with future surrounding land uses as projected by the general plan the subject site is physically suitable and that it goes on and on the other SUV that we saw that indicates the proposed land use can be conducted in a manner that is harmonious and compatible with existing surrounding land uses in with future surrounding land uses as projected by the general plan what caused the staff to ultimately recommend to deny was the inner local government agreement which is subject to this property I am informed by the staff of the city council person in whose ward this is in that the county has no objection and so what we would ask you to do is to is to move forward and to and to approve this project recognizing that it requires a supermajority who would like to encourage you to move it forward now there will be many neighbors here tonight which is certainly the right that will express strong opposition to the commercial aspect we engaged an individual mr. Esposito to do a survey and I'll just share the excerpt of the survey 587 doors that we knocked on we spoke to a hundred and ninety-nine of the people who shared their opinion of the project 70 supported it 60 are neutral and 49 are against it the point that I make is although the neighborhoods here tonight are strongly opposed to the commercial I think it's Furness to say that there are neighbors who are supportive of the project so again we would urge your approval of the project is the general plan amendment recognizing that it requires a supermajority the special use permits the zoning and with respect to separate items that you're considering I guess we'll talk about the residential at a separate point and we're here to respond to any questions that you might have mr. vice chairman and members of the Commission of either mr. bourdelle or myself for the developer and that we'd like to reserve an opportunity to respond to rebut any comments that the neighbors might have so I would yield do you mr. vice chairman if you'd like to ask us any questions at this point I'll say that for your rebuttal left to public comment if you think so if I can have you step to the side this is notice as a public hearing anybody on this item wish thank you very much please state your name for the record you have three minutes chairman commissioners Nathan Taylor 84 14 West Farm Road I live in the area and I also represent some of the neighbors in the area mr. C attorney was there any disclosures I need to make okay with all due respect to the senator miss bordello we couldn't find a letter from Commissioner Brown who represents the county out there showing support for this project so I just wanted to bring that up I'm not aware of the county supporting this project and I don't have any letter in my possession showing that the county supports this project I'd first like to say that you know staff recommend denial we ask that you follow staffs recommendation for denial east of the Hualapai and I know commissioners always familiar with the area as well is very rural there's world preservation in the area as well the applicant mentions in their justification letter that Elkhorn Hualapai are 100 foot right aways well that is the case the north east of this property is a church putting a tavern across the street from a church is not appropriate we talk about projects being harmonious and compatible this is about as far from harmonious and compatible as you can get destroying the quality of life for neighbors and residents in the area it's not what the city of Las Vegas is all about this applicant years ago brought a similar proposal for this property and it was denied by this commission and the City Council bringing this back looking for a different result is just in my opinion to stop in the neighbors faces commercial development on this property is not needed two weeks ago a new Albertsons shopping center opened up five blocks away on her alibi to fast food restaurants opened application letter there is commercial across the street on Hualapai it's worth noting that that began construction in 2013 six years ago as part of the Providence community the one I live in finally this proposal for commercial in 2015 was proposed and I just like to show you real quick as I end they look this is the 2015 proposal this is the 2019 proposal before you tonight they don't look the same they're not even close there are two separate things that they're presenting here let me turn the microphone back on these projects they don't resemble each other they've been this this commercial proposal have been denied in the past the neighbors do not want this it's not harmonious incompatible it's not appropriate for this area and again we respectfully request that you deny these applications thank you thank you stinking name for the record please three minutes set the clock I'll spell out my name ki ng bo n CH e w reciting as 7250 southern magnolia street eight nine one four nine part of the Bristlecone ranch development i'm also formally submitting the Bristlecone signatures of opposition I'm here today to publicly state that I am opposed to the applicants requests for GPA seventy five 997 and all its other related requests for commercialization upon receipt of your mailing 50 percent and growing of the Bristlecone Ranch homeowners have united to take stand against this proposal we relocated to this community as we sought out a new neighborhood to start a new life whether we're transplants from another state or other states retiring baby boomers or working-class people what we all bear in common there's lessons learned from years past that this proposal is not a good fit adding to the previous speaker before it doesn't make sense when an established avenue of businesses along the Rango Drive from Centennial to Farm Road exists with all the infrastructure in place and lastly a noted concern is that the increase of commercial traffic which appetize even more so to Centennial Hill High School students jogging along Hualapai whay and other nearby middle school kids crossing Elkhorn Road the quality of life as we know it will be negatively affected lastly keep it real keep it residential thank you thank you next please state your name for the record reset the clock hi my name is Amy Jackson I love it 69 32 Lakota summit court and I'm opposed to this and one reason is because ever since the Taco Bell convenience store storage unit place went up there's been an increase in amount of traffic so I mean trash and litter I walk around and pick up trash sometimes there's cup straws taco bell sauce receipts all over the place this place would increase the trash and litter and the beauty of the area also I see no compelling reason to put in another convenience store it's zoned residential for a reason there's no compelling reason to add another set of gas pumps there's some across the street there's too just less than a half a mile so we really would like to trust the government that you are interested in what what the people have to say all I've seen up here is is you're going against the regular people and approving developers every single one and you're approving everybody's approving everything against the people I don't get it we voted out our last Commissioner for that reason our commissioners not here to here tonight I just don't understand do you are you for the people or what is your motivation for voting for all these developers I just really wish I could understand that so anyway I'm opposed to this and I really would like to have more trust in you people so I would please listen to us so thank you thank you next [Applause] Thank You commissioner my name is nour White Cohen I live at seventy two thirty three great Dover Street Las Vegas Nevada he 91 66 I live in the Westminster development in Providence which is at the the northwest corner of Elkhorn Hualapai I'd like to reiterate what everybody said before me we that lived there do not want this here if you look at the the developed area around it everything in the immediate area except for the Providence commercial development that was there when they started Providence is all residential we'd like to keep it that way we don't see the need for another gas station we have three within a half-mile radius of that area right now three convenience stores as they stated previously that new Albertsons and the traffic has increased immensely in that area since I moved in there less than four years ago the developer that has this property is historically predominantly a commercial developer and I'd question why they purchased this piece of property when they purchased this it was zoned residential has not changed since then and should not be changed it buffers the the rural zone on the the east and everything as I said previously everything around it is residential so don't see the need for another commercial establishment in their area we're right down the road from Durango which has plenty of restaurants bars other commercial areas that we can go to I'm totally opposed to this we would hope that you would continue the denial of this as you did previously years ago thank you for your time I'd like to also submit one card I did not get to submit earlier Thank You time Thank You next please state name for the recommend reset the clock Wendy Martinez and my husband Greg Jill strim going just remand we live on 101 1-3 devrel Amen 166 it's basically a cross corner from where this what this will be and I've lived there over 10 years and when I bought the house I looked at what the zoning was and it was residential and you know I might not have moved there if it was gonna be a gas station than tavern I kind of think these guys added the tavern as a red herring that they can say well see we're cooperating because who's gonna put a tavern next to the church it's kind of a weird idea so anyway I just why don't why not put houses across the whole thing and everybody happy if I can add one more thing I'm also a member of that church that's affected and I can tell you there are between six six hundred to a thousand members that attend that church weekly on Sundays and multiple times during the week as I'm sure a lot of the neighbors around there can attest to we have activities for our youth we have more than 200 youth that go to that building on a weekly basis and do activities there so this would significantly affect the traffic through there but also the church we don't need the tavern next to a church or liquor license being approved and then I echo everything else we do not want commercial there our our bedroom directly faces that we're on the corner house facing across my two next-door neighbors couldn't be here tonight but they're both opposed to it I don't know where they're getting the 70% that approved this because I have not talked to a single neighbor that is for it so thank you for your time thank you state your name for the record please set the clock my name is Randy Stearns and this is my husband Jim bill Hill Jim failed house and we live at ninety sixty five Elkhorn Road we live basically across the street from this proposed project and if we I want to agree with everything my neighbors have said but also if we hadn't I want to say that for the record that if we had known that it would be turned into c1 we would not have bought our property we moved out there because it is a quiet rural neighborhood people moved there for a very specific reason it's a special area and should you approve this you would be going you would be setting a very bad precedent for neighborhoods like ours the Land Use Plan is supposed to protect neighborhoods like ours specifically the RMP and go against that and the backers have ignored many things about that area including trying to make it commercial and they also have been offered by builders to have homes built there but they have decided to still stick with commercial and it's it's very upsetting when you think about the way of life out there to be there and have it be quiet to live on an acre of land to love to walk around in your neighborhood with horse paths and that there are horses in the neighborhood this is completely wrong to put this kind of project in this neighborhood I hope I implore you to please vote against it please show us that you're with the neighbors in Harris and with your constituents to show us that you care about what we have to say - thank you thank you just real quick before the next speaker just to be expeditious how many in here are against by show of hands okay okay and the reason and the reason why and the reason why I ask is because if we're gonna hear the same stuff we already know you know what I'm saying so unless somebody's got something new to share we're feeling what you're saying so I would hope maybe pick a spokesperson or we're gonna be here for about three Oh may I speak if you want to all speak you go right ahead very briefly I'm not gonna reiterate but I am gonna take note of something I've heard here tonight I heard commissioner Ross for the record because I didn't sorry Mary Sanders 99 for 5 Wittig Avenue I live directly across from the property I've lived there for almost 20 years now and I heard you talk about continuity and we're asking for continuity to continue with this particular rural area and we're also asking you to do something very unusual that's listen to your planning staff your planning staff are suggesting it being not suggesting they're recommending it be denied and I hope you would consider that because if we can have continuity and we can keep what we have and have residential we have reiterated multiple times the Becker's give us residential and we will work with you we're not against commercial we instead what we want is residential development thank you very much and thank you state your name for the record reset the clock my name is Bridgette solve e sol VI e and I live at 7:03 zero north conquistador Street so just a couple quick points is somewhat fresh this one thing will be repeat can the audio actually zoom in on or the AV zoom on this this is the 5 acre reduction that was denied after the 10 acre went to planning and then when they went to City Council in December it was reduced to the 5 what they showed you earlier was the full tan they gave some discussion about how they reduced it but I just want to remind you this is what was denied December 2015 when it was already reduced to 5 this is what we've got today basically the same 5 we've got a tavern restaurant and the strip mall the other one just had a restaurant and the convenience store so we've actually increased the intensity with today's proposal on the five acres in more parking spaces all right and here's what I want to show you on behalf of the neighbors I believe I said several of you and email and I had this attached again if AV can zoom in on that I tried my best to do a hand scratch overlay here's the GPA map of the notification area for all the postcards or residents received I tried to draw that line as best I could matching out the streets these red dots that I pinned on are from the public record taken from what was scanned in on your packet of all the addresses and postcards and emails that y'all received plus the addresses that were just given to you by the Bristlecone representative because he gave me those so I can get them on the map that's Bristlecone right here that's pretty and we're still getting more the RNP which is the county people which do have a voice because we are notified and is covered with through the inner local a lot of people don't like to hear the county talk to the city but we do work together this is County and this is Providence we've only got a few people actually chimed in with their emails but I know there's more they haven't been received that I haven't seen that you all are still processing the point is please listen to the people the people are overwhelmingly asking that you deny this project as a commercial it is covered this property by the interlocal agreement I spoke with sue Baker yesterday afternoon and she assured me on the phone that there has been no letter from Larry Brown to provide a modification to the interlocal agreement that whether that's hearsay that something has come to the pike I have seen no letter sue Baker Council our Commissioner Browns liaison has seen no document letter to give a modification to the interlocal agreement without a modification the interlocal agreement covers this property you've got two layering of jurisdictions because of that inter local so I would highly recommend you listen to staff that you listen to the documents that are about this property and that you deny this application thank you thank you please state your name for the record my name is Mark Waid I'm a facilities manager for the corporation of Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day saints located at ninety eight thirty West Elkhorn Road we sent an objection letter earlier today but also we filled the zone change and variances would be incompatible and detrimental to the neighborhood and contrary to their reasonable expectations of the church and other homeowners as well as inconsistent with the city's master plan thank you thank you my name is Carlos Montoya I live at 73 80 southern magnolia in the Bristlecone ranch development I see no value added to our neighborhood I love my neighborhood I I'm here representing and want to mirror my neighbors and my neighborhood and I oppose this project thank you very much please state your name michelle Deshawn nine six nine zero Witek avenue las vegas nevada eight nine one four nine I just wanted to come up because I held on the cool jersey just kidding anyway nobody like that besides everything everybody else said the one thing I wanted to point out that was in 2015 when this was denied also the mayor denied at Carolyn Goodman did say no to this project and at that time then 20 acres north of this parcel was vacant DR Horton came in and developed that they took you know heat on that and said okay not gonna be commercial let's make it homes and then south of that project was five acres and that was developed or is being developed by Richmond American homes so you know I just don't understand why someone else couldn't break all the rules but I think they need to follow and do what's right for the neighborhood and what goes with the rest of the properties go Knights thank you thank you okay please stay for Stephen Cooper 72 five southern magnolia Street eight nine one four nine my home is directly north of this right across Elkhorn lived there for a year and a half and I bought there believing that that site would be residential with families that respect my property as much as I respect theirs I am against this commercial just like everyone else here is for safety reasons many other things but I wanted to say is that they say they did a survey I've been there a year and a half no one's asked no one from the Becker family or the corporation has asked me what I thought about that no one's come to my house for a survey thank you thank you state your name for the record good evening Suzanne Williams my address is nine six eight five Elkhorn Road and just moved to that property a couple years ago and I love the beauty of the area I think that I have a concern about something I heard and one of the prior [Music] RNP discussions was that something about beautifying the RNP area and the beauty about our RNP area if you take a look please go home and take a look at the crime mapping of the RMP area we don't have curbs we don't have walls we don't have huge lights look at the crime mapping of the RMP area it's virtually scot free of crime it's a unique quiet area that I love very much I want to keep it that way Elk Horn in my also in my letters has become a Speedway if you add on-site consumption to that road you have children from the middle school who have to cross that road on Grand Canyon and TP it's very dangerous as it is you add on-site alcohol consumption in that area it will we'll have issues with hopefully not children and hopefully not with any other cars I guess that's all I have thank you thank you please state your name for the record yes my name is Tom Michelle I live at seven two two two Queens Crescent Street our back yard overlooks this property I just want to say the most expensive thing that most of us will ever invest in is our homes My partner and I moved from Salt Lake City but before from New York City and we very specifically picked this area of Las Vegas and we love Las Vegas we're never gonna leave we love it here the one thing that is heartbreaking to me though I will tell you is if is standing on our deck at night and looking at him thinking oh my god are we going to be looking at gas pumps and are we going to be looking at a convenience strip across the street I in all of my years living in New York City and there were some vociferous arguments about what people do with various things you know I didn't know because we lived here for two years I didn't know what the feeling was about this particular piece of property until we went to a meeting with the developers about four or five weeks ago and you know what about a hundred people turned out and all of a sudden I thought oh my god were not alone we're not alone there are other people that want this neighborhood to be the same as it is now we are all for development I was a Manhattanite for 30 years I'm all for it but not in this particular place and as I said you know what do we really need commercial across from commercial and do we really need with all the people in this area to kind of look and go oh my god I'm sorry I built here or I'm sorry I moved here that's not why we did it so thank you so much for listening [Applause] they name please my name is Ross colada 1172 sixteen Queens Crescent Street my wife and I've lived there for the last three and a half years I was prior to this I was a public official and I was an elected official in Northern Nevada and I can tell you I've experienced what some of you are experiencing right now but never have I ever seen the kind of consensus develop around an issue like I've seen around this this community is overwhelmingly opposed to this development and have this many people here tonight when the Golden Knights are playing the seventh game in the series it speaks volumes I hope you will listen to the people you listen to what we're saying this is not something we want in our community thank you David Robinson 72 to Queens Crescent Street David Robinson 72 to Queens Crescent Street I just want to say one thing that Ward there the church there they actually have three congregations that meet there it's not just a single congregation for there's four that share that building plus there's children's programs and scouting during the week so to have a 24 hour tavern across the street I don't see how anybody could do that in good conscience to someone's faith okay thank you nine seven two seven shimmering Falls Court Las Vegas eight nine one four nine and as well as with all the other neighbors very much opposed to this I actually every single morning I go out and I run on Elkhorn and I run around Hualapai it's already dangerous ever since you guys approved Elkhorn going through Elkhorn is or is a Raceway and then more traffic that you allow from the commercial development is just going to be much more of a hazard and if you if you guys would actually go out to Elkhorn you would see there is no safe complete safe passage from one end from like conquested or up to Hualapai so you have to have pedestrians in the street so you have two lanes of traffic going and you have pedestrians and there's several of us that walk our dogs every morning as well so you have pedestrians and pedestrians with dogs trying not to get hit by cars so I just don't see why you would need to have commercial in that area also from running and walking around the area it's 1.7 miles from that area down to Durango where there's a develop where there's a shopping now you have the new Albertsons with two convenience stores over there and gas pumps which is on less than a half mile and then if you go in about three-quarters of a mile the other way you have the new Smiths that was built over there and they have gas pumps so we don't need another gas station we don't need more convenience stores and we certainly don't need taverns all I need is to have a drunk driver hit me when I'm running in the morning okay thank you thank you very much please state your name for record hi my name is Kathleen Bruce I live at 98 80 Elkhorn Road this is my husband Steve statsman I pretty much everything my neighbors have said I'd also like to add that I live kitty-corner to this project and nobody ever came to my door and asked me how I felt about it all the people that we brought nobody said that anybody surveyed them to ask them how they felt about it I think that it's important to note one thing that we have worked with other developers DR Horton and Richmond American which are on both sides of that property and we've always come to an agreement or a consensus with the neighbor and this developer has just refused to listen to us and not make any just completely ignores what the neighbors want even though I mean it's like we're here justifying why it should remain residential it's zoned residential okay it's the burden should be on him and he has not addressed any reason why this property should go to commercial there's no no support for it and I hope that you would leave it as a residential area pull the mic please the home was built in 2001 with residential and mine and zoned all around there yeah probably the one who done that if we knew commercial was going to be next door across the street the local police from 25 mile an hour the cops cannot keep up with that he'll you know before he gets done right no traffic ticket the next one you know Suzy parks next when he hits he's writing another ticket so yeah the alcohol with that simple math right thank you my name is Diane Lewis I live at 102 to 7 New Boston Avenue this is my husband David Lewis who lives at the same address and I just wanted to share my concerns four years ago I was living in Summerlin before they were doing all of their major development there and when they started to put in all the new casinos the mall now we have a baseball field like I just said I need to leave I want to get out into a more open area my daughter and her husband with my grandbabies came out here we both moved into Westminister there which is directly across the proposed development and we came out here wanting a nice quiet area to live and we looked around the area and saw that our one and we knew we were safe there as far as keeping it r1 and not having a big commercial development happened to us again but basically we kind of got run out of Summerlin with all of their development moved out here specifically for the nice quiet open area and we would respectfully request that you listen to our concerns because we wanted to remain r1 so that we can continue living in the type of area we moved into but thank you for hearing us thank you hi my name is Michael burns I live in 975 six shimmering Falls Court eight nine one forty nine we are at the meeting three weeks ago City Council me are the development meaning my ear your old daughter was my am I going to be able to go in it and I said probably not she was dead why do we need another gas station there's already two I said I don't know Brooke I do just that's what they want to do we don't want it we want residential please keep residential Thanks thank you my name is Dave Lewis at 1:02 to seven New Boston I just wanted to say numbers are very important and the people presenting the program here gave a bunch of numbers in the beginning and they said that overwhelmingly they had enough people to deny excuse me to approve the thing going through and not very many people to deny it well we have no people here right now then the numbers he gave and that doesn't have anything to do with the numbers four or five weeks ago that we had a whole building full of people that were just deny deny deny those are the numbers you really get a look at because right now the numbers that they gave the numbers that we have here they don't match up for some reason I just want to bring that to your tent I'm sure you see it he had a raising of the hands right so that's that should be your answer right there thank you thank you staining please my name is Quarles doing live at 97 57 shimmy Falls Court I just want to keep it short I don't want everybody said what they want to say but I think the real reason for this is it's all about money they just want to make more money they don't care about our residents around the area that's all it is money [Applause] Jessica Campagna I live at nine six six zero Witek Avenue and I just wanted to come up and say that when we had the neighborhood meeting with the Becker's one of the things that they said was that they wanted to enhance the community and bring value to the neighborhood and bring the community together and while I absolutely don't think that a tavern and a gas station and convenience store will do that I will say that this process has there's been plenty of city folks if you want to raise your hand if you live in the city and oppose this project if you want to raise your hand if you live in the comi it has gotten a lot of the city and county folks to really talk to each other realize our commonalities and get to know our neighbors so I just wanted to say that I but I do really value the community building minutes breath all right seeing none I'll close the public comment and I'll ask senator come back up please for rebuttal thank you very much mr. vice chairman members of the Commission I'd like to yield to Greg we'll go for a couple moments to make some technical observation and I'll briefly summarize yes mr. vice chairman and members of the board Greg Borg l300 south 4th Street I wanted to speak just for a moment to rebut the assertion that was made by the principal early speaker on the other side here that this is the same proposal that was previously denied and it isn't the same proposal and it the reason for that is the reservation as shown in the next two agenda items before you of this area for re development and the the change that makes to the project overall is that we now have a project that has in essence buffered itself and responded to all of the neighbors stated concerns the last time the project was in front of you and that is to say on the west and the north we have 100-foot rights-of-way which are being fully developed in conjunction with this project which first of all match up on the West with existing commercial and secondly faiths across the street to the rear of a residential development not the fronting on here all existing re development has been designed to be matched with new development on the east half of the project so that what we have is 100 foot right away hundred foot right away re matches re and re matches re and so the developer here is not presenting the same thing that was presented before he did come in with commercial before he did talk about ten acres he did talk about five acres but when you have before you tonight a package arrangement that responds to the legitimate concerns the people in re homes should should be facing re homes and everything else is surrounded by appropriate development proposals as defined by your staff obviously I'm a planner as you know and it isn't surprising I reach the same conclusion your staff did that this is the right design for the parcel and that's what they have recommended save and accepting the fact that the interlocal agreement has not been approved in writing by the county but I'll defer to Senator Brian in response to those issues yeah mr. vice chairman and members of the Commission I understand there's resistance to change I grew up in this community there were ten thousand people there were ten thousand feet in in Las Vegas when we moved into our hunt reach home Charleston was not cut through the Maryland Parkway obviously as this community has grown that a man for housing additional commercial and other amenities is part of what's occurring in our community one of the individuals who spoke said look just follow the direction of your staff may I respectfully suggest I think that's what I would urge you to do the staff is indicated I'm not going to beat this that they like the project in other words it's compatible and you heard all that that's say in your staff report they like this project please show some respect senator please show they didn't do anything when you guys are doing your thing just just let him speak okay please thank you okay thank you but what I'm saying mr. mr. vice-chairman is that the staff well let me put it this way I'm an advocate obviously by us I'm for a client who wants to do something obviously the neighbors here have an emotional attachment to your home the only neutral party in this whole thing is your staff they are the professionals and what they are saying is that this is compatible they support the planning aspect of this the only reservation that they expressed was the interlocal agreement we understand that that's our obligation I'm informed that the Commissioner and the county has indicated that he has no objection to this unfortunately he's been ill and unavailable for the last couple of weeks and finally if I might briefly respond that the survey that was done knocked at some 587 homes my experience you're more experienced in this you listen to these every so many weeks is that only those who tend to oppose a project show up I understand that so again I would just urge you to support the recommendation of your staff on the planning aspect let this move forward I understand it's a general plan agreement it requires a supermajority and we will continue to work with the county to make sure we satisfy the provisions of the interlocal agreement and I would indicate that we're further amenable to talking to members of the of the community in terms of anything that they would like to discuss there are changes within the commercial we cannot agree that no commercial is suitable here that's that's not a point that we can negotiate with them but if there's some aspect of the commercial that would ease their concerns were amenable to discuss that with them and thank you very much mr. vice chairman remember listening to us all thank you any further comments only if you have additional questions mr. chairman not at this time I'll stop that for a second and move it over to planning staff commissioners anything Commissioner rouse you ready to make a motion I apologize I didn't want to jump in front of you know I comments please thank you just a couple of things that are my opinion only this this vote tonight excuse me the city attorney has mentioned really is not a final vote and really has little bearing it has to move forward unfortunately as a denial which is unfortunate just but in a matter of circumstance because we don't have a real majority here a supermajority and I know you gentlemen understand that it's always difficult when you're talking about development in an area where it's been rural living for a long time and we have a difficult decision to make up here and I heard a lot of the residents comments and I sympathize with all of you I would ask you to all be respectful of the difficult decision that we have to make I heard a lot of disrespectful comments as many as I heard respectful ones unfortunately and we're trying to do what's in the best interest of everyone and to act like you should only have the the final say and that the developer or the owner of a property has no rights is also not fair just like you have property rights for your home I do understand and agree that you have a big investment it's probably your single largest investment but this is America and everyone has rights and we have to all come together and try to figure out what's the best thing for everyone it's a 10 acre parcel it was originally 100% commercial the developer has decided to cut it in half and excuse me I'd like to finish please I'll look defer to the Chairman however he wants to handle people as they become unruly but I would like to just make my comments please the checkerboard pattern of development that we have in this valley where the BLM owns large parcels throughout the valley is what's pushing home builders and commercial developers into neighborhoods that is creating a disruption that we deal with on a daily basis the problem that we listen to on an every meeting occasion is people who don't want to see development next door to them across the street from them down the street from them a development plan that they don't like and quite frankly there's absolutely no way that we can make everybody be this application is half the size or impact on the neighborhood is what it used to be it sits on two major arterials that are 100 foot right aways and something's got to go there now I do understand the church in its proximity and I have consistently been a large advocate I think in almost every vote that I've ever made in terms of denying applications where they're asking for a waiver for gaming and liquor uses and in this instance I will continue to be consistent in that regard but I do think that commercial is the appropriate use on this five acre parcel and I think that the developer is giving you a gift in terms of the half acre lots adjacent on the other side they could have come in with a lot of different other applications they could have come in with something that was mixed-use they could have come in with many storage they could have come in with apartments there's a lot worse neighbors you could have had on that other five acre side I would say you should probably make your best deal you can on the hundred-foot right-of-ways and hope for the least impact possible I won't be supporting the application for the liquor piece of the the request tonight but I will be supporting the rest of the commercial application for the reasons I've stated these are merely my opinions urine all entitled to your own opinions thank you for giving me the time to say so yes I'm familiar with this parcel I was just out there last month in the month before I had a class out in Providence and I understand how the homeowners feel III can t we had a five-story building on Sahara across from Canyon gate 2007 that the homeowners were death set against and we wanted to work with the developer at that point in time to go for their three-story building we wanted to work with the developer and for whatever reason we couldn't it appears to me that this developer excuse me I'm losing my voice is willing to work with you because part of that parcel is gonna because home homes now is it's not commercial it's residential anytime you have excuse me development especially like out in Ward six where more and more people are moving out there it's gonna require more and more services it really is and I know you don't want some of these services and I get that but the people that move in after you are gonna need these services I was just that I just went to that Albertsons as beautiful Albertsons I went there went grocery shopping and I thought it was great and I remember there were people were against that Albertsons and I'm sure that the people now that are shopping at Albertsons are very happy that they have Albertsons there this is a difficult issue it really it really is my heart goes out to the homeowners I know how you feel I probably would as a homeowner would probably feel the same way that you do I haven't quite made up my mind yet exactly what I'm going to do but I do think that this particular project is compatible with with the area thank you this is this in my mind has been a very difficult a bunch of agenda items and it has been since it's been presented to me I know it has to be deep history since 2015 I know and Arase believes if I'm not mistaken in the Saturday you can chime in and let me know if I'm off cue but at one point in time it was designed all residential and it was opposed even when it was all residential I think it was 40 Lots at one point in time are you familiar what what it was very back in 2015 I tried to respond to that I'm not aware that that occurred back in 2015 I am aware that there have been attempts to lay out of residential development on the property which has never reached the point of coming to this board or the City Council okay maybe I'm going back a little further than I thought but at one point in time it was it was pretty 99 percent hundred percent sure that was like 40 Lots on that 10a almost 10 acres it's almost 10 acres and then this came up in 2018 as almost 10 acres of commercial and I could see why they would have shot that down at that point in time in 2015 that landscape in that area was totally different than what it is right now and so I can see why that that got shot down but I look at this application right now and I say okay well they came with a happy medium if you could put your board back up of what you're proposing please so that way everybody could follow along with me okay so we have a long EULA there was asked that the people that lived in that area did not want to stare at a block wall they didn't want to stare at a landscape buffer they want to stare at houses with driveways that let out so frontages of houses faces frontage of the houses they wanted to rule accommodations now these are things they've been brought to my office brought to my attention through emails that that if it was gonna happen and it was gonna go down and this is the stuff this is the hill worth dying for and that was they had to have the ruinous which I agree with you a hundred percent that's just how we like it out there in Ward six so they didn't want the site improvements and on on that Street then unwitting the people that the two houses that are there I said hey listen I don't want to stare at a block wall I want to make sure that those two those people so they turned that around so those two parcels face the existing residential that was there to make it more harmonious and compatibility community then them splitting it up and taking the other five acres and turn it into commercial my great concern was of course now I don't think it's gonna bring that much more traffic meaning why I say that's business community it's going to be using this I'm not gonna come from where I live on granting John and Jones go get gas in your neighborhood gonna tell you so I think it's the people that live in our neighborhood that are going to utilize those services no we're outside maybe a mile or two within they might go to it but like you said there's other gas stations a half a mile or within a quarter-mile of that location but I was worried about traffic so I got made sure I got with the proper chain of command and I heard that there is going to be a street light installed on the corner of Elkhorn and Hualapai which raised one of the questions of lady stated she walks a dog it's kind of crazy right now it's it's it's a like a drag strip through there well hopefully that light will put a stop to that it's a desperate need I like that the commercial does back up and fall in line with an existing commercial on that corner I mean if you're gonna put commercial put it right next to an existing commercial then to the south of that proposed commercial is I'm not mistaken that's all r1 which are smaller Lots than what's being proposed by this developer substantially smaller than what's being proposed by this developer so I took that into consideration then it was raised well I don't want the people that get those Lots those 20,000 square foot Lots to staring at my property so I want to make sure I put a restriction of one-story homes on there so the developer as far as I'm concerned agreed to it and if I'm ganna from outside the box let me know senator to do one-story homes to be more harmoniously compatible to the community so they reached out and they said hey we're gonna give you real set standards we're gonna give you one story homes I want to give you 20,000 square foot Lots we're gonna make sure we face every bit of existing homes that exist up that would be truly affected now you're going across the street to Hualapai our excuse me on Elkhorn and you got the commercial and the existing the proposed new residential stare at existing backyards which has zero effect as far as any aesthetics or anything that I could see 100 foot right away I think no I know you know change is tough it really is but we're in a position right now where to me personally I think this is harmonious do I have a little rub with the tavern I absolutely did did I have a little rub with the on-sale liquor ought to get at the store and I mentioned it to Senator Brian when I had the meeting with him I actually do and I kind of wanted to know at first how staff approved allowing the distance separation issue and they told me it was because of the hundred-foot right away because of the hundred-foot right away it kind of gives them that ability to make a recommendation for approval so then I asked I said okay what's the soft denial for and the soft denial was for because Commissioner Brown at that point in time too were able to get to him hadn't chimed in and because of the interlocal agreement he had to have his two cents and by all means we wanted it and from what I understand he has no problem with this development now whether there's a letter exists I don't know but I have been informed that he does not have a problem with this development so that was where the soft denial came in when it was originally when you hear senator Brian the applicant representing the applicants coming in saying hey this is the moenay's craddle it works it fits but wait I'm going to pull back that and make it a denial because we're kind of dealing with it in a local agreement I really truly believe the developer did reach out and do their due diligence and take the voices and the concerns from the people that are most effective which are the people that back up to that five-acre and you know I gotta leave it right there I'm really torn but I have to say that I fully support and I was against the same as Commissioner Roush on item 47 until staff had to let me know that because of that distance separation of the right way that's what made it okay so I mean I'm I'm in favor of it at the way it sits right now but like you said I'm we're not the last last body here it's going to move on regardless of moves forward with approval or denial it still goes to City Council final but I I could support this because as commissioner rouse pointed out as a landowner and if you are - there's nothing really stopping them from throwing something at us in the kitchen sink and then that's how I look at that and hopefully it's not as intrusive as what you think this is you know they can come in with a whole lot more heavier use if they wanted and we'd have to sit through the whole thing all over again and I think having 20,000 square foot Lots in today's day and age when developers want 6,000 square foot Lots there's a huge plus and a huge win for you guys and that's just just how I see it you may not agree with me I respect each and every one of you in your opinion and we do try to do the best we possibly can up here - on these infill projects to try to make it as phony as incompatible as possible and I truly believe that 20,000 square foot Lots backing up to 20,000 square foot Lots and and really zero effect to those that when this is on the corner other than the rub with the tavern I think it's a good deal I really do and that's my personal opinion and I respect each and every one of yours just so you know so with that said mister I would anything yes I I appreciate you going to everybody else before coming to me because I have been having trouble formulating my thoughts on this and because I've been back and forth on this over and over and over I mean when I first seen it I didn't like it and then I thought it was compatible and then hearing from neighbors you know and then looking at the looking at the lot adjacent to this with you know the subway and the fuel pumps and everything has a considerable amount of landscaping around it and pretty shielded from from that neighborhood which I think they did a the neighbor and property did a fantastic job with trying to minimize the impact on that neighborhood I do like certain things such as the residential lots towards the east I do also respect the neighborhood when they have this many people that come out position when one's a particular neighborhood where it hasn't been as developed as this neighborhood you know will usually get a few people out in opposition or maybe 20 people out in opposition we've had quite a quite a few people out in opposition this evening however and saying that as well I mean there is or there are other commercial properties the Taco Bell and the Pizza Hut and Albertsons up and down Hualapai so even though wouldn't necessarily be in support of a tavern I mean justice and gentlemen said you know his daughter wouldn't be able to go eat at that restaurant I feel that a restaurant would be appropriate on this site I feel that you know possibly a convenience store could could be acceptable however I'm not I'm not really in support of putting more fuel pumps and putting more alcohol into a convenience store in that neighborhood so I'm a little bit torn on this I think I think something needs to go there something can go there and I think it might be able to be massaged a bit I think a few of these items could have my support but overall a fill a lot of them need to be worked out a little bit better before it hits City Council that's my thoughts okay anybody any of you never have okay seeing none I'd like to yeah and I also would like to point out on the on the landscape buffer between the two parcels I think that's what 32 foot buffer it's twelve twenty foot and then the landscape which the overall width of that buffer I have that here in general you're correct commissioner that we've done is maximized the landscaping where it faces or could be affecting the residential so that if you look on the page in which staff calls out what's being done we have 15 feet of landscaping on the North 20 feet on the south except we're adjacent to the right-of-way where there were at 12 feet but we have 20 feet on the balance of the south on the east we have 20 feet and frankly that's an amenity to our future residential as much as anything else but its point is adjacent to the residential we've put in 20 where the standard would have been much less and then on the west we're at 13 we're 15 would be required but that's where we face the rest of the commercial so on balance what we've done is provided more landscaping overall than would otherwise be required and but we've enhanced it further where it's adjacent to or can be seen by existing or proposed residential and less so where it's facing either the commercial across the street or areas where it wouldn't be easily observed so yes we have more landscaping and we've we focused it on the areas that would abut residential all right thank you all right I'm gonna make a motion we'll see where it goes item number 45 GPA 75 997 I'll make a motion for approval please cast your votes and that motion only fails because we only have four okay motion for approval on Zeo and seven five nine nine eight and that motion passes motion for approval on su P seven five nine nine nine and that motion fails that anybody entertain another motion yes mr. chairman on item 47 SGP seven five nine nine nine moved to follow those deaths recommendation for Danelle and that motion fails as well it's denied saying yeah okay item number 48 SCP seven six zero zero zero motion for approval and that motion fails can I get another post yes uh chairman Salvio on item 48 sgp seven six zero zero zero moved to fellow staff's recommendation for denial and that motion passes as a fail SPR 76002 mostly to approved no we just did that one and that's a tie sanity notch is a fill mr. chairman on item 49 SDR seven six zero zero two I moved to follow staff's recommendation for denial and that also fails number fifty TM TM p seven six zero zero one motion for approval mr. chair before on that item we would request that you delete condition number five it's in relation to CC&R which is not required for a commercial property so noted condition number five on 50 you heard the motion please cast your vote motion to approve and that passes mr. chairman all those items will move forward to City Council and be heard as a part of their agenda on June 5th 2019 thank you and thank you for the extra time you devoted to the consideration and 51 and 52 0 n76 145 al-baqi Nona TPM 1000 LLC for possible action I request for his rezoning from undeveloped RMP rule neighborhood preservation general plan designation to re residential estates on the southwest corner of Elkhorn and EULA Street staff recommends approval and T p.m. seven six zero zero four item 52 for proposed action a request for a tentative map for a six lot single-family residential subdivision staff recommends approval mr. chairman the existing undeveloped zoning district is a temporary classification until development is proposed in this instance the applicant is proposing a large lot single-family development with a residence estate zoning district which conforms with the existing RMP land use designation the proposed tentative map conforms to Nevada Revised Statutes and title 19 requirements for tentative Maps and the Department of Public Works has administratively approved a deferral of off-site improvements along Dula street and Wittig Avenue the proposed tentative map also meets the minimum lot size requirements set forth by the inner local agreement and staff recommends approval of both requests please note that additional letters of support and protest were received after the publication of this item thank you mr. vice chairman and members of the board Greg Borg Allegan 300 South 4th Street we now address only the six re Lots on the eastern portion of the overall ten acres the applicant has reviewed and agreed to the staffs recommendations which were of course for approval but also had conditions that he has accepted in light of the staff comments it seems pretty self-evident that this is entirely compatible and as you know we view it as part of a package deal with the commercial but viewed separately it obviously is completely compatible we would hope you would follow the staffs recommendation thank you this is notice there's a public comment anybody wish to be heard on these items please step forward state your name for the record set the clock at three minutes absolutely I'm gonna step forward Bridgette solving 70/30 north conquested or Street this is exactly what we want compliance with both city general plan which says the zoning is residential and the old zoning of what it was when it was County which was the RMP and the applicant although they stripped off the 40 feet all the way down the length to make that commercial we just talked about happen a whole nother story there and nobody listened to that one this is half acres and it's compliant with both layers the inner local and what the city has already recognized as a residential and old re RMP they're recognizing is not an overlay but it still carries that name nomenclature this I agree with this I support yay thank you and thank you one last thing I'm extremely depressed that the board did not follow proper rules of order and can remain discussing this project and didn't keep it separate from the other that was bad hi please say me my name is Mary Sanders nine nine four or five Wittig Avenue I live across from these prop this property that's being proposed I'm not opposed to residential I'm a post to that they did not bring it to the neighborhood meeting it was basically just an after site of well we're thinking about doing this so this is actually the first time the neighbors have actually seen this and I don't even think we got a car I didn't get a card about this so even though I think it's a good idea for the six acre or six lots like Bridget's talking about I do think that it should have been brought to the neighborhood and we could have had discussions before it goes to City Council and I as you can well understand I'm very disappointed because I'm kitty-corner to that property of the commercial and I think there have been some things that have been proposed by the the developer that have not been true and I think you've been misled and I just want to say that thank you very much thank you anybody else wish to be heard on these items right seeing none the applicant please come back up would you like to rebut I don't see that there was anything there we would care about we're glad they're happy with this as I said I think everyone understands we view this as a package development we would hope we can go forward with both the commercial which had some discussion and this but we'll see what happens thank you anybody else right well close the attorney close go ahead counsel Commissioner Shlomi yes mr. chairman I think this is completely compatible I think this is exactly what what what it needs and I don't think we need to hold up this application for any other reasons and I'm ready to make a motion go for it yes mr. chairman on item 51 zero and seven six one four five moved to approve subject stuffs conditions you've heard the motion please cast your vote motion passes mr. chairman item 52 TPMS seven six zero zero four moved to approve subject to stuffs conditions you've heard two motion please cast your vote and that motion passes mr. chairman those two items will be heard as a part of the City Council agenda on June 5th 2019 Dave thank you again and good evening thank you all right at this time we're gonna take a five-minute recess thank you okay we'll call this meeting back to order related items 53 through 56 z o n7 v 9 8 0 applicant DR horton owner of night on a 1997 morton MF rock wong and eunice elizabeth wong revocable trust for possible action on a request for a rezoning from ree to r1 on the north side of deer springs way and eastern qualify way staff recommends approval VAR 7 5 9 81 for possible action or request for a variance to allow a 1.00 connectivity rate where 1.30 is the minimum required private streets not constructed to public street standards without without an excess gate and private streets to terminate in a stub street where cul de sacs or hammerheads are required staff recommends denial VA c 7 5 9 8 3 for a possible action on a request for a petition to vacate US government patton easement generally located on the north side of deer springs way needs to qualify way or staff recommends approval and i don't know 50 60 MPA for for possible action on a request for the tentative map for a proposed 16 lot single-family residential subdivision with a waiver to allow 181 foot intersection offset where 220 feet is required staff recommends dial staff report mr. chairman the proposed rezoning would allow 6500 square foot Lots while the underlying general plan designation of limits density to 3.5 9 units per acre the proposed rezoning would allow lot sizes less than 10,000 square feet which is not allowed by the interlocal agreement the tentative map proposed by the applicant also contains lot sizes which are less than 10,000 square feet therefore staff has revised this recommendation and does not support the rezoning request staff has no objection to the vacation request the applicant has provided no evidence of unique or extraordinary circumstances to support the waiver of various therefore staff recommends approval the vacation request but denial of the rezoning variance and tentative map please note that there are additional letters of support since public thank you please state your name for the record good evening even Tom's the 1980 Festival Plaza Drive and I'm here on behalf of the applicant DR Horton I didn't catch your name Ethan Thompson okay excuse me so this is a zone change application for this I'll direct your attention to the overhead for this five point zero nine acre property just north of deer Springs way in between Hualapai and EULA currently there's a commercial center being built just to the west of this property and to the south of this property the homes directly to the north notably are zoned r1 currently and to the east are Rd I want to make sure that I point out that everything west of EULA Street is r1 and commercial currently and everything to the east is a different story it's Rd and the lot sizes are bigger I'll direct your attention here to the tentative plan as you'll see there's a t-intersection here and staff has raised concerns about the connectivity ratio we are willing to agree to a condition to add an additional an additional connection to Yuma Street which would resolve the connectivity ratio issue and we believe that that is that is important too to keep the neighborhood consistent we believe that the project will serve both the interests of the city and our clients I want to make sure that I put on the record that we believe that this use is consistent with the current neighborhood as I've noted the homes directly north of this proposed site are zoned the exact same way that we're seeking a zone change for and believe that that we can remain consistent with the existing neighborhood and so we would urge her approval tonight thank you thank you this is notice there's a public comment please come up state your name and set the clock three minutes good evening I'm Bridget Safi of seventy thirty North conquistadora Street I live in this neighborhood I'm gonna borrow his map just because he has it here I have no problem with the residential I think that's a great thing we were concerned whether this was gonna flip for another commercial or not it looks like it is not it's gonna stay residential two concerns and I think traffic noted it also with the connectivity this intersection right here I'm hoping that overhead audio-visual has zoned and this right here has got a median that's already pretty hairy and they're proposing another break in the median this is gonna be an issue I would rather see this ended as was just a solid wall and have all connectivity come out on EULA safety for the people that are living here safety for everybody that's going already crazy in and out of the Albertson's I come out you love from my house and people are already flipping u-turns that came out of Albertsons so they can go back home because for whatever reason they didn't drive through the Albertson's parking lot Tikhon north on halala pi so they come out the side the flip eue here it's really it's kind of nasty if you haven't been out here I sure wish that you'll you have it's pretty narrow so my first thing is I would like to see it reset close this and actually make the access off EULA then the other thing that I'm concerned about again is lot size this is layered by the interlocal agreement it does recommend a 10,000 minimal square foot lot these are not except for just a couple 11 plus 11 plus 11 plus 11 plus everything else is under 10 so maybe give a lot give to lots in reduction of density increase the lot size a little bit reset the street because I think it'll be safer if traffic is addressed and you reset the street to EULA I don't like traffic on you a little cuz I live out in this area but I think it'd be a lot wiser a lot safer because deer Springs right here is so intense so there you go thank you for your time otherwise I proof thank you very much this is notice there's a public comment anybody from the public wish to make comment seeing none I'll close the public comment and have the opportune time some 1980 Festival Plaza Drive a couple points I'd like to make in response the the first and probably most important is we understand that we are in the interlocal agreement the current general plan designation allows for maximum density of 3.49 units and our proposed density is under that at 3.14 units so we do believe that that we are consistent with the current general plan and and as I mentioned before if you look at the the current layout of the neighborhood eula Street really is the demarcation line and so we really do believe that everything west of eula would be consistent if this was moved to r1 and with the commercial uses surrounding an r1 to the north we believe this is fully consistent and urge or approval thank you thank you any other comments I'll turn it over to the planning Commissioner Commissioner to sign yeah I am familiar with this area and I just went grocery shopping in Albertsons I had a class out there in Providence and I think this is compatible III think this is a good project and you can have my support tonight Thank You commissioner any other comments all right seeing none I'm going to make a now just to go back Ethan you are okay with extending for the continuity on to Euler and opening that up so you have a way in a way out yes all right so with that said I'm making motion for approval on item number 52 TMP 7600 for a motion to approve with all excuse me 53 zero and seven five nine eight zero motion for approval all staff recommendations and that motion passes item number 54 var seven five nine eight one with the added motion for approval with the added piece of continuity on two Euler I guess I'd asked staff to it word that properly three chair off to defer to uh with that be better on the tenets of Napa's added condition or on the variance I believe on the map because we that'll be where they'll note that that additional access point I thought it was going on the variance due to the fact they wouldn't need that variance if they had to you would still have the stub Street on the opposite into that Street okay so I'll just a motion for approval on 54 var seven five nine eight one with all staff conditions and that motion passes item number 55 VA c7 v 9 83 motion for approval and that motion passes I'm number 50 60 MP 75 984 with the motion for approval with the added condition for the continuity mr. chairman the condition would read a revised to the map will be submitted with northeast sub Street connecting through to EULA Street are you okay with that yes okay so that would be the motion please cast your vote and that motion carries mr. chairman those items will move forward to City Council be heard as a part of their agenda on June 5th 2019 thank you 59 var seven five nine zero six applicant note ago creased natural sanctuary for possible action on a request for a variance to allow 38 parking spaces where 94 required and 80 103 verse L Street staff recommends denial var seven six zero one five possible action request for variance to allow no half street improvements with such a required staff recommends denial item m59 SDR seven five nine zero seven four possible action or request for a major amendment to an approved site development plan review for the proposed 3500 square foot expansion of an existing commercial recreation and amusement outdoor facility natural sanctuary staff recommends denial staff report please mr. chairman the site is currently developed with 38 parking stalls where 55 were required with the proposed building addition the site would require nine additional parking spaces while the applicant proposes to provide zero the applicant also requests the permanent removal of off-site and premium requirements and to make no improvement contribution the applicant has provided no evidence of unique or extraordinary circumstances to support the variance and staff recommends denial of all applications please note that there are additional letters of protest since publication thank you thank you applicant please state your name for the record Greg crater 1608 sandanista Drive so you're asking for these variances our overarching goal is to build about a 2,000 square foot aviary building to house additional birds if you're not familiar with Gilcrease in this particular property they house birds that that people can't continue to take care of and they they offer a service to the community in that way along with the opportunity for all of us to take ourselves and our kids to their facility and learn about these birds free of charge it's a nonprofit organization so in order to build one more building one more aviary building to house more birds as the need in our valley continues to increase for that we're having to deal with a laundry list of other issues and these three issues are those that we're asking for a variance on because there's no impact with the building that we're adding the house more birds we're not going to need additional parking for those birds we're not going to need additional bathrooms the kerbin gana I don't mean to be obtuse but we don't have the funds to put in urban gutter all the way around our property right now in order to be able to have the privilege of installing this aviary building so that's why we're asking for these variances okay this is notice as a public hearing does anybody from the public wish to be heard on the side of hims please come forward state your name for the record set the clock to three minutes my name is Bonnie Grafton I'm director of Gilcrease nature sanctuary 6261 Garwood have we provide education we provide events for the community with children we also provide a safe haven for just about 500 animals at this time that don't have another place to go we're asking for this not to bring in more animals but to provide a better quality of care for the ones that we already have the animals that were requesting an aviary for currently live in cages and they would have the ability to have more natural behavior which would also then give us the ability to educate the public further in keeping of wild birds in captivity I'm also here to answer any questions you have thank you is anybody else from the public wish to be heard on his item case seeing none I'm gonna close the public comment and turn it over to commissioners any commissioners Commissioner it's your son well I love yo Chris farms I've been taking my grandkids there as long as I can remember and I can tell you that we had a wayward goose who had been attacked by a dog and we took it out to Gilcrease and they they rehab the goose and sardars I know he still lives out there so I applaud what you do and and thank you for taking care of our fine feathered friends any other comments seeing none okay come back please I personally I have a lot of history with this property as far as even when you guys had two devastating fire with the birds it was me and about 50 volunteers that came out there and clean that place up so this is near and dear to me I have no problem personally what with the parking issue because I know right now at any given time if this to me would remind me of a you know like a autozone you're not gonna have you know 50 60 cars or one shot you might have a few coming and going constantly which it's been like that way for years well I have the rub is I can't idly just stand by and and not and go against the federal guidelines on a DA that's that I can't and I don't think anybody up here would the second thing I got that just gives me a little bit of heartburn is I don't I'm fine that you do not do the the improvements in the street however there is a fund and staff will probably speak better to it that there's got to be some type of contribution and I know that because there's not a developer up here as you set through this tonight you can see developers that ask for the rule standards although they don't put those infrastructure in there's a pot that they do have to contribute to for later down the line because should something two years from now five years from now have to be developed it's gonna stick every one of those neighbors would have said and I'm not in the business of sending somebody a bill you know five years from now and and office um why am I getting stuck with this for the improvements so I I think I was told today by staff where your portion on your ask and I think it was a very fair massage number it was a hundred and twenty eight thousand dollars would be your 50% portion for those non improvements to put put that money into a pot I thought that maybe you know just to just show that we do care okay and it's not all about the money all the time again I don't want to put everybody else on the hook we came up with it may be a happy medium of dropping that down to maybe you know 25% or 30% so it's not such a big task but and and staff will speak better to this because it was the idea I brought up to where maybe we could defer that for you know two years or something so it gives you the ability to get this project on and then get with your donors and your fundraisers and hold something to wear with that bond then you know two years from now we can relook at that and they might speak to it a little bit better than me a little more eloquently but at the end of the day I'm trying to not shut your project down but I also can't just give you a total free pass there's got to be some skin in the game for the surrounding community and with that said you know if you want to speak to that Lucien and and it kind of give them that the ballpark idea and see if they're they're fine with that sure mr. chairman yes I the code is the new code that we adopted that I can all guess what it requires is 50% of the improvement contribution for 60-foot streets and 100% for 80-foot streets today resale is master plan is an 80 so that's where the higher number comes from the hundred you know roughly hundred twenty-eight thousand was counting you know a rough estimate of 800 feet at a hundred percent on resale and then about 330 feet on Alec Harrison at 50% I can't guarantee in in the real roads you can change but if if Cimarron was dropped down to a you know a sixty in the future and then the number would probably move down to about 75 thousand that would be the improvement contribution required by the code so no variance that's what the code would require you know if the street had changed to a sixty and I looked it you know as we were talking I looked at Bristol and it's built as a 60 on the south side and as a 80 on the north side so again but the master plan today is it's an 80 and so that's what the requirement is today as far as you know making a condition change I can throw something out there and I know this will probably go into City Council so it could be you know changed as well but it's really you know I guess if you will it's it's a best massage the condition I can do so if you want me to I can read it in and we can see how it goes and please do and we'll see if the Apple camera agrees and then at that time we retain a motion okay so in condition nine I don't believe there's a phasing plan so it's gonna delete the as shown on the proof phasing plan and in the first sentence and then add to condition nine which is what condition nine does is it says do all your improvements unless the variant says you don't have to so adding to that adding alternatively the a potential design but not construct off-site improves for Alec Harrison and rasilla Street and posted bond for the improvements not constructed at this time on al Carson and racelle Street or make the appropriate improvement contraction required by the title 1902 o to five prior to issuance of burns to the site so that can't give them flexibility if we change then the country Shin level does go down if we change the plan Street down to 60 in the future the countries can go down what it also means is they come in they design plans they post a bond for those design plans that's cheaper than putting up the contribution fee up front and then they can you know the it's item the condition but our standard year for amount of time for calling a bond is two years so that gives them two years and that can always be extended but it's a it's a cheaper way of I think you're guaranteeing the improvements by posting posting a bond for those improvements and then condition 10 we would just add with with the covenant we'd say or it says any all sent proofs are not constructed constructed or bonded for at this time so that's that's the way that we would hold the bond not require any improvements right now but we would have the ability to call the bond in two years but you know that's a process to call the bond so it's not it's not a guarantee that after a project is not constructed after two years that they posted a bond that we're gonna immediately try to get the bond it'll be a city process you know to call the bond but that's and I can submit these you know to the see clerks and and to planning but that's kind of just coming up with a way to you know have some improvements guaranteed you okay with that yeah no that makes good sense and and that's the type of approach that that we would appreciate we can raise money but it takes the time absolutely and we've raised enough money right now to put together this building and pay for the proper permitting and do things quote unquote the right way we don't have a ton of funding beyond that right now but with a scenario like this where we would have some time to raise that that would be that would be huge for us okay and just as a clarification on the ad a waiver we are not asking anybody to to waive the ad a what we were trying to clarify was there are only certain gates that the public uses and there's say for example there's a dozen gates on the property there's only two or three that the public uses or has access to what we want to make those ATA accessible what we didn't want to have to do was the gate on the back property by the Pigpen we don't want to have to go through the cost and expense of making that ad a accessible we feel like that would be unreasonable but anything anywhere that the public has access to we're gonna meet the ad a standard okay and and I'll find that I put that into motion too and you're cool with that as far as anything that's accessible to the public must be ad a complaint yeah that's okay just a quick point of clarification mr. chairman through you to Lucien we're only talking about half street improvements correct so half Street on loot on resale is that right or yes that's extreme sureness correct and so I had heard 100% at some point so you meant you'd pay a hundred percent of the eighty percent which is a half street of improvement on resale I think I'll show you I assume show me clarify again so it's a hundred percent of the city's bond estimated cost for streets that are eighty feet wider or wider got it but he's still he's only responsible for his half street improvements on each side correct thank you motion commissioner absolutely I'd be delighted to she's not being a fan of the birds you wouldn't want to be the one to make the motion but I will be happy to go to item number 57 var 75 nine zero six the motion is for approval oh is that the one with the handicap spots no and then that one would fall under number 58 and 59 58 would be for the conditions nine and ten we got it sorry chairman the conditions that I read would be for item 59 and so if those are going to be used and 58 could probably be either denied or just withdrawn and 57 past so do you want to hear 15 that's our Chairman do you will hear 59 first or have her vote on 59 first and then possibly withdraw 58 yes so related item number 59 SDR 75 9:07 motion is for approval with the condition that all parking public parking areas be handicapped as well as public accessible areas public accessible I said public parking areas but the public accessible areas if that's what you'd like it that's fine public accessible areas shall be handicapped parked and a lot of vacations to nine and ten thank you you've heard the motion please cast your vote and that motion passes mr. chairman if I might before we continue so I just want to verify with public works then with that amended condition it would be acceptable to strike the variance for no half street improvements yes you're sure that's correct because these conditions would cover basically their guarantee of doing all the attendants so then we just need a motion to strike item 40 r15 5058 so the motion is to strike item number 58 var 7 601 5 no mr. chairman before that no no it's the motion to strike from now from going if things change going from here to council doesn't need to stay on the agenda okay the motion please cast your vote and that motion passes Thank You mr. chairman those items are final action this evening unless appeal to the City Clerk's office within 10 days number 60 and 61 60 var 75 964 applicant Las Vegas Valley Water District owner Las Vegas Valley Water District et al - a proposed action or request for a variance to allow a deviation from the title of deviation from the title of nineteen ten point zero two zero vc development standards at the northwest corner setting a Parkway in Fort Apache motion for approval from staff item 61 SD r seven five nine six five four a possible action a request for a site development plan review for a proposed utility installment installation excuse me pub station staff recommends approval please state your name for the record Jason Gifford 1001 South Valley View Boulevard here on behalf of the applicant the Las Vegas Valley Water District sorry staff would you like to staff report choice mr. chairman the proposed utility installation is a unique development that is located close to and among residential neighborhoods yet often produces noise and light that is difficult to conceal from outside the property that's the applicant request to locate structures and equipment at the center of the site rather than oriented to the street frontage the applicant is also requesting a ten-foot wall rather than an eight-foot wall to provide additional site security due to the project's unique circumstances stack recommends approval approval of both applications please note that their additional letters of protest since publication thank you see state your name for the record please Jason Gifford thousand one South Valley View Boulevard here on behalf of the applicant Las Vegas Valley Water District the Las Vegas Valley Water District is in the process of designing site improvements at the 14-acre Water District property located at the northwest corner of Centennial Park Way and Fort Apache and the northwest part of the valley the Centennial 26:35 reservoir consists of a five million gallon below grade reinforced concrete reservoir that will provide gravity storage for the 26:35 pressure zone and ultimately transfer storage for pressure zones to the northwest the Centennial 27:45 zone pumping station will consist of a pumping station building size to pump 38 million gallons per day in operations building and a disinfection building will be built separate from the pumping station building the project is on schedule to begin construction in January 2020 and to be completed in March 2021 this reservoir and pumping station will upgrade the reliability of the community's water system in the Centennial Hills area that will bolster the infrastructure in the area and minimize the potential for service interruptions for water district customers the district respectfully requests approval of the site development plan with the addition of a variance to allow for tubular steel fencing along Centennial Parkway as noted here the the red line with the red blocks and then also along Fort Apache Road the north end of the property will be block wall as well as this section here along the north part of the western border the remainder of the western border there is existing block wall there and then just to give an idea the rendering here shows what the facility would look like from Centennial looking to the to the Northeast the variance would allow for the the tubular steel fencing it'll improve security for the site not obstructing the view of the cameras as well as add to the aesthetic aesthetic view of the of the site thank you for your consideration thank you this is noticing the public hearing is anybody wish to speak on this item seeing none up close the public hearing open it up to the commissioners seeing no comments from the commissioners I will make a motion to approve var seven five nine six four and that motion passes motion to approve item number 61 STR seven five nine six five and that motion passes mr. chairman those items are final action this evening unless appealed to the City Clerk's office within 10 days thank you item number 62 var seven five nine five seven applicant owner las vegas/clark county library district for possible action and request for a variance to allow proposed 16-foot tall freestanding sign where 12 feet there's the maximum allowed and a proposed animated sign with 200 feet of property zoned for residential use where such is prohibited at 2851 East bananas Road staff recommends denial staff report mr. chairman the applicant is not adequately demonstrated that the proposed sign would not be placed or designed in a manner such that light from the sign would not be visible from the adjacent multi-family residential developments furthermore there is nothing extraordinary about the property that warrants use of an animated display when a non animated display would meet title 19 requirements staff therefore recommends denial therewith requested variance subject to two conditions have approved which includes standard title 19 restrictions on animated on premise signs such as brightness transition time between messages and duration of message display please note that additional letters of protest were received after the publication of this item thank you go ahead sir state your name for the record good evening Sean Coulter 151 East Warm Springs Las Vegas I'm here representing the applicant the Las Vegas Valley or Park County school sorry welltake is Clark County Library District so I wanted to point out that the the sign on this graph here is located right up against Bonanza so the property is just on the south side of Bonanza we have 28 Street to the west Wardell to the east and then Walnut to the south so one of the things that there are two items here that are play one is the height restriction and then also the animated LED signs so the from if I read the staffs recommendations it sounds like the the height isn't as much of an issue as it is the led animated sign so one of the the rationales for the LED sign is that with this new library coming in which is actually opening Thursday so I recommend everybody go see it it's really a great library is that they they have several programs and when I say so over 50 programs that they're offering on a regular basis and so one of the reason they're locating the library where it's at is because this neighborhood really needs that support and so with that comes these programs that will help help the residents in the community so the LED animated sign would be there for showing all these different programs and activities because they want to make sure that the community sees those because one of the one of the challenges is that in this neighborhood a lot of people don't have internet access so they they would actually one of the few ways that they would actually understand and see what type of programs there are in the library would be through this signage now one of the things that the library district is would definitely entertain is dimming the this signage at night to make sure that it is not as obtrusive and and also the I think to the some of the the locate the location of the sign is a little difficult just because of all the residential around the property so we tried to locate it in a position that is probably the least impactful I think to the to the neighborhood while still being on bonanza since Bonanza is a major thoroughfare with a lot of traffic on it so we would just ask that you consider allowing the the district to to have the LED sign they animated sign there thank you okay thank you this is notice there's a public hearing when anybody from the public wish to be heard thank you just come down state your name for the record please good evening to the Planning Commission my name is smelly honest Abbott Chooch and I can spell that if I need to SMI LJ a na SAV IC IC address 151 east warm springs eight nine one one nine I am one of the designers of this sign and so I've been working with the library district also I would urge you to consider approving this signage because I think it's important to understand what the intent is behind it we are definitely sensitive to minimizing light pollution into neighboring residential areas but at the same time the reason that we proposed this is because the library district what their intent here is is to expand the library services and this is something that is going to be rolled out in the coming years one of the easiest ways in an area like this one to kind of communicate that is through this signage and our intent is not just to display random marketing material but as as Sean stated earlier between fifty and a hundred programs that generally were not included in you know library for excuse me facilities are going to be included and the easiest way to communicate those messages to people that might have limited availability to resources is through direct messaging through this sign in front of the library we also did consider placing the sign at alternate locations on the site but because you know Bonanza is such a large thoroughfare there really wasn't any good reason to place the signage anywhere else because it would be counterintuitive and there's no reason because the you know visibility would would be limited it's also important to stress that the library district really would consider dimming that signage as much as is necessary during the nighttime hours because that is outside library facility times and the marketing messaging would not be as did I'd say like 10 11 12 o'clock at night and during very early hours of the morning so the majority of this marketing material would be displayed during the daylight and it's really not going to compete with the Sun that we have here in Vegas so all of these things are things that we are able to kind of mitigate per your recommendations but because of all of that we we really urge you to consider approving this because we we believe that this library will be a very important staple for that that particular community thank you very much thank you anybody else wish to be heard in this item seeing none I'll close the public comment and turn it over to the Commission yes I miss vice-chair read through this and I appreciate everybody getting up and giving their comments it doesn't seem like the stuff has a huge issue with the height of the sign and reading their report it was more along one so the LED reader boards and I think you have you know just got discussed here briefly what do you plan on doing to minimize the light pollution and into the neighboring properties and I know you stated shut and turning it down at night but you didn't talk about what hours or you know by what percentage or anything like that so I'm not exactly sure what percentage but we we can adjust that to whatever it needs to be after sunset and before sunrise and if if needed and that would be during normal library hours which you know in the winter time obviously you know it'll go to nine o'clock at night I believe is when it's going to be open til but the so that we could definitely dim the signage now what the way it is right now is it's perpendicular to the street so you can see it coming from both directions on bonanza and so the the hope is that it's not as obtrusive to the to the apartments directly across the street the ones to the east and west yes it's facing those however the ones to the east or 100 and 88 feet so we're pretty close to the 200 there but one of the one of the things too that the Library District is willing to entertain and work with the Planning Commission is we could turn the sign off to you know at night if needed but it is really important to the district that that they advertise these programs because the community just really needs those programs and they want to get that information out there okay I don't know turned office a solution I mean if you're open to I don't want to put too many restrictions on it I mean maybe a static sign at night just saying Las Vegas library but the sign I think already says that so I think s over right now I feel comfortable with this I think this sign is a beautiful sign and if this you know there's light pollution or anything of the anything along those lines and we could always pull this back to Planning Commission take a look at it or just reach out to the library and hopefully they'll work with us on on that so seeing that if there's no other comments like to make a motion atom number 60 var 7 5 9 6 4 move to approve subject to Steph's conditions I'm sorry 6262 ba are some 9007 moved to approve subject to stress conditions please cast your vote and that motion passes and mr. chairman that item is final action this evening unless appeals to the City Clerk's office in ten days okay thank you item number 63 su p75 949 applicant I healing solutions spa owner deer springs village LLC for possible accident requests are especially used for me for proposed 1432 square foot massage establishment with use with a waiver to allow a zero foot distance separation from a residential zone property where a 400 feet is required at 6720 north will qualify way Suite 180 staff recommends approval staff report mr. chairman the subject site is a developing shopping center designed to accommodate a variety of land uses including the proposed massage establishment use the proposed use is separated from the adjacent residential zone property by a block wall that does not allow direct access staff finds the proposed use to be compatible with the surrounding land uses and is recommending approval with conditions please note that additional letters of protests were received after publication thank you please state your name for the record sir my name is Mark Hague H AAG I live at 84 45 a sky crossing Street as Las Vegas Nevada eight nine one six six okay would you like to present yes we're neophytes at this business and so it's kind of an interesting process for us and I appreciate what the staff has done day to get us here we want to open my wife has been a massage therapist for ten years and she's ready to take the next step and start her own business and it's going to be a very small footprint you know in a in a developing area there are no other establishments most spa massage establishments there and it's massage therapy she works with referrals from doctors and from from chiropractors it's a really good business for a neighborhood to have I think thank you this is notice there's a public hearing anybody from the public wish to comment seeing none I'll close the public comment and open up to the commissioners Commissioner to saw it yeah I don't personally I don't have a problem with this I think staff got it right and they recommended approval and I can also recommend approval so there no other comments I'll make a motion please do su p75 949 approval you've heard the motion please cast your vote and that motion passes thank thank you sir mr. chairman that item is final action this evening unless appealed to the City Clerk's office within 10 days item number 64 STR seven five nine seven zero and on a tour we awning Learning Center for the possible action a request for a site development plan review for a proposed two-story five thousand six hundred and seventy-five square foot classroom building addition to an existing house of worship at ninety five ninety West O'Hara staff recommends approval staff report please mr. chairman the proposed building addition contributes to an attractive integrated environment consistent with the intent of the commercial development and the adjacent neighborhoods staff finds the proposed development meets the requirements of title 19 and recommends approval of the site development plan review please note that additional letters of protest were received after publication thank you please state your name for the record good evening chair commission James Grindstaff 9440 West Sahara Avenue representing the Torah Learning Academy based on the late hour I will just like to say thank you staff for the wonderful approval recommendation for approval and I would just ask that the Commission follow suit if they have any questions I'll be glad to answer them this is notice there's a public hearing is anybody from the public we heard seeing none close the public hearing and turn it over to Commissioner Commissioner Roush Thank You chairman I have no problem with this application and I think it's a lovely use I think the building is lovely I think it's compatible and harmonious with the existing development in the area and I love that you're putting in a facility so close to the library and into the community where it belongs so that said I'd like to make a motion for approval if nobody else has any other comments please do my motion is for approval on item number 64 SDR seven five nine seven zero you've heard the motion please cast your vote and that motion passed thank you and now I'll go home and try to figure out how the night's gave up four goals in four minutes and mr. chairman that item is final action this evening unless appeals in the City Clerk's office in 10 days number 65 txt 76115 applicant owner city of Las Vegas for proposed action on a request to amend LVM C title nineteen point one two permissible use to add minimum space minimum special use permit requirements to a multi-family residential use and to provide for other related matters staff recommends approval staff report mr. chairman in 2012 title 19 was amended to allow multi-family residential units conditionally as part of a mixed-use development and commercial zoning districts where previously the use had been allowed only in certain residential zoning districts but by allowing the use conditionally it opened the door to allowing multifamily development as a standalone use in commercial districts to be approval of a special use permit this amendment would close that loophole and restrict multifamily development in commercial zoning districts as part of a mixed-use development only staff recommends approval thank you this is part of the public hearing seeing that I'll close it Commissioner Commissioner yes vice-chair I went through this with a city staff and I do understand it I didn't read the findings and I did have to read the funds like ten times because it was a mouthful but anyways Eric did explain this to me and I appreciate that so I'd like to go ahead and make a motion please TST seven six one month I move to approve subject to stress condition certain amendments you've heard the motion please cast your vote and that motion passes mr. chairman that will move forward to City Council an ordinance form everybody enjoy yet another overtime I am number 66 the citizen participation public comment during this portion the agenda must be limited to the matters within the jurisdiction and Planning Commission no subject may be acted upon by the Planning Commission unless the subject on this agenda as the scheduled for action if you wish to be heard come to the podium give your name for the record the amount of time and discretion is subject as well as the amount of time single speaker is allowed may be limited this is public comment see you none a closed public comment and adjourn the meeting thank you chairman you did a great job on that agenda