good evening everybody I call the meeting to order it's gonna be a little bit different tonight because we have a couple commissioners on line because the public comment is gonna be conducted online as well as who's in the audience I'll have to go to different groups clerk citee attorney so just kind of bear with me because it's outside the norm for me but we'll try to get it as smooth as possible this meeting has been properly noted and posted in compliance with the Open Meeting Law these proceedings are being video recorded as well as presented live on KC L V cable channel to please know customers of CenturyLink and Cox Communications can view this program in high definition on channel 1002 and in standard definition on channel 2 you can also watch the meeting live on Apple TV Roku and Amazon fire TV and the Go Vegas app and Planning Commission meeting as well as all other KC LV programming can be viewed on the internet at wwlp.com Casio V and the web the Saturday of the meeting at 10:00 a.m. and Monday at midnight at the following Tuesday at 6 p.m. and if I can please get everybody stand for the Pledge of Allegiance Madame Kirk can you please call the roll chair Giselle vo president vice-chair schlattman present Commissioner Jarry present Commissioner Tucson present Commissioner Williams Resident Commissioner chata present Commissioner rogen present thank you thank you we'll move on to the first public comment and prior to public comment during this portion of the agenda will be limited to matters on the agenda for action if you wish to be heard please come to the podium do your self distancing please and give your name for the record the amount of discussion as well as the amount of time any single speaker is allowed will be limited all comments made under this item for a specific action item will be cross-referenced to those items are there any members of the public that wish to speak under this portion of the agenda and prior to that I'm going to hand it over to the attorney for the city to give some comments Thank You mr. chairman as you mentioned at the beginning we are doing a few things a little bit differently tonight including allowing electronic comments to be submitted so if you have public comment either under the general public comment or a specific item you can email those comments to the email address City Council live at Las Vegas Nevada gov that City Council live at Las Vegas Nevada gov if you get your comments in after the item has been heard they'll just be included as backup to the item and time limits may still be imposed so try to keep those written comments brief thank you thank you okay so with that said as this is a public comment portion there's anybody from the public wish to be heard please come forward state your name for the record yes my name is Ron mulch and I'm here to comment on a waiver for a zoning for property number one three nine three four one seven two one two four do you know what agenda item that is sir I don't know what agenda item it is give me a sec and see if I can locate this you said one nine three four one three nine three four one seven two one two four that's the property number a p.m. yes one three nine three four one seven two one two four thank you okay do you wish to make a comment on that item right this second or do you want to wait till it's heard and it's either one of the two I'll be happy to wait until it's working okay thank you as anybody else wish to make anything public comment at this time seeing none I'll close the public comment and we'll move on to the set any anybody else have a public comment on your end mr. chairman we don't have any public comment at this time I thank you very much thank you for the reminder for a possible item number five for pulse what I should approve the final minutes at a Planning Commission meeting for March 10th do I have a motion motion to approve you've heard the motion Commissioner toussaint and Commissioner Williams if you could please phone in your vote yep yep okay Commissioner Toussaint Commission Williams is a yes vote to accept the final minutes of the Planning Commission heard on March 10th and that motion carries item number six for possible action any of these items from the Planning Commission and staff and or the applicant wish to be stricken or held in abeyance to a future meeting may be brought forward and acted upon at that time we'll move on to the housekeeping items Commissioner Slaton mr. chairman we have some housekeeping items the applicant wishes to withdraw without prejudice items 27 the applicants wish to obey items 43 and 46 to the May 12th 2020 Planning Commission meeting this is the first two base requests for these items staff wishes to obey items 40 and 41 to the May 12th 2020 Planning Commission meeting this is the first abeyance request for these items and staff wishes to strike item number 48 thank you okay thank you real quick mr. lava now I just want to make sure that Commissioner Williams and Commissioner Toussaint does not have any comments prior to your motion Commissioner Toussaint and Williams is there any comments no comment I just want I just want to make sure Thank You mr. mr. chair I just want to make sure that was item 43 correct that's correct okay thank you okay no other comments seeing no other comments I will turn it over to Commissioner schlattman yes mr. chairman on item I'd make a motion to which roll without prejudice item 27 and then holding to advanced of May 12 2020 plan commission meeting items 40 41 43 and 46 and then on item number 48 txt seven eight five five three I would move to have that stricken Thank You Commissioner tucson williams if you could please cast your vote yeah pick the rest of the commissioners and that motion carries moving on to consent items consent items are considered routine by the Planning Commission that may be enacted by one motion however any item may be discussed if the Commissioner members or the applicant so desire none of these items are required to be read into the record so I am going to just say related item seven and eight z OT seven eight three three zero item number 8 EO t seven eight three three four item number nine TMP seven eight two four six and item ten TMP 78247 i make a motion to approve toussaint Commissioner Tucson Williams yeah yeah thank you that's the Commission please cast your vote and that motion carries mr. chairman items 7 and 8 or final action this evening unless appealed to the City Clerk's office within 10 days items 9 and 10 our final action this evening unless appealed to the City Clerk's office within seven days thank you moving on to one motion in one vote the following are items that may be considered and one motion will vote there consider routine on public and public hearing items all public hearing and non public hearings 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 an agreement with the conditions and all standard conditions for the application recommended by the staff should request to have this item remove this part of the from this part of the agenda I'm gonna read into the items related items 11 and 12 mo D seven eight four six one applicant owner Howard Hughes corporation for a possible action on a request for a major modification to approve the Summerlin master plan development plan to add the Summerlin AAA adult active adults setback and wall fence development standard to the summit development standards manual staff recommends approval item number 12 MDR 784 64 for the possible action any requests for a development plan review for assemble in village 27 on the north side of Lake Mead Boulevard alignment west of revenants Parkway war 2 staff recommends approval related items 13 and 14 su P seven eight four six six a began owner xscape resorts inc for possible action on request for a special use permit for a proposed to twenty six thousand ten square foot tavern limited establishment use at 2:07 north 11th street board five staff recommends approval item number fourteen st AR seven eight four six five four the possible action I request for a site development plan review for a proposed two-story sixteen thousand 192 square foot hotel with pool deck Ward 5 staff recommends approval I don't remember 15 su P seven eight three three one applica applicant new LLC owner Weightman Holdings LLC for the possible accident a request for a special use permit for proposed 3595 square foot beer wine cooler on sale establishment use at sixty four forty north Arango drive suite 130 Ward six staff recommends approval SGP seven eight three three five applicant owner each SC North Las Vegas LLC for the possible action on a request for a special use permit for an auto showroom use at six six five eight six six five eight skyPoint drive Ward six staff recommends approval scp-784 four six applicant HR DBT LLC owner artisan LLC for the possible accidental request for a special use permit for a proposed 1,600 square foot tavern limited establishment with a on hunt 133 square foot of outdoor seating at 1300 South casino center Boulevard Suite 120 Ward 3 staff recommends approval SCP item 18 scp-784 5-2 applicant yuka owner GI VIII village square LLC for the possible action on a request for a special use permit for a proposed 1857 square-foot beer wine cooler on a sale on sale establishment use with a waiver to allow a zero foot distance separation from a church / house of worship where 400 feet is required at 94 10 what Sarah Avenue Suite 150 War 2 staff recommends approval item number 19 SNC 78411 applicant Pulte Homes of Nevada own a PN 2 Inc for the proposed action for the possible action on a request for a street name change from Sky Hill Street to sky peak Street generally located on north of ego Canyon Avenue and east of rambha Road Ward 6 staff recommends approval and item number 20 VA c 7 8 4 2 8 applicant SC east lanco LLC owner Eastland LLC et al for the possible action on a petition to vacate vacate portions of Bureau of Land Management wait grants US government patent easement and the city of Las Vegas public drainage easement generally located at West guy Canyon Park Drive and north sky Canyon Park Drive Ward six staff recommends approval staff report mr. chair we have no staff report however we do have a request eight condition change for item number fourteen STR seven eight four six five staff would like to remove condition number eighteen thank you thank you at this time I will entertain a motion for approval through the chair if I could quickly on items number thirteen and fourteen they are located within a notification area of a project I'm working on it doesn't affect us any greater or lesser so we'll be voting and an item number seventeen I will be abstaining this is a tenant in a building of our so I will be abstaining thank you Thank You commissioner this is notice as a public hearing anybody wish to be heard on these items I also asked the attorney as anybody chimed it Thank You mr. chair no we have no public comment on these at this time okay at this time I'll close the public hearing I'll go to Commissioner Tucson Commissioner Williams yeah yeah I need to make a motion first oh so this Commissioner slummin I will be abstaining on item number 17 scp-784 46 as I own urban lounge within the notification area other than that I'd make a motion to approve items 11 through 20 Thank You Commissioner Tucson Commissioner Williams yeah yep thank you rest of the commissioners please cast your vote and that motion carries at this time Commissioner chairman my apologies sir items 11 through 14 19 and 20 will move on to City Council and be heard as a part of their agenda on May 20th items 15 through 18 or final action this evening unless appealed to the City Clerk's office within 10 days thank you all right so we're just gonna keep the normal agenda here so we're gonna move into the public hearing portion of the agenda we have related items 21 and 22 item 21 is a an abeyance for a GPA seven seven nine nine for applicant epic mountain edge LLC and mountain sunrise view to limited partnership owner United States of America but a possible action any request for a general plan amendment from pf' public facilities to GC general commercial on the west side of hammer lane and approximately three hundred thirty eight feet from each Humber Road Ward six staff recommends approval and item number twenty two zero and seven seven nine nine five for the possible action a request for rezoning from CV Civic to the general commercial staff recommends approval may have staff report please mr. chairman the original application was to amend the general plan designation from public facilities to general commercial and to rezone the subject parcel from Civic to general commercial the applicant has since changed their request to a general plan designation of service commercial and rezoning to limit commercial both of which are less intense than the original original proposal staff finds the revised proposal be compatible with surrounding properties and recommends approval of both applications thank you thank you please state your name for the record good evening Larry bitten with Horrocks engineers representing the owner and developer chairman and members of the Commission we're Dada pleased to present this to you tonight we've spent time working with staff and also meeting with Councilwoman Fierro and this application as revised is in conformance with her wishes and we we accept staffs approval and standard condition and I'm here to respond to any questions that the Commission may have thank you this is notice as a public hearing anybody from the public wish to be heard on these items Seth mr. chair we haven't received any comment on this okay have not received any Commissioner to sano Williams any comments no comment I thank you if there's no comment go ahead no comment from both okay if there's no other comment this is my area I've been working on this with a Councilwoman for your and her liaison as well as the applicant so yep it's right where we wanted it to be c1 instead of c2 if there's no other comment I'd like to entertain a motion for approval and I'm gonna go to Commissioner Toussaint and Commissioner Williams first yeah yeah all right thank you hearing from them on the phone I'll then turn it over the other commission if there's no comment please cast your vote mr. chairman was was there a motion on that item yes I asked for a motion to approve and then went to the commissioners on the phone my screen is there we go thank you and that motion carries mr. chairman those items from you for the City Council be heard as a part of their agenda on May 20th 2020 okay we're moving on to related items 23 through 26 item number 23 GPA seven seven nine three nine applicant EAB and ELB family trust owner Alexander and as the white living trust for the possible action on request for a general plan amendment from office to medium density residential at the northeast northeast and southeast corners of Gowen Road and Durango Drive Ward 4 staff recommends denial item number 24 ban zero seven seven seven nine four zero four the possible action and request for a rezoning from professional office to our three medium dense density residential ward for staff recommends denial item number 25 var seven eight five six five four the possible action I request for a variance to allow stub streets where a cul-de-sac or hammerhead is required and connectivity ratio of zero point eighty three where one point three zero is required or for staff recommends denial item number twenty six TMP seven eight five five nine for the possible action or request for a tentative map for a fifty eight lot single-family residential subdivision Ward four staff recommends denial may have the staff report please mr. chairman they proposed general plan designation and rezoning would allow a density that is more intense than surrounding properties additionally no evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance has been presented in the in that the applicant has created a self-imposed hardship by proposing a residential subdivision that does not meet title 19 public streets and connectivity standards staff therefore recommends denial of all applications please note that there are additional letters of protest since publication thank you thank you please state your name for the record good evening mr. chairman commissioners Stephanie Allen 1980 Festival Plaza Drive here on behalf of the applicant it's good to see all your faces and I'm glad you're all healthy and happy this evening just to quickly give you orient you to this site this is located at the corner of Gowen and Durango there are two parcels that are straddled by gas and this is what I would call a request to downs on the property and so many in so many words currently it's planned and zoned for office you can see on this zoning map they're both P oh and they're surrounded by residential for the most part with the exception of the YMCA that's across the street on under Ango what we're proposing is are originally we asked for our three zoning we've reduced it to residential townhome because they are in fact proposing townhomes and when we met with the neighborhood on this the neighbors were ecstatic to hear residential as opposed to office apparently there's a lot of history on this site with the office zoning and the neighbors not being real receptive to that so we think that the proposed townhomes is more appropriate for the area and in fact appropriate at major intersection of Durango and Gowen we do have a GPA to medium and the reason is is unfortunately medium low attached only goes up to 12 units to the acre we're at a little over 15 and a half units to the acre with our townhome project so we do need the medium GPA designation but we did reduce the zoning designation to residential townhome we are proposing 58 townhome units as you can see both entrances are as far east as we could get on Gowan both have large common elements proposed right in the front of the communities there will be one shared HOA between the two communities and some nice amenities in both of these open space areas for the townhome residents there's also emergency access capabilities to Durango through these common elements that are located here and that was a big point of fires concern we are asking for stub streets within this community and that was a big deal that they made sure we had fire access to Durango so to allow the stub streets the reason for the sub streets is obviously these are small parcels they're each about 1.8 acres and so we're working with sort of a unique situation especially with the significant right-of-way that's dedicated for Durango and for Gowen so one of the variances is for stub streets the other variance is with respect to connectivity we are we are at one instead of 1.3 but we do have quite the walkable community here with access both to to Durango and Gowan as well as throughout the community so I think we've done the best we could with the small site constraints that we have and the connectivity the overall product type is a 3-story product type that's unique to the area and it'll be a nice probably first-time homebuyer option or even downsizing option for people to buy a for sale product all of these units have two-car garages they are three storeys in height with the grat garages on the first floor and living areas on the second and third floor you can see it's a nice looking product the maximum height this 35 feet which is what you can build a residential home up to so from a height standpoint it's appropriate for the area because there are a lot of two-story homes in the area so with that said I'm happy to answer any questions there were a couple minor things that we discussed with Public Works as of today one of them is that they want a bus turn out on Durango and we're agreeing to that condition today we've been working with Lucian and Bart and we appreciate them working with us with the understanding that we need to submit a revised plan prior to City Council that shows that bus turnout so we will do that and also the sub street we've discussed that fire was okay with those stub streets with the emergency access so happy to answer any questions but we would very much appreciate your support this evening of this project thank you this is notice as a public hearing go down set Thank You mr. chair I know you comments at this time okay and so we got no comments at this time anybody from the public wish to voice an opinion concern okay seeing none I'll close it and turn it over to Commissioner Tucson thank you very much I appreciate this sorry that I'm not there in person with you we did have a town hall meeting or neighborhood meeting over at the Y people that came were a little skeptical in the beginning but once the project was explained to them they were really ecstatic they were so excited knowing that this was to be residential and I go by this community of this property all the time I don't see a problem with it and I think that seeing how excited the neighbors over to see this parcel develop really encouraged me to even like it even more so if there are no other comments I'd like to make it a motion to approve but item number 3 GPA 7 7 ok chime in yeah I think this is gonna be a beautiful project miss Allen and I used to drive by this lot quite a few times my kids went to school close to Gowen and Durango so it's gonna be nice it looks like great project look Commissioner Williams you have any comment nope all right thank you anybody else commissioners Topman yes I do just want to comment on that that site plan I do like it as well I've built several townhome communities and I'm sure you've seen I'm well I know you've seen them a lot of people here haven't seen them but one of the things that I miss about the projects that I built in Ellis were they're smaller kind of like this now that we're building out here there's 70 units big long rows of townhomes and the way that y'all broke up this site actually makes it for kind of a cool little community where you kind of feel like you're in your own world neighborhood on each street so I do like it so thank you healthy and support thank you alright thank you so Commissioner Tucson had made a motion to approve item number 23 seeing no other comments please cast your vote yeah Thank You Commissioner Williams Commissioner Toussaint motion yep and that motion carries Commissioner to sound we'd like to make motion on 24 I would like to make a motion to approve zom seven seven nine Thank You Commissioner Williams where do you stand Commissioner Williams yeah thank you yep okay guys please cast your vote and that motion carries Commissioner Tucson item 25 make a motion commissioned it Tucson you want to make a motion on 25 I don't hear Commissioner Williams are you still there I will make a motion on item 25 motion for approval to Commissioner Tucson or Williams are you there okay please cast your vote come ashore to sonic can you hear me yeah I can now okay I made the motion do you approve a motion was to approve yep Commissioner Williams yep thank you and then motion carries Commissioner Tucson item 26 you like to make the motion yes I would like to make a motion I know that that the down has worked diligently with staff to get the bus turnout condition which I think was condition number seven approved and I think it's going to go forward to City Council so therefore I would like to make a motion to approve TMP seven eight five five nine Thank You Commissioner Williams yeah Thank You Commissioner Williams the commissioners please cast your vote and that motion carries thank you very much appreciate it and mr. chairman those items will move forward to City Council we heard as a part of their agenda on May 20th 2020 thank you I would like to go back to 22 because when I made the motion I only made it for 21 so if I can just for transparency I would like to make a motion to approve zero and seven seven nine nine five and Commissioner Williams and Tucson if you would cast your votes please verbally yeah yeah thank you you heard the motion please cast your vote and that motion carries and once again mr. chairman just for clarity of the record that item will also move forward to Council and be heard on a part of their agenda on May 20th 2020 Thank You mr. Sommerfeld moving on to item number 28 read notification of su p 7 8 2 5 0 applicant on cash on call cash owner Charleston market for a possible action on a request for a special use permit for a proposed 1575 square-foot auto title loan use with a waiver to allow zero foot distance separation from a parcel zone for residential use where 200 feet is required to allow a three hundred and seventy three foot distance separation from existing similar where use where one thousand feet is required and to allow window signage that does not comply with title nineteen point two standards at 59 fifty West Charleston Boulevard suite 1 Ted Ward 1 staff recommends denial may have the staff report please mr. chairman the required waivers reinforced the unsuitability of this site for the auto title loan use with the surrounding neighborhood staff finds the use cannot be conducted in a harmonious and compatible manner with the existing neighborhood and recommends denial please note there is a special map located in your supplemental information package thank you thank you is the applicant present for this agenda item okay seeing none is there any public comment mr. chairman no you comment at this time okay I'll go to the audience is there any public comment on and Jen item 28 anybody wishes to put on the record seeing none I'll close the public comment and turn it over to Commissioner Rogan Thank You mr. chairman I'm in reviewing this matter I concur with the findings of staff that this business can now be operated in a harmonious incompatible manner with the surrounding uses unless there's further discussion I would move at this point to deny item 28 su P 78250 okay you've heard a motion so Commissioner toussaint and Commissioner Williams would you like to chime in with a yes or a comment or no I vote you okay so yes I would be for denial correct okay Commissioner Williams yep okay you've got heard the motion please cast your vote and that denial motion carries and mr. chairman that item will move forward and be heard as part of City Council's agenda on May 20th 2020 thank you moving on to related items 29 and 30 GPA 78 2 1 8 applicant owner city of Las Vegas for the possible action or request for a general plan amendment to amend portions of the southeast sector land-use map of the general plan from low density residential office and service commercial to form based code in the Las Vegas medical district located south of Charleston Boulevard east of Rancho Drive Ward 1 staff recommends approval item number 30 CO and 781 9 for the possible action or request for rezoning from c1 limited commercial to see the design commercial office professional office and parking are one single-family residential and re residential estates to t4 - C which is t4 corridor t5 c corridor t5 m s Main Street and te n t3 neighborhood Ward 1 staff recommends approval may have the staff report please German - silvio michael house in Las Vegas long-range planning before you the request for the general plan amendment and rezoning was originally a part of the first initial born base code rezoning effort that we start with the downtown master plan and I'll go into a brief history of where we started with that first this form based code effort is an extension of the downtown vision 2045 down downtown master plan to implement some of the key five big ideas again going over to the you know diversify the economy create mix you Subs build streets for people build a greener downtown and expedite development I'll get to the core issue of how this zoning efforts doing that but I do want to start with this rezoning effort started back in February of 2018 when we had the entire downtown or the Las Vegas medical district before you to have a complete rezoning in that year of 2018 over seven months we had seven public meetings where we met and hash numerous points of the forum based code this being our first district we ran into some discussions and challenges that we found on the south of Charleston and the West portion of Rancho so at the point of the rezoning that occurred in January of 2019 we developed what we called the Las Vegas medical district pilot plan area and that basically covered the form based code rezoning of the entire district with the omission of all the property south of Charleston and west of Rancho in that time that we've had the rezoning of the medical district we've gone ahead and we've rezone the Fremont East district then we've begun work on the setting up the draft for the historic West Side foreign-based code and at that point we realized we're really at the point we need to complete the pilot project and and look at the land it's south to charleston and west of Rancho so on March 9th we held our mandatory public meeting we had a neighborhood meeting at the Buddhist temple the SGI USA Center on Charleston and we presented a what we call the regulating plan the zoning map to the neighborhood and had a brief presentation and discussion on how the foreign-based code would work for this these new areas in essence completing the entire medical district some of the key issues why the forum base code a lot of times we talk about we want a predictable scale right size buildings lots of different issues but one of the things I really want to focus on what the forum based code does in particular for the medical district one we're looking at placing appropriately insensitive place building development that's in between we're hoping as a robust medical district with we would say sensitive residential neighborhoods to the to the south but the key thing that the forum based code does for the medical district one of the things I want to focus in on this hour is that it improves walkability and walkability is one of those things that I think is often overlooked where you would just assume that it's tree-lined it's pretty it's a very appealing streetscape but when we take in consideration the medical district walkability also puts the pedestrian at the primary design element what that means is you're now accommodating an environment for the medical district to allow for when we say pedestrians that means everyone that's using crutches Walker's wheelchairs and everyone else so that you have a healthy environment that integrates with the core medical district that we're looking to the north and it's done by again having development codes that put emphasis on place in the parking the vehicular impacts to the back of the building out of sight of the pedestrian view and then putting the prominence to the building entries and the facades to treat a walkable street environment that again it exudes not just the healthy environment but the ability that people are using medical services across the street to have that chance to get over easy access to what we're hoping are the future developments along Charleston and Rancho that said at the March 9th neighborhood meeting we presented a map that showed some properties that we have an addendum that I want to go over a quick correction where we had eight properties adjacent to pay and Westwood which we've made Corrections to remove these eight properties that are represented by eleven twelve eleven thirteen eleven 60min 11 17 pay and 11 12 11 15 11 20 and 11 17 Westwood so that we remain consistent with what was presented at the neighborhood meeting just because we had challenges we we had the opportunity to meet with some of the property owners of said property but immediately provide us here and we lost the capacity of having an open office to continue discussions so we thought best to go back to what was presented to the neighbors and then continue the discussions with those property owners and let them know yet there's still avenues that when they have development plans in place they could with the site development plan request the rezoning for that t4 corridor zoning district with that if if you have any questions in particular about the zoning categories or how the zoning the development standards work I'll be happy to take those questions but again the plinth perspective really the the crux of what's being proposed is five-story buildings up along Charleston there would be at a height less than what you see across the street at UMC the UNC offices are six storey structures we're putting buy-rite five-story structures that again are placed up along Charleston they would be lower than the height of the wendy sign if anyone's familiar with that Wendy sign on Charleston would be 15 feet lower than that sign and then again the residential adjacency standards do apply so no structures can be greater than that three-to-one slope from the rear property residential properties further to the South that are just adjacent to the medical district with that anyone has any questions on the use or development standards I'd be happy to take those okay I'm going to open it up to any commissioners Commissioner to son or Williams let me go to public comment counsel mr. chairman no you comment at this time okay does anybody any audience wish to be heard on this item please come forward keep your social distance and state your name for the record please good evening my name is Phillip Halverson I live south of Charleston and west of Rancho so I'm right in this area I realized there was a public meeting in March if you go to nextdoor.com a great many number of residents in the area never heard of the meeting and they're a little upset I'd like to ask you all and they're afraid to come tonight because of this Lake they ask you all to postpone a vote to at least 30 days after the governor lists a lockdown so that people can come here and ask relevant questions thank you thank you please come folks evening for record Doug Rankin 1055 Whitney ranch road ahead nurse in Nevada I'm here on behalf of the property owner develop flowers mr. de Bella and his wife owned six properties along pay horn in Charleston here we've been working with staff in order to try and get an appropriate zoning at the same time we're also facing a condemnation action by the city to take frontage of Charleston about 15 feet which would negatively impact our property and cause us to have to rebuild once we try and rebuild we go from a one-story building to a minimum two-story building but currently the two parcels there don't allow us to do that we were only going to end up with a building envelope of about 4,000 square feet excuse me which makes it very impractical to build a two to five storey building that's only that wide and the residential adjacency standards that mr. Howell mentioned are also going to negatively impact the height that the building so that doesn't allow us to conform to the form based code so we're working with staff to try and extend that t4 zoning to some of the properties along pay so we have a bigger building envelope to build what the form based code calls for which is two to five stories without that we end up with a vacant lot and no develop flowers the this is the Charleston plan which is the pedestrian one that mr. Howell spoke about to create this pedestrian corridor along here and this is where the taking is going to occur so we'd like the opportunity to work with staff continue to work with them to try and figure this out as mr. Howe we been working with mr. Howell and his group mr. De Bella is not here tonight his daughter is a health care worker and wouldn't let him come but he did write a little brief statement and I'd like to read that in the record City Planning Commission my family has requested that I earn it not attend this meeting due to the Cova 19 outbreak my name is John de Bella my wife is Sue and I opened our store at 2021 West Charleston almost 36 years ago on a wing and a prayer we borrowed money from friends and family paid it back over several years very long hours and lots of hot dogs we have built our business since then and want to continue at our location for many years into the future my daughter and son-in-law are the second generation we are currently taking we are currently taking we currently have a taking with the city to find a solution for the taking of securing on our property along the frontage of the widening of Charleston the day that shovels hit our front parking lot is the day our business ends without easy access to our store we lose our business which would depend on our livelihood we have worked with Mike Howe and Lorenzo masti know to understand this new form based zoning I must compliment these gentlemen on their forward-thinking and look forward to working with them to understand this concept better however before we can fully endorse the requested new zoning the city must work with us to find a solution to the taking of our livelihood and causing us to lose our business we respectively request that you help in finding the solution to our problem we want to stay in this location but must have a solution now my family has been on a roller coaster and I want this to end Thank You Sue and John de Bella any a Matt gardener and Conan Conan and Colton the third generation Thank You beasts evening councilman my name is Stanley Perry I'm a local attorney and I represent the de bellas I've been doing land use planning and zoning in las vegas for 40 years and i recognize this as a difficult task that you guys perform I remember late nights and the early 80s as we'd stay up all night trying to figure out how the valley is going to develop and I say it's developed well and I think that that's because we were careful even early on on how we developed the properties so thank you for your service thank you for your consideration we need your help frankly I represent a wonderful client even for me and perhaps for many of you I remember going to lunch and then buying flowers going home and buying powers I've been doing that for 30 years at the DeBellis so when they asked me to represent them even though I've been out of commission for a number of years and actually been out of the country I told them I would represent them because I feel strongly that they need some help they've been there 36 years and over that time then able to help this business grow and develop they are wonderful business people they know how to develop and grow a flower business but frankly commissioners they're not developers they don't take land and develop it to some other higher and best juice in fact the highest and best use for this property currently is the flower shop but they now face a triple whammy they've been given notice that there's a condemnation that's going to occur they're going to take 15 feet of their property which is frankly their front door now you have a main street up their front door this will ruin their business they know that they know that they cannot operate their flower shop in the way they've done it in the past when this condemnation occurs secondly now they have a zone so even if they want to change their building based upon our examination of the code this form based code which maybe is a good idea someplace but for these people it means vacant property there's no market nobody's in the marketplace for this property in a five-story building there that's not the use that anybody wants there I like the city's idea I'm not opposed to it I don't think my clients opposed to it but for them right now without help it's vacant property that's what's happening that's what will happen and it's not like we don't know about this in our community like to sit down and made a list of vacant properties that I know about because the city wasn't able to work with the property owners and so you have all of these vacant properties I don't know I'm not going to go through the list I thought I would but I don't want to do it but for this property that's not what the city intends they don't want the flower shop to go away and then to have a vacant piece of property there that isn't the grand plan that everybody's looking at here but if we're going to meet this grand plan the city has to help them because if they're going to be the dictator's of what this property looks like if the city is going to say this is how the property has to be developed you've got to help us you can't come in and take a businessperson and say your property is now we're taking it away and you have to do this without help my client is more than happy to help and work with the city wouldn't work in mr. Hausman wonderful we we complement him and others that have been working with this so we're not complaining about that but the triple whammy is all of a sudden as a couple of weeks ago four weeks ago communication stopped we don't we have sporadic conversations but though in depth real quality conversations that's why we've asked it aside and be tabled so that we can move forward in a productive way now maybe mr. house right in the hiatus between this meeting and the City Council we can get together more productively but if we can't this is a tragedy that nobody really intends but it's just going to be a function of what's going on currently in our place in our city and in our community and I don't think that's what anybody intends and so we're asking and kind of pleading in fact we want a solution but we can't have a solution unless we can have a productive dialogue thank you very much for thank you sir thank you seeing then I'll close the public comment how would you like to make any comments chairman I have no comments Hey at this time I will turn it over to this Commissioner Tucson or Williams have any comment yeah donuts it's not Commission she thought I have purchased flowers from developer hours for probably ever since they've been in business and I love small businesses and I would hate to think that something that we're doing would put this family out of business so for me tonight people like I said I have bought flowers from them for years maybe just break my heart to see this beautiful business Commissioner Williams any comments okay mr. chair go ahead commissioner Williams go ahead okay can you hear me now yes I lost you there for a second I'm going to turn it over to Commissioner Rogan Thank You mr. chairman I appreciate the comments and I appreciate everyone that's come out this evening to discuss this it's very important issue I also want to thank all of the folks that have contacted me either directly or through the councilman Knutson Ward one councilman to discuss this this important matter I've had an opportunity to speak to a lot many members of our community about this I've received a number of different concerns that people have raised about form-based code I I do want to begin with though with mr. de bellas property because I just want to be very clear the issue that's before us tonight is for base code for that area it's not with regard to the taking on Charleston Boulevard for the widening of the sidewalks so that there ad a compliant and so forth and and we have to be very clear I think that we are considering on mr. de bellas property those two issues separately what's not before us is whether that's an appropriate taking from their land what is before us is whether we should be rezoning these 40 acres according to the forum based code that the city has proposed so while their situation is is certainly concerning for them all we're doing tonight is making a recommendation for final action to City Council as to what to do so we need to put on the record what we should be done but since we're not making any final action my understanding is we're not really taking any property we're not putting the de bellas in any situation that they're gonna suffer since we're just making that recommendation and I know that they've been working very closely with the city with staff with elected officials to make sure that their their property is protected and I am sure that that conversation is going to continue even after this evening as it approaches City Council I do also want to make clear that in speaking with Councilman Knutson given the pandemic that we've been having and the ability for folks not to come out tonight and speak in person he is going to be obeying the item at City Council regardless of whether we approve or recommend opposition tonight so that there is an opportunity for another neighborhood meeting and there is an opportunity for mr. Rankin to meet with mr. Howe to iron out those issues that they're having with regard to those matters that they raised so there is gonna be some accommodation and it's gonna allow those neighbors that have wanted to come out and voice their opinion tonight to come out and voice it into the neighborhood meaning again a second one so this would be meeting number nine about this issue and then of course have the opportunity at City Council who's making those final decisions to be heard and make those recommendations so although we're just a waypoint on this process we're an important Waypoint but again the final decision is going to be made later on at City Council so there's going to be the opportunity for the public to be heard as well as that new neighborhood meeting that we're scheduling along with staff to be held between tonight and City Council if we do hear this tonight so commissioner tucson i do appreciate your comments but I just don't appreciate I don't think that we should be considering an abeyance this evening although your concerns are certainly valid and I share those concerns about this one property does anyone else have any comments or questions about an abeyance tonight before I continue on we got mics lit so I'm gonna go to Commissioner Chadda first and then I'll go to slot men and then I cheering through you I'm gonna echo both Commissioner Rogen's comments and Commissioner Toussaint's comments I also have been a customer of the Bela flowers for probably thirty years that being said I will agree with Commissioner Rogan that we do not determine whether this is a taking or not that is way beyond our jurisdiction that being said I do have a concern that because of Kovach 19 and this neighborhood meaning that somebody mentioned earlier that they either didn't have notice or didn't attend along with today's hearing what I would like to see is I would like to see more participation not necessarily on obviously the taking issue but I am a little concerned where people are precluded from coming to either our meeting or neighborhood meeting because of fear of contamination or catching the pandemic so what I would request is that our hearing be obeyed for 30 days with us just to give them that special buffer and I believe that was the first person that requested that I'll defer to you though Commissioner ogen thank you it is no please yeah threw the chair a question for mr. Howell at one point wasn't it a seven-story was the what it could go up to and is it now at five is that what you said so sir you chairman the t4 corridor zoning district by right allows for five storeys if someone were to opt to seven stories they'd have to go through the site development plan review okay then that would come before planning and City Council and now I'll just go on record I've been an advocate of trying to create consistency on both sides of the street obviously there's a lot of issues to get there but I have been advocating for having the form base coat on both sides so there is consistency going back and I'm glad it has at five stories because I know a lot of neighbors in the past have had great concern about something going seven stories or even higher looking back down at them so Thank You mr. chairman before we continue with public comment can I can I interrupt for a moment looks like judge Mosley who's been a longtime resident of the MacNeil neighborhood just just showed up and I think he missed the public comment portion I know that he is a vocal has a vocal position on this I would just move to reopen all the comment to allow him to make any comments that he sees tonight comment on the actual matter before us this evening but I would like to say one thing about the abeyance I appreciate very much the commissioners agreeing to obey the matter of the 20th people can be heard I would ask if we're going to have it being a facility large enough to accommodate a large number of people people there that haven't been heard during these nine previous meetings because of very limited notice and one thing or another but if we don't have this massive problem it was different texting problem and people can actually come we're gonna need a large facility I'd request to sort of consider that thank you thank you thank you commissioner floppin yes I think just about everybody he said everything that I was gonna say but I did want to make sure it and I think Commissioner Rogan addressed the the comment the taken or whatever is totally different than totally different than what we're talking about here tonight which is a form based code so even though I understand that is a will have a big impact on dibela and I'd like to make sure the planning department and everybody talks and Bella and and mr. Rankin in their representation here tonight and try working through that because hate to see him go away due to whatever we're doing out there however I've been working with you for what five years on this plan the form based code and we've been looking at the medical district we've been looking at the the downtown area and this has been a contentious err section of the forum based code where we've gone back and forth and certain people didn't understand that the beginning didn't want it then later a lot of the property owners come and understood and said yes let's move forward for me kind of like Commissioner cherry was saying heaven having both sides of the street uniform where you have good development on one side of the street and then you're not encouraged in that same development on the other side of the street I don't think it's gonna you know benefit that neighborhood heaven having redevelopment on both sides of that Street because there that area needs some needs needs help and redevelopment and whatever we put on these particular properties t3 t4 t5 hopefully not t5 but this isn't to say whatever we put on there today is going to be what's on there and has to be forever the current zone that exists on those particular properties right now if somebody doesn't conform to whatever that is they can come in and ask to rezone it and we see that happening all the time we've seen that happen many a times as I've been sitting up here and probably a lot of the other commissioners so if we we've already seen rezone and when our zoning code doesn't fit this is a new zoning code to try making it harmonious and compatible with the rest of the zone and the medical district and it's bringing it and all together and hope and then if somebody wants to change something they can so I I think I could get behind this I do I mean especially since the council person is wanting to hold this and have more community outreach I think this would be a good good time for them to get together and and discuss all the points about the form based code so thank you thank you Kersh lemon I have a few more comments in fact before you do let me go to Commissioner Williams and see if he wants to chime in I know he's taking care of Commissioner Williams is there anything you'd like that yeah Thank You mr. chair I just wanted to say Thank You Commissioner Rosen he cleared up I was going to ask the question just to get some clarity around what what specifically you know because we kind of took off in a different direction but that's fine other than that okay thank you rogon Thank You mr. chair mr. Carson aye aye I know thank you for coming out here tonight and I hope that the the fact that we're gonna continue on the City Council meeting and have that neighborhood meaning to address the concerns that people still may have and the questions they may have would satisfy you even though tonight we would be asking to be asking my fellow commissioners can consider the item and judge mostly thank you for coming out tonight as well and expressing your opinion on that with regard mr. Howe to some particular matters within the form-based code that I want to bring to your attention that are troubling to me but also troubling to some folks that live in the community the number one opposition that I've gotten to this or reason for opposition is graphic so in between now and the public meeting that regardless of what happens tonight that you be prepared to address traffic concerns that people have if we start allowing higher buildings along these along the Charleston corridor all right additionally I agree with some certain opposition that people have had about those parcels on the northwest corner of Rancho in Charleston generally described as the Smiths parking lot area with that being seven story buildings I don't think seven story buildings are appropriate to that location and I'd be more than willing to support something along the lines of the t4 corridor that's proposed along the south side of Charleston so if you could please be prepared to have some options with regard to those parcels as well additionally the parcels that are on Rancho south of the gas station on the course out east corner of Rancho and Charleston I don't believe five-story buildings are appropriate at that location as well if you could please be prepared to have options for the neighbors to consider other than what is currently proposed in the plan this evening and finally with regard to the develop property and the powerful properties and the Westwood properties I think we need to be prepared to protect those neighborhoods either by placing in landscape buffers that are more significant than what's been proposed so that there's not this sense of overwhelming commercial development in those older neighborhoods that we have but also being very cognizant of the parcels that mr. de bello owns so that we can make sure that Commissioner Tucson can continue to get her flowers from the de bellas as well as all the other neighbors that live in that in that neighborhood would you be ready and willing to do that for us mr. Howell absolutely alright with that I think that addresses all the concerns that neighbors have brought to my attention as well as the concerns that I have I understand that there is still the opportunity for public comment I I encourage everyone that has an important comment to please be prepared and noticed of that meeting as judge Mosley says we'll be more than willing to have it at a large place where a large number of people can accommodate to answer any of those questions but other than that I have no further comments and unless there's other further comments I would make at this point of motion to approve item 29 GPA 7 8 2 1 8 okay you've heard the motion Commissioner toussaint no Commissioner Williams yep okay you've heard the motion everybody else please cast your vote and a motion carries Commissioner thank you I might also make a motion to approve item number 30 0 & 7 8 2 1 9 Commissioner Tucson and Commissioner Williams yep commissioners please cast your vote and that motion carries mr. chairman those items will move forward to City Council and be a part of their agenda on 520 2020 noting Commissioner Rogen's indication that at that meeting we would anticipate the councilmen requesting and abeyance to allow for neighborhood meeting to occur prior to this actually having a public hearing at City Council yes thank you very much okay moving on to related items 31 to 34 gon 78 454 applicant Onan LD are partners for the powerful action I request for a rezoning from undeveloped meant to mix use general plan to the designation 2 c1 limited commercial at the southeast corner of Charleston Boulevard and Westwind Drive Ward 1 staff recommends approval item number 32 var 7 8 4 5 5 4 the possible action or request for a variance to allow 74 parking spaces where 128 a required Ward 1 staff recommends denial item number 33 var seven eight four five six for the possible action I request for a variance to allow an eight-foot residential adjacent setback for a trash receptacle where 50 feet is required and a 21 foot residential adjacent setback for a building where 63 feet is required would one staff recommends denial item number 34 STR seven eight four six zero four the possible action or request for a site development plan review for a proposed 10,000 ten square foot residential development where with waivers of the perimeter landscape buffer requirements and to allow the South facade to not be designed and treated where all sides of the building are required Ward one staff recommends denial can I have the staff report please mr. chairman the proposed rezoning is consistent with the site's current mixed-use land use designation and the remaining portion of the subject site which is also zone limited commercial staff recommends approval of the rezoning request however no evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance has been presented to support the requested variances and staff recommends denial of all other related applications please note there are two proposed condition changes staff request to amend item number 34 condition number 17 to read concurrent with development dedicate and construct a bus turnout and deceleration lane meeting the intent of clark county standard drawing number two three four point four for the existing bus stop on Charleston Boulevard unless otherwise allowed by the city trafficking engineer additionally Commissioner rogen request to amend item number thirty-four condition number fourteen to add all trees within the southern landscape buffer shall be a minimum of thirty six inch box in size please note there additional letters of protest and support since publication thank you thank you I just real quick Eric that was a number four condition 17 and 14 correct yes sir condition number 17 and condition number 14 both on item 34 I think you very much please state your name for the record good evening mr. chair fellow commissioners for the record John Curran nine eight five white drive here on behalf of the applicant to briefly describe our project and answer any questions you may have we have an urban infill redevelopment project on the southeast corner of Charleston and Westwind project sites approximately two and a half acres the Tap House Tavern which is a bit of a neighborhood institution will stay however the l-shaped single-story retail in the back of the of the site will go to make way for a new ten thousand ten square foot single tenant retail store we have also requested a rezone of this corner parcel it is you undeveloped which is sort of a placeholder we would ask to move that to c12 aligned with the rest of the site we've also requested a couple of variances first parking variance you know these smaller retail centers under 25,000 square feet really have an RI is a pretty aggressive parking ratio requirement we're gonna build this shopping center and manage it and maintain it ourselves it doesn't do us any good to have a shopping center it doesn't have adequate parking we've we managed dozens of similar retail projects around town and feel very confident there's a more than adequate parking provided here again it's just a single tenant retail building so we feel justified with that request for a parking variance in regard to the residential adjacent sees just like to point out the both a dumpster that's and the the building is actually an improvement to the status quo for the existing building is there is a residence on this on the south side of this wall it's over a one acre parcel and we do accept that added a condition to add 36 inch box trees along this south wall we think that will give this this neighbor at a little extra screening and that'll help compensate for that lack of a residential without lack of a buffer on the residential adjacency but speaking about of that back wall staff did add a condition number five that we the existing screen wall be demolished construct instructed new one in accordance with title 19 we cannot accommodate that request the the back wall has been built it was added some time long ago and the property owner to the South has a parking garage that's built right into that parking garage it's built right into that wall I went back to the Assessors website and found an aerial from the fall of 1998 you can see this this garage was built right into that wall that time so it's been there for you know well over 20 years so staffs request to demolish this wall and build a new one is really impactful on our neighbor to the south and we don't you know want this we don't want our development to be so impactful in a negative way to this residence so we would request to scrap condition number five on the SDR we wish to maintain that wall as it is and also noting that we would be adding the 36 inch box trees on that on that side last item is we heard amended condition read into the record that is regarding the bus deceleration and turn in our issue with that is you know it's it's really quite impactful on us to have an actual code compliant bus turn in there's not room on this site for a compliant one so this I had my designer sort of sketch what a compliant turnin would look like and it goes in past the driveway into into their center with a with the tavern right there so to put in this deceleration and turn in Lane that requires us to move the streetlights the bus stop whatever under underground infrastructure there is it's really quite impactful and costly so we can't put in the deceleration lane however I can't commit in the next 30 days to work with Public Works and Andalucian to try to find a solution that meets the intention of that request but we cannot comply with with the request to actually add the turn into deceleration lien that wouldn't even fit on our site with that I am happy to answer any questions otherwise respectfully request your vote for with the noting that we we do not accept condition number five regarding that south wall nor number 17 we do however accept adding number condition fourteen adding to 36 inch box trees thank you this is notice as a public hearing council noe comments on this one Thank You anybody for the audience wish to be heard on these agenda items seeing then I'll close it and I'll turn it over to Commissioner mr. chairman if I might real quick before we get into the the Commission discussion so the applicant is requesting to not comply with the proposed condition 5 if they do not wish to comply with that condition that's their prerogative however they will need to do a variance that wall is not code compliant in fact it doesn't appear to have been built properly as you can see in the photos it looks like additional courses have been added over some period of maybe recent time so if they do not wish to comply with that condition these items technically that wall would not be in compliance and we will need a variance in order for that wall to remain as is and even then there may be some building and safety related issues when they go for permitting just to make that clear for the record as part of the discussion Thank You Commissioner toussaint we have any comment not okay Commissioner Williams no comment thank you sir Commissioner rogen Thank You mr. chairman through you I guess my first question would be for the director in looking at this map this is directly on the city County line I wasn't sure whether we could determine whether that property is actually subject to city regulations meaning the south wall do we know have an answer to that question our understanding is the wall is on the subject property and therefore needs to be done they would have to get with a surveyor if they don't believe the wall is theirs then they need to get a surveyor to verify where that property line is regardless because this is a commercial use adjacent to a residential use they are obligated to put in a perimeter wall to separate that commercial property from that residential development so what would end up happening is if that wall is not on the subject site and is in fact on the residential site they would need to construct a code compliant wall on their site to provide appropriate screening and perimeter wall between the commercial activity in that residential zone okay and any issues with regard to that wall whether it's they ultimately have to deter a request a variance because it turns out that wall even though it's the back wall of the garage belonging to the adjacent landowner if in fact they can they are required to seek a variance they could do that at a later point correct correct they would need to seek that though before they came through with any attempts to get any building permits to do any work on the site okay before any mapping action any further action on this property would have to have an improved variance to address that wall situation which again I would just caution the applicant that if it is in fact their wall just from the pictures there was no building permits issued for the additional work there it does not appear to be stable there may be some additional work that they'll have to do with building and safety on the engineering to determine if that wall is even structurally sound enough to remain as is all right thank you mr. director mr. Curran do you understand that yes I understand so weak could apply for a subsequent variance to to keep that existing wall you know again our concern is not we want this tall wall it's it's that it impacts our neighbors to the south in a major way to tear it their wall down and they've got a garage built into it so now all of a sudden our development becomes very impactful in a negative way to our adjacent neighbor to the south so that's what we're trying to avoid is that tension we would be willing to to move forward with the variance before getting building permits though and as I mentioned I would just I would do some due diligence even before you spend additional time and money on a variance to determine if that wall is even technically salvageable since it does not have any building permits and again from our site visits and pictures it doesn't look structurally sound like it's got the proper support so you may want to do that due diligence just before you would come back just as a caution mr. mr. Curtin I'm sorry Lucien did you want to say something sure through the chairman just a quick clarification as well the exhibit that was shown up there is a standard exhibit for a bus pull out and what we're asking for is a bus pull out right turn lane combination admittedly they still are short and we and talking to them we agreed that we can modify the the minimum standard to make something work but I just wanted to plant that the exhibit showing is actually for a bus plot only and not a bus plot right turn lane combination is what we're asking for so then what does that do - I see how it impacted the parking spaces now with that new drawing that was presented now it's gonna be even less parking if that's required than the 74 because this what's put in item number 32 the 74 spaces were 128 required does that lessen that number now because of the fact that they're requiring for that bus turnout mister every night and looking at the spikes is shown if they're counting all no have to may be deferred to planning on what's actually being counted for the parking but some of the parking along Charleston if we have a compliant public sidewalk they actually don't function as parking spaces they may function today as maybe non-compliant spots and and not having a sidewalk there at least a public like concrete sidewalk but I think the number will be reduced I'm just not sure what's being counted today doing the right turn lane that one impacted in the parking shown today because it's kind of on the proper that they're not really developing right now but because we're looking at using as the existing driveway and kind of taking the right turn lane and the bus stop and turning it into the existing driveway so it really wouldn't impact anything east of the current driveway mr. chairman through you we when we evaluated this site plan we took into account that the bus turn out lane would only impact the undeveloped portion of the site therefore it wouldn't affect the parking variance the parking spaces in front of the tavern that currently exists today we took those into account that they would be impacted and would not be viable parking spaces and those are accounted for in the current variance thank you very much Thank You mr. chairman through you I had a lot of questions when I first started out with this particular project for mr. Curran I would like to begin my comments by saying that this is an area that desperately needs redevelopment it's a it's a very it's a very undeveloped older intersection of Charleston and Westwind there are properties there that are very very old the property that they're looking to knock down and replace with a newer property as something that's been there for a very long time and is in desperate need of this kind of new development I think we're all very familiar with mr. gaffers projects throughout the city especially downtown on the intersection of Maryland and and Charleston as well as the post office property on Carson in Las Vegas Boulevard that we've had recently and they're very committed to the kind of investments that we would expect and these kind of infill projects that are taking older aging properties and turning into something beautiful and something that neighbors can support that being said when as I mentioned when we first started down this road I had some questions specifically with regard to the residential adjacency and I can represent to my fellow commissioners that I did speak with that property owner just the other day directly south and he is perfectly fine with this new building going in it was my request for these increased landscape buffers because I'm very concerned about residential adjacency standards and mr. Curran you also understand that you do have to comply with the lettering requirements of code to ensure that no lights on that side on that cell sidewall are going to interfere with the use and enjoyment of the property of that property owner correct yes we understand we'd have lights that would be shielded and candidly the existing wall would help to that to that effect as well okay so with that being said we've worked very closely the unresolved issues really are that is that southside wall as the director has pointed out as well as that bus turned out lane and I want to thank Lucien for for helping us today we were still working on it and the proposed change to condition number 17 was to allow the the the applicant and planning to work through those remaining issues between now and if it's approved through City Council and so this would allow for a change perhaps if not a bus turn out maybe it's just simply providing an easement to move that bus station back away from the edge of the property and install bollards that would protect those people that are waiting there on the side of the the bus station if in fact putting in a complete bust turnout would be too cost-prohibitive to allow the project to move forward so with those considerations made I am comfortable moving forward with items 31 through 34 at this point unless anyone has any other questions or comments see none okay mr. Curran I want to make very clear I'm leaving in condition number 5 since it's unresolved at this point with the intent that you that you address those issues either between now and City Council or subsequent to any type of approval as the director indicated you understand that understood arraign and I'm also leaving in the amended 17 that was read into the record despite your opposition to that bus turnout Lane you understand that understood and will work with Ellucian in public works between now and May 20th thank you very much all right with with all that being said I would at this point I'd make a motion to approve item 31 0 & 7 8 454 Commissioner Tucson yeah Commissioner Williams yeah thank you yes the commissioners please cast your vote and that motion passes commissioner Rogan chairman I'd make a motion to approve item 32 var seven eight four five five Commissioner toussaint yeah Commissioner Williams yep fellow commissioners please cast your vote and a motion carries Commissioner Owen I'd also make a motion to approve item 33 var seven four seven eight four five six Commissioner toussaint yeah Commissioner Williams yep please cast your vote that motion carries and finally mr. chairman I'd make a motion to approve item number 34 with the amended conditions as indicated on the record tonight STR seven eight four six two zero Commissioner Williams yep Commissioner Tucson yeah Thank You fellow commissioners please cast your vote and that motion carries and mr. chairman has mentioned these items will go forward to City Council on the May 20th 2020 agenda 35 37 35 var seven eight four three one applicant owner your salami properties six LLC for the possible action and request for a variance to allow an existing six foot tall chain-link fence with mesh screening and a one foot tall three strand barbed wire wear eight foot tall solid screen walls required for an outdoor story screening on the east side of Highland Drive north of Scotland lane Ward 3 staff recommends denial item number 36 var 784 911 for the possible Axel and request for a variance to allow a seven-foot tall chain-link fence in front of in the front yard area where a maximum of five foot with a two foot solid base is allowed to allow an existing nine foot tall perimeter wall and fence where eight feet is a max loud and to allow a chain link with razor and barbed wire where such material are prohibited and war three staff recommends now and I don't know 37 SDR 78043 - for a possible accident request for a site development plan review for a proposed outdoor storage yard with a waiver of appendix F development standards Ward 3 staff recommends denial staff report please mr. chairman staff finds the requested variances to be self imposed hardships and the waivers requested create an undesirable design characteristic for the Design District and do not support the vision 2045 downtown master plan therefore staff recommends denial of all applications please note a letter of support was received after publication thank you thank you please stay tuned for the record Thank You mr. chairman commissioners Stephanie Allen nineteen eighty Festival Plaza Drive here on behalf of the applicant and the property owner for this particular property I have a picture here because this this property owner is also the property owner of the property immediately to the east of the site which is the jeweler's of Las Vegas some of you may or may not be familiar with this but they've operated successfully on this property since 1976 and owned the adjacent property in the area as well Mordecai and his son are notable figures and in the community and this is a code enforcement case but they are anxious to rectify it and clean up the property so that the city they're in compliance with the city's expectations so just quickly to give you an overview this is the aerial that's in your back up this is where the jeweler's currently operates on Western Avenue the parcel immediately west is the parcel that it's that is a issue today and there's a couple of uses that are currently on that property you can see on this site plan this portion of it he currently uses for his employees parking so it's accessible to the jeweler's site there are parking spaces and there's also a carport for his employees on on that half of the site the picture in your back up shows the car ports for the employees that are used every day and then there's a wrought iron fence along the center of it that essentially splits the parcel in half so it's a unique piece of property everything in this area is zoned industrial it's all em industrial there is a lot of barbed wire there's a lot of very intense industrial uses in the area I would argue that Mordechai is the jewelers sight is one of the very nicer sights on the in the area and the surrounding area and he's currently using as I mentioned half of this parcel for his operations the other half he has a tenant across the street on Western that is an auto repair licensee they're actually licensed with the city of Las Vegas across the street they are using the remainder of this parcel for overflow storage and it came to our attention through code enforcement that you know that's an appropriate use in industrial but there's never been any permission to do that on this site so that's what we're here for is to ask for that permission it is not a operation where a lot of money needs to go into the property it's it's simply overflow storage they've been doing it for many many years of course we understand we need to clean up the site and they have done that they've gotten rid of the graffiti and all of the trash and and there are some old structures on here though that do require permission to have and possibly need to be cleaned up with talked with Commissioner Slaton about that as well we understand the barbed wire is not very desirable and Maura is happy to get rid of the barbed wire and the razor wire if that is the Commission inclination as well as any other suggestions I know Commissioner schlattman has other suggestions specific to to this site so with that said he would like to continue to allow this overflow storage on the property for his tenant across the street on Western there is a carport that exists that he'd like to keep there's a storage unit that's a temporary storage unit that could be in better shape he's willing to work on that as well but he would like to keep those on the property and be allowed to do outdoor storage which we all know is appropriate in an EM industrial area so with that said I'm happy to answer any questions thank you this is notice as a public hearing council noe comments at this time all right thank you anybody in the audience wish to be heard on this item seeing then I'll close it Commissioner toussaint okay thank you Commissioner Williams any comments no comment Thank You commissioner yes Thank You mr. chairman I did have a chance to talk to miss Allen about this property in looks like they did cleaned up quite a bit I don't want the razor wire don't want the bob wire take that down and and you know I I don't know if I'm gonna make it a condition but I'm gonna say paint that paint that storage building if they don't then I'll be calling you telling you to go out and paint it so okay over there to get our red diesel fuel for all of our construction equipment right across the street so I'll be able to keep my eye on it and I'll keep your number handy every time I go by so with that being said I'm gonna disclose that Mordecai and my dad were partners for many years and I actually grew up with Benny so I'm going to abstain from this vote and I just wanted to reflect that in an abundance of caution Thank You Commissioner Commissioner Stallman hi mr. chairman if I could so you would like the additional condition approval for variance 7 & 4 3 1 to read this variance is approved to allow an existing six foot tall chain-link fence with mesh screening where an 8 foot tall solid screen walls required and then I don't know if you want a time frame and removing barbed wire but if so we would have additional conditional approval on SDR seven eight four three two two read the existing barbed wire shall be removed within 30 days of the final approval and that would be on the SDR the variance would be approved for only the the [Music] six-foot-tall chain-link fence with mesh screening with no barbed wire and then the STR would have the condition to remove the barbed wire I just want to be clear that would be on both variances since both variances have a a razor or barbed wire component correct would that be a part of your motion that corrects on both items to remove both 35 and 36 since they both have that component and then with both of them having a 30 day from final action removal condition so my agenda is 36 and 37 speak of razor barbed wire or 36 speaks of exciting razor wire on 36 and then 37 just establishes the the approval or not so I think just to be clear since we headed 35 and 36 included that we've won a condition that says what the actual approval is which is no razor wire and that they have to be removed and then we clarify that as well on the site development review just to make sure the record is clear clear SMUD do you agree with all that I do okay so I'm gonna make a motion and if we can have the planning department kind of help me clear up the muddy water so reading in so I would move to approve item 35 of the AR 7 8 4 3 1 to allow a existent six foot tall chain-link fence 78043 want to breed this variance is approved to allow an existing six foot tall chain-link fence with much screening wear an 8 foot tall solid screen wall is required thank you and can we get a condition of approval I mean a condition to state that the chain-link the the barbed wire must come down within 60 days that would actually go in the site development review okay so this will clarify what's being approved by the variance and then the site development review would indicate that the barbed wire and razor wire must come down thank you okay and you you're in agreement with our motion yes sir Thank You Commissioner toussaint yeah Commissioner Williams yep thank you and sure if we can ask mr. Lucien I think he has to come in go through the chair when we get to the site develop you I just want to be clear on what - down the sidewalk because of being in the downtown master plain area there's a okay I'll come back to you on item 30 3,700 moment motions on the floor okay you heard the motion please cast your vote and a motion carries Commissioner Stodden yes and on item 36 I would make a motion to approve to allow a seven-foot tall chain-link fence on the front yard area where a maximum of a V with the two-foot solid bases allowed through chair I think we would have to continue that to say to allow an existing nine-foot tall perimeter wall and fence where 8 feet is a maximum allowed and to allow chain-link where such materials are prohibited so thank you that that is my motion Commissioner cusan yeah Commissioner Williams yeah okay please cast and a motion carries yes and on item 37 STR 784 32 would move to approve subject to staff's conditions and I'm going to ask to help us with the amended condition three chairs so for STRs 780 432 we would have an attic addition approval estates the existing barbed wire and razor wire shall be removed within 60 days of final approval yes and before I we continue with that motion are you fine with that amended condition yes sir and before go any further if I may ask for mr. Lucien to clarify the Covenant run with the land yes so this would be an added condition on top of constructing the sidewalk there would be a new condition I think number 14 I would read prior to the approval of construction drawings for this site design a cover running with land agreement for apostle features installation of any office entrance per the requirements of downtown master plan title 19 appendix F that deferred by this action including undergrounding of all existing utility is that lines adjacent to the site not facing again with this development the conan group must be required with a county recorder and a copy of the record document must be provided to see prior to issuance of building permits for this site thank you do you agree it was hard to understand but I think what he was saying as a whole lot of stuff about all of the title 19 stuff dealing with the underground utilities sidewalks and everything you'll sign a covenant rut run with the land stating that you'll do that in in the future when determined by public works or the city summarize what you said perfectly understood I understand pollution mr. chairman if I might just real quick check with Public Works it since this is all existing conditions if they have no building permits do you have any adjustment to that condition to address signing the Covenant in case there are no building permits that need to be issued for anything I don't know because there everything here is existing they're not actually proposing to do anything new if there are actually going to be building permits that will need to be issued relative to this action technically they're not building firming they are the ability Department issues the permit for the sidewalk but the previous condition I think condition 13 requires the construction of a sidewalk along here and that will be within I think 180 [Music] 180 days disapproval so that in part of the actions they'll need to pull a permit to put the I walk in than Hades and then before they can pull a permit don't need to sign my covenant run with land on the property okay thank you sorry miss Ellen I actually missed that condition so I will have to talk to him about that I understand it and for purposes of tonight absolutely will agree to that I just need to confirm that before City Council that that was his intent so this isn't going to City Council so if if you don't for some reason to agree you'll have to come back with a review of condition if that if that's not something that they are comfortable like 30 days to work this out with Public Works or do you want to somehow figure it out right now well if I could ask through you mr. chair just what those improvements are since it says complete all incomplete improvements if it's simply a sidewalk then that might might be okay sure a few mr. chairman it is the sidewalk but if we want to make it so that there's flexibility we can just add one second may ask the city clerk to take down the voting screen so I can get back into the conditions and you can carry on thank you yes so condition 12 I think what we would do with it's actually condition 12 we would just add to condition 12 unless otherwise allotted by the City Engineer that kind of gives it the either Director of Public Works engine engineer the ability to say they don't need to do it or not do it you know or to do it maybe it gets modified to an asphalt sidewalk because there's not much out there as a minimum sometimes our minimum just hard surfaces is an asphalt sidewalk for now and then we can also although the Covenant I would suggest just stays because that's really just kind of lean on the proper they'll agree to do a special Improvement District if we do a special Improvement District in the future and I I think the history will show we've probably haven't called too many covenants in the downtown area it's mainly a requirement of the downtown master plan that in lieu of constructing these imprints that they're requesting waivers of that they agreed to do them in the future at some period of time so mr. chairman through you if I may asked mr. Pyatt so the one thing that we would add at the end of number twelve would be so it's construct all incomplete improvements on Holland Drive to meet current city standards adjacent to the site within 180 days of final approval comma unless the city engineer okay unless otherwise a lot of by the city engineer and then at that point you will the city engineer the your department will automatically make sure that the Covenant gets drafted and recorded prior to that happen and or else this would be called back before us correct yeah so I think what would end up happening to you mr. chair is that we would issue a letter or an email something in writing that says here's here's how we're addressing condition twelve so if we required say it's an asphalt sidewalk we would have maybe an email that says or a letter that says to comply with condition twelve you must put an asphalt so I walk in and pull a permit for that or it may be you do not have to do anything you know I really can't say what the city is going to approve of but at least it gives him the discretion to to make a decision on number twelve but at some point that will trigger the city staff to look into making sure that the Covenant has been has been executed and recorded correct and and ultimately the onus will be on the applicant to do the things based on the approval of these conditional proof of this action assuming it's okay and if they did not do this then it could be pulled back to us at any point in the future if they didn't sign that covenant correct mr. chairman through you yes they'd be not in compliance with their conditions of approval which would therefore bring it they'd either have to come back and request a review of condition to have that condition eliminated or they'd be subject to additional code enforcement action for non-compliance with their conditions of approval and thank you for bringing that up because that that is interest infect us and histogram that we don't wouldn't really have a building permit here that bring that up do you understand I do and I appreciate it thank you Lucien I think that gives us the flexibility that we need so thank you very much the and Lucien if you could remind me one more time I'll write it down this time a comma unless unless otherwise allowed by the City Engineer okay miss Allen agrees do you have a motion yes so on where we are we on 37 37 now 37 SDR 78 432 moved to approve subject to the Mendut condition rim read into the record by the Planning Department that states the you must remove the bob wire within sixty days and the amended condition was at 1412 that states comma unless otherwise allowed by the city engineer and the Attic condition by Public Works you agree with all that yes okay yeah Commissioner Williams yeah I thank you for the motion please cast your vote and that motion carries thank you very much and he did agree to paint that structure otherwise I'll be out there painting it mr. chairman as I mentioned these items are final actions seeming unless appealed to the City Clerk's office within 10 days great thank you very much appreciate it all right going on to related items 1339 VAR 78043 for applicant DR horton inc owner for star USA real estate group inc for the possible action on a request for a variance to allow a non standing right away terminus where a cul-de-sac is required at the southwest corner of an and Hualapai Ward six staff recommends denial and I don't know the thirty-nine BAC 78043 six for the possible action on request for a petition to vacate public right away generally located at the terminus of Stephanie Stefan Avenue and terminus of roughen Road Ward six staff recommends denial can I have the staff report please items 38 39 I do not have a staff report for that I thought we had that but if you give me a minute here would you like me to trail that one and come back alright let's do that alright so let's move on to item number 40 it's been so it'd be 42 item 42 var 7 8 4 6 8 applicant owner 2101 South Jill in holding LLC for the possible action I request for a variance to allow a 21 foot tall freestanding sign where 12 feet is the maximum allowed a 240 square foot sign area where 48 square foot is the maximum allowed and to allow an electronic message unit where such is prohibited at 20 101 South Jones Boulevard Ward 1 staff recommends the now can I get staff board on that one good evening Maria van turnout and of DHS signs I'm waiting for the Stanford point Oh are you good 444 mr. chairman I'm gonna give a really easy staff report on 42 as the subject site has no topographical conditions that would warrant the requested variance those are self-imposed hardships and therefore staff has recommended denial well please states names a record-high the property is Maria DHS signs representing the applicant so the sign to correct is 20-foot overall height so the applicant is requesting an additional 8 foot of height to increase because of the median in the middle of the road with the 8 foot slope on the northbound side of Jones Boulevard I have a photo here showing I'm sure you've seen this across the street adjacent there's a 20 foot pylon sign and you can only see the upper portion of it which equates to about 10 feet so if he's allowed to have a 12 foot sign basically you would only see the upper two to three feet of monument sign so he's requesting the height basically so he can advertise his business to both sides of the street everything complies with the title 19 if approved meets the setbacks parking lot analysis there is no exposure to residential there was an abandoned home across the street that is zoned c1 and basically looks like it's slotted for demolition for another commercial business I would assume but the businesses on both sides of the street up and down and then looking south on Jones Boulevard there is a sign of a similar height about a quarter mile down the road so you have a 20-foot across the street you have another tall sign basically right in the same area as you can see there is a small monument sign in the lower right hand corner there but it basically goes unnoticed because of the height of it so they're competing against varying zones c1 and the Rd zone and basically they're mixed together the businesses are mixed together there so the company is a I think a beneficial addition to the neighborhood it's a dental implant center with they're going to be offering classes as well and then they will be leasing out units inside their building and that's why they were requesting the electronic message board is to advertise the other businesses that will be occupying the building is that they said well let me open a public comment public hearing anybody wish to be heard counsel no e comments mr. chairman thank you very much anybody from the audience would be heard on this agenda item seeing none I'll close it and I will turn it over to Commissioner Rogan thank you I have some concerns about this this item particularly the height of the item as well as the electronic sign there are no other electronic signs in the vicinity of this and these are very low slung buildings along this stretch of Jones and a taller building with an electronic sign I understand what you're trying to do and I underst the the varying heights that you have on the north side of Jones versus the south side of Jones we want to work with you considering that and and look at other options but this there's no justification for such a large sign with those electronic with the electronic messaging that I see that would justify a variance so if you come at something at us with something a bit smaller without that a lot of tronic sign will take it as it comes but this is entirely too large for that spot okay if the applicant were to agree to work out maybe something a little lower profile yeah I mean if you want I can I can work with you we can try and work out something and we can obey this item if that's okay with my fellow commissioners I would ask given the considerations that it would be 60 days rather than the usual 30 days if you're willing to do that yes I am I would appreciate ok the opportunity certainly then at this point I'd make a motion to obey item 42 var 7 8 4 6 8 to the what month is it now June 12th Planning Commission meeting is that the correct date June 9th Planning Commission the night yes 60 days it should be June night sir June 9th thank you there would be my motion ok Commissioner to saw it yeah Commissioner Williams yeah ok we all heard the vote motion please cast your vote and ambush and carries thank you very much thank you okay I'm going back to it's already been read into the record item 38 and 39 I just need the staff report mr. chairman no evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance has been presented in that the applicant has created a self-imposed hardship by proposing the use of hammerheads in lieu of the coldest act which meets title 1900 for development standards staff therefore recommends denial of both applications please note their additional letters of protest since publication thank you good evening mr. chairman commissioners Stephanie Allen 1980 Festival Plaza Drive we represent here horton on all of their items however they did not ask us to represent this tonight so if I could hold it will certainly be back and represent the item unless mr. chairman you know something I don't know but we're happy to hold it on their behalf no I mean I was I was fine with it the way it was and what they were asking both for 38 and 39 I'm not actually surprising out here either so if that's what you want to do is hold it like I said other than I was fine with it if you're fine with it that's there's no other comments Commissioner Tucson yeah you have any comments no I don't know Commissioner Williams no comment okay if no other comments from them I will make a motion to approve agenda item number 38 var seven eight four three four Commissioner Tucson yeah Commissioner Williams yeah you've heard the motion please cast your vote and that motion carries item number 39 be a c7 8436 motion to approve Commissioner Toussaint yeah Commissioner Williams yeah okay fellow commissioners please cast your vote and a motion carries thank you very much appreciate it and have a good night and mr. chairman those items will move forward to City Council and be heard as a part of their agenda on May 22 2020 okay great thank you sorry item number 44 sgp 7 8 3 6 - applicant jessica hair and makeup studio owner Ashish investment properties nevada - LLC for the possible action a request for a special use permit for a 1000 475 square foot massage establishment use with a waiver to allow a 100 foot distance separation from a church and house of worship and a 100 foot distance separation from a residential zone property where 400 feet is required at 3,100 each Charleston Boulevard suite 119 or 3 staff recommends denial and may I have a staff report please I have this one mr. chairman staff is not able to support the requested waiver of distance separation and is a recommending denial of the application please note a letter of protest was received after publication thank you thank you please state your name for the record sir studio can you say that again for the clerk my name is roberto lepe an owner of jessica hair makeup studio and I was just seeking I currently own that business for more than a years so I wish to add a service of massage service just in a room 12 by 12 I currently have four hair stations and two makeup stations so adding that service by the request of my my clientele and I would like your recommendation for this I thank you this is notices public hearing council no comments on this one sorry mr. chair [Music] anybody in the audience wish to comment on this agenda item see you now I'll close that and I'll turn it over to Commissioner stock yes mr. chairman I looked at this and it's not a traditional massage massage establishment in conjunction with cutting here it's across a 100 foot right away a Charleston from the the church I don't think this is all have that big of the impact on anything and I'm willing to support this up commissioner Tucson Commissioner Commissioner Williams no comment okay there's been a motion to approve Commissioner Tucson yeah Commissioner Williams yeah okay fellow commissioners you heard the motion please cast your vote and that motion carries mr. chairman that items final action this evening unless appealed to the City Clerk's office within 10 days thank you moving on to item number 45 SDR seven eight four four one applicant sprint LTE apt one LLC for the possible action on a request for a site development plan review for proposed two-story 16 unit multifamily development what a waiver to allow ten parking spaces where twenty eight are required at 405 South 10th Street Ward 3 staff recommends denial staff report please mr. chairman the applicant is proposing to quadruple the size of an existing complex while requesting to reduce the amount of required parking by 64 percent staff finds the proposed multifamily development is over built for the size of the site and is recommending denial of the application please note a letter of protest was received after publication thank you thank you please state your name for the record sir James Smith 91 59 west.flamingo Las Vegas representing the client owner we're representing here a remodel to an existing residents to a 16 unit complex it's currently zoned art for we work with staff to create a full compliance with the landscape including 20 trees along the perimeter and they required setbacks from the additional buildings of these adjacent buildings I only request that we're doing is the the parking requirement we're asking for a variance on that where we have ten currently on the site here and what we also have is a on the street of 10th Street here we have five additional parking spaces that is not included in the site reports we've theoretically 15 parking spaces for this property we feel that it's not over built there was a recent application heard in December on 11th Street about a couple hundred yards away it was on half the size and it was 18 units so we feel that this is not over built in any way we also feel that it's it's a good project it's gonna be built quickly I know the owners wants to build it to get it up and running I know the pit rent permits and all the plans are already submitted to the city and Commissioner schlattman you just said in December that you wish there were more projects like this in the area and this is one of them so if you have any more questions I'd be feel free to answer thank you this is notice as a public hearing council mr. chairman there actually is a comment on this one dear Commissioner schlattman at all I oppose and by the way this is from Melissa Clary I oppose agenda item 45 STR seven eight four four one in its present form I strongly support adding housing and remodeling the property however the current design should provide a minimum of one parking space per unit the SDR should waive downtown Las Vegas master plan area parking standards with the condition that the development accommodate a minimum of one vehicle for residential unit to ensure guests can park when visiting Carles residents the adjacency the Las Vegas Academy and other large multifamily developments on the street means on street parking is severely lacking in this area and any aerial map will show a sea of vehicles there there also appears to be an unused driveway cut out on the west side of the parcel where minor on street improvements can allow for increased street parking downtown Las Vegas is changing but without key amenities like groceries and health care options downtown many residents continue to rely on personal vehicles for traveling the valley with the change to the development I would support the request many thanks for your service and consideration Melissa Thank You council notice anybody in the audience wish to be heard please come up state your name for the record my name is Ron Welch my work address is 511 South 9th Street I I care for the property there along with several other properties throughout the city and north-east in the state i work at the church that's located directly across from el VA and their theater there in our parking lot we have sixty two spaces there we have marked the spaces as private parking our concern is that with this development it's going to become our responsibility to place our parking lot further for cleanup and also for illegal parking there we feel like they've underestimated the amount of parking that they need and would request denial on this variance thank you sir anybody else wish to be heard seeing then I'll close the public hearing and turn it over to Commissioner Stockman yes I thank you and I do remember my comments from December saying I want to see more house and the community community in downtown area however I also remember my comments from a housing project over by the downtown metro area command that I denied because they didn't have enough parking I do remember another one that I denied over in the Beverly Green that didn't have enough parking I don't can't remember how the Planning Commission if they agreed with me or didn't agree with me I do agree agree that we need more house and but you know we're in what's unique about this particular project is that you're in a mid block and you're putting 16 houses where you need where you need 28 parking spaces and you have ten and you don't even have one space per unit and that's what killed the last couple of projects that come in where they didn't didn't meet that one one parking space per per unit that they're constructing so hey I don't think you have a bad plan overall I do support what you're doing and what your clients are doing but I think it's over building at at this point so I the justification that I heard was well there's other people that are doing it and that we need residential downtown there's no justification on why why that the ten spaces is what was needed and if everybody recalls there was another project that come through with a few hundred units a great project for for community right didn't have didn't have enough parking and I denied that project because it was just gonna have too big of an impact on the neighbors and the neighbors were gonna be the ones who had to bear that burden so we got to take this on a case-by-case basis I do support development I would like to hear from our other commissioners and see what their opinions are because I do value but its opinion up here I'd like to point out too quickly hold on one second so just do you think I threw the chair and I agree with Commissioner Schwab and I just I know I've supported projects that have less than one to one but there's typically it's nice to see a plan where there's you know bike share or its transient orientated along the main line where there's bus routes which I'm not really seeing here I guess one question for the director if this was farther north in the form based code area would this meet the minimum standard for parking that would be needed in a development like this so mr. chairman through you know it would not and for some of the reasons you just described part of what allows you to have a reduction in your parking is those other amenities like a transit facility bike share other types of things that offset that parking demand and as indicated this this location does not have that and so even under the form based code approach they would be deficient in parking with the the current proposal for the number of units compared to the number of spaces they are providing with the limited amenities for transportation in the area okay thank you no I mean that really kind of seals it for me I mean if this is something I think staff has a right if this was modified where it wasn't as intense and included some things that the director just talked about I think I could get behind it but the way it sits right now I can just chime in here I do remember the one Commissioner Stockman was talking I believe Nathan Taylor upped it it was across the street from Bonanza krusty from the metro and it was almost a cookie cutter version of this to a tee almost and what they did is they reduced the size of the dwelling in order to accommodate for the parking and it worked the minute they did that it was full steam ahead Commissioner Toussaint do you have any comment yes I do is the parking issue was a deal breaker they just don't have enough parking and I know that if I were living complex and I had family coming I don't know where they would park and I don't know where my neighbors are Clark so I agree with Commissioner swattin the Commissioner charity I think that the parking is there very under parked and I don't think I could vote for it with this condition Thank You Commissioner Williams I was the parking problem thank you very much Commissioner Williams Commissioner Stockman yes I I think you know probably a little bit of work needs to take place on this it's not in any any state to be approved tonight I think this one will probably going forward to City Council probably won't see my support tonight but what I'm hoping is you can reach out do a neighborhood meeting Melissa Clary did reach out she emailed me she is one of our neighborhood leaders I'm sure you've heard of her and so and and and she's vocal sheep she talks so with a lot of the neighbors as well so maybe you can reach out to her reach out to the other neighbors host a neighborhood meeting I won't make it a requirement but you know if you don't do it and you show up at City Council there's gonna be a lot of pressure to denied this at the City Council as well I'd really encourage you to go back and take a look at there's a couple things you could do you could look at a perpetual parking agreement with some you can find some parking lot in the area where you can execute that perpetual parking agreement that'll satisfy this parking requirement and then you could keep your you're building the way it is you can you know increase the number of parking spaces and reduce the size of the number of units that you're at and there's there's a number of things that you could do and reach out to the the plane and apartment reach out to Melissa Clary reach out to the neighbors and see what they want and also talk to the council person and I think if you could do that you I mean I want to see you build something here I just want to make sure that you're not putting the burden of your parking on everybody in the neighborhood absolutely I know that the developer wants to make good-faith effort on this and I think mr. chair hit on a point here changing the complexity of the units from a one-bedroom to 2-bedroom does alter the parking requirements and we're willing to work with staff and the council would and the Commission on that so we'll be more than happy to meet these people and start the dialogue and and get sure and make sure that this comes down to a requirement or a variance that's acceptable to everybody and I think we get there very quickly great because I think there's a need for it and I think you can get there you're just not there yet okay so with that being said I'd like to make a motion on item 45 SDR 7 8 441 to follow staffs recommendation for denial Commissioner Tucson yeah Commissioner Williams Commissioner Williams yep the motion please cast motion carries and mr. chairman has mentioned this item will go forward to City Council and be heard as a part of their agenda on May 20th 2020 I would recommend it to the applicant if they are interested in conducting a neighborhood meeting that you reach out to my staff as soon as possible if you would like to try to get that accomplished before the City Council meeting thank you and sir if you know if you want to reach out to the planner here to ask him how to go about doing that feel free he's a good resource great thank you okay moving on directors business item number 47 txt 785 won nine African owned a city of Las Vegas for the possible action on a request to amend the conditional use regulations and minimum special use permit requirements for second-hand dealer use in lv MC title nineteen point two permissible use and to provide for other related matters staff rack has no recommendation staff report mr. chairman the proposed text amendment would allow a second-hand dealer used to be established on either side of Fremont Street between lost bait Las Vegas Boulevard and eighth Street where the use is currently prohibited along either side of Fremont Street for its entire length staff has no recommendation Thank You Cadence's noticed as a public hearing anybody from the public wish to be heard counsel mr. chairman there are no comments on the side okay anybody from the audience seeing then I'll close it and turn it over to Commission Commissioner Roley Thanks I mean my general feeling on this matter is I'm not really quite sure where it's coming from or what the purpose is and I'm confused as to why it was presented the the briefing that we had it didn't we were very curious as to that we receive every every week prior to the meeting didn't really use shed any light on where this was coming from or the need for this change I understand that we're not the final say and we're just making a recommendation but without those further understanding of the need for this especially since it's a very important part of our city that Fremont Street that we need to protect I'm really not comfortable supporting it I'd either move forward either with a denial or a no recommendation at this point let's City Council have further iron out these questions mr. Sommerfeld would you care to elaborate so mr. chairman thank you so through you to the the temp the commissioners concern so this amendment is brought as a result of a council persons request based on some comments or some requests that they received from constituency that has asked to have an opportunity to do secondhand activity within this expanded area between Main Street and Las Vegas Boulevard on Fremont Street and then on either side between a free ministry between 8th Street and Sahara I'm sorry this further restricts at any rate the point is the request was there's a opportunity for a viable second-hand dealer I don't know the specifics of it in terms of exactly what they would like to do they've requested of one of our council people an opportunity to make their case for for doing that unfortunately they can't do that without this text amendment with the text amendment then they would have to make sure they comply either only or with the minimum special use requirements depending on what they're proposed activity would be within that area and it's secondhand deal is that like artifacts clothing cars I mean what is the definition of secondhand dealing so second-hand dealer and I'm I think it's in the staff report or maybe it's not secondhand dealer is essentially anything like Carolyn's consignment so or place that I've gotten very familiar with and maybe Commissioner Jarry has as well the second-hand baby baby shops where they take baby clothes and they resell them it could be a secondhand bookstore so again selling used books it doesn't include antiques so antiques is a separate activity but it's basically reselling something that's previously been bought vintage clothing stores would be second-hand dealers the the places that do like gamestop that sells resells video games and stuff those actually have second-hand dealer licenses and things of that nature and from from what I understand this is just between Fremont and Main in Las Vegas Boulevard it's just in that area yes I apologize I was reading the area prohibited so yes it would be on either side of Fremont between Las Vegas Boulevard and 8th Street so it's a relatively limited allowance where it's currently prohibited straight out in that Fremont corridor Commission a chair through the chair a director for a little more clarity so is it it looks like you can apply for a temporary use the second hand if this was approved but is if they wanted to have a permanent business there they'd still come forth with a special use permit so the the requirements for second-hand dealer there is a conditional use and there is a special use requirement both have the limit no Fremont so it would depend on exactly which district that they were being proposed in as to whether or not they get conditional treatment or special use treatment additionally for some reason they couldn't meet a conditional use requirement then they may kick into a special use provision the other element here is this is in the just to be very transparent this is in the form based code area that this amendment would affect but the form based code refers back to standard title 19 12 for the use constraints for a second-hand dealer which is why we're actually amending nineteen twelve instead of 1909 okay Thank You Commissioner rogen then Commissioner seven oh I was really confused when I read this and when I read it again and you know even leading up to just now I didn't have the opportunity opportunity to go through the briefing but maybe I'm wrong but I got a hunch that I know what's going on here no secondhand dealer shall be located on either side of Fremont between Main Street and Las Vegas Boulevard which means it excludes the Fremont Street Experience or on either side of Fremont between eighth and Sahara I mean all the way down the boulder highway to Sahara so it's now allowing it between Las Vegas Boulevard and 8th Street which probably means some hipsters wanting to go in and open some sort of blue jean exchange store or something like that if I had to guess so that's just a hunch I don't know I don't have any first-hand knowledge but knowing that it's allowing to have it in one area and knowing the area between wasp eggs Boulevard and H Street knowing that I've worked in downtown and built 6070 places down here I know one the the property owners and and they wouldn't let just any old ratty place go in there so there has to be something that is gonna be good coming out of this so I could I think I could get behind this Commission rogon thank you on you I just am not comfortable making a recommendation for approval without knowing a little bit more about who that hipster is and and what their intention is so I think with without that that lack of information I'm leaning more towards no recommendation I'm not saying that we can't get behind it wouldn't support it if we knew more about it but again it is that that that East Fremont if you remember just ten years ago that was a terrible place to go it was unsafe and now look at it it's beautiful it's great people have really invested in the properties there and it's a real destination and I'd hate to even take one step back without no one a little bit more again about what the intent is and I remember and I do remember that too I one thing that comes to mind is we we constructed a bar called corduroy I don't know if you've been there it's on Fremont Street and before corduroy it was called checks cash and it was called coterie and coterie they they were this really cool hip second-hand dealer where they sold like blue jeans and all this other stuff and they were crazy hipsters I didn't buy anything from in there but but it was still like a cool little place that everybody went to so you know I don't have those same fears knowing that what caliber of the place would probably be going in any of these any of these businesses but I do respect your opinion and mr. chairman if I may I need to correct I want to read the definition so that there's full clarity on what secondhand means because I use some examples of things that we we technically don't classify a second-hand even though they're in the general scheme so if you'll bear with me for a second I'm gonna read the definition here so that the Commission and the audience knows exactly what we're talking about so second-hand dealer by the zoning code is just defined as a retail facility which deals solely in used commodities with no new commodities or in which the sale of second-hand are used articles is incidental to the sale of new articles of the same kind for purposes of this description the sale of secondhand are used articles is deemed to be incidental to the sale of new articles used articles may include furniture fixtures appliances tableware office supplies pictures paintings Jewelry cutlery guns precious or semi-precious gemstones or scrap precious metals as they are defined in our Las Vegas Municipal Code title six point seven four but does not include the sale of junk is also defined in that chapter or the sale of used vehicles this use does not include a thrift shop this use also does not include the following all of which are allowed where the retail sale of new merchandise so the buying selling or trading of any wearing apparel infant child items or general household furnishings or specified liquid wastes as those terms are defined in LVM see chapter six point seven five the buying selling of foreign or domestic coins for newness static purposes which is the technical term for coin collecting the buying and selling of antiques use books newspapers or periodicals or the buying and selling of collectibles including collectibles that consist of photographic records or other audio recordings and the equipment necessary to listen to such recordings collectibles qualifying under this paragraph four include any kind of cabinet or other furnishings whose sale would otherwise fall within the definition of second-hand dealer and if only those items are for display more collectible items so just to be clear all the examples I use to what are secondhand are actually technically by the very long definition not secondhand so I wanted to clarify the record for that thank you I'm glad they won't be selling liquid wastes on Fremont Street Commissioner Toussaint do you have any questions or concerns well that was as clear as mud you know I don't I don't have any comments at this time I understand I understand what the Commissioner rogen had to say because it was unclear as to what was going to be so if this was approved but I also agree with the Commissioner Slaton and I believe that this could be something good for the neighborhood so that's where I stand okay I'll come back for a vote question from you Commissioner Williams any comments or concerns all right hearing none commissioner slobbin you'd like to entertain a motion yes mr. chairman on item 47 txt seven eight five one nine moved to approve Commissioner to son yeah Commissioner Williams yep all right fellow commissioners please cast your vote and that motion carries and mr. chairman that item will move forward to City Council in the lot in ordinance form at some future date okay item number 40 49 is the last citizen participation no subject may be acted upon by the Planning Commission unless that subject is on the agenda and scheduled for action does anybody wish to be heard anybody from the internet council mr. chairman no II comments I will point out there were four to be abeyance items we did receive some comments so I'll just make sure the city clerk has those for the record going forward thank you very much anybody from the audience wish to be heard yes thanks I do want to just thank staff for putting together tonight's meeting I know it was very difficult especially considering the pandemic that we've experienced because know you're you're here you're working you're doing your job despite the fact that we probably should be in your home so I really appreciate the work that you're doing to make sure that our city continues to move forward during this this difficult time and just as a personal note I want to say hello to my three and a half year old niece Lulu who's watching tonight probably helping her get to sleep by listening to us talk and with that I will see you all next month Thank You Commissioner Commissioner Scott yes I just once a hope that we could go to a video conference and for Commissioner Toussaint and Williams next at the next meeting so we make sure they're not just sitting around eating potato chips during this during meanwhile we're up here after they were tea those