Well, good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to now call this evening's meeting of the Planning Commission to order. Before we begin, please note that this meeting is being video recorded and streamed live to the Internet. May I have a confirmation of posting and roll call? Chair Volkman, the agenda has been posted according to the Nevada Open Meeting Law. All commissions are present. Will everyone please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Staff, are there any changes to the agenda? Yes, the following memorandums have been included in the backup documentation. For item number 10, for Galleria 45, there's a memo adding a termination of landfill deed restriction document to the backup and deleting a draft legal description that was inadvertently included in the backup. For item 15, for the cross residence accessory structure, there's a memo adding the approval letter from the HOA to the backup. There's also a note for agenda item 18. The address on the agenda description should be 1475 Raiders Way instead of 490 East Bruner Avenue. The following items, some of which are public hearings, are also being requested for continuance or withdrawal. Staff recommends continuance as noted for item number two, design review extension of time for the Cadence Village District. O Park, it's been withdrawn by the applicant. For item number five, a vacation for Mission and Horizon Ridge, it was withdrawn by the applicant. Item number six, a vacation for Mission and Plains, it was continued to the August 14, 2025 Planning Commission meeting. Item number eight, a vacation for Lake Mead and Boulder was withdrawn by the applicant. That's everything. Thank you. Based on the recommendation of staff, in accordance with Planning Commission policy, It is the intention of the Planning Commission to make a motion to continue any items as noted. For those of you who are unable to attend the meeting for which the item has been continued, please submit your written comments to Community Development and Services. Is there a motion to accept the agenda? I'll make a motion to accept. Commissioner Beeson made a motion. Please vote. item passes. This brings us to the consent agenda consisting of items one through four. Item two has been withdrawn. May we have a motion on the consent agenda? I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda with the exception of the item that had been withdrawn. Commissioner Lewis made the motion. Please vote. First item, please. Yeah, Mr. Chairman. Items number five was withdrawn. Item number six was continued to the August PC. So the first item is number seven. Disclosure. VAC 2025-016967. This is a request to vacate portions of Bureau of Land Management grants for roadway and drainage and municipal utility easements located northwest of Venice Street and Gusty Sand Street. Staff recommends approval, and this item will be heard at the August 5, 2025 City Council meeting. Commissioner Lewis, any disclosure? Yeah. On item number seven, my employer, Lewis Management Corp., is in the process of selling land to Beeser Homes applicant on item seven. The property sold by my employer is located in California, not in any way related to this application, nor am I involved in the sale of the property. I don't believe the sale material... my judgment in considering the matter, nor that it would affect the independence of judgment of a reasonable person in my situation. I have been advised by Council to make the disclosure pursuant to Nevada Ethics Laws, but I do not need to abstain from voting on this. Applicant name and zip code for the record. On behalf of the applicant Beezer, this is a vacation along Venice. This project was approved by this commission at your last meeting in June, I believe. So this is just the vacation that goes along with that. These are easements that would no longer be required with the approval of this project. So answer any questions if you have them. CHAIRMAN BRYANT- Thank you. At this time, I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here wishing to speak on this item? Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing. Commissioners, comments, questions, or a motion? CHAIRMAN BRYANT- Hearing no other comments, I move to approve VAC 2025016967, subject to a finding of fact and conditions. Commissioner Brunson made the motion. Please vote. That item passes. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, item number eight was withdrawn. So the next item is number nine. This is a four-part request for a new residential subdivision located at the southeast corner of Fletcher Road and Belmont Drive. The first part includes a land use change from Rural Neighborhood Preservation, R&P2, to Low Density, LDR, and an amendment to the Serene Country Estates Neighborhood Plan to establish the Belmont-Fletcher Parcels Land Use Guidelines. The second part includes a zone change from RS2-RN to RS6 with the removal of the Rural Neighborhood Overlay. The third part is a tentative map for an eight lot single family residential subdivision with common lots. And the fourth part is review of architecture and site design for the residential subdivision. Staff supports this request as the applicant has demonstrated that the project complies with all rural neighborhood protection standards and notes that the site is separated from the majority of the rural neighborhood by an existing drainage channel. Further, the proposed RS6 zoning serves as an effective transition between the RN areas beyond the drainage channel to the east and the commercial area to the west. This item will be heard at the August 5th, 2025 City Council meeting. Staff have received zero responses from the public in support of this item and nine in opposition. Yeah, I have a second disclosure. As part of my employment with Lewis Management Corp., I'm a member of the Nevada Multifamily Alliance, a consortium of six housing developers who build, manage, and own apartments in Nevada. Signature Homes, the applicant on Item 9, is one of the other members of the consortium, which is purely an advocacy group for multifamily housing at legislature. The signature project in item nine does not involve multifamily housing, nor does the consortium have any involvement in this project. I don't believe my membership in the alliance would affect my judgment in considering the matter, and I don't believe that it would affect the independence of judgment of a reasonable person in my situation. I have been advised by council to make the disclosure for Cincinnati Nevada Ethics Laws, but I do not need to abstain from voting. Thank you. Applicant name and zip codes for the record. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Michael Tassie, 218 Lead Street, along with John Marciano and Tom Abeck, representing the applicant's signature homes. With us from signature homes tonight is Rick Barron and Libby Taff. We'll all be able to answer questions as they come up. Signature homes is a luxury home builder here in the Valley, and they intend to not only develop here, but also elsewhere in certain country estates. So I'll start with... you know, Mr. Tasco read in the various applications it takes for this particular proposal. We agree with staff. We thank them for their recommendation of approval. We think that this site here, let me just back up a little bit. Our site here located near the corner of Eastern Avenue and Serene, it's a little bit removed down on Belmont and Fletcher. It's right directly behind Commercial. From a planning perspective, we agree with staff, it's a great transition to go from higher intensity commercial to lower density to very low density residential. So from a transitional perspective, larger lots, single story homes, RS6 with some restrictions and some concessions in the plan that we're proposing. But what we heard from the neighbors is there were a concern. We had a neighborhood meeting on June 23rd, I believe it was, and we heard a lot of concern about what sort of precedent this proposal would set for the rest of the neighborhood. And so if you'll indulge us, I'd like to go into that a little bit and spend some time there, just kind of creating and talking about the history of the site and how it came to be and why we think that there aren't any other sites within Serene Country Estates or any other rural neighborhood for that matter that have the same sort of fact pattern that this particular site does. So again, I'll keep this up as our, this is our proposal, our eight lots. So back in, I'll go back in history a little bit, back in 1999, SB 91 was approved by the state legislature, and what that did was it set up a set of guidelines for rural neighborhoods. It had a five-year sunset, but it gave cities, jurisdictions the opportunity to evaluate how they wanted to regulate these rural neighborhoods within these certain strictures. So, city in their wisdom identified for or designated four rural neighborhoods within the city of Henderson. So you have section 419-16, Foothills, Mission Paradise, and of course Serene Country Estates. So Serene Country Estates is one of the only four designated rural neighborhoods within the city of Henderson. In 2000, the city, what was happening at the same time was the city had convened a citizen advisory committee and there was a job of that committee and the planning department to do a certain number of neighborhood plans based on the adopted comprehensive plan. One of those started off as the Section 24 of the Rockpile Alliance and what is known as Serene Country Estates. So the Citizens Advisory Committee along with the City Council in 2000 approved the Serene Country Estates neighborhood plan. As you can see here, this is an exhibit that is from the plan itself. I want to point out specifically the Fletcher Road alignment. Because in 2000 when this was adopted and then again in 2004 when it was holistically amended, the Fletcher alignment was where the drainage channel was supposed to be. Fast forward to 2000 and say late 2006 and early 2007, the flood channel was constructed. And what that did was, as you see today, It created this bump, or rather a carve out that left a couple of remnant parcels that were not yet developed. And those remnant parcels are what is reflected here in our proposed project, our 2.6 acres. There was a decision to go with the flow of the water as opposed to along the fletcher alignment, and so that is what kind of created that bump, and therefore created this, what we call remnant piece. And so again, I'll say, String Country Estates was one of only four rural neighborhoods. It's the only rural neighborhood that has its own specific neighborhood plan. And I'll add that it's the only neighborhood plan that survived all the various comprehensive plan amendments over the last 30 years. So it is unique in that regard. And because of the the channel, it is also the only parcel separated from the neighborhood as a whole. So going back to this exhibit, you can see that, you know, this is the parcel that we're talking about. This acreage here was cut into two different pieces by this particular channel. So it is the one other aspect of this was It created two different parcels, one of which is the parcel that our property owner originally owned, but then the city of Henderson owned the southern piece. And then through the iteration of the last project you saw here, the city asked us to purchase this land, and so they did. So again, that adds to the uniqueness of this particular project. You have a parcel in a rural neighborhood with its own neighborhood plan, separated by the wash, that backs up to commercial. that includes a piece of land that was purchased from the city at their request. So there are no other parcels within the Serene Country Estates that meet this sort of precedent. So from our perspective, it is unique, and that approval of this application wouldn't set any precedent because there's a different set of facts here than anywhere else in Serene Country Estates. Along with what the staff has said in their staff report we agree with from a planning perspective, it's a great transitional piece. I don't know if Tom or John has anything else to add. The only thing that I want to add just on this precedent argument because that's what we did here the most during the neighborhood meeting. We're actually amending the plan to make sure that the standards we are requesting can only apply to this parcel. It cannot apply to any other parcels particularly those that are on the west side of the channel which would be more sensitive where the half acre lots are located. It looks like It looks like that. So we set out a specific set of standards that can only apply to this piece, and we're asking that that be part of the amendment to the Serene Country Estates plan to give further comfort and confidence to the neighbors that what we are seeking here only applies to this specific parcel. So I just wanted to stress that. So we'll step aside now and we'll be happy to come back up and answer questions. Thank you. At this time I will open the public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to speak on this item? Please come on down. Hello. If you could state your, and pull the mic down to your level. There you go. Thank you. Just state your name and zip code for the record. You'll have three minutes to speak. I'm Elizabeth Buchwald. I live 3180 East Serene Avenue in that neighborhood 89074. They're addressing the precedent business, but they also said something about that there were four unique rural neighborhood preserves in the area and now there's only one. So I'm not sure I believe there were that setting this precedent and it would be setting the precedent that it's not going to go into the actual neighborhood. I just don't think I would believe that. We are against the zone change, very much so. I speak for my husband and myself. We've been here for 36 years. We've done a lot of trying to save the neighborhood and the rural uniqueness of the neighborhood. We have lost to a lot of developers, and it's not quite as unique as it used to be, but we're trying desperately to keep it as unique as we possibly can. We also have a concern about water. Many of us are on wells and septic systems, which are endangered at this point, but the water issue, I noticed in their paperwork they said something about water, but they weren't specific about it, so we're I'm curious about where they think they're getting the water from. But we're just against the precedent that this will set. They have a lot of fancy words and everything else, but three of the four unique rural neighborhoods are gone. Let's keep this one as it is. Thank you. Thank you. Hello. Name and zip code for the record, please. Hello, Loretta Broder, 3019 Hardin Drive, Henderson 89074. My home butts right up to what used to be a wash and is now a flood channel. I was one of the original people involved in 1999. Michael and John Marciano know me well. It's the precedent part of this that we're concerned with. There are two large parcels. In fact, one of them was part of the consent agenda that for the tentative map to only put five homes on their parcel. There's another one also on Gold Hill that is six acres. And I believe that's going to be coming forward not too soon. Our concern in the neighborhood is mainly the precedent that a zone change will set for the rest of the neighborhood. Just because we have a tentative map saying, I'm only going to put five houses on here, isn't going to stop these people from coming back later and saying, well, you allowed eight per acre over there, or six, I'm sorry. We want to do that on our side of the wash. If there was a way that the city could assure us that this would stay over there. Because when we worked on the plan, the flood channel or the alignment was supposed to go straight down Fletcher, which you could see by Michael's map, was a straight on down. And they did follow the natural course of the wash. And that's what changed things. So I don't want to say I'm against it. I'm against it if you cannot promise this neighborhood. Okay. The city promised this neighborhood that we would remain our S2. Okay. That's what those of us who have lived there, myself, I've been there for over 40 years. That's what we were promised. That's what we expect. And that's what we hope that you live up to your word and deliver to us. So that's my little spiel. Thank you very much. Hello, name and zip code for the record. Ketiana Schut 89074. So the gentleman mentioned remote, the only one of the only four that survived, unique. I agree with all of that. I've lived in that neighborhood for 19 years now. And we don't want to sound elitist, but that we must be able to maintain something. The neighborhood has changed plenty in the years that I've lived there. And we will all move on. We will all meet our maker at some point. And there will be nothing left of it. So we must be able to keep something. And there's nothing more worrisome than making a promise to get something done, because then you'll get something else done. on another promise. So that's a fear that I have, that nothing will change. When zoning, the schools will get even more overwhelmed. There's a lot of things getting built in that neighborhood that add to the schools. And so they're just overwhelming the classrooms. I've got kids. That's how I know. And there is no country estate that looked like the pictures that the gentleman showed. There's no aesthetic, there's no appeal, there's no beauty to that 90 degree Lego-looking building that he plans to build there. All of our homes are very unique, they have an appeal, there is a pleasure to drive to the neighborhood, not driving to that street that he plans to build. Yeah, so it's not that I don't want people to come in the neighborhood, but make it look as if you want to keep the, to preserve what it is. And hopefully they'll do that. And people are worried about the water. I don't think there is any concern for water because why are we building a million condos and apartments everywhere? So clearly there's no concern for that. But thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to speak on this item? Seeing no one, I'll close it. Oh, come on down. And one more person. name and zip code for the record. My name is Peter Sittler 89074. I live just on Gold Hill Road, new to the neighborhood, and just concerned of the precedent that it sets. So I'm not in favor of it. And as for water, I guess you guys would have to tie into the city, correct? Please address the... Okay. So for the water, they have to... It's not a well system. It would be tied into the city. We'll find out. I believe so. Okay, that's the understanding that I'm getting at. But okay, thank you. I understand, yeah. Thank you very much. Anybody else wishing to speak? Seeing no one, I'll go ahead and close the public hearing. There were a few items that were brought up, if you could address those. Sure. One was the precedents, and I think you had already indicated and addressed that, but clearly the residents are concerned more, I think, with us than with you on that. THE WATER WAS AN ISSUE AND SCHOOL POPULATION. SO IF YOU CAN ADDRESS, WANT TO ADDRESS ANY AND ALL OF THOSE. YES, I WILL. MR. CHAIRMAN, FIRST OF ALL, I PROBABLY FAILED TO SAY THAT THIS IS ONLY THREE, WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS ONLY THREE MORE LOTS THAN WHAT THE CURRENT ZONING ALLOWS. AND SO INSTEAD OF FIVE LOTS, WE'RE TALKING EIGHT. SO THAT IS NOT A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF SCHOOL POPULATION CREATION. WE WILL BE ON CITY WATER AND SEWER. WE ARE GOING TO BE, AS PART OF THIS PROPOSAL, IMPROVING THE ENTIRE BELMONT RIGHT-OFWAY, WHICH IS RUNNING ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF US. SO WE'RE IMPROVING THIS ENTIRE RIGHT-OFWAY. I think I probably wasn't very clear. This is, there are four rural neighborhoods still in the city of Henderson. You know, I would offer to say there probably always will be in the city of Henderson. Every single one of these neighborhoods, and this one included, are very passionate about their lifestyle. And so this is the only one that has its own neighborhood plan. That's what makes it more unique, or makes it unique compared to the other rural neighborhoods. THE CONCERN, IT'S EITHER, AS FAR AS ASSURANCES GO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW THAT ANY COUNCIL OR ANY PLANNING STAFF COULD EVER NOT ALLOW A CERTAIN APPLICATION TO BE SUBMITTED. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE SUBMIT APPLICATIONS ALL THE TIME. THEY GET DENIED THROUGH PLANNING AND CITY COUNCIL. WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THAT WE BELIEVE THERE'S A SORT OF BELT AND SUSPENDERS APPROACH HERE. in itself is unique in the way it was created and how it separated from the neighborhood. But also the standards that we put in place that Mr. Amick mentioned are going to be in the Serene Country Estates Plan should this get approved. So anybody that wants to come in and develop this would be, they would have to do it with eight lots, single story homes. They would have to average 10,000 square feet over the entire eight lots. They would have to improve the Belmont right-of-way. All the things that we're doing, single-story, maximum height 25 feet, all of that would be still required of anybody else. So not only is it unique, not only does it make a good transition, but it has this other backup in the Serene Country Estates Plan that secures this development alone. Did I answer all of the comments? I did, at least the ones I caught. So, Commissioners, questions, comments? Mr. Tassi, could you, is this the same piece of property a couple months back we approved for townhomes or something? It is. Back late last year, this parcel had a recommendation of approval from the Planning Commission for 20 townhomes. There were 20. So the footprint just one-third? Yeah, it's reduced by 12 plots. So the traffic and the water and everything else just got reduced even more. Correct. I think the discussion back then was lots of homeless, trash collecting, just a really bad piece of property that needed to be developed. And I think that's why the city asked you to purchase even more of it. So I don't see why we would not approve less than we did last year. So if any other questions or go ahead. Yeah, I guess I'd make a couple of a couple of easy questions, I think also. Can you tell me how wide is the channel between that separates the other part of the neighborhood? Sure. The channel varies along the aisle. Yeah, it looks like it's from home. So it goes from about 70 feet to measured 130 feet where it intersects with Serene. Okay, so it's a pretty wide, it's not like a 10 foot. Okay, so that was one of my questions. And then these are Custom homes or semi-custom homes? They're semi-custom. OK. So they're like the ones, I think the builders had something in Scotch 80s and this and that. So that's OK. Is that one you want to clarify? No. No, I mean, to me, I'm struggling too more. I don't understand what else goes here. It's a buffer piece. You're next to some pretty intensive commercial. You're wedged in there. To me, it's a straight buffer. between that and the RMP and it doesn't really, I don't see the precedent it's creating because it's such a unique piece, but I don't know if other people have comments, questions? I just, one comment from Mr. Tassie or question. Is there any way, because precedent sounds like the only complaint, and I really appreciate the product that you guys are presenting before us. Is there any way, since you were one of the original planners to help with this, ironically, is there any way that we could remove this parcel from Serene County, Serene Country Estates, so that we don't have to set a precedent or don't have to put that on record? I think that would put everyone in, you know, everyone at ease. Do you have an answer for that question? I do, but I'll ask staff to also respond because I think that might be something that they would have something to say about. You know, from my perspective, it would be hard to remove it from the plan because it would set up kind of a donut hole in the plan itself. So with the plan going from Eastern to Pecos, Back then there was going to be this encroachment of this rural neighborhood for this, all this high intensity commercial. And so the plan itself lays out guidelines for even those commercial pieces. And this is the proposal that's before you is reflective of that in that it has a set of standards. Without the plan, if it weren't in the plan, we wouldn't be able to create a set of standards that would follow that maybe without creating a PUD. And I would just reiterate what Mr. Tassie is saying. That was part of the discussion on the initial application that we saw last year was the possibility of removing the site. But because the commercial property to the west is also within the plan, removing this portion from the plan would just create a donor hole within the plan. And so that would be an issue. And if I could speak to the precedent conversation, zoning almost by definition does not set a precedent. The approvals that you make on one project doesn't mean we have to do the same thing on another. Each of these are looked at on a case-by-case basis. So from our perspective as planners, precedent is not something that we would consider because each of these decisions is based on its own merits and they stand alone. And so there is no, you'll never read in one of our staff reports that we have to do X, Y, and Z because it sets a precedent. It almost by definition is the opposite. We look at each of them on their own individually. I would also just offer back to Commissioner Humes because it's a valid question to talk about whether it's a good idea to to pull it out. I think in this instance, you want it in because that's how you can control it and that's how you can tighten it up and you can put the standards in the plan. If you take it out, then you lose kind of those, you lose those protections. So you want to be able to keep it nice and tight and under your control and you do that by keeping it in the plan, not taking it out. Thank you. Any other comments or questions or a motion? One last question. The design guidelines that you showed us earlier, are those incorporated into this application or is that something that would need to be verbally added to the application by us? They have been added into the Serene Country Estates Plan by our proposal that lives with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. So the CPA is what, if it gets amended, it would include this set of guidelines and that would be part of the plan. Yeah, okay. Well, that's all I wanted to know and I hear all the concerns from the homeowners and things like that. But I really do believe that this property is so unique with the physical barrier, with the change in the location of the drainage and everything else, and the fact that we don't view any of these applications based on precedent. We review them all as individuals. I don't have any other questions. I'd like to make a motion. MR. Sure, I would move for approval of CPA 2025-016968, ZCA 2025-016969, TMA 2025-016971, and DRA 2025-016973, subject to findings of fact and conditions. MR. Commissioner Brunson made the motion. Please vote. That item passes. Good luck with that project. Be cognizant of your neighbors. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, the next item is item number 10. It is a two-part city-initiated request for a land use change from public-semicublic to low-density residential and zone change from development holding with redevelopment overlay to RS6RDH, generally located 500 feet northeast of the intersection of Galleria Drive and Calico Ridge Drive. Staff supports these requests as they are to match the land use and zoning with the adjacent developments to the south. This item will be heard at the August 5th, 2025 Planning Commission meeting. We received zero responses from the public in support and two responses in opposition. Name and zip code for the record, please. I'm Brian Podmenik from Public Works, property management, and I'm here with Anthony Jukes from Community Development and Services on behalf of the city. And the zip code is? 89015. So as Mr. Tesco, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, commissioners. As Mr. Tesco mentioned, this is... City initiated zone change where we are asking to change the zoning on about 46 acres Located northeast of Calico Ridge Drive and Galleria Drive. We're asking to change the zoning from development holding with the redevelopment overlay And an existing land use of PS or public semi-public We're asking for a proposed change to RS6 with a redevelopment overlay and a hillside overlay and proposed land use of low density residential. We concur with and thank staff for their recommendations. And I want to get into a little bit of why we're doing this. This is for a city initiated land sale of surplus property. So with this application, there are no development plans in place yet because the property has yet to be sold. So the site's about 46 acres and the intent is to sell the entire 46 acres for residential development. However, with that sale, we are intending to place a condition on the sale for preserving about 22 acres of the hillside from development. We want it to be preserved as open space. So this map shows, based on the contours of where it's flatter and more easily developed. The pink area here is the more developable part. The yellow is where we start getting into the steep hillside and that's about 22 acres. So at least about 24 acres left for developing along Galleria Drive. The reason we want to preserve it, we don't want the hillside to get torn up and You know, it gets pretty steep and rocky there. And the other reason is we wanted to keep new homes from looking down on the other neighborhood that's just to the south of it because it does get a lot higher there. So getting into a little bit of the history and why we're selling this. So the property is currently zoned PS. And the reason it's zoned PS is because it was the old Henderson Landfill. Landfill started operation on BLM property. back in 1957. So it continued to be used as a landfill until 1975. That's when they stopped actually putting solid waste on there. In 1992, they made the decision that they needed to finally officially close the landfill. So they went through process and in 1997, The property was patented from BLM to the City of Henderson, and with that came a landfill, it's called a Landfill Response Program Agreement, basically the remediation of the landfill. In 2007 is when the actual remediation project took place, and you can kind of see on this map, they basically took the area, this whole 140 acres was part of the landfill. They cleaned it up and now there are three separate capped land cells and all of that is on the west side of Galleria Drive. So and that Galleria was constructed in 2014 and kind of separated the whole landfill property. So we have worked with NDEP on this site and in 2024 they They signed a termination of the conditions that were placed on the property restricting the development of the property. So in October 24, they signed and recorded that agreement which lifted the restrictions on the property. So now there is no need for a landfill there and the city has no use for the property at this time and we have no current or future facilities planned for that. So we concur with staff recommendations and we'll be happy to answer any questions after the hearing. Thank you. I'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to speak on this item? Stephen Williams, 89011. This will be directly behind our home. And one of the things we don't want is to go outside and see somebody else's home. Because now we see mountains. trails, also the infrastructure for this. Right now, Olson Drive is a two-lane road, and it was just servicing Calico Ridge originally. But once Tuscany got built, now they use it also. And the road's a disaster. So this is going to put even more traffic on that road. So what's going to be done for as far as infrastructure for that road and for drainage? Because when it rains, it floods. So I'm in opposition, and it's selfish, of course. But I know I can't fight City Hall. And if it's going to happen, it's going to happen. But I want it to be done the best way possible. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Margaret Stanisch, 89011. I, too, oppose the rezoning of this area. I do believe that there is a public use that is still viable in this area. And I'll go back to the open space plans that the city pursued over the years, one of which specifically reserved this place be used for recreational and trail use should it after it was remediated. That's what we were told when we bought into this area back in the 1990s. We knew it was a landfill. We knew it was going to be remediated, but we understood that it would be used for this public purpose. I understand that public purposes evolve and I Still, I'm of the opinion that this is a unique piece of land because it is a buffer between the Las Vegas Wash, the wetlands, and although in January you approved a development on the opposite side of the hills that we do not see, It is an important purpose that public lands be used to preserve open spaces. And while I appreciate that part of this parcel is going to preserve open space, the other part behind sand spring is still going to be chewing up the mountains that are in that area. Alternatively, if you're going to pursue this, which I assume you will, I ask you to start thinking about restrictions. Our big concern is that variances will be granted in the future just like they were for the Diamond Ridge development. I'm also concerned that we will be looking at two-story homes, although this is being recommended as re-zoned for RS6 and RS6. Kelleckel Ridges RS6, we are a unique development in that we are all custom homes, long established, well maintained community. If these parcels are reduced in size or even at RS6, our lots, by the way, are about 7,000 square feet. We ask for a buffer zone between our community and whatever is to come. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to speak? Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing. If we could have the applicant come back up and address some of those issues. I know that what was brought up was traffic, drainage, open space, preservation, public purpose, custom homes, you can address any of those? Well, it's kind of hard to address some of those because there are no development plans with this. This is just in preparation for a land sale because we want to get ahead of somebody else coming in here and trying to purchase the property, do a zone change to something that we have no control over. In this case, we can say we've already rezoned it for RS6. We felt that it was the outcome for this property because you have RS6 just to the south of this property and then you have RS8 to the northeast of this property. So we felt it was the best continuation of that property to the south. So as far as the infrastructure again and buffer zones, those would be items that would have to come before you when a developer comes in and submits plans on that. And the same thing with the traffic. Depends on what they want to build, how they want to build. They'd have to do a traffic study. So until then, I don't have any information on that. As far as it being preserved, The only use for that property was always as a landfill. There were no recreational uses planned for that property, and that's why it's being surplused at this time, because there are no current or future plans on that property. MR. Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, any questions or comments? MR. Did you have any? MR. I'm sorry. I wish I had a nickel for every time I heard somebody say, they promised me they wouldn't build there. Ms. March and I would probably be very wealthy if we did that. It's unfortunate, but I really applaud the fact that you're taking the mountain, that's the view for some of these people and residents backing up to it and carving it out so you can't develop it. I think when they do finally develop it, the residents need to be here be loud, say what you want between the traffic, the buffers, and the flood thing. It's all going to be handled by whoever develops that land. These guys are just letting it loose for that. It may never happen, but the way this valley is growing, we're running out of land. So they are letting it go, and maybe a developer will step up next week or 10 years from now. We don't know. So to rezone this and let it go into that for a sale, I would, if there's no other questions, I would move that we approve, sorry, CPA 202-501-6991, ZCA 202-501-6993, subject to findings and facts and conditions. Commissioner Beeson, may the motion please vote. That item passes. For the residents that are here, we really appreciate the feedback and comments. I think that will bode well with staff hearing what you've got to say because really it's the staff that will work with a developer to know, meet all the conditions and hopefully they'll remember the conversation here tonight. And you'll have an opportunity when and if that property sells to a developer to come back in and speak again. But thank you for being here tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Next item is item 11. This is a waiver request from development code standards to reduce the corner side setback from 15 feet to five feet for an addition to an existing residence located at 300 East Delamar Drive. The applicant is providing enhanced architectural features as a compensating benefit, including new stucco with stone veneer, wainscot across the front facade and a new covered front porch. Staff recommends approval. This action would be final unless appealed. Staff has received zero responses from the public in support or opposition. name and zip code for the record. James Raines, 89015. Here to request a waiver for the development code standard to reduce the corner side lock. Move the speaker up just a little bit. Thank you. From 15 foot to 5 foot. I'll try to be quick. I don't like to hear myself talk. If I could turn it around towards you, I would. We just want to expand the footprint of our house on our lot. And, you know, we That's it. It's very, very simple, very simple thing here. From the back of curb to our block wall, our block wall is a property line. There's about a 15-foot setback already, so we just want to encroach a little bit closer to our block wall on the side lot. And you agree with staff's recommendation and conditions? Yes? Yes. Okay. I'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Is there anyone here wishing to speak on this item? Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing. Commissioners, I believe Commissioner Grismanouskas, did you have something you wanted to share? Can you turn your, get a little bit closer to you? Thank you. I live nearby and I walked over there and I saw your issue, especially with the telephone pole and street sign. So I think what you're asking for is very reasonable. And I can't see any other reason which way you could go than what you're asking for. So good for you. I hope it works. Thank you. Are there any other comments or questions? Commissioner Grzmanowskis, did you want to make a motion on this one? Yes, I'll make a motion to approve W0S-2025-01-6704, subject to the fact. In conditions. There's a motion on the floor from Commissioner Grzmanowskis. Please vote. That item passes. Good luck with your project. Thank you. Thank you. The next item is number 12. This is a conditional use permit request for a large-scale food and beverage manufacturing use located at 741 and 749 Middlegate Road. The applicant has demonstrated that the use is compatible with the adjacent uses in terms of scale, site design, and operating characteristics. Staff recommends approval. The action will be final unless appealed. Staff has received zero responses from the public in support or opposition. Applicant name and zip code for the record. Sheldon Colon 89123. The project in front of you is a 12,000 square foot building. If it was a 10,000 square foot building, we wouldn't need this, but because of the extra square footage, we're requesting the CUP. Half of the building will be for production. The other half will be for storage. So I'm here to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. You agree with staff's recommendation? Yes. Okay, thanks. I'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to speak on this item? Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing. Commissioners, comments, question, or motion. I have a couple questions on the hours that deliveries are going to occur. Can you be a little more specific on the times? You have the times on there, but it also says depending on. So can you be more specific because of your neighbors? Well, since it's the 2,000 square feet is requiring this, We don't know the specific delivery times. Of course, if the Commission would like to request a review in another six months to see if there were any complaints, we're okay with that. But as you know, with deliveries, sometimes it's hard to control those. And then we also don't want the trucks sitting out in a public way waiting for those times to occur. So I wish I could give you direct times, but I can't. I apologize. And I can understand that. However, you know, what about all the people that are nearby? So could we, in fact, request a check on this in six months? Well, it's up to the discretion of the Planning Commission, of course, but I would like to state that this is an industrial area that no other restrictions on the 24-hour use of deliveries are in place for any of their neighbors right now. Okay, Brian. And... We could also condition the 6 to 6 unless otherwise unscheduled appointments or something like that if you wanted to do that. And if I could add, we don't typically have six-month review. That's something that we see to some of our neighbors to the north. They do that. That's not something we typically do here. We have standards for noise. And if they exceed those standards, they would get a violation through code enforcement, and then they would have to come back and address that. So that's typically our process. So asking them to come back in six months for review is not something that staff would recommend we do. But again, it's at the discretion of you guys. We just think that we have a process in place if there's noise concerns to go through those channels using our code enforcement team. The city's already taken care of it. So all right. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? I'll make a motion. No, go ahead, Ed. Commissioner McDonald, would you like to make a motion? Since it's someplace to eat, yes. I don't know about that. It makes food, yes. It makes food, yeah. Food related. I'd like to make a motion to approve CUP 202-501-6963. Subject to the findings, facts, and conditions of waivers and waivers. Commissioner McDonald. has made a motion, please vote. That item passes. Thank you. Have a good day. You too. The next item is item 13. This is a two-part request for a new equipment sales, service, and rental facility located at 615 West Lake Mead Parkway. The request includes a conditional use permit for equipment sales and service and review the architecture and site design for the facility. Staff recommends approval. This action will be final unless appealed. Staff has received zero responses from the public in support or opposition. State your name and zip code for the record, please. Melissa Urie, 1055 Whitney Ranch Drive, Suite 210, 89014, here on behalf of the applicant. So as you can see here, there's an aerial showing the site on Lake Mead and Ben Wagnon. Many are very familiar with this. For a long time, it was Boulder Boats, more recently Tommy's. And so they are no longer there. We are planning to come in with a heavy equipment rental and service. So there will be no changes to the existing building that's on the site. Inside the existing building, they'll have their administrative offices. Any repairs would take place inside of the existing building. On the back lot is where they would store the equipment for rental. So those would be things like mini excavators, boom lifts, forklifts, skid steers, scissor lifts, things of that nature. They are proposing to replace what is right now a fence along the drainage channel and along Van Wagnon with a new decorative CMU block wall, so it will help to block the visibility of the equipment being stored on the site. They are also proposing to add in a new driveway along Van Wagnon. This driveway does meet public works distance separation between driveways from the driveway that exists currently for the Rebel on the corner as well as for Crestwood that's here, this street and driving in there. They would have a swing gate that would remain open during business hours, and they only anticipate about six trucks a day. So they don't have a truck on their site. They don't anticipate customers coming on the site. This is really the back is rental equipment. So it sits on the site. When someone asks for it to be rented, the truck comes in and picks up the equipment, takes it to the site where it'll be used. When the equipment's done being used, it'll be brought back onto the site to be stored in the back area again until it's rented out. So one of the things we are asking is that staff did place the condition, I believe it's condition number six under the conditional use permit and number 26 under the design review that the lifts be stored in the down position. Well, all the pieces of equipment were fine with being having stored down. Unfortunately, with the lifts, they do take up almost triple the amount of space when they're stored in the down position versus the up position. So you can kind of see there. So when they're stored up, and I'll show it. So when they're stored up, you can actually stack them much closer together. You can even store equipment underneath them. However, when they're down, obviously that's no longer feasible. So the site itself, that back lot, is less than two acres, about 1.89 total. And with that triangular shape, using those corners isn't very feasible for storage as well. And you still have to have room for the trucks to come through to be able to pick up the equipment and drop it back off. So storing it in the down position really does eliminate a lot of the space that they would then be able to use to store the equipment. We do understand that staff is doing that an aesthetics reason we understand that we can appreciate it so one of the things we did was take a look at if the equipment was stored on the site how much of that's visible so they were very kindly brought a boom left out to the site and really looked at what would be possible and how to mitigate the visibility of the items as much as possible so The lowest they could store it in the up position and still accomplish what they want is 25 feet, which the building itself, the existing building, is about 31 feet. So it would actually be lower than the existing building. And they took the pictures with the lift being shown right here by the star that's on the site. So it's actually right next to where the larger existing shade structure is on that black portion. And so you can see number one is actually from the neighborhood here. They kind of tried to get between the houses to show looking out towards it. could you see it? It's actually not even visible at that point. They took one from here up by the street here, kind of down across the drainage channel. And again, none of this shows it with a brick wall, you know, a new decorative CMU brick wall. So it is more visible than it would be once the wall is in place. And then across the street from two locations looking in. So we would be willing to make it so that they would be stored at this rate. They would remove the larger shade structure that's existing, they were planning to keep it, that they would like to keep the small one, remove the larger one, and store the equipment there, and then it would not exceed the 25 feet in height for storing it at the up position. So we would request that the condition be modified in order to allow them to store it up, but no higher than 25 feet in that location. So it'll still reduce the visibility from both the street and for the neighbors. but allow them to utilize the site a lot more in the way that they would need to, because within the down position, they're really losing almost 60% of the viable space for rental equipment. And with that, happy to answer any questions. Thank you. At this time, I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to speak on this item? Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing. Commissioners, questions, comments? Yeah, I'm kind of surprised that staff didn't like them up, especially with you guys putting a block wall around this facility. I mean, the block wall itself is gonna add the aesthetics of that neighborhood 100%. Thank you for doing that because the wrought iron just looks like a prison. So with them in the up position, you got a picture there with them in three-quarter position or half down or something like that, right there, bottom left. Is they able to be stored like that rather than full up? And does that give you enough room to store the same amount? I hate to see you get rid of the shade structure because this is probably the most pleasing and aesthetic thing on the park. So the answer is this is a little lower than what they would need to be at. So these right here, that's about 30 to 40 feet in height. That's almost... fully extended up. So we're not asking for quite that height. We're looking for 25. This is probably closer to 20 right here. So it's a little too low to meet what they would need in order to stack them the way that they want on the site. So this is, you know, a lot closer to basically being down than it is. So it's another good five feet or so up. And has staff heard about taking the shade structure down and parking them there? And are they okay with that? I know... I don't know if that's a question you can answer. Yeah, Commissioner, we have not discussed taking the shade structure down, although the shade structure is not kind of a factor in our determination here. Whether they chose to keep it or take it away would make no difference. Go ahead, Michael. I have a question, and I addressed this earlier to Mr. Roether. What does code allow as far as a building height if they were building a building on this site? The CH zone in which the site sits allows a building up to 40 feet in height. 40 feet. That's correct. And the existing building, I believe you said, was 31 feet? Correct. And this equipment at its maximum height would be how high? Do you know that? I believe between 30 and 40 feet, if fully upright. You're looking at about 40 feet. So it wouldn't exceed maximum building height, even if it was fully extended. And your intention is to keep it below that fully extended limit? Yeah, instead of fully extended, it can be partial. So not all the way down. This is the full down position here. And then this is almost fully upright. So really kind of in between, a little higher than what this is showing here. So it would be a little bit more of an angle up. But yes, it would still be below the existing building height and well below what's allowed in the CH zone. Well below what's allowed. Okay. And I concur with you, Commissioner Beeson, that the wall, I think, is a... is a significant amenity. I just think with the neighborhood that's there across the street where they actually build these and stick them up in the air much higher because they're a lot larger and then around the corner at the other business that manufactures them, they look like porcupines out there in the parking lot. How many actual lifts will be on site at any given time? So, The up to, so right now they're anticipating They'll start with maybe eight employees, grow to 50, so I'm sure they'll start with a little bit less. But at maximum, they're looking at about 30 pieces of equipment between boom lifts and forklifts, which are the only ones that would be raised like that. So approximately 30, a little over 30, maybe up to 40 at a maximum on this particular site. But it's my understanding, 30, and they figure the average is less than that because they are being rented out. So that would be every piece of equipment on the site. 30 pieces. All right. Any other questions? I just have a question. Who's going to determine that it's being kept at 25 feet? How is that measured? I'm looking to the applicant for that because you're the one that's going to be responsible for it. I mean, we don't want to have code enforcement come out and, you know, have to measure it, but you're agreeing that 25 feet has a maximum height when they can go as high as, you said, almost 40 feet? Yeah, depending, yeah. I mean, 30, I think, is a little less than fully. 40 is fully extended straight up upright. So I believe what we'd have to look at is if there is a way to measure between either the building height or if the shade structure means measure the height there, it would give them a good at least visibility because as they're driving by from the wall, they'd be able to see, okay, are you going above the shade structure height, right? If the shade structure's 30 feet, obviously, if we're above that or above the... building, you could easily from a visible standpoint tell it. So we'd have to give you a good visual measurement. And maybe there's even an angle that we could give the city to say this is what that would be. And so there's an easy way to measure and determine is it being kept at that height or is it over? And are there any conditions? I know the original concern or one of the concerns is signage on these things because I've seen them on the freeways when you drive in. People post signs on those. Is that one of the conditions that no signs be allowed to be displayed? Or was that part of because if it's down, then there wouldn't be any sign on it anyway? That's correct. It's baked into the condition that we've already proposed. And part of the reason for conditioning them to be in the down position is it would take away the ability to have them basically act as a de facto sign. Because each of the examples that we saw here, almost all of them, has the name of the company or the name of the equipment as a part of the top. And so that is part of our concern, other than just the visibility of having these 20 of these things or whatever the case may be, floating 40 feet into the air, moving around on the site as well. And so to speak to Commissioner Brunson's concern about the building heights allowed to be 40, these are not buildings. These are things that could be moving. So not an apples-to-apples comparison from our point of view. But, yes, our concern is also about... possibility of these basically being acting as a de facto sign 40 feet in the air. And then speaking to the comment about measuring 25 feet, 40 feet, it's a complete enforcement nightmare for us. So I don't, I mean, we would have, like, picking just a nebulous number like 25 feet and saying that we have to stick to that, I don't know how we would be able to do that. They would have to let us on site each time that we'd have a concern and get a tape measure up 25 feet. It doesn't seem like a reasonable way for us to be able to monitor this. And so from staff's perspective, we'd urge you to find a if this is the route that we're discussing, find a different way for us to be able to measure the height because saying that we're going to pick 25 feet and stick with it, I can't tell you how we're going to be able to enforce that, to be honest. Is anybody prepared to make a motion? I'm ready to make a motion. As for the shade structure, we just got briefed last week on shade structures. and heat zones and parking lots, please don't take it down. Park the other stuff underneath it. Do whatever you can. Do whatever you can with the lifts. But I move to approve CUP 202-501-6988 and DRA 202-501-6992, subject to findings of fact and conditions. That was a motion by Commissioner Beeson. Please vote. I hope you can figure out a solution to your storage. Okay, so the conditions remain? Pardon me? The conditions remain? Yes. Yeah. No, that's not understood. We were asking to remove condition number six from the CUP and condition number 26, which requires that the lifts be stored completely down. You didn't. Did you? Was your motion as... What the recommended, without the condition. Okay. All right. So do you want to amend? And my recommendation is if you amend it, include, and I'm going to refer to our attorney on this in a second, but I would recommend that you have a condition that no signage be placed on the booms. I'm sorry. If I may. Move. I'm sorry. I am hoping that these never are in the yard. I'm hoping they're all rented. That's our hope, too. And we'd be willing, though, if it's a good business model. We'd be willing to have the condition added that no signage be on there. So if that would add some comfort, we would be willing to have that added. That's what I'd like to see on it. Okay. So if you're going to remove... Go ahead. Yeah, I'd want to clarify, because signage... Like there's logos on these machines, you know what I mean? So our temporary sign code does regulate any banners. If that's the concern, that's our temporary sign code already regulate that. If the concern is you don't want any logos up on the thing as signage, is that... I'd just like to confer with the city attorney. We have a motion and a vote, so I just want to make sure that we're within the parameters of what we're allowed to do here. You can seek to reconsider that. So to reopen the matter. Reopen the matter. Okay. I'm going to go ahead and reopen the item for further discussion and correction of the original motion. Commissioner Beeson. All right. Okay. With the conditions, remove the conditions that staff has asked about being in the up position. Item number 26. Item number 26. Because I don't have any of that in front of me. I'm sorry. And... It's condition 6 of CUP and condition 26 of the DRA. 6 and 26. 6 of the CUP. 6 and 26 be removed. Is that correct? Yeah. Okay. And that no signage will be hung from these lifts when they're in the air. And I move to approve. Is that good? CUP 202-501-6988. and DRA 202-501-6992 with the conditions stated, subject to findings of fact and conditions. Okay, there's a motion on the floor with the modification on the conditions. Please vote. And that item passes. Thank you. Good luck. Thank you. Next item is item 14. This is a request for a tattoo and body alteration studio within an existing salon located at 750 Coronado Drive, Suite 100. The applicant has demonstrated that the use will comply with all required standards for a tattoo and body alteration studio and meets the conditional use permit approval criteria. Staff recommends approval. This action will be final unless appealed. We have received zero responses in support and three responses in opposition. Good afternoon. Name and zip code for the record, please. I'm Brian Harris, 89044. And do you agree with staff's recommendation? Yes. Okay, thanks. Do you have anything else you'd like to add? No, sir. Okay, you might want to just hang out for a second because we might have some questions for you. At this time I'll open a public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to speak on this item? Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing. Commissioners? Yeah, I guess if no one else has any questions or comments, I will make the comment that At some point, I think from a code perspective, we need to look at this. Because I don't, probably a third of the people in this room have a tattoo or something. Tattoos are not like a rare anomaly. And this seems like a really logically easy use. I think something to look at for code in the future. Making someone come down here for this seems kind of unnecessary, frankly. But I'm going to go ahead and make a motion for approval on this item, COP2025-016994, subject to findings of fact and conditions. Commissioner Lewis? Oh, OK. I hope it's about a tattoo you have that secret. Yeah. I just want to make sure that the standards will be met according to the hours and discretion, correct? And also distance will be required, correct? Okay. Go ahead, Cheryl. So there's a motion on the floor made by Commissioner Lewis. Please vote. That item passes. Good luck. Thank you very much. Have a good night. Next item is 15. This is a waiver request from Development Code Standards to reduce the rear setback for an accessory structure from 5 feet to 2 feet located at 69 Rayburn Drive. The applicant is providing enhanced architectural features as a compensating benefit. Staff recommends approval. This action will be final unless appealed. Staff has received two responses from the public in support and zero in opposition. Name and zip code for the record? Danielle Cross, 89074. Do you agree with staff's recommendation? Yes. Okay. Do you have any other... you want to add or I'd be happy to answer any additional questions. Let's see if anybody has questions. Okay. I'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to speak on this item? Come on down. If you'll step aside. There you go. Thanks. I'll need your name and zip code for the record. My name is John Regan. Zip code is 8974. and just for the record like to know i'm a resident or live in the area am i sure how many people were asked or told about this variance i saw the sign it was posted i had a few neighbors come to me and ask questions about what was being done so i'm on the board so i had privy to the design and i just want to state for the record that i'm in favor of the work i'm just concerned that we don't above this height that's shown here. It's something else you need to be aware of. The HOA is in process of reconditioning and painting those walls. So I don't know how far down you're going to go with your new area because you're a casita or a grotto or whatever you want to call it. But I'm just concerned that the lower you go, you don't go below the footing depth of the existing wall. for structural reasons. Those are my concerns. And are we going to have inspectors verify that we don't exceed the height? And if we feel we do, are we going to have a revisit on this? If I feel or the HOA board feels, I'm not speaking on behalf of the board, speaking on behalf of myself, but I just want to make sure we can come back and address this if there's a height issue. That's my questions. I guess I'll step aside. And the other thing is, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity and other commissioners for stepping in and answering this in a manner like this. Being part of the HOA board, we had Wigwam Parkway completely destroyed for three years, and we were never notified by the city that they were going to come through and do work, and we're still fighting issues with them right now on restoring our landscaping and whatnot. So anyhow, I appreciate the opportunity. I just wanted to put that in there. MR. Thank you. Is there anybody else that wishes to speak on this item? I see no one. I'll have the applicant come back up. I'll close the public hearing. Commissioners, I do have an, just to clarify for the resident that had the question, we do have inspectors going out to verify everything. The types will be verified. Yes. Okay. And if there's concerns, again, similar to what we've talked about before, that we do have a code enforcement process that you can call in a violation if you have concern over the height. And just because we take public outreach and notifying the neighbors very seriously here at the City of Henderson, I just want to clarify that the state requires us to notify everyone within 500 feet of the property. We extend that to 525 feet. We sent out 124 mailed notices to the neighbors about this hearing. And so we're well in compliance. We've excuse me, exceeded compliance with the state standards for public notification on this and all applications. Okay. And the resident that spoke, I apologize, I don't remember your name, but I'm going to suggest that you, if you'll stick around until the end of the meeting, you can talk with staff about the concerns you have with the landscaping and see how that can be rectified. Are there any other comments or questions or a motion? Just a comment. The drainage channel technically is the dictator here, correct? The drainage channel? The drainage channel is the dictator here? The waiver of standards, I believe, was just for the eight-foot height. Yeah, right. And the reduced two-foot setback. Yes. That was the waiver. Yeah, okay. From five feet to two feet. Make a motion to approve WOS-2025016966, subject to findings of fact and conditions. Mr. Humes has made a motion. Please vote. That item passes. Good luck with your project. Thank you. Thank you. Next item is 16. This is a two-part request for a new residential subdivision located at the southwest corner of College Drive and Trianneer Drive. The request includes a waiver from development code standards to reduce the minimum required lot area from 40,000 square feet to 32,860 square feet and a tentative map for a five-lot single-family subdivision. The applicant is providing increased connectivity through the neighborhood, including improved accessibility and turnaround capability for emergency and utility services as a compensating benefit. Staff recommends approval. This action will be final unless appealed. We received zero responses in support and three in opposition. Thank you. Name and zip code for the record. Good evening, Planning Commissioner. My name is Susan Florian from Taney Engineering, zip code 89118 here on behalf of the applicant. We agree with staff's recommendation for approval, and I'm here to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. I'll go ahead and open the public hearing. I know that there are a few people that would like to speak on this item. If you come on, go ahead and make a line down the aisle, and again, you'll have three minutes. One thing I'd like to suggest is if you have already heard something like traffic or road or anything, you can just say, I agree with what so-and-so said, and that will speed it up a little bit. We'll know that you are in agreement with a concern for that. So who's first? You're the lucky one. I am the chosen one. Name, zip code for the record. Alicia Gumerson, 89002. So we're fine with the lot sizes and that kind of thing. The concern for us is the street. So I actually am the second to last house on Traineer. It is a very long street. We are a current dead end. There's over 25 kids and grandkids under the age of 12 that live in our street. They ride bikes. They do scooters. We have people with strollers. We have people with horses walking up and down our street. We do not have sidewalks by design, and that's fine. So if we end up extending our street and connecting through to college, that is going to severely impact the safety of our kids, our animals, our neighborhood, things like that. And as far as what you want to look at, there's a street right behind us called Patty Ann that does connect to college. There's no visibility. And I think we have a neighbor who lives on Patty Ann that can speak to that. So we've had police come and monitor that. I know of three times. I'm sure in your records, you know how many times that we've requested that be monitored. That street is unsafe to be on because of the vehicle traffic, how fast people go. It also has whoops, so you don't have visibility. In the event that you connect Trainier with college, you will have that same terrible visibility coming straight down. And with regard to common benefit of accessibility and things like that, I would benefit great because I'm at the end of the street. So I have to go up and around and down to get to my home. And I have zero issue doing that and continuing doing that to keep the speed down in our street, to keep the traffic down. In addition, we have a cul-de-sac by Wavehugger Estates. I've spoken on behalf of that too. That is already going to increase the traffic going up trainier. They're building five homes. So now we just keep in mind, we have five new homes already built The outlet is only trainier, and now we're going to have five additional homes. That's 10 homes on a residential rural street with no sidewalks, horses, children, strollers, and the last part is Paradise Hills is the neighborhood above us. Paradise Hills, those neighbors use our street as a common walking street. You'll see dogs, and they come down our street because it's quiet, because it's safe, and because it's well-lit from our homes. So the fact that we're going to have some serious safety implications, and we already have that example on Patty Ann behind us, I hope that that's taken into consideration. And in the event that that new development can have a cul-de-sac so we can remain a dead end, that would be ideal. Because I also know that there's a huge drainage culvert that lets out right there. So the street would be flooded. And I'll let my neighbors chat. Thank you. Name and zip code for the record. Kristen Toon 89002. I am the neighbor that she was talking about that lives on Patty Ann Woods that has these issues. So I'm here to represent them and say that, yes, we have those issues. I'm afraid for my kid's life every single day because of how fast people drive down that street. When you make a road a through street, they fly down a road, especially one that's that long of a road. You just pick up speed. They don't look. they're being dangerous and again we do not have a sidewalk just like them so it would just be the same issues that that will that already happen to our street we can't get speed bumps there's will be the same way no extra signage there's will be the same way it's just not safe to make it a through street so i'm just here to to say i am that neighbor on patty and woods and i already see that happening so thank you name and zip code? Leora Phillips 89002. I'm the last house on Trenere. I just have a picture of, so this is our road. I don't know if you can see it looking up. I mean, you see you're just right on the road when you walk. So there really isn't any way. And like she was saying, we probably have over a dozen people every day in the morning, especially in the morning and evenings, walking that road, like she said, from the Paradise Hills neighborhood. Because that's the only way to connect Mission Park. They can't walk down Patti Ann because it's so dangerous. And their road looks just like this, so there's no sidewalks when you walk down Patti Ann. So we get a lot of those kids and those neighbors walking down our road. And we'll kind of get to Mission Park over there or just to walk, to take a walk down. We get a lot of kids who ride their bike. down to go to Walker Elementary, which is just down that road, and that's how they get to Walker. And again, there's no sidewalks, which is great, no streetlights, which is great, but if you're in the evening and you're trying to walk and you have a three street with all these cars, I mean, there's nowhere for you to go, and that becomes really dangerous. We also have a lot of kids from Foothill, as they're walking, they'll cut across. There's an LDS church there. They'll cut across and they'll walk up. road so to kind of cut off mission and so we just have a lot of pedestrian traffic kid traffic up our road because it's the only road to really walk you can walk down mission but that's pretty busy if i'm taking my little girl on a bike ride i don't want her to be even there's a sidewalk on mission i don't really want her on the sidewalk on that busy road if she falls over you can't go down patty ann because there's no sidewalks and it's crazy busy because it connects so it really kind of leaves our road and if we connect that it's going to be crazy not to mention if you look at it um There's like a quarter mile. There'll be three intersections in a quarter mile because we have the four-way stop of college admission. And then a quarter mile, we have the four-way stop of Patey Ann and college. And then if you throw Trenier right in the middle of that, that's going to be three intersections in a quarter mile. And that's crazy. I mean, if you're trying to come in and out and there's not, on college, there's no turn lane there. You'd have to change that if somebody's trying to turn left into Trenier from college. If you make that a through, I mean, then you're going to, you already get people backed up from the four-way. And anyway, yeah. That's something else to consider. There's just a lot of intersections in a short little distance. Our recommendation would be we have the precedent. We have Wave Hugger that's the same amount of land, 4.6 acres, and they just put it in on Trineer, and they did a cul-de-sac. So our recommendation would be, hey, do a cul-de-sac off a college. That's only five houses, traffic for five houses onto college. It's way different than a through street coming onto all the traffic of a through street coming onto college. Or... you look at this i have a picture here this is standing down at the bottom of the hill of chenere um i mean there's kind of a natural barrier here like a wall just have it come and cement it a cement wall so it deadens into this wash that's this wall that's this embankment that's already there so then will still dead end where we are. Trenier could come up if they have to do that and pave it. It will dead end right there and it won't come up. So this is the hill they're talking about that if they pave it, I mean, you have to do something to level that because if not, that makes a major visibility issue. It's a pretty substantial hill when you're coming up. I mean, you can't see. If you see I'm at the bottom, you can't see anything. So thank you. Name and zip code. Amanda Ainge, 89002. And I'm actually on college height. So there are only, and I'm, I have one neighbor here, but I'm basically speaking on behalf of the five, unless he decides to speak as well. And all of us are opposed to it as it stands. We're fine with the lot size, but like the previous speakers have said, we are very opposed to Trenere going through as a through street. We have, like they said, a lot of pedestrian traffic going to the school, going to the park. And this is really, we have two parks within the half a mile of each other with McCullough Hills and Mission Park and the kids that are trying to go there this is their safe street to be able to go and so there's a small connection from Trenere to College Heights like a little walkway which is fantastic and that's where we have all of the strollers the pedestrians the kids on bikes the motor scooters and everything this is a safe way kids are going so that they aren't on Patty Ann Woods because it's incredibly dangerous for kids and So we've seen motor vehicles kind of swing around into that sidewalk and almost take out pedestrians as it is. So by extending Trenere, that could potentially impact the amount of traffic and safety for that. kids getting to school to the park or just around the neighborhood. So that's something to think about. The other thing is we've already had, so there are five of us in a row, and then I back up to her, but we've already had kids jump from backyard to backyard going through all of these back here. And by increasing pedestrian traffic, that could increase a lot of safety for those of us that live there as well. Because right now we're kind of off a little bit. And so unless kids, that big jump that she was talking about, that's where all the dirt bikes go down and the BMX bikes, the kids love playing in that little wash. But with that, it kind of is a barrier for safety for all of us as well. So I would like to be taken into account and we do those of us on our street we have a question with where the mailboxes are going to be because as it is now we have half of patty and woods coming on to our cul-de-sac and we would very much like to ask for no more mailboxes because we get so much traffic as it is and we are worried about the pedestrian safety and i think that actually is really about it so thank you for your time i appreciate it Just as a reminder, if you're agreeing with whatever anybody has said before you, if we can make the meeting move a little bit quicker, you can just say, this is my concern. I agree with what the previous person stated. We get it. We understand what you're saying. So name and zip code for the record. Karen Dowds, 89002. And Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, thank you for the opportunity to address you on this item. Our rural neighborhood preservation area was created for specific reasons. One of those was to have more diversity in our living choices. The larger lots are to make it easier to accomplish activities that require more space, things like being able to house and ride your horse on your property, have a shop building, or have a large garden, some examples of those. If more homes are built in this area on smaller lots, innocent supply of large acreage houses will obviously be limited. There are plenty of smaller lots in our valley, but very few large ones comparatively. The parcel in question is only 4.6 acres and in a rural preservation area. It seems to me that to meet the intent of the rural preservation area, only four homes should be built, one dwelling unit per acre. The requirement for at least 40,000 square feet per lot is already 8% less than a true acre, and the applicant wants to reduce it down even more to just three-quarters of an acre per lot. Where's the end of that? What portion of an acre is large enough to be called an acre? Three quarters? Two thirds? Five eighths? Now, you may see there are other developments just like this one proposed in their own neighborhood preservation area, just down the street, a very similar project, the wave hugger that the last speaker was talking about was recently approved. But I urge you, however, not to base your decision on previous similar waivers. The development code states that And I quote, a waiver should only apply to the specific site for which it was requested and shall not establish a precedent for approval of other requests, unquote. So this is an important point that each should be remembered. I don't understand why developers continually want to test the system other than to put profit for themselves ahead of the rural lifestyle chosen by those who have already purchased homes in an area about which the development code lists the following as some characteristics for rural neighborhood preservation area. Residential lots large enough to park boats, horse trailers, and other recreational vehicles behind the front setback line, and having enough rear yard area to construct accessory buildings, stables, tack houses, and other horse-related outbuildings. And then less light pollution from fewer residential nighttime activities and house lighting in general, and residential densities low enough to allow substantially more physical separation between neighboring dwellings. People living in the area have opposed similar waivers in the past. Why were the standards created in the first place other than to make a unique area for a different lifestyle? Please follow the intent of the rural preservation areas and deny this request for a waiver. Thank you very much. Thank you. Hi, you can go ahead and pull that mic down. I'm sorry. It's a little short. Great. Your name and zip code? 89002. I agree with the Patty Ann. Sorry, your name? Deborah Bealtel. Thank you. OK. I agree with Patty Ann. And when we had the cold roundabout put in, we had to use Patty Ann. And people were flying down that road. I can't tell you how many times I went to work. And somebody walking, they cannot get off the road because we do not have sidewalks. And I had seen so many of the people that lived in that residence like this to the cars, but they didn't even care. They were still flying like they were on the freeway. Okay, I live on Aviator Court. They were flying down there. It's a dead end. They didn't realize it was a dead end. So what we did is we personally put a sign up, dead end, so they know at the stop sign not to go there. I would like to know from the commissioners why we were not notified of this. We found out from one person, you only have a handful of people here. You only have three oppositions because nobody ever mailed this out. And I'm wondering why we are not being notified of this. And if they are going two feet back instead of five feet, none of us could do our homework because we're all playing a guessing game because we never receive anything from any one of you that this was being done. Is this the new way? we don't get notification and we get to play a guessing game and then you can say nobody opposed? That's what we're wanting to know. And so I'm asking that you don't go through, if there is a setback, because I couldn't do my homework, don't allow a setback. We're in a rural area. It should be preserved. We have a lot of animals out there. Even the are out there all the time. What about their lives? What about the bunnies? Everybody's out there and these people are flying down the road. So anyway, that's how I feel. And please notify us in the future. I'm asking that you please say no and notify the residents and then let's have a hearing. Thank you. Thank you very much. Hello, name and zip code for the record. Hi, Laura Dalton, 89002. I live in halfway through Chenier. So I agree with all of the safety stuff and her too. We weren't aware of any of this beforehand. I feel like in our area, we already have an issue with these really long streets. We've had fatalities because of this, kids racing down. It's a real issue in our area with these Paradise Hills, Patty Ann, San Gabriel. They're really long streets. These kids just love to race down, whether it's motorcycles, cars, they're reckless. And this is just giving them one more street to do that on. And then One more point was when school is in, Trenier is used for parents to pick up their children. They will have their kids walk all the way to Trenier from Smalley and Manion to pick up their kids because it really is the only safe street in our area. So thank you. Oh, and if the houses do happen, the cul-de-sac off of college, fine. Not Trenier. Thank you. Thank you. Hello, name and zip code for the record, please. Hi. Jeff Dalton, 89002. Just with respect of all your time, I agree with everything that everyone else has already said. Pointing out that if you look at where Trenere ends, right on the other side of college, it's a park. So there's really no reason for it to go through. Of course, 100% agree with all the safety issues and all the concerns that there just really doesn't seem to be any point. On top of it, if you look more at the map, the drainage, all that doesn't make sense either. And then there's already those three main roads that go through, that there's plenty of thoroughfare for emergency access between Paradise Hills, Patti Ann, and Mission. There's no need for another one. If you want another study, you could look at Dufort, which is right up the street that ends right at Smalley and then continues on on the other side of Greenway and makes sense there as well because of the huge drop that we're having as shown in one of the pictures before. So thank you. Thank you. Last but not least. Brooke Watson 89002. I'm it. Oh, okay. If you're going to speak, please line up so we know. I might close the public hearing on you and you're not going to get a chance. So I agree with everything that was said, just to be nice and quick. I have lived on Trenere for 16 years. We purchased our home on Trenere specifically for the rural preserve and for the dead end street. And I feel like every couple of years, showing up here to try and you know please beg for that rule preserve to be maintained the integrity of that so again that's what I'm here today to excuse me doing is please don't let that street go through and please maintain the integrity of our rule preserve thank you thank you very much naming zip code for the record please my name is rich Caruso 89002 Basically, you've heard it all. So I'm here to say the same thing. I've been up here many times trying to hold the rural preserve area to the 40,000 square feet to no avail many times. I'd love to see it happen this time. I understand from the developer's perspective, they're going to make another $500,000 to $700,000 if they get an extra lot. I know. I understand it. But that's not what that area was created for. I've owned that land out there since the 80s. Also, the through-street premier, I actually think that is... they need to list it as a benefit for them to connect it. I think it's the complete opposite as you've heard over and over and over again. I think that it would actually even be beneficial for them cost-wise if you look at it for not going through as well. I think that's something that should definitely be considered safety-wise and is actually going to benefit them, I believe, as well. So that's it. Short and sweet. Thank you very much. Hello, name and zip code? I'm Bill Tell. ZIP is 89002. I'm opposed to this proposed enhancement of Trenere. I agree with everybody else that the road was originally designated or that area is designated as rural, residential, no sidewalks, no lights. And the street is obviously, by the pictures that are shown by everybody else, that it's not designed for traffic at all you know so there's not even a center line in the road anyway I just hope to have the world designation followed and not allow this street to become a through street thank you very much is there anyone else wishing to speak on this item see no one to close a public hearing If you can come back up, I think we've got some questions, but I think some are going to be pertaining to also staff. So let's start with, did you get everything that they were concerned about? Yes. And how would you address those? So the city did require us to do a through street. So this is the design that we're going with. Having five lots on there, it's very similar to what is around the area. So if you look at here, I don't know if this mic is on, sorry. So if you see right here, there's five houses here, five houses here, five houses here, five houses over there. And it's the same... almost the same size property and we're asking for five houses. We're not changing the zoning or the land use. The city did require us to do a through street down Trinier, but that's mostly all the opposition that I heard was the through street. So I don't... That's, you're saying that's a city issue that they've required you to do that? Yes. Is that correct? Okay. So... I think some were safety issues. I think there was a question about mailboxes, but I think that's up to the U.S. Postal Service to decide where mailboxes go. I know that they put one in front of my house, and I paid for them to move it to another location in front of another person's house. Actually, not in front of their house. It was adjacent to it. It sounds like those were the concerns that were brought up. So I kind of... Lot size. Go ahead. Yeah, no, I have lots of comments. Make some comments. So the neighbors brought up the fact about the lot size. You're asking for an 18% reduction in lot size. Do you feel like that's in congruence with the rural preservation? We're not changing the zoning. So there's nothing that... We're trying to comply with the 40. We do have an 18% deviation from that, but we're doing... what's like around the area part of that deviation it is a 18% deviation and part of it is the drainage and we talked about it and I brought it up before in the meeting and I was hoping you'd be a little bit more prepared so there's drainage at the back end if you look at your current your drawing right now another one you have right there is fine this one right here is your document that you have So that back left corner, you're calling that a common area when it's actually drainage. A common area in a subdivision is a place that can be a common that everyone that partakes in that subdivision can be. A drainage and a wash is not a common area, at least not to me. And I don't feel like that is a, I'm not in accordance with the findings and facts. I don't believe that the subdivision and the way it's laid out is, it, it, It doesn't keep to the comprehensive plan. I don't believe it keeps in congruence with the rural preservation. So that was a leading question, I apologize. But more to the fact of the drainage in the upper right hand, in the upper northwest corner is that lot in of itself. is far less than 40,000 square feet. And I think that's what the neighbors talked about. So there's a letter of the law and there's a spirit of the law. And I feel like this is way too far out of the spirit of the law. The last subdivision, which we mentioned earlier in the meeting, that everything's a case-by-case basis. So to go toward your comment, well, there's five here, there's five there, is this subdivision, a parcel in particular has a lot of easements. I'm very familiar with this parcel. And so it has a lot of easements and that is the struggle. It should have been a four parcel. It's meant to be a four structure parcel. Five parcels to me is not acceptable in my opinion. And then the other part about the drainage, and I brought this up the other day and your answer on the elevation. I told you it's a 16 foot drop coming off Trenere if you have to if the city requires to put it through none of us you know that's a question for staff but your solution of we're going to make a cut and then you can see it has a driveway coming off onto Trenere that's once again a wash is not a common area that's actually a safety hazard I grew up here we are all taught you don't play in the washes when there's a flood you stay away from the drains there is no comments on what you're going to do with the northern parcel the northern parcel has been owned by the same family for a very long time and at the end of the day like to me you got huge issues it should only be a four parcel subdivision and number two is the drainage at the top should be addressed putting it as a cut where you have drainage kind of just while washing out is not acceptable so those are my comments if if i may ask to hold this and either meet with the neighbors or see what we can do with staff, I'd be happy to do that. If I might jump in, what I think would be really helpful is for you to hold it also, but meet with staff. But I think public works is a huge role in this application because I think just looking at the map, it's pretty clear that they've always planned for Trenir to go through. And again, I'm just looking at the map and the staff write-up. And so I think to me that... I think we need, I think everybody needs to be in the meeting, including drainage, because I think that's, because it feels like that's the main objection here, and we're just going to go around in circles. So I would actually go ahead and make the motion to hold it for, let's do two months, I think, just because it's hard to get everyone in the summer, if that's acceptable to my co-planning commissioners. But I think you guys need to kind of go rally on it. And I think we also kind of need to understand, you know, I looked at the easement a little different on the drainage because you could have made it an easement versus a different way and put it in someone's lot or what have you. But I think you guys all need to rally. So I'm going to go ahead and make a motion for two months. Hold on this. I'd like to make a couple comments also. I agree with these residents. Look at how many people came. I don't know what happened to the notification, but something. It's funny, it's notified in here. They got sent out like 60 notifications per the, so which of the 525 feet is required, so I don't know. I do, actually. I looked at that. If I can make a comment. So it's a distance to let the residents know. It's at, what's the 525? Yeah, it's a... So if you look at that map, where they... They pinned it from college and Trenere and because your lots are so big, it literally went to just a couple houses. So can I clarify on how the notices were sent? Absolutely. Thank you. Typically with a waiver of standards, there's a 525 foot buffer that would be around the entire property to get noticed. Because this is in the rural neighborhood area, reservation area, that buffer gets extended to 1,025 feet. That 1,025 feet was met and 60 residents were notified. Again, I think we should just hold it. I just believe that sooner or later, people have to be recognized that they bought and built or they did for reasons. I've lived here since 1949. I can appreciate what you guys are going through, and I mean it. Quail, all the good guys that go with it, bad guys too, but they were born and raised here also. I commend all of you for coming forward and spending your time to voice your opinion on what's going on here. I appreciate situation. I appreciate there's a motion on the floor. I know that we have a lot of neighbors here that are concerned. I know in the staff report too though it talks about utility and emergency services are a large part of the reason that Trenere is being proposed to move to be changed and see through. We have staff here that can speak to that even though we could wait two months and have that conversation. But if you want to hear from our emergency service and our utility staff and our traffic staff as to. With all due respect, I think I'd I know everyone's here and we've heard a lot of good testimony, but I think because there are, you know, some of the neighbors feel like their other neighbors aren't here, what have you. So I think, and then I know we are at the staff report, but it's possible that the neighbors aren't really, I was up to date on staff report readings. I think the two months is acceptable. I don't know what the date is that that falls. And if it comes up again in the future, then perhaps we could plan on having emergency services. They're always here. So I believe we've got a motion to continue for two months. Yes, please. I think that gives enough time. Does that make enough time? Absolutely. So the motion is to continue for two months. Can I ask a question about your motion to continue? Is your motion to continue with the current plans or to amend the current plans that are before us. I'm just making a motion to continue the hearing because I think I don't want to litigate this from right now because I don't think that's appropriate but I think there's some compelling I think what we've heard from staff in the staff report is there's a reason like they really want Trenere and so I'm assuming Public Works has some pretty good logic on that so I don't want to tell them these guys need to come back and get rid of Trenir, knowing that Public Works believes we need Trenir. So I want to hold it for two months, please. I concur. So the motion is to continue. Well, a continuous is better than a denial. You guys all happy to come back? Okay. We lived here. Public hearing was closed, so please stay with the dais. So the motion is to continue. for two months made by Commissioner Lewis. Please vote. And that was approved for continuance. I'd ask staff to take a look at the concerns with the speed along, was it Patty Ann? What can be done to mediate that, mitigate it, but also whether or not we really need to connect, what is it, trainee to college. I'm hearing what these folks say, and I can certainly appreciate the concerns, because if we've got safety and speed issues out there, And I know that the police can go out there and they can ticket for a time, but then it will get back up unless there's a police presence there every day, 24 hours a day. We need to have someone look at that and determine what kind of things can be done to mitigate those issues. But good luck with the project, and I hope you can work with staff on some solutions and also with the residents. Okay? Okay, thank you. Planning Commissioners. Next item is item 17. This is a request to amend an existing master sign plan to relocate a 125-foot tall freestanding sign located at 1500 Railroad Pass Casino Road. Staff did not support the original request for the 125-foot tall sign and continues to oppose the proposed relocation closer to the freeway. Staff is not in support of this request due to the insufficient justification that the move is necessary to improve visibility. recommends denial this would be final action unless appealed staff has received zero responses in support or opposition good evening ladies and gentlemen mark whitehouse 89014 upon arriving at this evening's meeting the neighboring properties representation engaged with me and asked that we would work with him and the owner joe de simone of the railroad pass hotel casino we have since agreed We request this evening that we continue this item to the next planning commission so we can work with the neighboring property. So moved. Okay, I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to speak on this item? Seeing no one, would someone like to make a motion to continue this item? Sorry, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I would make that motion that we continue MSP 2017, 8812. 1142-A7 to the next meeting. Can I get one? I apologize to interrupt the motion. Can I just see if that would potentially affect any design changes to this sign or potentially ask the applicant if that would affect any design changes? Because if there are design changes, that 30 days is pretty tight. Do you need more time? I will withdraw my motion for now. Is this in reference to whether or not you can... co-locate the sign? Is that what the... It is not. It would not be a marrying of the signs. I think Mr. DeSimone's main concern is viewability of his own sign as it relates to this sign. So at this time, I could not address any design design changes. They are meeting over the weekend to have this discussion. And so again, we just ask to hold until they can have that discussion. Okay. Is one month sufficient or do you need two months unless there's a It sounds like it's not really a design issue so much. One would be enough. So one month is sufficient, and then if there's additional concerns, then we can work, you guys can work with the applicant. We can work that out. We can work that out next month. Okay, great. So I reinstate my motion. Do I need to say it again? No, the motion on the floor is for a one-month continuance made by Commissioner Brunson. Please vote. wait in on your vote, Commissioner Chris Manouskas. There we go. That continuance was approved. Thank you for your time this evening. The next item... Panel item is item 18. This is a request for a zone change amendment to establish the LVR Real Property LLC Master Development Plan. The request includes replacing the existing Sage Mountain Design Guidelines to establish a new master plan with development standards for a sports and wellness campus located at 1475 Raiders Way. Staff recommends approval. Staff has received zero responses from the public in support or opposition of this item. Planning Commission, thanks for having us. My name is Jordan Block. I'm with Stantec. I'm joined by Tom Young and Roger Weber, also Stantec, and Deborah Marsh and Doug Thornley from Holland Hart. We're all here representing the applicant, and the applicant's address zip code is 89113 as is Stantec's office address, and the property is an 89052. appreciate being here we're we brought a big crew out for this because we're very excited we think this is really important but as a reminder for those in the room and for planning commission I believe it's being maybe not displayed on screen there we go just a reminder of where the site is so this is the land surrounding the existing headquarters of Las Vegas Raiders as well as their Intermountain Health Performance Center the whole site is a little over 55 acres but this largely impacts the undeveloped land, which is somewhere closer to 25 acres, after you take out what's already built. There's an amendment to the Sage Mountain Master Plan, and we're here to advocate for the approval of, or the recommendation of approval for this. What we and the Master Development Plan are proposing is... what we think can be extremely important to the region and the community and that was a requirement of the deal made with the Raiders originally was to create something on this site that had major regional impact and economic development impact and we think that's exactly what this will do. The owner is incredibly committed to this cause and incredibly passionate about that cause and will live up to that agreement because that benefits everyone in the city of Henderson and beyond as well as themselves. What we are proposing on the site through the master development plan is world-class one-of-a-kind really Hub for innovative health care went mental and physical what health and well-being that's a mouthful and It's kind of one of a kind because there really aren't a lot of precedents out there. This would be a draw on from people across the United States and across the world, really, to be something really unique in the community and draw attention to Henderson and draw attention to this area of Henderson in particular. And we think that it's really a spectacular opportunity, given its context, surrounded by the executive airport on one side, the new West Henderson Hospital on the other side, and being really close to a number of other things in the city of Henderson as well as Las Vegas. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to my colleague, Tom Young, and he'll talk you through some of the details of the plan. Thank you, Jordan, and thank you, Commissioners, for hearing from us today. Put it right on top of the symbol there, the logo. Yeah. Thank you. My name is Tom Young from Stantec Consulting, representing the applicant, and our zip codes both for Stantec and the applicant are 89113, locally. So, yeah, I'll just talk through briefly the general concept that we're presenting and that is embedded in the new master plan. We have brought through much of the DNA of the previous Sage Mountain master plan into this new document but we've certainly elaborated upon it with additional design regulations. It's much more robust than the previous master plan was in terms of guidelines and frameworks for ensuring high quality of development. But in terms of the land use concept, obviously that is a little bit deeper than the previous sort of generalized concept that was represented in the Sage Mountain Master Plan previously. You can see it on the screen there, sort of broken into four key areas, generally transitioning from more public to more private from north to south on the site. We think there's a really good of link between the existing Intermountain Health Performance Center that has been developed with the Raiders organization and the West Henderson Hospital to the north so thinking about how you can bridge those those two sort of health worlds on the general medicine and sports medicine with this unique facility in the middle. Medical Office General at the north end which could certainly complement the activities currently active at the hospital but also support the activities on the site further south. Medical office area focused on guest services so people specifically visiting the site for procedures and treatment and rehabilitation. A lot of these medical services that we're anticipating could be multi-day or even week-long exercises for the treatment, for the recovery. So providing visitor accommodation and related services such as restaurants, massage therapy, etc. sort of in the center of the site and then sort of again building on that the existing sports facility on the site sports medicine facility, sports training center and reserving some area for a future expansion of the Intermountain Health as well. As I mentioned the DNA is still very similar. We're not actually proposing a zone change. We have however updated the list of modified uses. So the underlying zone is the IL zone. Obviously, the concept here is not industrial in any sense really, but we have built upon the existing Sage Mountain to adapt the uses to reflect this unique concept. And then finally, just to speak a little bit to implementation, obviously this proposal is part of a land sale agreement with the City of Henderson that originally began in the last decade. The concept has changed, but the applicant is still very much committed to meeting the final 2031 deadline that was originally agreed to in the land sale agreement, notwithstanding the change or the refinement of the concept. You may have noticed that the sort of phases as described in the master plan currently get a little bit less specific as you get closer to 2031. What we're really going to be focused on is the next year assuming that this master plan proposal is approved by yourselves and Council that the next 20 the remainder of 2025 and 2026 would be focused on identification of a master development partner that would actually move forward with identifying partnerships and and detailed plans for the site and also a deepening of the market analysis which will help sort out questions such as specific phasing, what types of facilities should be built on the site first, and a more detailed timeline. So the master plan includes the commitment to come back to Council with an implementation section amendment by the end of 2026 to reflect that further deepening of work that will happen over the next year or so. So I think that's all we have to say. We're very happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you very much. And you agree with staff's recommendation? On approval? Absolutely we do, yes. I figured you did. I'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Is there anyone here wishing to speak on this item? Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing. Commissioners, any questions or comments? I'll go ahead and make just the comment that this is a really amazing project to me. I've been fascinated with the UFC project. And this seems like this is even way a step in how they've built out a campus. And I think for Henderson, especially with the airport adjacent, I think this is a really cool opportunity for the state. And it looks like they've gone top shelf on every single thing. So I'm really excited about this. Same here. OK. Do you want to go ahead and make a motion, Commissioner? I'm delighted to. I'd like to make a motion for Zee. of approval subject of finding of fact and conditions and a waiver on ZCA 2017-880637-82. Commissioner Lewis has made a motion. Please vote. That item passes. We're looking forward to seeing that continue. on that site. Thank you very much. I'll just add that this is a partnership with the city and everyone's been so great to work with including Jared and Andrew. Thank you all for your help. Thank you. That recommendation will be forwarded to City Council at the August 5th meeting. Beautiful. I think that brings us to the end of the agendas and brings us to the public comment portion of the meeting. Items discussed under public comment cannot be acted upon at this meeting. Is there anyone here wishing to address the commission? Seeing no one, I'll close the public comment. Staff, do you have any information or things that you wanted to share? As always, we appreciate the staff in the back being here ready, prepared to jump into any of these issues. I just wanted to recognize Rochelle Liston here in the crowd. She recently was promoted to senior planner, and we're very excited to have her part of our planning commission team. Welcome to the team. I have no comments. Do the commissioners have any comments? Actually, I'll make a comment. I want to thank our IT team for keeping us on track. I really appreciate their help. They sit there tirelessly and enjoy the hearings, and I appreciate their unsung heroes. They're sitting behind the wall in the glass over there, so we appreciate all that you guys do. I'd just like to make a comment, Chairman Boekelman, you're doing a fabulous job. I just noticed some of the changes that you've made, and I'd just like to make it public that it helps all of us here at the diocese, and I just applaud you for that as well. Thank you. I appreciate that. I second that. I agree. Thanks. My head's not going to get through the door. No. With that, I will go ahead. It didn't before. It didn't before, yeah. I had to go sideways. With that, I'll go ahead and adjourn the meeting. Thank you.