good evening we're ready to begin this planning commission meeting is called to order this meeting isn't properly noticed in posts in compliance with the Open Meeting Law these proceedings are being video recorded as well as presented live on KC L V cable channel to please know customers with CenturyLink and Cox communication can view this program in high definition on channel 1002 and in standard definition on channel 2 you can also watch this meeting live on Apple TV Roku and amazon firetv on the Go Vegas app the Planning Commission meeting as well as all other KC LV programming can be viewed on the Internet at WWE TV Ford slash live the proceedings will be rebroadcast on KC LV and the web the Saturday of the meeting at 10:00 a.m. Monday at midnight in the falling Tuesday at 6 p.m. would everyone please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance madam clerk would you please call the roll chair Jerry president vice chair to savio present Commissioner schlattman excused commissioner Tucson present Commissioner Williams present Commissioner rogen present Commissioner Chadda present thank you thank you to everyone here with us I call your attention to the information printed in our agendas concerning our actions and the appeal and review process if appropriate on each side of the podium there are agendas that you can walk up and grab to follow along please read this carefully if you have any questions staff is available also the second page of the agenda contains our rules of conduct we appreciate you to hearing to these rules so we can have a smooth meeting moving on to item number four there any members of the public who wish to speak under this portion of the agenda they will be cross-referenced with what's on the current agenda seeing no one I'll move on to item number five vice chair to Salvio can we get a motion for the minutes yes mr. chairman thank you I make a motion to approve the Planning Commission meetings from June 25th 2019 thank you there's a motion on the floor please cast your votes please post and that motion carries moving on to our housekeeping items are there any items that commissioners staff applicants or members of the public would like to pull forward for action Oh mr. chairman we have some housekeeping items the applicant is requesting to withdraw without prejudice items 28 and 29 and the applicant is requesting to obey items 41 and 42 to the August 27 2019 Planning Commission this is the first advance request for this item thank you thank you very much please go up need your name and address to the record evening chairman and commissioners Keith Lee to six60 for manzanita Glen Avenue Ward 4 president of a timber Creek neighborhood association here on items 30 through 34 we'd asked that the items be held in abeyance for time for a neighborhood meeting there was a neighborhood meeting only for items 30 and 31 the GPA in the zoning low attendance because there was no variances or STRs proposed at that time and in your documentation you'll see that at that meeting we did request a neighborhood meeting for any SDR we have not had a neighborhood meeting I called the councilman's office two weeks ago when we got noticed about this SDR and I called the applicants representative last week to please ask for a neighborhood meeting still haven't had a meaning without a neighborhood meeting I'll be happy to speak on the item but I would like 3234 to be obeyed thank you thank you for coming up anyone else like to be heard hi I'll need your name and address for the record please hi there I'm Linda fianza 9390 West Helena Las Vegas eight nine one two nine on number items 41 42 I'd like to know if the developer is planning to have another neighborhood meeting or if you know any of that information I will I see there is the request for the abeyance currently I'll go to staff is there knowledge of it mr. chair based on the letter provided they do not state why they are requested abeyance so we do not know if they're gonna have another neighborhood meeting or not okay and they did previously have a neighborhood meeting yes because it's a general plan amendment required neighborhood meeting so they had one already okay so right now it doesn't look like it isn't the request you can reach out to staff in to the commissioners and actually the Commissioner Tucson and between now and if it is past four abeyance you are on record right now requesting are you asking for a neighborhood meeting well what I'm actually asking for another meeting with the new plan because I do know that staff trenchant recommended denial and there were about 50 people a meeting that were opposed to it original neighborhood meeting and we were told it was going to be held in abeyance but I also thought he had said he would talk to the developer and have another meeting okay it is up to be will be obeyed I would recommend reaching out to the developer requesting more information and I know Commissioner Tucson can probably I will certainly do that help thank you very much welcome to email me too I'm happy to to get involved to see if I can help too thank you thank you so much thank you very much okay so we will have a motion on the housekeeping items mr. Chairman I just got a question on 3334 that wasn't the applicant that was asking for the abeyance but someone from the general public with concerns so I guess you would need to enlighten me on if the applicant would agree to something like that that is correct vice chair I apologize Commissioner Toussaint are you aware of items 3034 for the member of the public requested the abeyance I am aware of what's on the agenda I wasn't aware that they were for a neighborhood meeting but I wouldn't I would think that would be a good idea okay so you you you are in agreeance that you would or you would entertain I would entertain a motion to have them music meeting is the applicant here tonight yes James Smith 91 59 was flamingo representing the applicant we've had this item delayed we've asked for two abeyance is on this one so far we submitted back in March we feel that additional abeyance would be further that we don't need so we would not agree with that okay so you'd be heard with that in the meantime before city council we could perhaps have a meeting with them it's just the time constraints has gotten so far since March we've been on the record and helped us in abeyance twice already measure Tucson so you want to be heard tonight is that correct excuse me you want to be heard tonight is that correct that's correct I I don't have a problem with that I probably will recommend that you do have a neighborhood meeting between now and city council time whatever happens we keep it on the schedule okay thank you thank you very much okay thank you and with that said then I'll move on to the housekeeping make a motion to approve item number 28 and 29 applicant requests item B withdraw without prejudice and 41 and 42 applicant asks that it would be held to the August 27 2019 Planning Commission meeting so I make a motion to approve the housekeeping items thank you there's a motion on the floor please cast your votes please post and that motion carries Commissioner Chadda I noticed an abstention on your just need to go on record sure items 28 items 28 and 29 I represent South Main LLC who has pending litigation against the applicant in Clark County 8th Judicial District Court case number a 16 7 4 8 1 3 3 C so I feel it would be best to abstain okay but on the rest of the motion you're I'm flying on okay so we can leave it as is on the vote you you can although because the items being withdrawn actually the Commissioner can you can vote on that because it's just a procedural motion so you would not have to abstain from that vote so if you want to change your vote to a vote up or down on the on the withdrawal and the obey as you can all right then let's reset it sure where we could can we just have a verbal for her sure yes I'll vote in favor thank you thank you all reflect that in the minutes thank you very much Thank You commissioner okay moving on to the consent items can signed consent items are considered routine by the Planning Commission and may be enacted by one motion however any items may be discussed if a Commissioner member or applicant so desires vice chair can we get a motion on the consent items yes yes mr. Chairman I make a motion to approve the consent items number 7 & 8 okay there's a motion on the floor please cast your votes please post and that motion carries mr. chairman those items are final action this evening less appeal to the City Clerk's office within seven days thank you moving on to the one motion one vote part of the agenda the following are items that may be considered in one motion one vote they are considered routine non-public and public hearing items all public hearings and non public hearings will be opened at one time any person representing an application or a member of the public or remember the Planning Commission not an agreement with the conditions and all standard conditions for the application recommended by staff should request to have that item removed from this part of the agenda item number nine abeyance GPA 7-5 937 applicant owner bus yard Properties LLC at all for possible action requests for our general plan amendment from M to M L located west of the intersection of Ann road and Schaumburg Ward six related item ten abeyance zero and seven five nine three eight four possible action request from a rezoning from r3 to RC l Lord six staff recommends approval item number 11 abeyance su P seven six four five six applicant owner Pacific healthcare three LLC for possible action on a request for a special use permit for proposed mini storage facility with a waiver to allow storage facilities on the first floor where such is not allowed and to allow the north east and south building facades to not appear as an office or retail facility where such as required on the east side of Riley Street south of Rome Boulevard Ward six staff recommends approval related item number twelve su P seven six four five seven four pas special request for a special use permit for a seventy nine foot tall wireless communication facility Ward six staff recommends approval and related item abeyance SDR seven six four fifty five for posture no request for a site development plan review for proposed proposed three-story five hundred and seventeen unit 75 thousand one hundred and sixty one square foot mini storage facility and an 80-foot tall wireless communication facility with waiver of the town center development standards to allow none of the building to be built to the front setback line where a minimum of 80% is required to allow a zero foot side yard setback where 10 feet is required and to allow a 6 foot rear setback where 20 feet is required staff recommends approval related items 14 and 15 14 GPA 7 6 6 4 4 applicant international LLC owner Siham ibrahim e for possible action on a request for a general plan amendment from our NP 2 m on the north side of an road alignment west of shaumbra Road Ward 4 staff recommends approval I don't number 15 0 & 7 6 6 4 5 for possible action request for a rezoning from re to our 3 war 3 staff recommends approval item number 16 GPA 76710 applicant owner city of las vegas us for boss fashion request to amend the plan streets and highway map and schedule 13 - 1 a in to amend map to see of the transportation and streets and highways element of the las vegas 2020 master plan to add remove or modify various roadway alignments within the northwest portion of the city Ward 4 staff recommends approval related item 17 through 2017 a zero and seven six seven one one applicant Greystone of nevada owner john satara for possible action on a request for rezoning from re to our one on the east side of Bradley Road south of Chucky Lane Turkey Lane Ward 6 staff recommends approval 18 var 7 6 7 1 2 for possible request for a variance to allow a 1.0 connectivity ratio of 1.30 is the minimum required Ward 6 staff recommends approval item number 19 VA C seven six seven one three four possible and request for a petition to vacate public right away located north of Clark County 215 between Bradley and Tom Boulevard what six staff recommends approval related item 20 TMP 767 one four four possible request for a tentative map for a 30 lot single-family residential subdivision with waivers to allow a zero foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to the south and west property lines were six feet is required Ward six staff recommends approval related items 21 and 22 21 var 7 6 685 applicant owner school board of trustees for possible request for variance to allow deviations from title 19 100 200 CV development standards at fourteen sixty three Marion Drive Ward 3 staff recommends approval related item number 22 SD our seven six six eight six for possible action request for site develop and plan review for proposed 93 thousand four hundred and ninety square-foot public school primary with a waiver to allow landscape buffer along portions of the west property line were eight feet is required and ten feet landscape buffer on the South property line or 15 fee is required war3 staff recommends approval related item 23 v r7 683 oh excuse me that's not related item number 23 var 7 6 8 3 Oh applicant owner tall RL for possible action request for a variance to allow an 8 foot front yard setback where 10 feet is required at 363 North 14th Street or 3 staff recommends approval related items 24 to 25 24 su p76 707 applicant all storage owner twin lakes Baptist Church for possible and request for a special use permit for proposed mini storage facility use west of rainbow north of West Cliff Drive Ward 1 staff recommends approval related item number 25 SDR 76708 for possible action request for a site development plan review for a proposed three-story 750 unit mini storage facility consisting of two buildings for a total of 123 thousand six hundred and seventy two square feet board one staff recommends approval item number 26 su P the seven six six eight three applicant craft house Marie Auner California loft Partners LLC for possible action and request for a special use permit for a proposed one thousand six hundred and twelve square foot beer wine cooler off sale establishment use at 197 East California Street Ward 3 staff recommends approval and finally item number 27 SDR seven six seven two two applicant Nevada distilling Co LLC owner 301 mesquite LLC at all from Boston request for a major amendment of an approved site development plan review for proposed three hundred square foot addition to an approved four thousand six hundred and fifty square foot warehouse building and additional site modifications with waivers of interim downtown Las Vegas development standards to allow a zero foot side yard setback along all north property lines where ten feet is required a seven foot perimeter landscape buffer on a portion of the west property line where 15 years Rufina is required in a three foot buffer along a portion of the west property line where eight feet is required at the terminus of mesquite avenue east of city parkway Ward five staff recommends approval and before I go to you vice chair I will disclose it on item number 26 my company's working on a project that's located within the notification area it doesn't affect us any late less or greater so I will be voting on the item tonight mr. chairman on item number 26 I do own artifice urban launched with a notification area but this won't affect me any greater or lesser than anybody else in the areas so I'll be voting on this matter Thank You commissioner okay mr. Chairman I would like to entertain a motion to approve the one motion in one vote items 9 to 27 excuse me vice-chair I did not open this is notice as a public hearing did anyone want to be those items say no and I will close it and go back to your vice-chair my apologies Thank You mr. chairman again I'd like to entertain a motion to approve items nine to 27 under one motion one go thank you there's a motion on the floor please cast your votes please post and that motion carries and mr. chairman items 11 through 13 and 21 through 26 our final action this evening unless appealed to the City Clerk's office within 10 days items 9 10 14 through 20 and item 27 will move forward to City Council and be heard as a part of their agenda on September 4th 2019 thank you we're now moving on to the public hearing items if you could please follow along with me I'm pulling some items out of order we're gonna start with item number 51 its CEO and seven six seven four seven applicant owner city of Las Vegas for possible action request for rezoning from c1 c2 R 5 r 4 R 3 and R 2 and T 4 and T 4 M s T 4 c t5 n t5 M s and T 6 you see in the Freemont East District generally located south of US Highway 515 east of Las Vegas Boulevard north of Carson western west of Eastern Avenue or three and five staff recommends approval can we get the staff report please mr. chairman this rezoning request is an implementation action of the vision vision 2045 downtown las vegas master plan which sought to update the development standards for downtown by adopting a form based code for each of the 12 downtown districts it was a rezoning of properties within the fremont east district as the 2nd district to be rezone after the Las Vegas medical district the intention of the updated zoning standards is to foster the development of a livable mixed-use development for residents balanced with the continuation of the retail tourism and entertainment corridor along Fremont Street each transaction depicted in the proposed regulating plan will be included in the official zoning map atlas of the city of Las Vegas by replacing the current district 4 the property each of these transactions has different development standards and allowed land uses related to them in October of 2018 the Department of Planning began an eight-month public outreach effort by holding neighborhood meetings such as informal coffee truck pop-ups community meetings and two formal notified neighborhood meetings held at the historic 5th Street School in March and June additionally outreach was conducted through weekly open house houses twice a week at the playing department this final version presented to you tonight incorporates the feedback received from property owners stakeholders and city staff from various departments staff recommends approval for this rezoning request as it is a direct result of the Department of Planning x' downtown master plan implementation effort the City Council approved an abeyance request for the related general plan amendment GPA seven five eight one four until the August 21st City Council meeting in order to allow this rezoning request to go through the application process and be heard with the general plan amendment on August 21st please note additional letters of protest and support have been received since publication thank you thank you very much this was notice as a public hearing anyone from the public like to be heard miss C no one from the public I will close the public hearing and first disclose that I do have partners that have a financial interest in this this area it doesn't affect us any greater lesser so I will be voting on the projects and I Commissioner schlattman yes sir mr. chair I have a lot of business downtown and it won't affect me any greater or lesser than anybody else either I do have a couple of questions if I may a C's for the staff I was reading this report last night and I noticed something unique that I didn't know previously I thought it was like a t1 through 86 and now it looks like we're taking like T fours and T pubs and breaking those down even further so in particular like an T poor Main Street zone the zone is intended to provide a compact and walkable urban environment diverse range of uses rain small/medium building types and then we get into the t4 corridor zone and it's talking about the corridor allowing the wide variety of building types to accommodate and range in commercial retail office and service uses so I really don't understand the difference between like a t4 main street or t4 corridor because it sounds like that's pretty much promoting the same thing and then the same thing with t5 Main Street and t5 neighborhood it kind of sounds like the same thing mr. chairman through you each transect zone the number is going to denote the kind of intensity of activity that the development will be allowed and then the descriptor afterward corridor Main Street is supposed to describe the interaction of the type of Street that it's going to be on so if you think about Freemont Street farther west on Fremont Street you're gonna think more walkable more Main Street the kind of facade development that we're gonna be asking for specifically how we want the buildings to be interacting with the public right away versus farther down Fremont where the road widens and the traffic's pace picks up we'll probably want the buildings to respond to that right so that is how that qualifier changes and it is essentially reflected slightly in massing and the sizing the height of the building so density allowances and then also facades that are allowed to cheer a few more questions so it's just something that some there'll be a map that shows which areas a t5 Main Street t5 neighborhood or does the planning department or do developers need to come in and speak to the development or to the planning department and is this more subjective as to whether or not it falls within a Main Street or a neighborhood mr. chairman through you each parcel has a specific designation with a you know t5 Main Street or corridor so that's already been determined and we heavily reached out to a lot of property owners in the outreach for that and those are specific there's a specific chapter for each zoning transect so it's not subjective you don't choose it's already and zoned as such okay in commission I think it's a color-coded map that if I remember correctly that I I saw at one point passing through okay in and director Simon Phil just showed me there pointing that out as well one of her I was reading this and I must not get through that map but so this is the first part of the reason of all the parcels downtown and that's correct and then this goes to City Council after this final adoption okay alright thank you I'd like to make a motion to approve item number 51 and go along with staff recommendations approval all right there's a motion on the floor please cast your votes please post and that motion carries and mr. chairman that item will move forward to City Council and be a part of their agenda on September 4th and just to clarify the staff had mentioned that this is intended to catch up with the GPA so that general plan amendment will be requested to be obeyed so that at the City Council meeting in August so that it can be heard at the same time as this zoning request thank you very much and we are going to now jump to items number 43 through 45 item number 43 GPA seven six eight five six applicant owner Royal Herald Byron the third for possible action on a request for a general plan amendment from MLA to GC 1364 1376 and 1388 Miller Avenue Ward for staff recommends approval item number 44 var seven six six eight one four boss fashion request for a variance to allow 17 parking spaces where 21 is required Ward 5 staff recommends denial related item 45 SD r 7 6 6 8 2 4 possible action request for site development plan review for a proposed two-story 3569 square foot commercial building with a waiver to not align the building with the street frontage where such as required Ward 5 staff recommends denial can we get the staff report please mr. chairman as result of previous general plan amendments and rezoning actions there is currently a misalignment at the subject site between the land use designation and the zoning code currently the land use is residential and the zone is commercial the proposed general plan amendment would correct this misalignment and staff recommends approval the request however as evidenced by as evident by requested variance and waiver staff finds the proposed development to be too intense for the subject site and incompatible with neighboring development staff therefore recommends denial of the variance and site development plan review applications please note that there is a revised staff report neighborhood meeting information table in your supplemental items packet also note that there are additional letters of support and protest since publication thank you thank you very much tonight your name and address for the record please Jason make you six five to middle gate Henderson Nevada here representing the owner on this project thank you the reason for the general plan amendment is basically the general plan and the zoning don't line up so that one that one's pretty easy one there the reason why we're asking for the variance on the parking is that we wanted to have the ability to put a small takeout restaurant in the front of the building here because in that area there's really not that much so we wanted the ability to do that if we removed that we wouldn't need the variance for the parking I believe we'd be within one space so that's the reason for the parking variance is so that way we have the ability to put a small takeout restaurant in the front there Smalltalk Oh shop of some sort and as for aligning the building with the front of the property the if we align it with the front of the property it reduces the amount of parking that we can have on the site by about two or three spaces so that's why the building is lined up 90 degrees to the front property line there okay anything else you'd like to add I do have one question one of the conditions from public works number thirteen about having a Buddhist pedestrian circulation access plan and wanting us to add crosswalks or activated flashers or temporary sidewalks something of that sort I don't really understand that we're in the middle of the block where would we put any of that okay go to public works this is notice as a public hearing anyone from the public like to be heard in this item please come up to the microphone I'll need your name and address for the record and if you're for or against the project and reasons why my name is Rachelle Hodge Conyers 13:29 Miller Avenue Las Vegas Nevada I'm for it because I think it's gonna bring a new look to it and make sure that it's gonna bring jobs because he said he's trying to put taco shop in and make it a where people can get jobs and be able to beautify it so I'm for it wonderful thanks for coming out thank you anyone else like to be Harding this item seeing no one I will close the public hearing and I'll go to public works about that condition No all right there we go mr. chairman through you Roger Bailey with Public Works the condition is to identify possible new attractive nuisances such as if there's a school nearby how the students will get to and from say the store that they're talking about we're really not asking at this point for anything such as crosswalks pedestrian activated flashers or anything like that just to me with the city traffic and your engineer and see what if anything needs to be done thank you very much Roger does that give you any clarity I think so yes so it's not like not telling us we have to do any of that we just have to meet with the traffic can go through correct yeah I'll turn it over to the Commission Commissioner Williams Thank You mr. chair so if we could go to item 43 GPA seven six eight five six I'd like the motion for approval okay there's a motion on the floor these cast your votes please post and that motion carries and item 44 variance requests 7 6 6 8 1 while we understand that there was denial and certainly we just got classification on the request for crosswalks I actually think that this is gonna be good for the area as well and so I'm gonna motion for approval on item 7 6 6 8 1 okay there's a motion on the floor please cast your votes please post and that motion carries items SD r 7 6 6 8 2 this one's a little interesting and I know we're looking at aligning with the street frontage and different things but it's still part of the project so I'm also gonna recommend make a motion for approval thank you very much commissioner is a motion on floor please cast your votes please post and that motion carries mr. chairman those items will move forward to City Council me heard as a part of their agenda on September 4th 2019 thank you very much okay and we are now gonna jump to item number 57 57 var seven six six five four applicant owner Elsa you dear Ania for possible action on a request for a variance to allow a 40-foot front yard setback for the principal dwelling unit where 50 feet is required in a 20-foot front yard setback for an attached Porticus share where 30 feet is required at the south southwest corner of Dimmick Avenue and Helen Avenue Ward 5 staff recommends denial could get the staff report please mr. chairman staff finds this request to be self imposed hardship and is recommending denial of the request please note additional letters of support have been received since publication thank you thank you very much forget your name and address for the record please first of all good evening and thank you for everyone taking their time to be on my case my name is Elsa Hadid anayia my address is 36 60 yes I going to Avenue Las Vegas Nevada a nine one one five and I'm the owner of this property our intention is just to build a new single-family and president and the secretary and the corner of heaven Avenue and to make up any obstacles about a nine one three zero proposing a front yard setback of 20 feet portrait coach here where the title 1906 0 60 requires a 30 feet take back and we're also proposing a front yard setback or at the 40 feet to the primary drilling we're titled 1906 0-60 require a 50-foot setback thank you anything else you'd like to add to the project about the application the reason why we're asking for that it just the requested to do request that reduce it back is to have extra room for the yard for a future proof of the kids went skipping a little more privacy for ourselves and for our kids and our neighbors as well okay thank you very much this was notice as a public hearing anyone from the public like to be heard seeing no one I will close the public hearing and turn over to the Commission Commissioner Williams Thank You mr. chair I would like to on variance seven six six five four motion for approval okay there's a motion on the floor please cast your votes please post and that motion carries and mr. chairman that item will go forward to City Council and be heard as a part of their agenda on September 4th 2019 thank you thank you very much okay we're now jumping back to items thirty-three thirty-four abeyance GPA seven five nine five four and Thank You Commissioner Williams for for staying with us tonight to get through the appreciative abeyance I'm GPA seven five nine four seven five nine five four applicant on our Gold L tre LLC for possible action request for a general plan amendment from dr2 SC at 54 45 north rainbow boulevard Ward for staff recommends approval item number 31a Banzi oh and seventy-five 955 for possum and request for a rezoning from re to see one what four staff recommends approval related item 32 var seven six six nine six for possible action request for variance to allow 36 parking spaces where 65 are required what floor staff recommends denial item number 33 var seven six six nine seven for posturing request for a variance to allow a ten-foot residential adjacency setback where 75 feet is required wart floor staff recommends denial and related item 34 SDR seven six six nine eight four possible requests for site develop and plan review for proposed 7632 square foot general retail building in a 1,400 square foot restaurant with drive-through lane with waivers to allow the building not to be orientated to the street frontage where such as required a 5-foot landscape above for along the north and these property lines where eight fee is required a six foot landscape buffer along the South property line where eight fee is required and in 10-foot landscape up four along the West Berlin where 15 feet is required staff recommends denial we get staff report please mr. chairman the rainbow Boulevard north corridor plan recommends commercial development near and rainbow intersection and on vacant parcels most accessible to the surrounding residential subdivisions the subject parcel is along rainbow Boulevard a 100 foot primary arterial and has no other access except rainbow Boulevard staff finds the proposed general plan amendment and rezoning request to be compatible with surrounding development and recommends approval of these requests however as evidenced by the requested variances and Labor's staff finds repose development to be too intense for the subject parcel and recommends denial of the site level and plan review and variance request please note that there are additional letters of protest and support since publication thank you thank you very much can I get your name and address for the record please as James Smith 91 59 west.flamingo Las Vegas representing the applicants we have said before we've obeyed this item a couple times so trying to work with staff they've had a lot of comments and we've been we working the site plan this is the latest when I noticed that in the plan there's the old one this is the newest one that we've worked with them upon their recommendation we've tried to incorporate so many of the of their requests increasing the landscape buffer where this drive-thru is provides shielding to the neighborhood across the street that we are set back here we have according to the plan it would be a 75-foot adjacency setback would would be basically half the property we would like to instead of doing that we've incorporating a an intense landscape buffer in the back here's what we're trying to do instead of a 20-foot on Center tree we're going with every ten foot trees along this back to make it more intense currently it's from a ten foot to twelve and a half foot since the property is such an unusual parallelogram we were trying to orient it the best we can and work with the site that we have citizens never been developed that's probably the reason why it's been so unusual in its structure and so when this North corridor rainbow quarter came through we were trying to incorporate many of those items to make this enhancing but in dealing with the staffing of the report and that's to intensive of a use I've talked with the develop the applicant and we're willing to reduce this we are building 10 15% to make the parking variance a little bit more palatable we feel that by getting this down to around 6500 square feet we feel that we can get 10 to 12 more parking spaces getting this up to around 52 to 55 total we're 60 probably we'd have to do the calculation would be very close to the the required parking some of the other questions I saw that the trash and the old parking was in this location here now it's it's in compliance with the 50-foot from the from the adjacent property line and I'm here to answer any other questions that you may have Thank You mr. Smith I'm gonna go to the public hearing portion I do have some questions when we come back this is notice as a public hearing anyone from the public like to be heard please state your name and address to the record reasons why your your for or against please good evening commissioners Keith lead is six six zero for Madison e Glen Avenue president of the Timber Creek homeowners association which would be ten feet away from this proposed building so clarification items 30 and 31 are debate inside them but 32 through 34 is the first time we've been heard about it as you can see from their own agenda it's not an abeyance item 32 to 34 for 30 and 31 our community's neutral I'm personally I'm supportive of the zone change so I appreciate yes of recommendation it's in the night to council but for 32 to 34 we'd still like to have an advance that we're not designing at the podium to see what this new 6,500 square foot building what more parking spaces would look like our big issues that we did present at the April 15th meaning with a different representative of the Kent was asking to be consistent our neighborhood was required to have 15 feet of landscaping all around it the gas station to the north was required to have a 15-foot landscaping all around it we would like to still have 15 foot of landscaping to have two rows of trees backed up to our houses as proposed I'm assuming they're gonna build a wall because this site is higher than ours you know the six inch thick wall four and a half feet for trees a five foot walkway then they're building I don't know how you get an intense buffer with four four foot six inches with a four trees to grow that's even a ten foot on center or two foot on center they're not gonna grow they're not going to become both a buffer so if this building was moved ten more feet away from our property lines to have a variance of 20 feet where 75 feets allowed that would still allow it to a 15-foot landscape buffer then the walkway if the whole site was moved that ten feet on the front side along rainbow if the drive-thru did not circle back into the parking lot if instead it was allowed to exit with a twelve foot wide exit only driveway on the rainbow if that building could then now be pushed over it by the exact same ten feet and now they wouldn't need a variance for their front yard landscaping and they'd have at least 15 footer landscaping that the gas station was allowed to put in in case the applicant remarks on the sites of the north was allowed a shed with slightly closer setbacks one that ship was built back before our community was built into their site plan has a condition that that site stays and looks as if it's a residential structure whereas this typically is not going to look like a residential structure the last issue that's not landscaping is the proposed drive-through speaker 50 feet away from the property line if it's not clear on this plan where I think this is what's supposed to be but well probably the drivers gonna be ordering so probably the speaker is gonna be over here and so probably those people are going to be facing our community during the day it's not that big of a deal but if it's a 24-hour drive-through at 2:00 in the evening anyone with their windows open or enjoying their second story of their house is just gonna have people ordering food all night so we've asked that by the drive-through speaker that either a sound wall we put up a 8 by 20 car lengths wall by the speaker to block the sound or if that's not acceptable a similar restriction that was placed by the City Council agreed to by the applicant of the gas station which is that the gas station can't operate their carwash after 7 p.m. they can only operate their carwash from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. if we're not able to get a buffer for the the ordering area then we'd ask for a time restriction to only have the drive-through operation from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. and the applicant has my name phone or an email that I gave him on April 15th and last week we'd appreciate a neighborhood meeting on these last three items thank you thank you very much can I have your name and address please for the record yes Thank You Jeremy my name is Anthony Brown address is 55 11 Jim and I Burgess Street Las Vegas Nevada 8 9 1 3 0 I'm a resident and one of the houses directly east of the proposed site I'm in the northernmost property there's three properties that are east of the site my back door is approximately 18 feet from the standing wall now and with the proposed six foot I guess egress from the from the wall I'm asking a 2 that we have at least 15 feet with the higher wall I have small children they play in the backyard and as much buffering as we can provide as well as we will have to provide some buffering ourselves by way of landscaping to make sure that there's separation again also as chairman art Keith was was stating that the the voice box will be within earshot of our window our back window so our master bedroom window is upstairs right behind facing that proposed drive-through area and so we can hear pretty much everything from that from that window so we just ask that it potentially be placed in a different area thank you thank you mr. Brown for coming out I appreciate it anyone else from the public like to be heard in this item see no one else I'll close the public hearing and mr. Smith I'll give you a couple minutes for rebuttal if you like great we're certainly willing to work with the neighbors since this is such a an odd-shaped piece this real landscaping is it can't be straight it's ten foot currently to twelve and a half foot on the bottom we could we could work out a deal but perhaps we're 15 foot would be the average so we could hopefully do something like that a 15 foot average in the landscaping like I said we were willing to reduce this size we really can't move the building any forward because we're working on parking here so we can you know we can change this a foot and a half and get that 15 foot average ten foot let's see if whatever would be since it's an odd shaped piece so we're going to work with this we're landscaping to make it compatible the speaker you can have the speaker face rainbow that shouldn't be a problem at all I think would be willing to do those types of things okay well I'll turn it over to the Commission for discussion I'll start off by saying I think that staff and mr. Lee dose of mr. brown spot-on I don't have a problem supporting items number 30 and 31 number 32 through 34 which is the first time we're hearing it has not been a bade I think it just doesn't fit the way it is and it needs to be worked on I'm going to go to Commissioner Toussaint and in my opinion the whole thing should be obeyed and come back with a with a meeting in a site plan that works but I will leave it to Mission Commissioner Tucson to discuss no mr. chairman I agree with you I think you can you can't approve part of a project to not approve the entire project until you actually know what's going on so my recommendation would be to have a neighborhood meeting and to obey this to whatever the next available date is so we can have a complete plan so everybody knows where they're at mr. chairman if I may since it sounds like there may be amended plans I would request that if an abeyance is approved anticipating amended plans that it be at least a 30-day of bands so that that neighborhood meeting can occur quickly and any amended plans can be submitted to the Planning Department in enough time to make the backup and that would be August 27th meeting is that what you're saying I believe that's the August 27th meeting yes ma'am mr. Smith would you be agreeable to them yes the way I think we can work that out okay then that's my motion okay there's a motion on the floor to obey until the August 27th Planning Commission meeting please cast your votes please post and that motion carries thank you mister thank you Lutie moving on to items number 35 through 40 item number 35 GPA 7-5 993 applicant wheeler read quote read coach mini-storage owner investment Solutions Inc for possible action requests for a general plan amendment from o to SC at 68 85 West read coach Avenue Ward for staff recommends denial item number 36 0 and 75 986 for possible action request for rezoning from o to c1 or for staff recommends denial item number 37 VAR 7 5 9 8 7 purpose wash and request for a variance to 11 parking spaces where 12 are required Ward force staff recommends denial related item number 38 the VAR 75 988 for possible request for a variance to allow a 70 foot setback to the west and an 85 foot setback to the north where residential adjacency standards require 117 feet Ward for staff recommends denial related item number 39 SCP 75 989 for possible and request for a special use permit for proposed mini storage facility use at 68 85 west red coach Avenue word for staff recommends denial related item 40 STR 75 9 9 0 4 paw special requests for a site development plan review for proposed three-story 56,000 400 square foot 324 unit mini storage facility with a waiver to allow a 0 foot landscape up for what 8 feet is required along portions of the east and south property lines Ward 6 staff recommends denial tweet the staff report please mr. chairman the density and intensity of the post service commercial general plan designation is not compatible with the existing surrounding office and office professional land use designations and would allow encroachment of more intense commercial uses upon existing residential neighborhoods where such commercial uses are not appropriate residential adjacency additionally as evident by the requested variances and waiver staff finds the proposed development to be too intense for the subject parcel staff therefore recommends denial of all applications please note that there is a revised aerial map and a revised revised staff report parking table in your supplemental items packet also note that their additional letters of protest and support since publication thank you thank you very much can I get your name and address for the record please yes good evening Liz Delk 1980 Festival Plaza Drive here on behalf of the applicant and property owner if I could direct your attention to the overhead please thank you this property is approximately 1 acre located just west of rainbow north of Craig we're on the corner of red coach and balsam we are currently adjacent to an existing Church to the south of us is a three-story charter school we have a County RNP Island here of residential and just above them to the north is a two and three-story apartment complex we are requesting a GPA in zone change from office to c1 to allow for a mini storage facility this property was approved for an office building back in 2008 and we believe that did not go forward because this property does not have any frontage on to rainbow and it likely would not survive with that use subsequently it was approved for commercial use of an indoor batting cage that also subsequently fell through we believe that the mini storage facility will be far less impactful than either an office use or a everyday commercial use during our neighborhood meeting there was a couple of concerns first was the hours of operation we originally had a 24-hour use we are agreeing to do a 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. use only and then we would close the gates and we would not let anyone in an additional issue that was requested was to put a crash gate on the balsam exit we are more than happy to do that however looking at the plans we don't believe there's enough room to navigate u-haul trucks back there so we can certainly look more into that but as of right now we don't think that will work for this site and the last concern was the three-story height of the building we are requesting to go 238 feet where 35 feet is permitted this is the Charter School that is directly across the street from us which is also 38 feet in height and as I mentioned the apartments to the north of the residential also are three-story they do have some two-story buildings in there but the majority are three storeys so with that said I'm happy to answer any questions thank you thank you very much this is notice as a public hearing anyone from the public like to be heard please come forward we do have three microphones so if there's others please can come forward now I'll need you name an address to the record sir my name is mark mccurdy I live at forty five 97 balsam Street I like to I would like to present it a commission okay this is the proposed site of the building here is the Mormon Church directly across the street this corner parcel right here is the 1.1 acres that I live on I'd like to also present to you if I get human on this place this is what my property looks like foliage this is a residential area yes we have the charter school right down the street we also have why when I open up my curtains in the morning I'm looking at the Mormon Church this is a neighborhood this apartment complex that has been mentioned fits very well as far as aesthetics into our neighborhood it's not overbearing it's not putting something there that the majority of the neighbors you know it goes okay we've had no problems from there this on the other hand is something that our my neighbors are very adamant about you know this is not something I bought this home in retirement okay I'm retiring in two years that's that was my goal am i open on my front windows I do not want to see this that's Washington thank you for coming out tonight can I get your name and address for the record please if you could just pull the microphone towards you thank you my name is Karen Cale I live at 45 97 North balsam I have been there for the majority of the time my parents built that home from the ground up 50 years ago a little over 50 years ago the people that live around us it's my main concern is the traffic Boston was just and red coach it's two lanes to build a storage facility there would produce quite a bit of traffic whereas now we do have a lot of traffic just from the charter school because their only way in and out to drop their children off is on blossom don't have a problem with that but I'm afraid that if we get a storage unit there there's going to be a lot of traffic with people coming and going and with the kids I just don't see where I know the type of people that normally people who are using a storage unit you know been displaced from their homes and I just hate to see more traffic especially with all the kids that are coming in and out from that charter school and the Mormon Church that's never a problem because on Sundays is the only time they have people coming in and out I just have concerns with the school being so close to that and with all the variances you know that is a mighty tall building in my opinion thank you very much anyone else from the public like to be heard seeing no one else I ask the applicant to come back for and they'll give you a couple minutes for a rebuttal if you like thank you let's talk again for the record I'm just quickly traffic obviously many storages are very very very low traffic it would be much lower than an office building landscaping we are providing 25 feet of landscaping on the north side of the property and 15 feet along the west side of our property I'm adjacent to the residential but otherwise that's all I have thank you thank you very much I'm gonna go to Commission to savvier for the record that I believe that the the use of the warehouse storage unit would be far less greater than the use of an office I think matching the height that what's already pre-existing around there and like was stated by the people that stood up here being a Tulane I get I think this would be the less intense use I mean that's why I would support it as we talked when we had a meeting is because of the use of going from office to this I think is downgrading and and making it not so intrusive and then agreeing to the hours of operation it's no different than the hours operation of that church or the hours our operation of that summer said school so for that I support it Thank You Commissioner selves you know Commission in Tucson yes you know something is going to go in this property and this is less intrusive than a restaurant or a commercial building and I know that you have neighborhood meeting and I think the applicant has done everything to try into a piece of the homeowners obviously we're not gonna make everybody happy but something is definitely going to go there and most people who go to a storage unit put their stuff in there and they take it out at Holiday time and then they put it back in I mean they're not usually they're not there all the time I know I used to live not too far from a storage unit and I almost never saw anybody go in and out of there except if it was a holiday time so you have my support on this I like I said I drove down there i sat there on the corner looking on balsam looking to see what kind of traffic was on there now I realize school is out right now so there wasn't any school traffic but I was there for a half hour drinking my Starbucks and I think I saw two cars so I would like to make a motion if anybody else has something to say just quickly before we make a motion and I agree with you saying it doesn't have a gate currently on the plan and you talked about a crash gate is that it I'm sorry I on the drive that goes in the back side of it correct so right now we come in and then go out onto balsam here there's a gate here so once you're yes there's a gate here so once you pass that that's the exit and there's obviously lighting on that back side over there so right we would have lighting it would all be low level lighting pointing away from the residential yeah just because it creates kind of a corridor you know with the school there and all right just to make sure like your show your other projects there they're maintained in the security and everything around it yes everyone's sensitive to that commissioner do the traffic is during the day so if the residents were sleeping I realized we're at 25 or town but like I said I sat there for a good 20 25 minutes and I didn't see I saw two cars so on item number 35 GPA 759 I moved to approval with all conditions thank you there's a motion on the floor please cast your vote please post and that motion carries item number 36 zero in seven five nine eight six moved to approve with conditions thank you there's a motion on the floor please cast your vote please post and that motion carries item number 37 var 75 nine eight seven moved to approve with conditions thank you there's a motion on the floor please cast your votes please post and a motion carries number 38 var seven five nine eight eight moved to approve with conditions motion on the floor please cast vote please post in that motion carries item number 39 su p 75 nine eight nine moved to approve with conditions thank you there's a motion on the floor please cast your vote please post and that motion carries and number 40 FDR 75 nine nine zero moved to approve with conditions in Commissioner was that with the condition that there is The Times amended yes to be closed I believe is 6:00 a.m. it was 6:00 a.m. to 8 p.m. 8 p.m. and you're greeted with mr. chairman if I might we'll tack that condition on to the special use permit oh sorry about that thank you director okay there's a motion on the floor please cast your votes please post and that motion carries thank you Thanks and mr. chairman those items will all move forward to City Council and be heard as a part of their agenda on September 4th 2019 thank you moving on to items number 46 through 50 item number 46 Gon seven six six three seven applicant gray stone and Nevada Bradley Romo states LLC for posish and request for rezoning from re to Rd on the east side of Bradley Road north of Rome Boulevard Ward 6 staff recommends approval related item var seven six six three eight for possible action requests for a variance to allow a 21-foot front yard setback on lot work lot six where 25 feet is required Ward six staff recommends approval related item number 48 var 7 6 6 3 9 4 ' reinstall a 21 foot front yard setback on lot 9 where 25 feet is required Ward 6 staff recommends approval I don't know if 49 var 7 6 6 4 1 4 plus watch and request for variance to allow a connectivity ratio of 1.0 or 1.3 is the minimum required staff recommends approval and finally related item number 50 TMP 7 6 6 4 2 for possible action request for a request for a tentative map for a 14 lot single-family residential subdivision with the waivers to allow us 160 4-foot intersection offset were 220 feet is required Ward 6 staff recommends approval can we get the staff report please mr. chairman the proposed rezoning would allow detached single-family residences on Lots with a minimum square footage of 10,000 square feet which is compatible with the existing single-family residences surrounding the subject site staff supports the rezoning request in regards to the various requests evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance has been presented and that the subject site is an infill piece that is surrounded by existing single-family homes that did that do not provide into your access or the ability to obtain into your access in order to be at the required connectivity ratio the only option available to the applicant is a cul-de-sac to accommodate the cul-de-sac and to maintain uniformity within the proposed subdivision the applicant is requesting variances to allow reduced front yard setback for lot six and nine staff supports the variance requests and recommends approval of all applications please note that that your supplemental items packet includes neighborhood meeting information provided by the applicant also note that there are additional letters of protest and support since publication thank you thank you very much name and address to the record please Doug Rankin 1055 win near Ranch Road his Henderson Nevada on behalf the applicant as staff indicated this is an infill parcel the general plan for this area allows densities up to eight point four nine units per acre our projects proposed at three point three and is in conformance and consistent with the general plan the request is the rezone the property two Rd zoning which will act as a buffer between the re properties own properties in the r1 property next to us staff indicated we we have lots of range in the size of ten thousand six approximately ten thousand six hundred square feet up to over 40 over sixteen thousand square feet we do need a conductivity ratio variance and our hardship is we have no other choice as staff has indicated and I concur with them our setback variances occur on these two Lots where the cul-de-sac bubble encroaches in the front yard setback on the portion of the radius curve at these two locations here I do point out that if this was an re property our setback requirement would be twenty feet these are Rd Lots which are in between and re and an r1 and the variance request is appropriate and then just for pretty picture purposes here are elevations for this product I'm here to answer any questions thank you for your time thank you very much this is notice as a public hearing any word from the public like to be heard in this item see no and I will close the public hearing turn over at the Commission Thank You mr. chairman just for the record I did attend the neighborhood meeting out of I think twelve or thirteen that showed up only one person was against it everybody else was for it it is harmonious incredible I passed this property at least every Sunday what I'd love to stop doing that if he can make my wife stops enemy Costco but with that said I will make a motion to approve item number 46 if there's no other comments is the motion on the floor please cast your votes zo in 7 6 6 3 7 motion for approval thank you please post and that motion carries item number 47 var 7 6 6 3 8 motion for approval thank you as a motion on the floor please cast your votes please post then that motion carries item number 48 VAR seven six six three nine motion for approval is a motion on the floor please cast your votes please post in that motion carries item number 49 var seven six six four one motion for approval thank you there's a motion on the floor please cast your vote please post and that motion carries n item number 50 TMP seven six six four two motion for approval please cast your votes please post and that motion carries thank you for your time and consideration unfortunately there's nothing we can do with the condition on Costco's sunday runs by Commissioner to salvia and you have my support I'll see you on Sunday if I'm there and mr. chairman those items will move forward to City Council and be heard as a part of their agenda on September 4th 2019 thank you okay moving on to related items 52 through 54 52 var 76 702 applicant George Kakaako stoner DNA real property LLC for possible action on a request for a variance to allow 846 parking spaces were 970 required at 400 South Decatur Boulevard Ward 1 staff recommends approval related item 53 su p76 703 for possible action request for a special use permit for multi-family residential use Ward 1 staff recommends approval related item 54 sdrs seven six seven zero four four possible action on a request for a site development plan review for proposed three-story 220 unit multifamily development and a four-story mixed-use development consisting of 260 residential units and 16,000 square feet of commercial space Ward 1 staff recommends approval before I go to staff I'll go to the Commissioner rogen Thank You mr. chairman I do need to abstain on these matters 2:54 my mother-in-law's the vice president of Nevada hand the applicant Thank You commissioner for the disclosure I'll go to staff for the report mr. chairman the proposed development meets all title 19 requirements and is appropriate for the area as it is located near the corner of three major roadways and is adjacent to the Decatur Belov our commercial corridor among similarily zone properties the scale and design of the proposed development are appropriate for the area and will provide much needed affordable housing within redevelopment plan area 2 therefore staff recommends approval of all requests with conditions please note additional letters of protest and support have been received since publication thank you thank you very much can I get your name and address for the record please George you chew cake is 26:55 south rainbow boulevard suite for one las vegas and with me tonight is my co partner on this bob five woman with nevada hand in state your address 295 East Warm Springs Las Vegas thank you now we this is a new development it's been a vacant parcel that previously was occupied by Fletcher Jones Chevrolet after at a period of time he has sold the dealership for he leased dealership to Bill heard and unfortunately that site has been vacant now for the last ten years and the whole particular area has kind of deteriorated in time and this is one of the few appointed areas that have been pointed by the federal government and also the stages of that governor's sand of all this as an opportunities of opportunity zones are provided in the new tax bill do you go in there and renovate and restore hopefully revitalize neighborhoods this is just west of the meadows mall located at indicator and Alta it would be consisting of a total of 240 senior apartments okay with retail below and on the adjoining parcel which is the same part so just kind of kitty corner - it will be the multifamily family development of 240 units as well facing Meadows which just to the east of that goes into the metals mall but this will be the retail will consist of new at 16,000 feet of commercial retail along with an out pad as well okay we do accept all the staffs conditions thank you very much this is known as a public hearing anyone from the public like to be heard please come to the microphone I'll give each person a couple of minutes tell us your name address if you're four against mr. Moshe I don't think the microphone is coming on is there a button thank you my name is Michael Moshe Bialek I live at four four one three K place which is old Hyde Park right across the street I am against this development okay I've lived in my house for 35 years it is my investment in my life since purchasing it not only as my my home it also has had to be wheelchair accept accessible for me so I've invested even more money into my residence my home this development is not going to help our safety as it is right now petty crime has gone nuts in our neighborhood we have people coming in from what used to be senior housing is now low-income housing and they walk through and we have parcels disappearing from our porches we have our mail stolen out of mailboxes you can't go in there if you're working on your yard and you go in for a glass of water you're lucky if your tools are still there the same thing holds true for Arizona Charlie's I was here when when they were first put up and a lot of promises were made about the control of our neighbor it's none of those who phoned have come to pass then Walmart and we have our fashion parade going up and down Essex and now 260 plus temporary homes these are places for people to live until they're tired of being living there they can leave I live in a 70 year old neighborhood and I've lived there for half of that time period I want to be safe and secure Metro does not come through and make patrols in our neighborhood Metro does not send random powers through our neighborhood there's no fear of consequence even when they're caught because the metros first words are well you got your property back you're not gonna press charges we can't afford to have that kind of housing come into our established neighborhoods now I can't speak for what opportunities there are opportunists are gonna be there for it but adding temporary housing which an apartment does apartment dwelling does constitute it's not going to keep us safe and secure we're a good neighborhood we've been there forever we're over almost 80% owner-occupied that's that's saying something okay we're not the best we're certainly not down there in Campbell Road but Hyde Park is still a good neighborhood and so because of that I urge you not to pass this thanks for coming out tonight can I get your name and address to the record please pardon oh good evening my name is Robert pergola 5:00 9:00 to 5:00 Shawnee Avenue Las Vegas Nevada a9 1:07 Robert could you spell your last name for me real quick using all RI because in Boyd ila thank you I have lived in my residence just a half a mile east of west of where this Duvall was going to go for forty six years now and I can attest this gentleman's saying but the things going downhill my truck was stolen three weeks ago which makes me very unhappy about that but that's that's neither here nor there Mike my contention is there are so many apartments already on Russia Avenue just north of the expressway on just north of Jones on on the east side between Charleston and and I think this this is whatever the way I read this this will be 480 more apartments in there is that correct that's correct that's that seems like an astronomical amount especially when Red Rock school is already burgeoning at the seams where all these children going to go to school I only found out about this two days ago and my understanding in this weave from what I read was this is supposed to be just a senior complex to begin with now it's my understanding reading this as small a family think I am totally against this okay thank you very much thank you my name is Rita prevalence 59 25 Shawnee Avenue and I'm worried about the schooling for these children because when they put in and meadows Lane Red Rock was over abundant all the kids had to come to school now if you add all these other families homes and apartments yet along with it it's gonna be chaos there's nowhere in that area to put any more rooms they have they have portables now and there's no more room in there to put any more portables so that's my consistence about the whole thing thank you very much you're welcome thank you anyone else like to be heard sir I got to keep the meeting going sorry thank you very much is there anyone else that needs to be heard in the public hearing seeing no one else I'm gonna close the public hearing ask the applicant to come back up and I'll give you a couple minutes for rebuttal like you got a check for some cherry as I said it's 240 senior apartments and all long medals right now you have a considerable amount of older 20 year old multifamily I remember Jim hammer was developing their property and also the residential neighborhood to the west but also this property is on Decatur it's a half a mile away from where the residents were referring to developing this property will enhance the neighborhood and development will keep crime away the development is completely negated and then the adjoining the development the multifamily will be as I said 240 units of families and that faces meadows so why would you like to say anything in regard to it I did meet with the mayor in regard to this and I did meet with former councilman Tarkanian and they both welcome this development it would enhance the neighborhood and improvement it was close to where the old meadow school was located thank you okay anything else just we would accept all the staffs conditions thank you very much I just got a question because you keep saying 240 senior there's 240 units of seniors and then on the other part of the property which is it's all one part so it kind of has a gooseneck in the middle and then opens up again to Meadows Lane it'd be 240 units of families both of these communities are separate from each other and they we'll be gauging the senior side will be facing all - it'll be facing Decatur and it will have the retail component - story in height and then two stories of apartments above that and the rest of the ability will be four stories in height okay thank you well the Commissioner had to abstain I will take the lead on some comments here you know I I do hear what the the three people from the public came up and said I will say you know I live in a neighborhood on Las Vegas Boulevard in Charleston where we have very established neighborhoods and then we have new projects that have come in I've lived in one of them now for over a decade and everyone in our building looks forward to the new project that comes forward with housing especially when it's appropriate ease own like this one we're not asking for a zone change here and I see you know a project that's gonna turn lights on that's gonna have seniors in a community which is extremely important I look at this area is a real feeder for downtown for housing as well I think it's something that's a appropriate for the area you know I understand the fear of what's happening today but I will say once the development starts if it starts if it gets approved you're gonna have a lot more eyes on this area than you do now and I think that's ultimately gonna help the neighborhood not hurt the neighborhood well this could be something that is brought forward that see to that it's an intense commercial I think that wouldn't be the way to go with this parcel I think that would lend itself more to maybe or maybe not to what the residents had brought up but I think being residential and then something that fits with senior living I think this is gonna be a good foot for this area so I will be supporting the applications Commissioner Tucson mr. chairman I agree with you and I know this property I brought me a very first card Fletcher Jones actually a lot very very long time ago I think this is a perfect fit for this for this application I really do and anytime we can provide senior living for seniors that's affordable I'm all I'm all for it since I am a senior and you will have my support tonight thank you I just just for clarification I'm just wrapping my head around it so the senior portion of this there's it is that more closest to the existing 70 year old community and then the mixed use family is more towards the decatur side know the senior portion is right on Decatur and the if I can I can see my finger here this is the senior portion of it right here and then this gooseneck portion here that faces meadows is the multifamily and it's directly across from some other older multifamily that was developed 20 years ago and if I may point out just to the west of the site are two large multifamily developments that are over 8 storeys in height and were only 4 storeys in height where I think we're much more compatible to the neighborhood and if I could just add this to the Nevada housing division has already provided a portion of the financing for in the city of Las Vegas is some of the other financing is coming from the city of Las Vegas their taxes and bonds and the rest of it will be provided by the Nevada housing division so you know we've have a great collaboration of a good working relationship with the state and the city and in regard to this entire development thank you for the clarification because that's what I was worried about I wanted to make sure that the seniors had access and they were more encroaching on the existing 70 year old community maybe for Less intrusiveness or whatever and then maybe put the multifamily in an area that is a little bit more rambunctious because you say so for that I can I could support it thank you I'd like to make a motion to approve item 52 if there's no other comments and that would be var seven six seven zero - its motion on the floor please cast your votes please post and that motion carries I'd like to make a motion to approve su P seven six seven zero three item 53 so motion on the floor please cast your votes he's posed and that motion carries and item number 50 for SDR seven six seven zero four motion to approve the motion on floor please cast your votes please post in that motion carries and mr. chairman those items will move forward to City Council and be heard as a part of their agenda on September 4th 2019 thank you for your approval thank you you know if I could would you mind maybe taking their phone number just have a line or an email to have a line communication with it with the residents I'd appreciate that thank you okay moving on to items number 55 through 56 55 var 767 to zero applicant Silverstein Properties Inc owner Meadows Lane owner LLC for possible action request for a variance to allow 544 parking spaces where 597 are required on the north side of meadows lane east of Decatur Boulevard Ward 1 staff recommends denial related item 56 d SD r 7-6 7 21 for possible action request for a major amendment of an approved site development plan review for a 5-story 334 unit multifamily residential development where a six-story 280 unit development was approved staff recommends denial and before I ask for the report I will disclose that I have talked to one of the applicants representative representatives involved about other projects in the past we haven't done anything this won't affect me any greater or lesser way so I will be voting tonight can I get the staff report please mr. chairman the applicant has increased units and amenities without supplying sufficient parking to accommodate them and the staff is recommending denial of the applications please note additional letters of support have been received since publication thank you thank you very much inter naming addresses that completes good evening Jennifer lavage 1980 Festival Plaza Drive here tonight on behalf of the applicant as some of the commissioners here may know this project was previously approved about November of last year it is located just west of meadows mall and to the north of us the 95 and to the south of us is Meadows Lane the project would be located right here since that time the property owner the now property owner has selected a local development partner to construct this project and the changes that were made include removal of all three-bedroom units and the three-bedroom units that we used to have have now been converted into either a studio one-bedroom or two-bedroom so our unit count did go up from what was previously approved as you may recall there was a desire the first time we have this project heard and this time to have an oversized Clubhouse with amenities for our own residence I want to make that very clear this is a gated apartment project it is not open to the public our Clubhouse wouldn't be open to the public but its oversized and it exceeds what would typically be referred to as accessory so when you get into an oversized amenity like that it requires its own amount of parking to go with it so the first time I was here I made this argument that we asked for the parking variance because we didn't want to provide additional parking for something that's only for our residents it's the same situation here I have asked the applicant to make sure that if the clubhouse was taken away we met the parking that would be required for our residences and they have assured me that that is true however the addition of this larger Clubhouse necessarily asks for the variance to reduce the parking so we would ask for your consideration of approval of that again being consistent with what we had the last time that we were in front of you we did do a voluntary neighborhood meeting dr. Wagner who is a dentist who owns a building a couple of buildings to the west of us attended and was satisfied with our changes and what the project was looking like now and with your permission I just want to address two other points the first time we were here there is an existing billboard that is located right adjacent to us 95 we agreed to and asked for a condition that that billboard would remain in its current location and that is a condition of the prior site plan I've had dialogue today with planning we do not need to restate that condition for this site plan review because that condition from the first site plan will remain in effect but I just want to make it clear for the record that with this redesign of this site plan that billboard still real will remain in its current location as its there today and then finally we did work with Public Works I'd like to thank them for working with us when our development partner came on board and took a closer look at some of the conditions there was a request that we spend some more time working with public works on conditions number 12 and 13 so to that end they have agreed with us adding the following words at the end of each of these conditions for condition number 12 we would ask that the condition be amended to add at the very end of that last sentence unless an alternative is proposed to and approved by the City Engineer and on condition number 13 at the very end of that condition we would ask that it be amended to read unless an alternative is proposed to and approved by the city traffic engineer this gives us the flexibility to sit down with your either city engineer or city traffic engineer and see if there's alternatives that they may accept so we do appreciate them agreeing to work with us on that and I would be happy to answer any questions thank you very much there's notice as a public hearing anyone from the public like to be heard in this item seeing no one I will turn it over to the Commission Commissioner Robin thank you mister chair I have no questions for the applicant I just want staff to agree or disagree with the statements that were made by the applicant with regard to both the amended conditions and public works 12 and 13 as well as the understanding that the Billboard would remain property 3 mr. chair I can answer the billboard question we did have email correspondence with applicant or the today we did clarify that based on the conditions of the original STR the Billboard will remain and Public Works can answer the ad one mr. chairman through you Roger Bailey's Public Works Public Works does agree with those conditions as amended I have no further comments like to make a motion yes I'll make a motion for approval with conditions on item 55 variance 7 6 7 2 0 thank you there's a motion on the floor please cast your votes please post and that motion carries mr. Sherr with regard to item 56 STR seven six seven two one they make a motion for approval as amended as amended playing conditions Thank You Commissioner there's a motion on the floor please cast your vote please post and that motion carries and mr. chairman those items are final action this evening unless appealed to the City Clerk's office within ten days thank you very much thank you moving on to item number 58 var seven six six five eight applicant owners Stanley Kozlovsky and Julie a lot of Chiu Julieta gray excuse me for possible action request for a variance to allow to existing accessory structures in front of the primary building where such is not allowed and to allow a zero foot separation from the main building where six feet is required at 53 eleven Manuel Drive award for staff recommends and I'll commute the staff report please mr. chairman staff finds this request to be a self-imposed hardship and is recommending denial of the request please note additional letters of support and protest have been received since publication thank you thank you very much can I get your name and address for the records please yeah chairman commissioners thank you first of all for your time this evening I'm Stan Kozlowski of 53:11 Manuel jive in Las Vegas eight nine one four nine looking for approval on this as we had purchased the home in early April these structures have been installed we don't even know how many years prior to that after about three weeks of living in the home we had received the notification that a few of our structures were not in compliance with zoning and so we started the process to get these approval but again they were in place when when we purchased the home they do sit behind an existing front wall and a gate so aesthetically they're really not noticeable from the street they do provide much-needed shade as that part of the house faces west and the garage was actually converted to a living space so without the garage we really use these car ports to kind of park our cars and keep them cool in the summer another another thing we do spend a lot of time out in the front of the house our grandkids love to ride their bikes out there and it was really one of the main reasons that would purchase the home was kind of the cool little uniqueness of not just the front but some of the areas in the back okay thank you very much this was noticed as a public hearing anyone from the public like to be heard seeing no one I'll turn over to the Commission Commissioner Tucson yeah mr. Kozlowski I was at your house on Saturday I was I was sitting there and I it was hard to see what the structures are because of the way that that fence is in front of your driveway I know it's been there for a very very long time and you'll have my approval tonight I don't have any problem with it like to make a motion I'll make a motion number 58 var 7 6 6 5 8 to approve there's a motion on the floor please cast your votes please post that motion carries enjoy your new house thank you thank you and mr. chairman those items are that item rather is final action this evening less appeal to the City Clerk's office within 10 days thank you okay moving on to item number 59 var seven six six nine one applicant owner Alex K sorry for possible action request for variance to allow a thirty nine foot tall single-family dwelling where thirty five feet is allowed at 80 101 o'bannon Drive Ward one staff recommends denial can we get the staff report please mr. chairman staff finds this request to be a self-imposed hardship and is recommending denial the request please note additional letters of support and protest have been received since publication also we have an added condition of approval which reads all existing trees the north and east property lines of the property shall remain or be replaced if removed for construction purposes thank you thank you very much can I get your name and address yes good evening Liz Delk 1980 festival plus drive here on behalf of the applicant this property is a 2 acre portion of approximately five and a half acre piece of property on the corner of O'Bannon and Valdez the new property owner would like to take down the existing single-family home and build a new home two stories high but he does request a height increase up to that 39 feet the photo here on the top shows the incredible buffering of those beautiful trees that are around the property we would like to make sure that all of those trees stay which is why we are requesting to add that additional condition that was read into the record and happy to answer any questions thank you thank you very much mrs. notice there's a public hearing I wanted from the public like to be heard seeing no one I will turn it over to the Commission for discussion question erosion I have no questions or comments I would make a motion for approval with conditions as amended okay there's a motion on the floor please cast your votes yeah please post and I motion carries thank you good night mr. chairman and items final action this evening less appeal to the City Clerk's office within 10 days thank you very much moving on to citizens participation citizens participation public comment during this portion of the agenda must be limited to the matters within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission no subject may be acted upon by the Planning Commission unless that subject is on the agenda as scheduled for action if you wish to be heard come to the podium and give your name for the record the amount of discussion of any single subject as well as the amount of time any single speakers allowed may be limited anyone from the public like to be heard please come forward I'll need your name and address to the record sir Polly pretty cop junior 52 20 north Lisa Lane Las Vegas eight nine one forty nine I'm here for the I wanted to know the results of the dispensary in the northwest that was it was out it was the application both of them were withdrawn without prejudice so it wasn't her tonight it was taken off the agenda is gonna be put back on her it could be put on in the future but at this point it's on we won't be hearing it anytime soon or you know unless they come back with an app application at which time if you live within the notification area you'll get another notification okay I didn't get it no I don't know where I got the notification I think my wife picked it up at albers is alert but I didn't get anything mailed to me can I you got my record of my address would I get something as long as it's within that is a thousand foot radius is that correct yeah it should be the thousand feet for I believe I'm sorry Thank You chairman 1500 1500 feet and so yes as the chairman mentioned that items been withdrawn at this time so the applicant could come back with an additional request at a later date but give and the reason why they withdrew it which was neighborhood opposition I don't anticipate a new nother application at that location and this time excellent it was I just want it was a lot of a lot of opposition here for that yeah if it does come back there's also a posting in the window I believe of the shopping center proposed shopping center so if you do see that that's another reason to stop read it and come to the meeting okay in the shopping center with that that was the shopping center on the on the north east corner of Cragen Tenaya thank you thank you thank you anyone else like to be heard would the mr. Klein would you like to be heard today nothing got the whole team okay all right meeting adjourned thank you