I think everybody will call this meeting to order Jena item number two the meeting has been properly noticed and and posted in compliance with the Open Meeting Law these proceedings are being video recorded as well as presented live on KCl V cable channel - please know customers of the Century Link and Cox communication can view the program in high definition on channel 101 thousand - and in standard definition on channel two 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 slash live the proceedings will be rebroadcast Adhan kc lv and the web the Saturday of the meeting at 10:00 a.m. and Monday at midnight and the following Tuesday at 6 p.m. would everybody please stand for our Pledge of Allegiance madam clerk can you please call the roll chair Desalle vo president vice-chair schlattman present commissioner cherry president commissioner toussaint president Commissioner Williams Rosa Commissioner Chadda present Commissioner rogen present thank you thank you madam clerk to the public please I call your attention to the information printed in your agenda concerning these actions and the appeals and review process if appropriate please read this carefully and if you have any questions staff is available also the second page of the agenda contains the rules of conduct we appreciate your adhering to these rules so we can have a smooth meeting agenda item number four is a public comment during this portion of the agenda must be limited to matters on the agenda for action if you wish to be heard come to the podium and please give your name for the record the amount of discussion as well as the amount of time for a single speaker will be will be limited as any comments anybody wish to be heard under public comment seeing none I'll close it here and open it up to mr. Scott mr. chair for the record Brian Scott senior assistant city attorney just for one point of clarification on a meeting a few months ago I advised you that you're unable to hold an item at all and all for greater than 30 days based upon an ordinance I misspoke on that ordinance what did what I should have said is that you may table or hold an item for greater than 30 days if you desire to do that but if you do that the council may at its discretion pull that item from the hold and actually hear it by themselves and you would know how vulgar have any purview over the items so so tonight if you have an item you'd like to hold for greater than 30 days you're able to do that but just know that you run the risk that the council can take that away from you thank you mr. Scott moving on to agenda item number five for possible action to approve the final minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held on May 12 2020 Commissioner Sadhna yes that mr. chairman I moved to approve may 12 2010 meeting minutes you've heard a motion please cast your vote and that motion carries moving on to item number six for possible action any items from the planning commission staff or the applicant wish to be stricken or held in abeyance for to a further meeting may be brought forward and acted upon at this time any housekeeping items mr. chairman we have some housekeeping items the applicant wishes to obey item 64 to the July 14th 2020 Planning Commission meeting this is the first bias request for this item thank you Thank You commissioner something yes mr. chairman I would move to hold item 64 till the July 14th 2020 Planning Commission hearing made the motion please cast your vote and that motion carries moving on consent items consent items are considered routine by the Planning Commission may be enacted by one motion and one vote however any item that may be discussed if the commission members for the applicant so desires at this time I would entertain a motion for consent items seven through nine mr. chairman for item number nine TMP seven eight six six eight staff would like to delete condition number ten thank you please state your name for the record sorry mr. chairman Stephanie are on 1980 Festival Plaza Drive here on behalf of the applicant on item nine we're happy to have that deletion and appreciate staff working with us Thank You Commissioner slotland yes mr. chairman on items one through nine I would move I'm sorry on items 739 I'd moved to approve noting the deletion of condition number ten on item nine thank you for a demotion please cast your vote and that motion carries mr. chairman those items are final action this evening unless appealed to the City Clerk's office within seven days thank you Miss Sommerfeld okay moving on to one motion one vote the following items that may be considering one motion one vote they are considered routine on public and public hearing items all public hearing and on public hearing will be opened at one time any person representing an applicant or a member of the public or a member of the Planning Commission not in agreement with the conditions and the standards are contained for the application recommended by staff should request to have the item from this part of the agenda pulled okay moved on agenda item number ten var seven eight sixty five for the possible action a request for a variance to allow no streetscape improvements along a sheet Ling Road where such a required on the north west corner of Charleston Boulevard and sheathe Lane Road Ward one staff recommends approval item I'm gonna item 11 I'm a reading to the record but we're going to pull that and have that heard scp-784 six for the possible action a request for a special use permit for a proposed 15,000 600 square foot beer wine cooler off cell establishment with the use of the waiver to allow a 334 foot distance separation requirement where 400 feet is required at the 1000 or Thran toe drive Ward 5 staff recommends approval item number 12 for a possible scp-718 647 for the possible action or request for a special use permit for a proposed tattoo parlor slash body piercing studio use at 1520 South Main Street Ward 3 staff recommends approval I remember 13 SGP seven eight six five one for the possible action a request for a special use permit for a proposed 2900 or forty square foot beer wine cooler off cell establishment with use at 835 North Martin Luther King Boulevard Ward 5 staff recommends approval item number 14 SGP 7 8 654 for the possible action on a request for a special use permit for a proposed 240,000 199 square-foot liquor establishment tavern use with a waiver to allow a 0 foot distance separation from an existing liquor establishment tavern a 589 foot distance separation from a church slash house of worship and a 717 foot distance separation from an additional care center individual care center licensed for more than 12 children and 1050 for foot distance separation from city park where 1500 feet is the minimum distance separation required at 300 West to Hereward 3 staff recommends approval item number 15 SCP seven eight six six zero for the possible action and request for a special use permit for a proposed carwash full-service or auto detailing use at northwest corner of Iron Mountain Road and Sky Village Road Ward six staff recommends approval item number 16 su P seven eight six six one four the possible action a request for a special use permit for a proposed 624 square foot bail bondsmen service you said 33 one the zero of grass avenue or three staff recommends approval item number 17 SGP seven eight six eight three four the possible action a request for a special use permit for a proposed 1,800 square foot beer wine cooler off sale establishment use at 2401 West Bonanza Road Suite Q what five staff recommends approval I remember 18 SDR seven eight seven zero to four the possible action I request for a site development plan review for a proposed 8121 square-foot social service provider and restaurant development with eight thousand four hundred eighty seven square foot roof top deck and two thousand forty three square foot of outdoor plaza area on the south side of charleston Boulevard west of casino center Boulevard Ward three staff recommends approval and mr. chairman since you did read number eleven into the record if the applicant is here and comes forward and acknowledges that they're in acceptance of those conditions we can leave that on one motion one vote oh that would be great is the applicant here for item number eleven or the applicants representation it's su P seven eight six four six owner village Center Inc as there please come forward state your name for the record and let us know you're in agreement we're in agreement with staff recommendations Charles or one okay I'm fine with that commissioner son yes mr. chairman on items 10 through 18 mr. chair we have comments from the public on item number 16 okay let me open it up anybody any public comment here see none okay we have an opposition from Robin Freddie King of tu-95 three orchid Lane and Turlock California she indicates he opposes requests as I do not feel that additional bail bond services service within service businesses in lost downtown Las Vegas will raise residential property values we also have a opposition from Susan ray and she just states that she opposes that that application and just for clarification for me I'm sorry about that it was item 16 correct item 16 I think very much commissioner Slaton so through the chair if I may quickly on item number 12 I have a project that's right on the notification mine on item number 16 I live within the notification area and item number 18 I have a project within the notification area it doesn't affect me any greater or lesser so we'll be voting tonight mr. Jerry Shea also on item 10 I live within a notification area but it doesn't affect me any greater or lesser Thank You mr. chair on item number 89 launched with him the notification area but it's a restaurant and it's not gonna affect me any greater or lesser than anybody else so I'll be voting on that matter does anybody else own anything up here okay all the disclosures I'm going to go ahead and make a motion on items 10 through 18 for approval subject to staff's conditions Thank You ver the motion please cast your vote and that motion carries and mr. chairman items 10 through 12 items 14 through 16 and item 18 this evening your final action must appeal to the City Clerk's office within 10 days items 13 and 17 will move forward to be heard as part of the City Council agenda on July 22nd 2020 thank you thank you okay we're moving on to agenda item number 19 under public hearing items abeyance var seven eight four six eight for a possible action or request for a variance to allow a 21 foot tall freestanding sign where 12 feet is a maximum allowed a 240 square foot sign area where 48 square feet is the maximum allowed and to allow an electronic message unit where such is prohibited in Ward one staff report please mr. chairman although the applicant has decreased the intensity of the proposed various requests staff still finds no evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance to support the request and recommends denial thank you thank you please state your name for the record Maria Van Daan out in representing the applicant although we ask for consideration to allow for a taller sign in the PR zone I understand that word one does not want to approve any sort of request above and beyond what is allowable so I'm not sure anybody else's comments here but I would like to ask for some sort of a consideration okay thank you this is notice there's a public hearing but anybody from the public wish to be heard on this agenda item seeing then I'll close it here council no chair there are no I don't know lying comments I thank you I'll close that public hearing and turn it over to Commission Commissioner Brogan thank you I spoke to Maria previously last week about this item and I asked for a debate to be investigate something that you mentioned the last meeting which was with regard to other signs there were pretty much across the street from this residence that had taller that were taller than what was allowed and larger than what was allowed and investigating those it turns out that they're in a different zoning and they don't about residential properties so even though they are taller and they're on the same street because they're in different zonings they're the rules for signs they're different and after learning that I just don't see there's any justification for a taller larger sign that the applicant is requesting and I do appreciate you coming back here and just for the record just because I oppose it doesn't mean these commissioners can't disagree with me and I certainly would welcome their comments on this item but I think you'd be the only one with such a tall sign on that Street and it's certainly not allowed by code and there's no condition of the land that would justify a variance at this point in time so I would I would ask that it that you that it not be passed but opened up to the other commissioners Thank You Commissioner rogen Commissioner Slaton yes I also have concerns with it being so large and also I have a lot of concerns with any time we have a LED sign or any kind of animated sign whatever we want to call this on any of these corridors because I've been blinded in quite a few times up and down Las Vegas Boulevard and Sahara in other places and I know there's you know the little meter that you'll put on them to help help control that but I still get concerned when we started getting in to bigger signs what you can see what you can't see blocking traffic coming in and out of different parking areas so I do share some of those same concerns if I might add though we omitted the electronic message units and we reverted to a standard eliminated signs such as the signs across the street steady burn internally illuminated so no flashing okay I don't see any Commission rogen at this point I removed to deny item 19 var 7 8 4 6 8 fur demotion please cast your vote and that motion carries and mr. chairman that item is final action this evening unless appealed to the City Clerk's office within 10 days thank you thank you moving on to related items 20 through 21 mo d 7 8 7 0 7 for the possible action a request for a major modification of the Kyle Canyon development standards to amend the minimum lot size for the sky are to medium low density residential district to allow a 1280 square foot lot size for a townhome staff recommends approval item number Ward 6 staff recommends approval item number 21 TMP 7 8 7 0 8 for the possible action or request for a tentative map for a 133 lot townhome residential subdivision on the northeast corner of West Skye Canyon Park Drive and schember Road Ward 6 staff recommends approval staff report please mr. chairman staff finds the proposed lot size reduction revision to the sky r2 district for townhomes will not negatively impact the surrounding community and support sky Kenya's goal to provide a variety of homes and floor pants that meet an array of lifestyle needs from entry-level to luxury neighborhoods if the associated major modification has approved the proposed tentative map will conform to all NRS title 19 and sky canyon development standards and has been approved by the sky canyon design review committee staff recommends approval of both applications please note that their additional letters of support and protest sent publication thank you thank you please stay tuned for the record good evening Paul Kenner 43 63 South Jones we appreciate staff support on this from a standpoint of the major modification request it is allowed within the the townhome characteristic that we do have already in the development guidelines it does allow the same square footage and so we're just trying to equally apply it inside the r2 zonie category that does allow townhomes as well so we're not asking for something that is less than as already allowed just allowing it to be put into the r2 category and what I have in front of me our company does a lot of attached product in Colorado this specifically is in Denver this is there is some building materials that will be slightly different but this gives you an idea of the product that we're proposing to build at this location and we appreciate staff support and if you have any questions I'd be glad to answer thank you this is notice as a public hearing anybody wish to be heard on this agenda items seeing then I'll close the public hearing here turn it over to Council anybody on the computer no thank you okay I'll close the public hearing and have any comments this is seeing none this is my ward I don't have a problem I think it's a great product actually I've gotten a few calls in support I haven't had any any negative comments come in on this agenda item at least to me I went over this with the Mayor Pro Tem like I said I think it's a beautiful product it fits it works and with that said I motion seeing nobody else wants to make comment I'd make a motion to approve agenda item 20 mo d 7707 and that motion carries thank you motion to approve agenda item 21 TMP seven eight seven zero eight and that motion carries thank you and mr. chairman those items will both go forward to City Council and be heard as a part of their agenda on July 22nd 2020 Thank You mr. Sommerfeld moving on related items 22 to 23 22 0 & 7 8 3 8 2 for the possible action or request for a rezoning from CV and R 3 2 c1 at 1260 and 1300 ins Avenue award five staff recommends approval item 23 var 7 8 7 1 2 for the possible action on request for a variance to allow a 14 foot rear yard setback where 20 feet is required word 5 staff recommends approval may have staff report please mr. chairman staff finds the proposed rezoning to be compatible with adjacent properties along Owens Avenue and the subject cites commercial land use designation since both buildings are existing with established setbacks the various requests will not intensify or affect the adjacent residential properties therefore staff recommends approval of both applications please note there are additional letters to support since publication thank you thank you please state your name for the record good evening my name is Alex Cara managing member of the entity that actually owns the property at 1260 West owns a thank you John spell out from an attorney for the entity thank you Giuseppe Mandel consultant who wants anybody who's gonna make the comments so basically basically what we're doing here is we're providing transitional housing originally we had a group positive action transitional housing DBA Nevada path unfortunately due to the Corona one of the principles of that entity is susceptible what they're not own immune disorder and things have been slowed down but from a building owner standpoint we plan on moving forward as we've obviously we have the consultants the attorneys and we have a medical director on board that actually specializes in this right now we're dealing with the group for transitional housing for women with substance use disorders and diagnosis with their children so independent of the entity that may possibly occupy the building the plan for us is actually to move forward and to be able accommodate all the requirements in terms of number of bathrooms with the facility up to code whether it's fire hazard or safety to be able to support a multitude of these type of opportunities okay anybody else was to make any comments okay seeing them other comments this is as public hearing anybody in the public here wish to be heard on this item seeing none I'll close it here mister Scott no comments chair okay I'll turn it over now to Commissioner Williams Thank You mr. chair seeing that this item has no greater impact and I think it's fine I'm actually make a motion please do in agreement with staffs recommendation I'd like to make a motion for approval on item zo and seven eight three eight two you've heard a motion please cast your vote and that motion carries also like to make a motion for approval on item var seven eight seven one two you've heard two motion please cast your vote and that motion carries and mr. chairman those items will move forward to City Council and be heard as a part of their agenda on July 22nd 2020 thank you guys thank you moving on related items 24 and 25 0n 7 8 6 8 0 for a possible action I request for a rezoning from our four high density residential to c2 general commercial at 2110 West Bonanza Road Ward 5 staff recommends approval and number 25 VAR 7 8 5 7 8 7 5 6 for the possible action or request for variance to allow a 13 foot tall perimeter wall where 8 feet is the maximum allowed to allow a wrought iron fence where a solid CMU wall is required for outdoor storage to allow a chain link and a barbed wire where such a prohibited material and to allow a 5-foot rear yard outdoor storage setback where 20 feet is required staff recommends a now and the applicants please state your name for the record I'm Cynthia Autry mr. chairman staff finds the proposed general commercial zoning to be compatible with the existing residential and commercial developments in the area however no evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance has been presented and that the applicant has created a self-imposed hardship by proposing a wall height and materials that do not meet title 19 development standards staff therefore recommends approval of the rezoning request but denial of various requests please note their additional letters of support since publication thank you thank you now please state your name for the record I'm Cynthia Autry and the owner of the property okay for whoever would like to speak on the applicant so the front of the property currently has a wrought iron on it as they stated but it is screened by oleanders which the city had requested like 30 years ago my family's owned that property for 47 years so currently you cannot see any of the storage behind there and I provided pictures of the property also on the same street or in our area there's many other connexes that are out behind wrought iron cyclone fences and cox has four of them sitting out on the corner of Rancho and Bonanza a Hearn has them property across the street from me has them UPS has one at Martin Luther King and bonanza where they're all visible but ours is not visible at all in addition they are speaking of the heights of the fences our property was there originally and the properties to the east west and south of us were raised so I provided measurements as they requested of our interior fences but on the exterior it's a lot shorter it's between eight to nine feet and we have a very weak point at the back where there's like an electrical box at kensington suites where it only provides four feet of fencing without my additional fencing above it and it drops down into my property we wanted to make it safe the crime rate in that area is pretty high I didn't really even realize how high it was I pulled reports on it and in the last six months it's over a thousand reported crimes in the area between Martin Luther King Ranch and between 95 and Washington which is all our area there's other area other properties in our area that not only have the higher fences but they also have the prohibited material above it and I understand why they do is to protect them to only two doors down there was a mini storage that has razor wire above their fencing and their fencing is at least 10 feet tall with the razor wire so in order to try and protect my property which has been I've had two vehicles stolen off of it while my family's owned it and chemicals were being stolen daily from their businesses so that's why we have the konnex is now and steel to lock them up and the higher fences so I hope that you'll take that into consideration okay thank you this is notice as a public hearing anybody from the public we should be heard on this item seeing none here no comments chair thank you I'll turn it over now to Commissioner William Thank You mr. chair this I was going to ask a question about vandalism theft just really wanted to understand and you shared some statistics in terms of crimes so I you know I understand the variances for a higher wall I guess I'm struggling with the you know the the barbed barbed wire on top of the fencing that's just something that we we just typically steer away from that we we don't approve that but I do understand the security concerns and and I mean I'd be willing to work with with you know supporting you to help protect the property considering some of the things that have gone on around it but I am unable to support leaving barbed wire on top of the fencing we've had mats laid over top of our fences and people have entered the property within the last six months it's kind of our only defense that we really have against ourselves we're not there overnight we have like half a million dollars of equipment that's a lot for a family we're not there overnight I understand immediately to the right of us to the east as what used to be full engine shop and now Ahern has it there's a block wall that starts at only a foot tall and then it steps up you just walk that block wall right up to the top of my fence and step over literally along on the the back from kissing ten sweets they stand on that cable box or electrical box it's 14 inches tall then it's only a 4-foot step up to the top of the brick wall and over they go I understand I just I mean you know understanding what we've done previously we just I can't support barbed wire on top of fencing whether it's CMU chain-link wrought iron it's just typically not something that we would we would approval or support so what I would suggest is I mean I'd be willing to work with you in terms of the the wall Heights and security for your property but you may want to look at increasing I don't know surveillance hired security you know foot patrols something different but we're I'm just not gonna be able to support barbed wire on a fence okay and there is the barbed wire in the area already so how I mean there's an other establishments right on the street through the chair if I may I mean if there's other parcels I have it we have to pay attention to this specific application you know unfortunately there just like in downtown there are parcels that have razor wire when code enforcement goes out there then it comes to us and then we have to address it at that point the Commission doesn't go out and and look for it it comes to us like this case I understand we're you know myself personally were we have stuff going on town we couldn't put up razor wire cuz it's not allowed but we did put in surveillance cameras that when there's motion to text it just like Commissioner Williams was saying and then it lets out an audible noise and quite honestly that's helped us tremendously so if I had a half a million dollars with the stuff out there that's the yeah I have rodent shutters on the front I have yeah yeah you do everything you can totally understand but I sit in the same same place as commissioner Williams on this so everyone knows so would you be willing to accept the condition of removing the barbed wire you said we can have then something to maybe make the fence installer because if you can't make them taller and I can't put razor wire if I may mr. chairman so it does sound like the Commissioner is willing to entertain allowing a higher wall and maybe with a different there's tons of walk wrought iron types that you can do with a higher wall that aren't barbed wire but make it more difficult to do the climb overs so if I'm hearing Commissioner you're okay with allowing for a higher height and making that more difficult but removal of the razor wire and looking at some other kind of maybe wall configuration at that height that provides more security and staff can work with the the applicant on some examples where that's been done elsewhere you know that helps just just mister Summerfield's so should it move forward they have the ability to work with commissioner councilman career between now and city council to to massage that and figure out what would work absolutely because the zoning action this item will move forward to City Council because they have the final word on the zoning request so yes between now and the council date they also have the ability to demonstrate to the ward office what adjustments they may be trying to make in order to respond to Commissioner Williams recommendation perfect Williams thank you unless we have other comments from fellow commissioners I'm ready to make a motion so I'd like to make a motion on item zero in seven eight six eight zero for approval you've heard the motion cast your votes and that motion carries dan on item var seven eight seven five six I'd make a motion for approval under the following conditions that the razor wire is removed and we would allow I will be interested in allowing a higher offense but of course you're gonna have to work on that if I may mr. chairman so your recommendation for approval is to allow a 13 foot tall perimeter wall where 8 feet is allowed to allow wrought-iron where solace emu is required and to allow chain-link whereas a prohibited material where 5 feet rear yard outdoor storage setback we yeah I'm not sure where that is a prohibited material and just remove razor wire from the ocurro okay and you agree to that condition yes sir okay you've heard the motion please cast your vote and that motion carries and as mentioned mr. chairman both of those items will be heard by City Council's a part of their agenda on July 22nd 2020 and again if you want to contact the planner that worked with you we can help with some other examples of fencing that might be able to work and help with the elimination of the razor wire all right thank you very much thank you for coming out okay moving on there related items 26 and 27 w vr 7/8 635 for the possible action on a request for a waiver to allow 23 parking spaces where 57 are required at 3:01 South Maryland Parkway Ward six staff recommends approval item number 27 SGP 786 36 for the possible action and request for a specially useful permit for proposed public or private school secondary use Ward 3 staff recommends approval staff report please mr. chairman the vision 2045 downtown Las Vegas master plan envisions the downtown area developing into a compact vibrant and urban environment the addition of secondary classrooms to an existing private primary school supports his vision by providing area students a complete educational facility they can attend from kindergarten through 12th grade therefore staff recommends approval the quested special use permit and associated waiver please note there additional letters of support since publication thank you thank you please state your name for the record Reverend Brad Beckman pastor a first get Shepard Lutheran Church Raymond LaBeouf the principal of Mountain View Christian schools okay who wants to speak on the application we are in our 37th year here in Las Vegas and will be relocating to first Good Shepherd under lease agreement we are a k-12 private school and obviously this this passage will allow our students to continue to go to high school and graduate from our school okay anything else okay this is notice as a public hearing anybody from the public wish to be heard on this agenda item please come forward state your name for the record Xander cook J Gibbons I think that it would be a good opportunity for the city if we move the school downtown because it would provide a symbol of what everybody is a united school regardless of diversity of race and gender about to be a junior in high school and I would thank you please state your name for the record um I'm telling Anthony and I've been on my to do for 15 years and I'm a senior so it was my last year so I graduate here okay thank you appreciate you guys coming out like that any other further comments that we certainly asked for staff support and welcome the opportunity to move forward I thank you Scott anybody else no one line comments German okay I'll close public hearing at this time and turn it over to Commissioner Slaton yes mr. chairman this is my ward up didn't built a lot of projects in this area the urban lofts on 11th Street and Carson and always always senior school at the school across the street and it's oh he's you know been welcomed in that neighborhood I look forward to y'all doing a whole lot more and look forward to supporting your application tonight and bringing K through 12 to that that neighborhood thank you all right looking mr. chairman on item 26 waiver seven eight six three five I moved to approve subject to staff's conditions you've heard the motion please cast your vote and that motion carries and mr. chairman on item number 27 SGP 78 636 I moved to approve subject to staff's conditions okay for demotion please casts and that motion carries mr. chairman those items will both move forward to City Council and be heard as a part of their agenda on July 22nd 2020 thank you thank you for your support moving on to related items 28 to 31 va 28 VA are seven eight four four seven for the possible action on a request for a variance to allow a zero foot side yard setback where ten feet is required a zero foot rear yard setback where 20 feet is required and a 10 foot tall retaining wall and a 10 foot tall screen wall where 12 feet is the maximum combination Heights allowed on the north side of hammer lane and xem Berlant Road staff recommends denial item number 29 su P 78539 for the possible action I request for a special use permit for a mini storage facility use Ward 6 staff recommends denial item number 30 V AC 784 48 for the possible acts on a request for a petition to vacate 30-foot wide public sewer easement Ward 6 staff recommends approval in item number 31 Str 784 49 for the possible action I request for a site development plan review for a proposed 647 unit 1107 thousand 829 square foot mini storage facility with a waiver for a perimeter landscape buffer requirement Ward 6 staff recommends denial staff report please mr. chairman staff has no objection to the vacation requests and recommends approval however staff finds the applicant is proposing to over develop the subject site as evidenced by the variance and waivers requested reducing the size of the proposed mini storage facility would allow the applicant to meet minimum development standards therefore staff records in aisle of all all other applications please note that there are additional letters of protest since publication thank you thank you please state your name for the record yes Larry bitten 1401 North Korean Valley Parkway representing the developer the first I want to express appreciation for staff for planning staff and Public Works staff we've had a lot of coordination back and forth and we appreciate their support the project is located in a unique spot a spot that's conducive for self storage at the interchange of an and 2/15 the site also has some unique challenges specifically because of the topography the the site drops approximately 25 feet from west to east and they hammer lane is that is a steep road any of you who have been out to the Clark County School District bus yard know what that road is like so that is the the only access point for this site and the developer needs to make up the grade across there one of the ways he's mitigating this is to use the west the west wall of his West building to function as a retaining wall and that's the reason for the request of the landscape waiver and the zero side yard setback if if that setback wasn't requested there would be most surely along that west boundary line which is between this site and a future commercial site that that would be a a scarp it would be six hundred and sixty feet long it would be a direct linkage between the interchange and the bus yard and we know from past experience that that is a concern out in Ward six with having narrow unused with minimal visibility landscape strips or strips of land between adjacent properties and we know that those are the accumulate trash and and also are conducive to have homeless and and maybe people with less than desirable intent walking back and forth and so that is the reason that the developer has proposed the zero setback there is landscape proposed along the hammer frontage along the east frontage and along the frontage along the 215 Beltway within that frontage landscape was proposed in a 24 inch box trees were proposed in their staff requested that those be upgraded to 36 inch box trees which is a significant expense for the developer but he has agreed to install the larger trees from the onset of the development the retaining walls again the the variance and waivers for those wall Heights are required due to the significant topography drop across the site it's attractive building elevations the developer has done several other projects in town and we feel that it's a great area for self storage and with minimal impact to any adjacent land uses and that it's conducive so I look forward to taking any of your questions we respectfully request your approval and we do agree with the conditions of approval that the staff has requested if this item is these four items are approved thank you thank you this is notice as a public hearing anybody from the public wish to be heard on these items seeing none I'll close it here mr. Scott no online commerce chip thank you very much at this time then I'll turn it over to myself I appreciate you getting with me over this project and went and checked it out yes it is a very irregular shape piece of parcel and you know I honestly I can't think of a better thing to go on that piece of parcel it's then have minimal traffic going in and out I appreciate you and I spoke with you stepping up to trees to the 36-inch once I really don't have a problem with it I think it works I haven't had any pushback on it and like I said I don't know what else would want to go up against the bus depot out there anyway so but if there's no other comments I'd like entertain a motion to approve item number 28 mr. chairman Lucien pipe public works go for yeah we just need to make a slight condition change to the SDR item number 31 condition number 16 need to revise from 40 feet down to 30 feet for the easement width okay and you're fine with that sir any time they ask for less is a good thing so we're all for with that said then I'm gonna move forward with making a motion to approve item number 28 var seven eight four four seven and that motion carries item number twenty-nine HUP seven eight five three nine motion to approve and that motion carries moving on to 30 BAC seven eight four four eight motion to approve that motion carries moving out 231 SDR seven eight four four nine with the amended condition number sixteen from forty foot down to thirty foot motion to approve and that motion carries thank you Larry thank you very much and mr. chairman those items are all final action this evening less appeal to the City Clerk's office within ten days okay moving on to related items 32 and 33 32 VAR 784 62 for the possible action on request for a variance to allow a stub Street where a cul-de-sac for hammerhead is required in a private street without a gate to not meet public street standards and connectivity ratio of 1.1 where one point three is required and a 21-foot private drive pavement with we're 24 feet is required at the northwest corner of Wells Green Lane and core would Green Lane Ward 3 a staff recommends denial and item of a 33 TMP 7 a 4-6-3 for the possible action and request for a tentative map for a 30 lot single-family residential subdivision Ward 3 staff recommends denial staff report please mr. chairman no evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance has been presented in that the applicant has created a self-imposed hardship by proposing to develop a residential subdivision that fails to meet minimum title 19 Complete Streets standards staff therefore recommends denial of both applications please note your supplemental information packet includes a revised tentative map and staff report to address issues from the Las Vegas Valley Water District and the fire department regarding the stub Street widths and radius as a result the portion of the various requests to allow a 21-foot private drive payment with we're 24 feet is required is no longer needed also note that there are additional letters of protest since publication thank you thank you please state your name for the record sir good evening mark bangin with WL be here representing our applicant aspect homes as as everyone has stated our initial semental was a thirty lot tentative map that had 25 foot wide stub streets going north-south on the site after seeing the staff report and seeing the objection from the water district we met at we talked with the water district and that they would allow for a 30 foot wide stub Street which allows for 26 foot of pavement and that would take care of their concern and also with the fire department's concerns so what we did was we revised our tentative map and Ellis showed the 30-foot wide stub streets what we ended up doing was these four Lots on the end here we took five feet of width out of each one of those we are still at the same minimum lot size the same maximum lot size nothing else has been affected by this layout change and I think that we've met the intent of what you know we need for this development again this is an infill parcel it is a it's an odd shape so I know the staff says we don't have any hardships but I feel that we do just because of the shape and the location and it being an infill so we agree with staffs recommendations for approval and we would consider your we would love to have your approval as well thank you mark this is notice as a public hearing anybody wish to be heard on these agenda items seeing down here she's got a one-line compass okay close public hearing turn it over to Commissioner Slaton yes I mr. chairman thank you and I was able to speak to the applicant earlier today I end up reading through this entire item and when looking at the connectivity ratio I didn't have as big of a concern because stub street-smart weren't that long you you could still gain access to the main street I and the the private gate really wasn't an issue with me that one of the things that stuck out was the 24 foot wide stub streets and then I went back to read your emails and you had three of them there and then third one I read and you said that you were already worked with the water district on those sub streets resubmitted that to the city and to the water district and that is in our backup now and so I appreciate you doing that so you know I do see you know the unique nature of this parcel because it's really narrow and and long there's not a lot of different configurations you can come up with in this situation so I don't have a problem with this and let me ask you because in in the report there was something about the utilities and Public Works made a comment in the staff report stating that hopefully the utilities would be able to get worked out with the on the private easement or something along those lines and if not you might get you know six months down the road and then find out that you you you're a standstill you can't move forward yes yeah I understand the question so in there it talks about a we're having to provide a public sewer easement through for for the sewer that's in the private street which our developers in the process of talking with that HOA to get so as far as I know at this point in time we are moving forward we're getting everything are all of our ducks in the row so as far as I know at this point in time we're working through it and we're getting all the answers we need okay as long as the applicant and the owners are aware and the owners right here actually hello name is Mickey Stratton and I'm with aspect homes yes we've addressed the issue on the the easement with the homeowner association who owns that the rights today easement and they have agreed to sign the the easement for us and we was just a processing time thing but yeah we've already come to an agreement with them on that okay good just wanted to make sure that you know we're aware of that potential problem and you we appreciate that okay yes we had one of the first things we worked out with him all right seeing no other comments I'd like to make a motion on item 32 var 78046 two I would move to approve subject to staffs conditions you've heard a motion please cast a vote and a motion carries yes and mr. chairman item third and three TMP seven eight four six three moved to approve subject to staff's conditions he heard a motion please cast your vote that's everybody it's waiting for it to post and that motion carries Thank You mr. chairman those items are final action this evening unless appealed to the City Clerk's office within 10 days I will note typically a tentative map has a seven-day appeals period but because without the variance the tentative map would be invalid the tentative map will have a 10-day appeals period in this case thank you thank you have a good evening thank you moving on the related items 34 through 37 item 34 var seven eight six six nine four the possible action on request for a variance to allow 55 parking spaces where 74 required on the east side of OSA Blanca Road and Farm Road Ward six staff recommends approval item number 35 su P 78665 for the possible accidental request for a major amendment of a previously approved special use permit for a proposed 6769 square foot liquor establishment tavern use Ward 6 staff recommends approval item number 36 su P 78666 for the possible action on the request for a major amendment of a previously approved special use permit for a proposed 6769 square-foot gaming establishment restricted license use with a waiver to allow such use within 330 feet of a single-family resident detached dwelling ward 6 staff recommends approval in item number 37 SD r78 667 for the possible action on a request for a major amendment of a previously approved site development plan review for a proposed 5051 551 square-foot two-story tavern with 440 square foot of outdoor dining it's in a 774 square foot rooftop dining area and a 38 foot tall grain silo award six staff recommends approval staff report please mr. chairman staff finds that the requested special use permit amendments and waiver of distance separation from the nearest single-family detached dwelling will will not intensify the uses as previously approved staff also finds evidence of a unique or extraordinary circumstance has been presented and that the subject site is an irregular shape with existing improvements that alter the developable area of the subject site staff therefore recommends approval of all applications please note that their additional letters of support and protest since publication thank you thank you please state your name for the record hi mr. cherrick members of the board my name is John Carroll 1980 Festival Plaza Drive I'm here here on behalf of the owner as stated by staff the project has been approved prior and with the conditions of the site and the restraints that have been on there with n dot and just being able to develop the site there has been some additional waivers needed we've added a parking garage on the south side of the site and we have the building up to the north more the silo has been approved prior the waiver that we're asking for has been approved prior especially uses have been approved prior and there's nothing really new on the project except for that did that design of you thank you this is notice that a public hearing anybody from publicly should be heard on this item or these items seeing down here I'm Scott mr. chairman there are two comments from online the first is I support the project in all related applications that from Scott towner of 90-120 Irish elk Avenue in Las Vegas the other is from Michelle Vinatieri I oppose a project in all related applications that is an incredibly dangerous Road and adding a tavern isn't going to help plus there is already another bar just down the street why do we need to because they can that's why okay turn this one over to myself here yes like you was stated earlier this has been going on for well over a year I believe your year and a half 2016 so it's not the first time it's came before us we previously approved now they finally got sounds like they got an anchor for I understand yes and they're ready to move forward on it so if there's no other comments or questions or concerns I just would entertain a motion to approve item number 34 var seven eight six six nine and that motion carries most to approve item 35 SCP seven eight six six five and that motion carries motion to approve item 36 su P seven eight six six six and that motion carries and finally item 37 SCR 7 8 667 motion to approve and that motion carries thank you have a good night and mr. chairman those items are all final action this evening les appealed to the City Clerk's office within 10 days thank you moving on to related items that's a long one 38 through 52 first 138 var 7 8 6 8 4 4 the possible action or request for a variance to allow an 8 foot tall retaining wall where 6 feet is allowed for a perimeter wall jason-2 lot 11 14 and 15 at the southwest corner of Van road and wall apply way Ward six staff recommends denial var 7 8 6 8 5 4 the possible action I request for a variance to allow a 16 foot tall retaining wall where 6 feet is allowed for a perimeter wall adjacent to a lot 138 and 150 Ward 6 staff recommends denial items 40 42 43 and 47 through 52 var 7 8 6 8 8 var 7 8 6 9 0 VAR 7 8 9 6 1 VAR 7 8 6 9 5 var 7 8 6 9 6 var 7 8 6 9 7 VAR 7 8 6 9 8 VAR 7 8 6 9 9 & VAR 7 8 7 0 0 for the possible action on a request for a variance to allow a 16-foot tall retaining wall where 6 feet is allowed for Lots 70 105 106 2 10 to 11 to 15 to 16 to 17 and 218 worth 6 staff recommends denial and items 41 and 44 through 46 var 7 8 6 8 9 VAR 7 8 6 9 to var 7 8 6 9 3 & var 7 8 6 9 4 for the possible action or request for a variance to allow an eight-foot-tall retaining wall where 6 feet is allowed for Lots 80 193 194 and 195 ward 6 staff recommends denial staff report please mr. chairman the applicant is proposing to perpetuate the overdevelopment of the site as by the need for 15 additional variances if approved the proposed residential subdivision will have 51 approved variances associated with it for lot size lot width and wall Heights these variances are self-imposed hardships and staff recommends denial of all applications please note additional letters of support and protest were received after publication thank you thank you please state your name for the record Thank You mr. chairman commissioners Stephanie Allen 1980 Festival Plaza Drive here on behalf of the applicant DR Horton this say has a lot of history on it it's located off of the 215 just south of Ann Road and west of Hualapai right here Bob Garner represented this for Olympia group and spent a lot of time probably up to two years working with the neighbors in the area with the Councilwoman with the County Commissioner on this project to come up with a plan that would meet meet a transition with the re Lots closer to the existing rural homes in the area and then some smaller Lots as you get closer to the 215 and then the smallest of the Lots just to the west of the 215 you can see here in in beige there is a huge elevation change here and there's a unique situation with not only the Beltway in between the property but there's also a large power line that goes right down the middle of these yellow Lots and the blue and green lots with elevation changes just on this east side from 40 feet just in the green and the blue area so some significant changes in elevation this is the way that the project was approved and the Lots were approved what we're now coming in with is the specific steer Horton is buying the property and and they are putting in their retaining walls they are doing some Tarun Terra C and of the retaining walls on some of the internal lot so that homeowners don't have one huge tall wall in the back but they do have some Terra scene but the the specific waivers that you read in some of them are up to 8 feet some of them are up to 6 feet but that's up - most of them are far less than that actually a couple of them are adjacent to the Beltway again with a significant elevation change adjacent to the Beltway there's a few here adjacent to a common element that will have walls interior to the development again up those are a couple of the ones that are up to 16 feet and adjacent to the power pole then majority of them are internal lots and also a couple up here that are just asking for a little bit more than the standard six feet and up to eight feet to allow in between the homes where again you've got elevation changes like for example right here we've got homeowners there's a 10-foot drop between their homes and these homes that are proposed here so Waleed we are asking for up to eight feet on some of them at six and a half some of them seven and a half but it's up to eight feet on those four Lots over here and then there's a cluster down sort of in the corner here again where this 40-foot drop happens where you've got some terraced walls and there's only a couple of them that require that 16 feet but most of them are around 11 or 12 12 feet but overall the reason again is just the overall elevation change this is the map that was approved that DR Horton is what is going to develop out and we'd very much appreciate your approval so they could do so thank you this is notice as a public hearing anybody wish to be heard on this seeing none I'll close it here mr. Scott chair there are two items of one I'm sorry one item online it says I oppose the project and all related applications that's from Scott moraine of 99 25 spider Creek Court thank you okay well we've been dealing with this one most of the commissioners that are up here knows this this was known as the finger property if you remember so it's been around for a minute now we're just doing some cleanup on it yes there's a topography you never think I said that right is this extreme I was out there actually today to go check it out just one more time because it was so lengthy with so many variances and I just wanted to make sure and I could see what you're asking to do by doing the walls it actually gives them a bigger lot were you instead of stepping it and having us so I mean I'm all for that especially what we went through with all the homeowners trying to keep it as rule and as big as possible and as we got to the freeway we we try to make it more a little more dense as a buffer sound buffer for those that have the rule backyards so I mean I don't have any problem with doing the walls like that to give these people the biggest backyards they can possibly have or the biggest Lots they could possibly have so unless there's any other comments I would entertain a motion to approve I don't see any so I'll move on to item number 38 var 7 8 6 8 4 motion for approval and that motion carries item number 38 39 var 7 8 6 8 5 motion for approval and that motion carries man just read the item numbers for the next ones that said all the VAR s okay so the next motion would be to approve items 40 42 43 47 48 49 50 51 and 52 and that motion carries final one would be for items of 41 44 45 and 46 motion for approval and that motion carries thank you very much mr. chairman all of those items are final action this evening unless appealed to the City Clerk's office within 10 days thank you have a good night moving on to related items 53 358 item 53 var 78704 for the possible action I request for a variance to allow 1515 parking spaces where 3710 parking spaces are required at the southwest and northwest corners of service and Rancho Drive Ward 1 staff recommends denial items number 54 su P seven eight seven zero five four the possible action on a request for a special use permit for a proposed 26,000 667 square-foot liquor establishment tavern use at the southwest corner serious and Rancho Drive staff recommends denial I don't number 55 sgp 787 zero six but a possible accidental request for a special use permit for a proposed 26,000 667 square-foot liquor establishment avenues at the southwest corner of Sirius and Avenue and Rancho Drive staff recommends denial what one item number 56 su P seven eight seven six six for the possible action a request for especially use permit for a proposed 26,000 667 square-foot liquor establishment tavern use Ward 1 staff recommends denial item number 57 su P seven eight seven six seven for the possible accident request for a special use permit for a proposed 35,000 square foot liquor establishment avenues Ward 1 staff recommends denial item number 58 SD r78 7:09 for the possible action and request for a major amendment of an approved site development plan review for propose 115,000 one square foot addition to an existing 217 thousand eight hundred ninety nine square foot commercial recreation amusement indoor outdoor development Ward one staff recommends denial may have the staff report please mr. chairman the proposed expansion further exacerbates excuse me a parking deficiency at the subject site as evidenced by the parking variance requested in addition the applicant has chosen not to combine these subject parcels at this time which means that while this project functions as one development it has different land use and zoning designation designations for each parcel therefore staff recommends denial of all requested entitlements please note additional letters of support and protest were received after publication thank you thank you hold on one second I just want to also make sure on item 53 under the green and the note the request changed to allow 1535 parking spaces where 3713 parking spaces are required I wanted to just make sure I read that into the record please state your name for the record Thank You Jennifer the lives of each 1980 Festival Plaza Drive here tonight representing area 15 the application before you does several different things in this location right here is the existing area 15 building that you can see when you drive along Interstate 15 the two new exciting experiences that we have coming to the area 15 location the first is lost spirits if any of you have heard of that it is an existing attraction in Los Angeles right now and they are going to be opening their second location here at area 15 essentially it's a combination of a tour and a distillery the tour will start in the existing area 15 building and then you'll kind of get an experience through like a Havana nights with Holograms that are doing performances and then you'll go into some type we haven't quite decided what it will be but some type of transportation that will take you down to this first building right here and that will be where the actual distillery is going to be located they will distill whiskey and rum and then that will be part of your overall experience and then you'll take a tour through that entire building the next new building that we are constructing is right here just to the north of these three existing industrial buildings that's going to be the illumine areum and the Luminarium will be an attraction where you'll go in you'll sit down and then you'll go on a simulated ride with essentially overlooking different experiences like you know you're flying over Egypt or you're flying over Rome or something like that that just gives you a sensory experience and kind of an idea of what it would be like to to be in other places in other countries then when you jump over Sirius this is the old scandi a lot in this location we are going to pave it and do parking lot we consider this overflow parking despite I know the very extreme parking variance that I am asking for we still believe that the vast majority of people who will come to area 15 can fit on the actual area 15 site with all the parking that's located on this area 15 development right here that said we do own this Percel to the north we view it and it is noted in your staff report that it would be also an opportunity for additional special events we understand we have to go through your special event process to do things there but that's the reason why we have certain specific waivers which basically as you can see in this interior middle we don't have any landscape Islands or fingers it's done intentionally that way so that we can activate more of that lot for different types of outdoor events the other components of the application include expanding the tavern uses onto these buildings that's major estate for the record they're not taverns with 15 gaming machines they're taverns so that we can utilize the ability to serve liquor without the food constraints and then finally we did ask for a nightclub use across these uses that is a the exact same thing that we did on the area 15 side of the project that's already built and it really drives the need for this parking variance again as we sit here today I don't anticipate at least not the two uses that I just described being activated as a true traditional nightclub but because the city's code is so restrictive in what a nightclub can be arguably if we are serving alcohol and we have some kind of library amplified music and if somebody just might start spontaneously dancing we're a nightclub so to be on the safe side we asked for the nightclub to be here but again that drives the the variance use a couple of technical issues that I wanted to go over we acknowledge staffs request that we ultimately make area 15 and these parcels right here the same zoning designation right now area 15 itself is in a commercial zoning district and these buildings and the new building would be or are located in an industrial district zoned em that's driven by the fact that the lost spirits distillery which will be located in this building that's not allowed in commercial so we have to stay with the industrial zoning and the question is eventually do we get to a point where we can get comfortable with the uses with certain uses that aren't allowed within the commercial that staff is asking that we rezone this piece and as well there is a condition it is condition number four that would require us to do that effectively now and we've met with staff and we appreciate them being open to the deletion of that condition I will note on the record we are actively working with them and through issues that we have such as with our lending lending documents on this existing commercial piece as well as multiple ownership levels so it's not as easy as you may think to just go and do it but we understand what they're saying and so we're exploring our commitment is to explore that that request in more detail as we move forward but we would ask that you delete condition number for tonight and then finally on the Scandia site councilman Knutson has expressed a desire to have an urban trail of sorts go through portions of his district and he has asked us to try to be creative and see how we could incorporate that the area 15 site was developed already so we don't have the ability to do it there but with the Scandia site coming in here we took a crack at what we thought may be an urban trail might look like something that would fit in with this area and I'll kind of facilitate what he's thinking and so our landscape plan effectively shows ten feet of landscaping adjacent to the overflow parking lot and then ten feet of combined sidewalk and tree wells that would be located right along Rancho Road so in lots of spaces that that urban trail the concrete part would be ten feet wide I mean we did that intentionally and then much like on Fremont Street you'll see the tree wells as you go to kind of give you a little bit of landscaping on the roadside we need to work with Public Works and specifically your drainage team on how we can accomplish this based upon some drainage requirements that that occur with how you convey the drainage and I won't pretend to be an expert on this but in working with Lucian right before the meeting condition number 18 that you have on the agenda we believe is is just vague enough to hopefully allow for the flexibility for us to sit with your staff and see if there's a way to make this vision come true and you know bring it bring it to the project so we think that I don't think you need to make any changes we think we've got that that flexibility inherent within that condition but I did want to note for the record that we're doing our best to try to put in that urban trail but we are a little constrained with drainage and we need to see if there's some flexibility down the road so thank you for that long winded explanation on these items and then I'd be happy to answer any questions thank you this is notice as a public hearing anybody from the public wish to be heard on the sytems seeing none here comes no comments no counsel okay I'll turn it over to Commissioner Rogan Thank You chairman that's a lot of stuff we have to talk about I think the easiest thing to dispense with the SU P's items 54 55 56 and 57 this is a unique project something I don't think Las Vegas has seen before and as you noted this is a mixture of commercial and industrial uses it's not very much adjacent to residential area so there are some nearby I think that the s ups are warranted I think they're harmonious incompatible with the neighborhood so I'm not opposed to that with regard to your parking variance though you're asking for a significant deviation from what's required I'm looking at the project and it's speaking with you just yesterday I do think that the variance is warranted given what you're intending to do with this project however you're gonna have to address the parking at some point in the future and I don't think surface parking is gonna last for this project so perhaps the next time you come back or the time after that because I know you will be back on this project before us I want to see something that's going to lay my concerns about parking problems in that area should your project and hopefully be successful so I am supportive of it but with that direction that you speak with your client and figure out a plan in the future for for parking and then finally with regard to condition I think it's number four well three things on the SDR item 58 condition for I'm okay with it being stricken but again you're just kicking that can down the road you're gonna have to address those things planning is asking you to do it they've asked before and so it needs to be done sooner rather than later so you know these I understand that your client has significant financing concerns that involve keeping it separate uses right now but you've got to get back with them so that the next time you come back that you again have some plan for how you're going to address those issues that staff has raised again and again with you doing that yes we do understand that it's multi-level there's a scenario where the zoning could work but not the combination of the lots so that condition kind of does two things so right we want to get with our engineers to to see if maybe there's a way to preserve the lot lines but you know flex and on the parking issue just so so that I can stay to you I mean I suppose it's a great problem for us to have to have so many people coming here that we need to build more parking and I think that that's a great problem to have but we also believe that a significant amount of the traffic that comes here will be driven by our tourist population that will come back to this town I know at some point and in fact that's how we had the while this didn't occur at this level we did get a tourism Improvement District and we have to prove that a majority of the people coming here are tourists based now that said one of the things that we have talked about with staff I have mentioned before is that when we get open and but for what happened we would have been further along with that we want to come back to you with maybe a special use permit for an alternative parking study but we would actually have data because we'd be operating we'd be open we'd know is that you know are people driving there are they taking uber Zoar lifts or taxis or shuttle buses and so I'd be able to have more real data rather than just speculation on again in our opinion proving that the parking that we are providing today is enough but it would be with real data so that's kind of my plan just so that you guys have heard my plan and we discussed that yesterday and perhaps in the future if you do have that plan there be a reason to expunge the variance that we're talking about this evening so that's why I'm comfortable right now with item 53 in that parking variance and then finally in speaking with staff as well I do think that item or condition 18 would allow for councilmen Knutson walking or running paths that he intends to put down there to connect the neighborhoods and I think that's an important project especially for for what you intend to do so that people who are not and will not be parking there can have an another method of arriving at area 15 so that being said in that record made and I appreciate you for making that record with us tonight unless there's other comments I'm ready to make a motion mr. Commissioner yes mr. chairman and I'll keep it brief I I would just like to see that study when you'll have it available and I'm sure to come to us before next plane Commission hearing I think potentially may be when the issues is since you're overlaying the entire building with the tavern even though the entire building might not be a tavern it's probably skewing those numbers quite a bit in making it appear that we need that many parking spaces I doubt you're ultimately need that much so I'm curious and I'm anxiously awaiting that that alternative parking study so I can I can have my fears you know or whatever so we can we can we can review that and see what what you're actually going to need so anyways that's all my comments thank you I just have one so we talked about this on the phone so you're encompassing the whole building to 26,000 667 square foot calling it a tavern are you allowed to have multiple taverns in there or only just if one occupies that building then only one can because of the distance separation issue or anything no that doesn't apply to this project we there's a text amendment that was approved several years ago that says if you have I think it's a hundred and forty thousand square foot indoor commercial amusement space then you can essentially do what in the liquor license scenario it's general on sale but through planning they look at it as a tavern so I could but to answer your question take the well take the area 15 which is where we already have it we will have multiple tenants in that building with multiple taverns beside by side there's no distance restriction in that particular case now if we did the gaming if we activated the 15 machines which we would have the ability to do somewhere on the area 15 site then that would set the distance restriction for another I'll call it shanell tavern and I'm looking to Robert to make sure I'm right a traditional tavern with 15 machines this is more just for the alcohol side of it okay mr. chairman just to be clear yes so the tavern approval over the site will establish Lane use for the alcohol component then the licensing will be through the general on sale component and then there'll be as an umbrella and then there'll be some other stuff however if they do establish a gaming they only get in an entitlement for 15 gaming machines across the property so that's that's the part where you get closer to that traditional tavern element is if they want to have gaming at some point on the property under that land use entitlement for the tavern they get a total of 15 machine the period they can't even if they have a smaller scale other licenses on the property under the general on sale the the entitlement only gives them 15 gaming machines without additional entitlements agreed Thank You Thank You Commissioner Brogan Thank You chairman make a motion at this time to approve item 53 var 787 0 for you for a demotion please cast your vote and ambush and carries mr. Chairman I make a motion to approve item 54 su P seven eight seven zero five subject any conditions you've heard a motion please cast your vote and that motion carries I also make a motion to approve item 55 SCP 7 8 7 zero six subject any conditions for a demotion please cast your vote and M motion carries item 56 a motion to approve su P seven eight seven six six also subject any conditions you've heard a motion please cast your vote that motion carries item 57 to make a motion to approve su P seven eight seven six seven subject any conditions you've heard the motion please cast your vote and a motion carries and suddenly with regard to item 58 SDR 787s or an and make a motion to approve subject to all conditions other than condition number four would be stricken you've heard the motion please cast your vote and a motion carries thank you and mr. chairman those items are all final action this evening and less appealed to the City Clerk's office within 10 days thank you thank you thank you related item 59 and 60 59 var 7 8 6 75 for the possible action on a request for a variance to allow a 0 foot setback where 5 feet is required for a proposed free-standing sign at 2:06 North 3rd Street 221 North 3rd Street and 220 North Fourth Street Ward 5 staff recommends denial item number 60 MSP 7 8 676 for the possible action on a request for a major amendment of an approved master sign plan to relocate and increase the height and size of one previously approved free-standing sign and an existing hotel casino Ward 5 staff recommends the now staff report please mr. chairman as evidenced by the requested variance staff finds the proposed amendment will have a negative impact to the adjacent commercial development and is not compatible with the existing development in the area therefore staff recommends denial of the requested amendment to the master sign plan please note additional letters of support and protests were received after publication thank you thank you please state your name for the record good evening commissioners Brad Aaron's the CI M group 4700 Wilshire Boulevard in Los Angeles representing see I am the owner of the downtown grand as I believe everyone here is aware we are nearing completion on the third and final tower of the downtown Grand Resort adding four hundred and ninety five keys to the existing property there that tower will have seven floors of guest rooms and we will be replacing the valet portico share done below on the ground floor basically in the same place that it was previously what we're proposing this evening and asking for your approval on is to basically take the same sign valet a directional sign that we had on Stewart Avenue originally put it back in a slightly modified location along Stewart Ave so it's the same side and it's currently being refurbished we are asking for a zero foot setback in order to deal with some of the existing conditions that exist around the property and around at the new tower so we've had a couple studies done for visibility and looking to see if we could in fact accommodate a five foot setback as required by code you can see from this image here that with the existing tower the existing wall from our loading dock along with some of the columns that support the new tower that sign would be blocked from visibility from vehicular traffic traveling east along Stewart Avenue similarly looking back West you find that that sign is almost entirely blocked by that column so what we are requesting is that the sign itself be allowed to have a zero foot setback along Stewart out so that we have maximum visibility for those vehicles traveling eastbound along Stewart and can make the right turn into our ballet all right thank you this is notices public hearing anybody wish to be heard on this item seeing none here mr. Scott no comments on mind you no comment okay I will now turn this over to Commissioner Williams thank you just a question did we look at potentially you know a different type of sign maybe a blade sign attaching it to the building something different we have looked at a couple different types of signs the building itself sits right on the property line actually encroaches a little bit over and we worked with planning staff and council on that airspace easement agreement so in order for us to put anything on the side of the building we'd actually be encroaching further past the edge of the sidewalk in into the vehicular lane so we're hoping to be able to reuse the existing sign that was there and just do so underneath the building is a pull sign what's being refurbished exactly so it is this sign exactly so what is being refurbished is basically the entire face of the sign so all of the chasing lights in the neon basically that sign will look brand new when it's finished okay yeah so I mean we actually have development standards that facilitate signs closer to the buildings depending on the situation I think given this situation it's not like here but I saw something about a larger sign or yeah there was some confusion with the staff report which incorrectly says is that we are increasing the size we are not increasing the size of the sign it is the exact same thing all right so with that information and the fact that there's standards out there that allow us to move it closer to the building unless my colleagues have any comments I'm ready to make a motion here please do I like to make a motion on item var 7 8 6 7 5 4 pool you've heard the motion please cast your vote and that motion carries and I make a motion on item MSP seven eight six seven six motion for approval you've heard the motion please cast your vote and that motion carries and mr. chairman those items will move forward to City Council and be heard as part of their agenda on 7:20 to 20 thank you very much 61 62 sixty-one var 7 87 one nine for the possible action on a request for a variance to allow a 27% of wall signage on the eastern elevation of the Expo Center where 20% is the maximum allowed at three twenty four four five four seven five and four nine five South Grand Central Parkway what five staff recommends approval item number 62 MSP seven eight seven to zero for the possible action on a request for a major amendment to a previously approved master sign plan to add wall signage on the expo building and to redesign and change the location of the previously approved pillar freestanding sign at Ward five staff recommends approval staff report please mr. chairman with the exception of the proposed minimal increase for the wall signage the proposed master plan master sign plan adheres to all other title 19 requirements the proposed signs are consistent with the existing Convention and Exposition Center development and are located in satisfactory locations that do not adversely impact neighboring properties therefore staff recommends approval of both requests thank you thank you please state your name for the record good evening thank you chairman members of the Commission Carrie Kramer 60-37 South Fort Apache wrote here on behalf of the applicant we'd like to see excuse me we'd like to thank staff for the recommendation of approval the market Center when in building the new Convention Center an expo facility lost nine entitlements on the east face of the garage so in order to kind of recoup those they have six facing or excuse me eight six three on either side and then two right above the entrance and they're just asking for those entitlements to replace the existing Cattlemen's lost on the parking garage they also were approved for a pillar sign previously as mentioned they'd like to move that down to the corner consistent with all setbacks and everything and just make it triangular as opposed to square and it increases the size by seven feet okay this is notice as a public hearing anybody from the public we should be heard seeing none here mister Scott no comments on lunch okay at this time I'll turn it over Commissioner Commissioner Williams all right thank you mister chair again this is not facing residential it's actually I believe facing the Smith Center yes so at this time unless there's further comments I'm ready to make a motion please do I'd like to make a motion on item var seven eight seven one nine motion for approval you've heard the motion please cast your vote and a motion carries an item MSP seven eight seven two zero motion for approval you've heard the motion please cast your vote and that motion carries and mr. chairman those items will move forward and be heard as part of City Council agenda on 722 27 22 20 thank you thank you moving on to item number 63 var 78641 for the possible action on request for a variance to allow five-foot corner side yard setback where 10 feet is required for a proposed 178 square foot building addition on 0.12 acres at 27 25 riesling Lee legend way let's see that's Ward 5 staff recommends denial staff report please mr. chairman no unique or extraordinary circumstances has been presented by the application by the applicant to warrant the requested variance and staff finds the request to be a self-imposed hardship therefore staff recommends denial of the request please note additional letters of protest were received after publication thank you thank you please state your name free recommend Alice Harris Bell okay if you'd like to explain the application before us today and I just want to get down to my house the rest of my life I can just relax and enjoy okay this is noticed as a public hearing anybody here wish to be heard on this item seeing none mr. Scott no comments on line chair okay at this time I'll turn it over to Commissioner Williams all right thank you so I see here we actually we did get a staff said two additional notices of protest 320 notices went out initially with no response what is what specifically is the addition you're looking at on its Dan family room and we're looking for a five-foot setback by foot where 10 foot is required self self proposed impose hardship here so there's not not really a lot we're gonna be able to do in this in this situation the way that the house is constructed on the lane you've got some restrictions there at this time I'm not going to be able to support that I don't understand why well you you're required to have a ten-foot distance there and you only have five and so we're really tight on space in the yard and and so you know it's just from a coke from a code perspective we just can't you know with staffs recommendation I'm gonna have to follow staffs recommendation on this one thank you so unless we have further comments mr. chair ready to make a recommendation here I see none please do all right I'd like to make the recommendation on item var seven eight six four one motion for denial okay you've heard the motion yes voters for denial please cast your vote and that motion carries mr. chairman that item will go forward to City Council and be heard as a part of their agenda on July 22nd 2020 so the item will go forward to Council for final consideration then okay moving on to item number 65 a var seven eight seven zero three four the possible action on a request for a variance to allow a three-foot yard set three-foot yard side setback where five feet is required for an existing accessory structure class two garage at seventy sixty five Delray Avenue award one staff recommends denial staff report please mr. chairman this variance request is the result of code enforcement action for the construction of a garage without building permits no unique or extraordinary circumstance has been presented by the application application want the requested variance and staff finds the request to be self imposed hardship therefore staff recommends denial of the request please note additional letters of protest were received after publication thank you thank you please state your name for the record state your name again one time sir it was the mic was off okay if you whoever wants to explain the application please do well the application is pretty much States it's actually more than three feet that setback but that's what they written down the property is actually shaped almost like a pizza as it goes back it's a 42 feet garage the rear end is like maybe five three from the property line and Northy and I would say is three feet eight inches or something like that we're like 14 inches too close in our own yard so we have other structures that show on our property that said even closer we purchased the property about four years ago Las Vegas paving actually did the footing Cement work and I forgot the name of the one company that did the actual framing focus framing the garage is very well built instead of two by fours it's built with two by sixes two by tends to raise everything is built and it's very nice even the court enforcement officers they were they liked it they didn't see a problem with it it's been there for over a year maybe two it's not bother than anybody I don't know why complained it's just for storing classic cars I'm a collector very much like to keep our garage put a lot of time and money into it we bought the property years ago the real estate agent stated we could basically build what we wanted from that I don't know how they feel about us but we don't mess with nobody we take care our business and basically what revolves around seven zero six five all right thank you this is notice as a public hearing anybody wish to be heard on the item seeing none Scott mr. chair there's one comment a little lengthy so bear with me this is from Gregg Estelle he poses the item this is that he lives at 1510 Montessori Street I opposed the project in all related applications my concern is threefold first this property has removed all almost all vegetation and replaced it with over a thousand square feet of non permitted concrete driveway they had built an albatross building squeezed between two adjacent buildings one on his property and the other on the adjacent property for which is a setback is non-compliant there are currently eight vehicles and a car hauler in the driveway and other cars in the pending pending garage this leads me to suspect the commercial a commercial or business use of the property this garage has less than five feet clearance from his existing auxilary building and less than ten feet from a casita for which you granted a five foot variance for residents are used previously on the adjacent property I have a three hundred and twenty five gallon above-ground propane tank that backs both his pending garage and additional auxilary building according to the previous records this auxiliary building was permitted for auxilary use and not residential sits five feet off my property line and a young family lives in it it appears this garage will be used as it for automotive repair and restoration business any gases or ignition sources potentially used must not be within 25 feet of my existing propane tank nor the residential structures are meet Italy next to it or next door this poses a safety hazard on multiple levels secondly they need to they need to be seeking a very on to existing buildings not 1:1 for residential use and the other four exhilarate use of which I view as too much building congestion for such a small lot nor compliant with code my site property line now looks that looks like a city block lastly I was never consulted consulted for objections formally or informally to this building had I been given the opportunity to do so I would have gladly expressed the concerns I'm giving now I have pictures that show the high-density arrangement of the three buildings as they line my property all within five feet of my property line if you wish to see these buildings see these photos please call me at I won't say this number as there was no way to post them electronically thank you thank you mr. Scott I'll close the public hearing and I'll turn I'll turn it over to Commissioner Rogan so you see the problems when you build things on your property without permits right yes so did you hire all the subs to build this garage yourself yes see a new general contractor no I'm just a homeowner that their bills yeah I've worked 35 years with the city of Los Angeles with the Department of Water and Power alright so I guess my question is none of these subs even asked for proof that you had a permit to build these things no these were costly companies not Mickey Mouse companies or go by day fly-by-night they're all big-time companies right you know I I hate these situations and usually receive them when someone buys a property and someone the previous owner had built something that wasn't in conformance with the code the proper permits and I feel really terrible when they come before us and ask for variances and under these similar circumstances but you're the folks that built the prop that built the building and you should have gotten the proper permits and if you needed a variance you could have gone and talked to that those neighbors that are opposing it because you have five people have expressed support but to have expressed opposition including your direct neighbor apparently so to cut you off the neighbor to our east he has a casita built and he had a variance for five feet and it was ours is basically five feet from everyone except where it's 14 inches short that being but the half acre we have a little over half acre you know and like I said it's almost shaped like a pizza as it goes back and the square - building up this is what how they have to do it if they have to take that 14 inches that's just on our property and the eaves these are even three feet away from nothing's close to the fence line and when we ask for the for the I guess the variance they said well it's five feet now we said okay that's fine well 14 inches you know so I don't think that you mean the staff report says three feet I didn't go back there and measure your property to make sure that it was accurate I hate doing this but you know just with the last applicant that came before us she hadn't built anything yet she had a proposal to to build something that was into the setback area it's a tough call for all of us that are here so unfortunately I'm not really in support of this this evening is action mister mr. chairman through use yes councilman our Commissioner this is currently indicated for final action this evening and less appealed to the clerk's office let me do this I would like to know what my fellow commissioners feel about this I you know I do we do see these sometimes will reprove them they're usually prior to the build not subsequent to the build so I just would like to hear hear your comments before I make a motion actually anybody Commissioner Jarry I guess excuse me I don't know the is the measurement from the from the stucco wall or is it from the the roofline maybe staff could answer that do we know the three-foot something three-year mr. chairman as indicated by the applicant if it is 14 inches usually we do not put you know like 1.6 feet or whatever we will kind of round it down just to allow a little wiggle room there so that is why we put it as 3 feet because then at 8 at 14 to 18 inches we're looking at a half so possibly the two feet off is that from the the stucco wall of the garage to the CMU wall yes okay I have to you know and just what Commissioner Rogan was was badly through again what we had with the previous application I'm kind of sitting with staff having this right and it's an unfortunate thing but I think that's that's where I think I understand I was hoping that it was from the from the roofline and they're just there could be some type of modification then but it doesn't look that way so that's price mr. chair Commissioner Williams yeah the the challenge here is it is a structure to dwelling it's it's not like you know it's not like a feature or barbecue or something that we're looking at you know that's smaller in size and shape and you know the reality is is the lot is a specific size code you know designates what size dwelling goes in that space and so when you stuff for lack of a better term when you stuff a dwelling on a piece of property and it's that close it makes it really hard to support looking at the picture I've seen structures that were right on tonight way that's put it right up to the wall and the eaves are hanging over my wife and I I am my grandson can all walk back there thanks to me almost side-by-side we understand that our neighbors in back of us probably don't like this and we don't we don't bother nobody last fourth of July this guy popped all he destroyed our property basically even before this was built well sir I just want to interrupt you he's that person's not here to respond to this and and we're just dealing with your application right for him to write something like that and he's damaged our property I think yes again that's another one of these things I understand how I can't breathe and that's why I feel right now so I mean he I hate doing this I really do it's really one of the toughest because I know you've spent a lot of money to put this in but at this point I can't support it it's too close to the property line even even if I close to the property line we've seen closer structures to fences this is not bother nobody it's no building and back of our building and there's no building on the side of ours so there's even what would be I mean what is the challenge of this it's not bothering anyone home even if a fire broke out it's far enough back to where nothing would affect it even if I had the stucco under the bottom of it mashes stucco it it still would so be up to code certainly the reason is is because you live in a residential estates neighborhood and that means you have larger lot sizes but in turn you have larger setbacks and when people start changing the rules asking for variances building structures that are close to the lines you change the character of the neighborhood and so we're very very concerned about that as you saw with the last applicant and so this structure violates the rules and if you had only just come to us before you built it and asked for the variance you wouldn't have spent all the money but unfortunately you did it after the fact and I understand you you misunderstood the rules but the fact remains that the rules weren't followed your structures non-conforming and I can't support it for with that being said I'd make a motion to deny item number 65 var 787 0-3 kanessa is there a timeframe by which they would have to remove the structure or is that encode mr. Sommerfeld what we usually do in these it's it's not encode typically we would give 90 days from final action that's usually easy coming out of the kovat and the shutdown I know there's some backlog on getting people who can do demo work so if you wanted to give a little more time so that they can schedule that I think that would not be inappropriate additionally because this is fun election to this evening they will have the opportunity to appeal this decision tonight if they've like and so that would give them plenty of time to do their appeal and see where that goes so 120 days would feel appropriate I think that given the the status and I based on the testimony this evening I would imagine that the applicant may wish to appeal the decision so that gives them plenty of time to run their due process appeal the action if they like and then schedule somebody to do the work so sir you understand that this isn't the final option you have you you get a chance to bring it to City Council and City Council can review the recommendation that we made and they can come to their own decision and let you keep the grush so you understand that right it's just yes or no question would you do you have the opportunity to appeal it is what mr. sommerfeld's telling you so you can go to City Council and have them make a decision so they get to review this application a new fresh set of eyes and make a final action a final decision do you understand that yes okay all right that being said we're giving you 120 days from I guess tonight from final is it tonight or is it from 10 days from now it would be 120 days from issuance of final action so we'll go out in the mail tomorrow okay so approximately 120 days you'd have to have the structure torn down unless you appeal it and they come to a different decision okay thank you that being said we already vote on this is yes okay okay okay so again just to be clear for the record so that action is fine on the seeming unless appeal to the City Clerk's office within 10 days you have any question about that please contact the staff planner and we can walk you through how that process works so basically filed the appeal with the City Council with the city clerk the City Council will hear your item okay thank you moving on to agenda item 66 STR 783 five to four the possible action on a request for a site development plan review for a proposed five-story 84 unit makes use of elip me including 3248 square feet of commercial space at 231 north 11th Street Ward 5 staff recommends approval staff report please through the chair if I may I need to a stain from this my companies had an interest in this row for decades so I will be abstaining thank you very much staff report mr. chairman the proposed mixed-use development supports the goals of the vision 2045 downtown master plan and staff recommends approval with conditions please note additional letters of support were received after publication thank you thank you please state your name for the record sure grant Garcia good evening mr. chairman and vice-chair commissioners I know that the evening is wrapping up so I'll try to make this as brief as possible we've been involved in this property since before 2009 and then in 2009 we had this property entitled for the same project we ended up having to shelve the project the economic conditions in 2009 then fast forward to about a year ago we reactivated the project and started working with staff to bring this project back to life during this time we and currently we're also working on the sister project also called share downtown that's in the arts district we're wrapping up construction gonna start moving people in the next couple weeks and and since last year we started working on share downtown on 11th with staff form based code was introduced and we had and we worked diligently with staff to fall in line with form based code and and we appreciate the approval from staff and I'm here to help answer any questions thank you this has noticed as a public hearing anybody from the public wish to be heard seeing none here mr. Scott no comments on that chair okay I'll close the public hearing and turn it over to Commissioner Williams Thank You mr. chair this project is actually it's a it's a very beautiful project and it's identical I think to the one in the arts district compliance with all of the codes and so unless there's further comments I'm ready to make a motion please do like to make a motion for approval subject to conditions on item SDR seven eight three five two you've heard the motion please cast your vote and that motion carries thank you have a great evening mr. chairman that item will be final action this evening unless appealed to the City Clerk's office within 10 days thank you thank you moving on directors business item 67 text amount of seven eight seven two four four the possible action on a request to a man L v MC title nineteen point zero eight and nineteen point one two related to the east restrictions for the P o and O zoning districts and to provide other related matters staff has no recommendation staff report mr. chairman the proposed text amendment would allow limited overnight parking of vehicles within the professional office district and to clean up and consolidate use restrictions within the descriptions of the individual professional office and office zoning districts staff has no recommendation thank you thank you this is notice there's a public hearing anybody from the public here wish to be heard seeing none Scott no come on turn it over to commissioners Commissioner chair threw the chair a question for staff it seems like this is going to help corridors like Maryland Parkway and Decatur and certain parts of Charleston and help clean things up a little bit that correct mr. chairman three if I might so that's absolutely the purpose here we've had a number of rezone requests and some of those corridors where we've seen the pr conversion where the corridor is not actually ready to go to the next higher level this will afford those businesses the ability to be able to do limited parking overnight so they're not creating a real issue for the neighborhood's they abut but it provides some relief where previously we've seen a number of requests upzone the properties in in cases where it's really not appropriate at this time to do that yeah okay and I think we're gonna see a lot of changes and especially that Maryland corridor I think that's coming Commissioner Williams yeah just a point of clarification when we say limited we're really talking about smaller business trucks runner trucks right nothing heavy-duty here correct these are these are like the the pool cleaning company that we had today specifically the impetus behind this was a small exterminating company where they have a couple trucks they're trying to use a site over an Eastern the rezone request would have allowed a whole bunch of stuff that's really maybe not appropriate right next to a residential but to be able to store a couple trucks overnight is pretty innocuous in that area so that's the intent here not heavy-duty equipment okay thank you I don't have thank you I think you see none do we have to entertain a motion for this okay happy to make a motion item number 67 txt seven eight seven two four a motion for approval you've heard the motion please cast your vote and that motion carries okay moving on citizen participation the last public comment anybody wish to make any public comment seeing none here in the audience anything from councilman nothing I just want to thank mr. Scott for being part of the Planning Commission for 19 and a half years and we're congratulating you for moving on to City Attorney hopefully in the next few weeks so thank you thank you appreciate it yes I like to make what you said you know you have been such a pleasure to work with you really have I mean you've taken this homeowner and explain things to her that I did not understand before so thank you thank you very much and congratulations and also happy birthday Lou Thank You commissioner happy birthday and don't forget about us come back now and then I'll still be around okay you know where I stand Congrats buddy buddy that's commissioner cherry congratulations good to be with you at one technical question though if I dance at every meeting with City Hall have to get a nightclub license don't do that yes City Hall is technically a grandfathered restricted get our non restricted gaming location and so we can have a Tavern in a nightclub and all that stuff here if we like Oscar would love that just to congratulations Thank You commissioner congratulations mr. Scott and happy birthday the Chairman to Salvio thank you very much all right say one thing go for it I just want to thank you all for all the support you've given me especially on my bid to become City Attorney so the ceremony ratified me at City Attorney will happen on June 17th at 9:00 a.m. so I invite you all to come down but you know over the last 19 and 1/2 years I can't imagine how many meetings I've attended you know I think our latest has been 4:40 a.m. probably our earliest has been probably 6:30 but it's been a really enjoyable adventure advising you and the dozens of other planning commissioners I've advised over those 19 and a half years and so not to embarrass him but Jim Lewis is sitting out in the audience he'll be assuming part of the role as well as Seth Floyd they'll be assuming the role as the primary advisors for the Planning Commission I'll still do the City Council meetings but they'll be handling you guys on a more consistent basis but I just want to say thank you all for 19 enjoyable years and I wish I wish you all the best thank you thank you with that said meeting adjourned