time you'll have three minutes to speak there are lights up on the podium starts with green goes to yellow yellow means wrap it up red means please stop so but thank you for being here tonight good evening ladies and gentlemen I would like to now call this evening's meeting of the planning commission order before we begin please note that this meeting is being video recorded and stream live to the internet May I have a confirmation of posting and roll call? Chair Bolkeman, the agenda has been posted according to the Nevada Open Meeting Law. All commissioners are present, and you have a quorum. Thank you. Commissioner Grzmanowskis reminded me of the date. It's 9-11. And in honor of 9-11, we're going to do a moment of silence to honor all of those that have lost their lives during 9-11, and, of course, those first responders that have subsequently lost their lives as a result of that incident. So after that silence, I will start the Pledge of Allegiance, and you can just join me with the Pledge of Allegiance. At this time, would you all please rise and join me in a moment of silence. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Staff, are there any changes to the agenda? Yes, the following have been noted in the staff reports that were included in the backup documentation for item 11, College and Patty Ann Woods. The minimum lot square footage has been increased by 20 square feet from 32,860 square feet to 32,882 square feet, which is reflected in the staff report. And for item 18, Gibson Commerce Center, there's a change to the waiver of standards to clarify. The request is to reduce the required active open space area from 2,387 square feet to 1,629 square feet and is reflected in the staff report. And the following memorandums have been included in the backup documentation. For item number three, the Ahavas-Torres Center, there's a memo to update the conditions of approval for the expiration dates for each application. Item number 16, for Gateway Plaza, there's a memo to update Community Development Condition number four that states, prior to final inspection of the new smoke shop location at 1999 West Sunset Road, Suite 2, the smoke shop location at 1999 West Sunset, Suite 6 must be permanently closed and the business license canceled. And the following items, some of which are public hearings, are being requested for continuance or withdrawal. Staff recommends continuance of all items except as noted for item 15 for Mr. Granite Construction, continue to the October 16th Planning Commission meeting. Item 17, Roundy Carport, continue to the October 16th, 2025 Planning Commission meeting at the request of the applicant. Based on the recommendation of staff and in accordance with Planning Commission policy, it is the intention of the Planning Commission to make a motion to continue items as noted. For those of you who are unable to attend the meeting for which the item has been continued, please submit your written comments to Community Development Services. Is there a motion to accept the agenda? I'll make that motion. Commissioner Beeson made the motion. Please vote. This brings us to the consent agenda consisting of items one through ten. Item two is being pulled for commissioner disclosure. Is there anyone here who wishes to have an item pulled from the consent agenda for discussion or public comment? Seeing no one, may I have a motion for the consent agenda excluding item number two. I'll go ahead and move. for approval of all items on the Consent Agenda, excluding Item Number 2. Mayor Paterson- Motion was made by Commissioner Brunson. Please vote. And the Consent Agenda was approved. Will you please introduce Item Number 2? Chairman, item number two is a request to extend the approval of a design review for facade remodel and drive-through for a car wash and convenience store located at 234 North Arroyo Grande Boulevard. Staff recommends approval. Thank you. And Commissioner Lewis. Shall I jump in? Yeah, I wanted to go ahead and disclose that my employer, Lewis Management Corp, leases property in North Las Vegas to a Green Valley Grocery. owned by the applicant on this item, and I occasionally deal with Green Valley Grocery regarding issues on that site. However, I don't believe that this lease materially affects my judgment in considering this matter, and I don't believe that it would affect the independence of judgment of a reasonable person in my situation. I've been advised by Council to make this disclosure pursuant to Nevada Ethics Laws, but that I do not need to abstain from voting on this item. Thank you. At this time, I'll just open to public comment. Is there anyone here wishing to speak on this item? I see no one will close a public comment. May we have a motion on item number two? I'll make a motion to approve DRA-202301-3019-E1 subject to conditions. Commissioner Humes made a motion, please vote. Thank you. First item, please. That takes us to item number 11. Item 11 is a two-part request located at the southwest corner of College and Trenier Drives. Request A is a waiver from the Development Code Standards to allow a reduction in the minimum required lot area from 40,000 square feet to 32,882 square feet. Request B is to approve a five lot single family residential subdivision map. Since the June hearing when this got continued, staff has coordinated further with the applicant and also held a neighborhood meeting. Staff documented the residents' concerns at that time and shared the primary reasons for connecting Trenier Drive to College Drive. Staff's position on this connection being necessary remains unchanged. So representatives from fire and traffic are here to address the commission with more specific details. Staff supports the lot size waiver because the lot size reduction was due to street dedications and area needed for drainage easements that could not be included in the final lot size. This also is consistent with waivers granted with nearby subdivisions, thereby no material impact is anticipated to those adjacent properties. As such, staff recommends approval for both requests A and B. The action will be final unless appealed. Staff has also received 17 responses from the public notice in opposition and one in support. Thank you. Applicant name and zip code for the record please. Jeff Thompson with Tenney Engineering 89181. I am on behalf of the client to represent this item. First I want to thank city staff and commission for giving us the time to work through this process a little bit even though the changes may be not as much as most of us would like. Again, the city staff will have a presentation after my item to represent the conditions of it having to move forward for a trainer to go all the way through. Again, we had submitted several plans showing it not to go through, but again, city staff is requiring that trainer to go through, and we are following that recommendation or requirement at this point. I do want to touch on two things before I conclude my presentation. speech here. First thing is on the lot size. I know there's a little bit of concern with the lot size. We have five lots on five gross acres. We have to do submit for waivers due to the dedication of streets as well as easements. If we could include our drainage easements on our lots, we have about 15,000 square feet of drainage easement and Previously, that could be included in your lot size, but due to city requirements now, it has to be a common element and can't be counted towards the lots. And so if we were to divide that evenly throughout our lots, that would add in 3,000 square feet to each lot, which would bring our smallest lot size up to about almost 36,000 square feet, which is, I mean, in accordance with a lot of the other properties in this area. And then my last time I want to speak about is drainage. Again, since Trenere is coming through, we have an adeismant through this corner of the lot, which is why it's smaller. And there is a culvert that sits on the existing private street to the west that we will carry underneath this common element all the way under Trenere, and it will outlet on the other side of Trenere. So this wall will not go over Trenere. Trenere will be above it, which would address that concern for the drainage. Lastly, I just want to state that we agree with all staff's conditions and recommendations. And again, appreciate your guys' time. Thank you. Thank you. Staff, if we could hear from the traffic department and I believe is fire and safety here. Thank you. Okay. Good evening. Name and zip code for the record. I'm Eric Hawkins. I'm the city traffic engineer for the city of Henderson, zip code 89015. I'll just give a bit of history on why we are requiring the road to go all the way through to college. And then maybe a little bit more detail on traffic engineering and transportation planning principles to further explain the detail. The map you see in front of you is a couple of parcel maps from the day back in the 1970s that when these properties were first sold, there was an easement on both sides of Trenere, 30 feet on each side to give us or anyone the right to build a road. And that's typical with all City of Henderson development. So this is no different than what we usually see. That's why we required the road. Also, other... parcels in the area. This is just west of, so this is the parcel in question. These are the parcels to the west of there. Every other parcel, we believe, had the same easement. So they dedicated it when they came in for development. I've got another larger map. So this actually is a good illustration on what a planned roadway network typically looks like in the Las Vegas Valley, not just Henderson, but the whole Las Vegas Valley, it's a grid network. So what a grid network does is it basically distributes traffic evenly through all roads. So if Trenere does connect over to College Drive, we would expect some of the traffic in the area to kind of even out. of course, Treniere's traffic, the volume would increase. We don't expect it to increase to as much as, say, like a Patti-Anne Woods or Paradise Hills or Mission Drive for different reasons. But one of the reasons is Patti-Anne Woods has direct access over to the park and the school east of College Drive. So that's why we think the volume won't be as high. One more point to make. Treniere, as with all public roadways, provides access to not just one road but to the development as a whole. So looking west of Greenway Road, this is Trenere right here. So these folks out here would use Trenere as well to access the park, the school, and I-11 if needed. That's pretty much in a nutshell why we're requiring this road. And I can be here for questions now or later. I do have a question. Has that road always been planned to be put through? I know that the city waits on a development to come in, and the developers typically pay for the roadways. Has that always been the intention, as the city would connect Trinear to college? Yes, and that was what I was explaining before, was those easements is exactly the reason why it was planned. Okay. I have another question. How many of our roads, if you say that there was, how many of our roads are built exactly to the comprehensive plan? I don't know if I can give you an answer to that. Is it 100%, 90%, 80%? Just off. As much as we can. Not 100%. Okay. I don't know. My other question is, in regards to flow down Trenere as a gateway, what is the average speed down Patty Ann Woods? The average, well, the 85th percentile. So what that means is that 85% of drivers are driving X miles per hour or less. So right now, the current 85th percentile speed on Petty Ann Woods is about 37, 38 miles per hour. And is that a residential area or is that a commercial zone? It's a residential area. What is the speed limit on Mission Drive? Speed limit on Mission Drive? I think it's 25. It might be 35, but I think it's 25. 35, but... Okay, if it's 35, then yeah. Yeah, it's made as an arterial. I have no further questions. Commissioner, is there any more questions of our engineer? Just to be clear, we're going to hear. Yeah, we do have another presentation and then the public comment would be on that. There's an opportunity to call the traffic engineer back up after we hear from the public as well. So I don't want you to think that this is your one opportunity. Okay. Thanks, Eric. Thank you. And public safety. Good afternoon, Commissioners. Mark Sandusky, Senior Fire Safety Plans Examiner, representing the Fire Department on this issue. Trainere as it exists doesn't really even meet our fire code requirements for roads being built. But because it's one of those roads that progressed as it was built out with the homes of development, built the roads, we have what we have. And so the code basically says that an approved secondary access shall be provided for 20 or more dwelling units, roads with dead ends or with a single point of access more than 600 feet long. So... Right now, Trainear as it is currently has 36 homes along it, and it's approximately 3,300-foot dead end. There is no secondary access into Trainear. So that is a major concern for fire. We need that access off of college to provide the EMS service and the fire service to these folks and these families. I met with the fire chief earlier in the week. And he got me this information. He did a, had a report with data done up, and he said it's for the last 20 years, so he did it back to 2025, and he looked into the calls for service that involved an automobile, bike, or pedestrian accident along Traynear or Patty Ann Woods. And during that 20-year time frame, there have been only 16 events during that time frame, And only one of those events occurred between Greenway and College. I'll go ahead and put that map down there. And as you can see, they're in red, the red dots. So there was one, and there was actually none along Paddy Ann Woods, which is the through street. And there was one incident on Train Air. All the rest were either at the intersections or to the west of, or excuse me, east. West, yeah, west of Greenway. So the roads as currently built and over the past 20 years are safe. What our concern is with the fire department is being able to respond to a medical emergency. I know there's lots of pools along there, so possible drowning, fire incidents, heart attacks. The fire department is very concerned about not being able to access Trenier off of college in a timely fashion. So that's my spiel for fire. Thank you. Any questions? Can you tell me the difference between Trenier and De Forte? De Forte Avenue, because it's a dead end also. Which one? Two streets up from Patty Ann. The dead ends into the school area. Can you put your map back up there? It's the street following Madian Woods. You left it out of your spiel. I know what you're talking about. That's the one. Yeah, he didn't give me data on that one. That's not the one. I'd like to know how long it is. You mentioned a certain amount of length on it that you would like the road to go through. And I'm just wondering if Dufort, I don't know if I'm pronouncing it right, Dufort, if it's if it's over the length that you're requiring for Trenere? Okay. It is, but it has to... That's what I'm saying. The requirement is for having a secondary access. There is a secondary access. The school built a secondary access. It's gated, but we can go through either coming from the school or going through the school property. There's an access there. So it's crash gate or a block gate? Correct. Okay. which we do not have currently on train here off of any other little offshoots. The little cul-de-sacs, they're all dead-ended. And we're not here to discuss how to fix this problem, but I've got to ask you these questions while you're up here. Sure. If there was a crash gate at the end of train air at college, does that slow you down? As long as it takes for somebody to get out of the truck and open up a lock and open the gate so yeah absolutely it slows us down somewhat faster to do that or go around the block and come the other direction I would see I would think that'd be a little bit quicker to go through the gate okay okay I guess following up on that question that is and this might be an Eric question does the city typically do crash gates the end of these kinds of streets? And that may be Eric. That's an Eric question. But no, we do not have gates on public roads. OK. I just wasn't sure. But I'm sure it looks like Eric agrees with that. Thank you. Anything else? MR. Yeah, how many incidents, you said in your report you only included, if you had to guess, so there's been zero incidents, or how many incidents have been included on Patty Ann Woods and DeFort, or did you only include Patty Ann Woods and Trineer? MR. He only did Trineer and Patty Ann Woods. MR. Okay, thank you. MR. Okay, thank you very much, Marth. You're welcome. MR. Appreciate your time. At this time, I'll open a public hearing. How many of you out there want to speak on this item? Okay. I'm going to, is there a spokesperson? If there's one spokesperson, I'll give 10 minutes to that person in lieu of everybody else speaking. Is that okay? Okay. So with that, if you'll come on down as a spokesperson for the community, I'm sure everybody has the same concern, and we'd be hearing the same thing over and over again. So unless you've got something to add to what the spokesperson is saying, we'll let the spokesperson have 10 minutes. Is that fair enough? Okay. I just need your name and zip code for the record. Absolutely, and thank you so much for that. My name is Brooke Reeves. My zip code is 89002. We are here tonight to strongly oppose the proposed connection of trainer drive to college avenue and the waiver of RNP for a new development. Staff support for this connection rest on one mistaken assumption that it benefits the community. does not in fact it introduces serious safety and design flaws that undermine the very purpose of rnp zoning we adamantly oppose that position and urge this commission not to approve any waiver based upon the connection of trainer drive to college avenue let me reverse just a little bit because my first part was to actually ask you for the 10 minutes on behalf of all of my neighbors that i have here and i want to just Thank you guys sincerely for your time and energy. I know that you care deeply about our community and these decisions are not easy. I'm grateful that you approach them with integrity and the intent to do right by the Henderson residents and absolute kudos to Brian Adams who handled our neighborhood meeting with the utmost professionalism and Let me continue. The neighborhood directly to the west of Trineer Drive has 902 homes. Of those 902, approximately 200 of those homes are located such that exiting via Trineer Drive towards Greenway will be the closest and most convenient exit. The average weekday vehicle trip generation rate for a single family home in Henderson is 9.43 trips per dwelling unit based on data from the Institute of Transportation and Engineers Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition, if you'd like to look that up. This rate accounts for all vehicle entries and exits combined. Multiplying this trip rate by the 200 homes directly adjacent to Trinear Drive west of Greenway represents total vehicle movements of nearly 2,000 trips per day. While some of these vehicles will be heading south to the elementary school or north to the grocery store, a large number of those vehicles, at least 25 to 33% or more, We'll be heading east towards College Drive and the interstate interchange located there. Currently, all of those vehicles safely access that area through Mission Drive, a four-lane, 35-mile-an-hour road with sidewalks and streetlights and only four household driveways directly pulling onto the road. And all traffic on Mission safely turns onto College Drive at the controlled four-way stop at Mission and College. If you connect Trineer Drive to College Drive and only 25% of those vehicles now choose to travel down Trineer to College, that would be 500 more cars per day on a very conservative estimate. On Trineer Drive, a two-lane road with dozens of driveways directly pulling out onto the road, no sidewalks and no streetlights. And I also need to add that we have equestrian traffic. Those vehicles will then try to pull onto College at a one-way stop pulling in front of cross traffic that is in motion. This is obviously a poor traffic design and violates the intent of an RNP street. Despite the fact that connecting Trenere to college is obviously a bad idea, staff attempts to justify this action through several erroneous statements and conclusions. I'd like to address a few of those and explain how each is false. First, the staff report states that this street connection, trainer to college, will improve neighborhood connectivity with increased accessibility for emergency and utility services, as well as for pedestrians being able to access the trail on College Drive. This is false. College and Greenway are already connected by three streets in just a half a mile stretch, as was shown earlier, Mission, Paddy Ann Woods, and Paradise Hills, and each of those has a safe, a four-way stop sign. There is no need for a fourth connection, which would have a more dangerous one-way stop sign. Pedestrians could easily be served by a path connecting two cul-de-sacs as already present between the current end of Trineer and College Heights Court. There is no need to connect Trineer through to college to improve pedestrian access. Second, the staff report states that the fire code limit limits the maximum dead end length without an approved turnaround not to exceed 150 feet. The eastern end of Trenere currently exceeds that length without an approved turnaround. The obvious solution to this is to simply install an approved turnaround. Extending Trenere to college is not the only or best solution to this problem. It is a solution that creates far more problems than it solves. The city owns sufficient right of way to pave an approved turnaround. And I'm sure I can even rally my wonderful neighbors to raise the funds to help the city do it. Third, staff has suggested that speed humps could be installed. However, the same fire department that now claims that extending Trenere will somehow make it safer, which is obviously false, has opposed the installation of speed humps on Patillon Woods for years, stating that it hinders emergency vehicle access. It slows them down. We have no reassurance those speed humps will ever actually be installed, and no number of speed humps fully alleviates the added danger of hundreds of additional cars traveling down Trenere. Fourth, the staff report states, the proposed waiver achieves the intent of the subject standard to the same or better degree than the subject standard because with the connection of Trenier to College Drive, accessibility for emergency access significantly improves because there is only one access to Trenier Drive for over 35 homes with more being built. It is incredibly ironic to me that the same staff that continually waives RNP standards to increase the number of homes in the area is now using the number of homes in the area to also increase the amount of pass-through traffic invading this RNP zone. The justification is weak, arbitrary, and false. Fifth, the staff report states traffic on all other existing roadways will decrease with more of a grid roadway system. This is clear evidence that the staff is ignoring the rural natural preservation standards and seeking to push traffic from surrounding neighborhoods onto streets with no sidewalks, streetlights, and limited street markings. A street with not only heavy pedestrian traffic, but also equestrian traffic. This is obviously unsafe and completely violates the R&P zoning designation. Finally, the staff report states if Trineer Drive did not connect to College Drive, it could create confusion and potentially lead to rear end collisions. This is the clearest proof that the staff arguments are baseless and vented and arbitrary. There is no explanation. as to why or how Trineer Drive continuing to exist as it is has far from more than a decade would suddenly cause rear-end accidents. This is just false. Arbitrary recommendations and justifications for waivers of zoning standards like these will not withstand City Council and judicial review. And we will seek both if this poorly thought out and ridiculously justified plan is approved by this body. Lastly, I've been working on this issue for weeks, excited to stand up for my wonderful neighbors and help the commission understand that it would be easy to come to an amicable solution. But after the events that occurred in our country yesterday, I wanted to throw in the towel and stay home safe in my bed with my family, away from anything that could be considered conflict, because this sure is. With the help of my amazing children, I quickly realized that while I don't yet know how to help heal our country or citizens on a macro level, I do know of things that we can do on a micro level. And that is all work together to keep our neighborhoods safe. We can care about the seemingly little things that in reality all lead to the larger picture of caring for and understanding others. And it is my hope that you will help keep our wonderful, kind, and under- and understanding the little area of this crazy world safe. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else that would like to add something to what was presented? Someone's gonna need to help her with the microphone, I guess. We just need your name and zip code. My name is Abby Phillip and our zip code is 89002. And we live on Trenia Drive and we do not want the road to go through because sometimes our dog likes to run out on the road when he don't know and we do not want him to get run over. And sometimes me and my sister and my friend like to ride our bikes and scooters in front of our houses, but with the cars going, we can get run over and it's not safe. Sometimes when we drive down the road, we have to get the mail. And me and my sister sometimes like to run down the road to our house. But with other cars going, it's not safe for us to run down the road. That's why I don't want the road to go through. My name is Rhea Phillips. and my zip code is 89002. I have a trainier drive and I don't want the road to go through because we ride our bikes and scooters up our street to attend us and with the cars coming down it won't be safe. We won't be able to do family walks or bike rides around our street because there would be too many cars. Last but not least, we won't be able to ride our bikes or walk home from school every day because the cars will be there and it won't be a good or safe option. Thank you. I just want to remind the people that are wanting to speak, if you've got something to add that's different from what was already presented, You're welcome to speak. I gave 10 minutes to your spokesperson. So I'm assuming you've got something else you'd like to add. I do have something different. Karen Dowd, and my zip code is 89002. Thank you very much for giving me an opportunity to speak. I would just like to point out that I think most of the people opposed to this would, because of the five lots instead of four, would be much preferable to five. And they're taking developments in the area that have similar lot sizes as an example of why it should be approved. But those areas are not supposed to be taken as precedent. They're supposed to examine each item as a as a separate item. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. You could please hold your applause. We can get through it. Maybe you guys can applaud outside. Thank you very much. Okay. Hi, I'm Rich Caruso. I live on Trenere 8902. Two things I'd just like to bring up real quick is that I was told that there are private streets, but there are two private streets at the end of Trenere that I think we should at least be considered if we need a second alternative access point. If we had to talk to those homeowners that live on, I believe it's College Heights and Crystal Heights roads, there's a possibility of putting a crash gate at one of those two cul-de-sac entrances on the Trenere. We haven't even had a chance to explore that option. So at least a continuation for that. Great. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to speak on this item? Okay, seeing no one, oh, one more person, okay. And again, just your name and zip code for the record. Yeah, just real quick, Jeff Dalton, 89002. Something to add to what they've already said is just like what has already been said from staff and from some of the questions here on Dufort, they added that crash gate to be able to make that access go. And that's a lot of what we've been talking about with staff as well. So as we're talking about alternative solutions, It's hard to understand why they would necessarily be able to do that there, that crash gate on Dufort, with the same amount of houses and everything else involved there, but why it would be different on Trenere. So, it's just one more thing to add. Thank you. Thank you. And you have something to add, sir? Okay, good. Thank you. Your name and zip code for the record? John Jones, 89002. The gentleman said that the traffic speed on Patti Ann was about 35. I talked to somebody in the city, but I wanted to double check with him. I was told on train year it was only 22, something that I think is very important. Thank you very much. And is there anyone else wishing to speak? Seeing no one, I'll go ahead and close the public hearing. I'd like to invite Eric back up. I think we've got some questions probably. So obviously the neighborhood is concerned about the connection. And I had asked you earlier if it was always the city's plan to connect the street to allow, number one, that it was always in the plan. Number two is for safety. Do we have other streets that have this situation where we did not connect the street? Or the developer developed the street and it was the city that planned? put in the street? I couldn't say that we do or don't. They might exist to my knowledge. But to my knowledge we also don't have gates that are maintained by the city. And then one of the comments was the trip generation. Can you comment about that trip generation? Yep. The numbers are right in terms of how much a typical single family home generates. We did a study on Patti-Einwoods about a year or so ago. we anticipated that we'd see about somewhere around 1,500 vehicles per day is what our estimate was based on how many homes we thought would access Pettion Woods. When we actually took the count, it was close to 1,000, so like 975 vehicles per day. Again, we wouldn't expect to see that number on Trenere. Maybe 500 might be, it was mentioned before, very well could be the number. And the speed limit along Trenere, is 25, if it's connected, will it remain at 25? Is that correct? That's correct. And a comment made just before I came up here was the speed, the 85th percentile speed was 22. No, we see it about 27, 28. Okay, along Trinear? On Trinear, yeah. All right. Mr. Eric, we brought up the question about a one-way stop at the end of Trinear and at the end of the proposed Trinear. What is the safety percentages on a one-way stop as opposed to a four-way stop? In terms of number of crashes? Yes. I don't have that number available. If you're looking for what we might expect to see if you connect Trenere to college, probably the numbers that Mark showed earlier with responses to those intersections. We don't see these intersections in the area as high crash locations, just to put that out there. And why don't you see that? That seems very subjective. I guess you could say it's subjective, but it's because the volume of traffic is low, generally, compared to other areas of the city. Compared to eastern, say. This is kind of a... And it's not fair to compare the two, but that's... Yeah, they're not... I was going to ask, just out of curiosity, college and Mission, do you see a traffic light there, or is it still kind of in range of where you'd like it as far as... We could do any number of things. A signal could be one, a roundabout could be another. We're open to suggestions. We haven't gotten that far into planning with that intersection yet. Okay. I was just curious because something different happening there would probably change the traffic trajectory. If you had a signal admission, some people might opt to take admission instead of an engineer. But I'm not a traffic engineer, so I'm just speculating. No, I mean... To me, this is kind of an interesting one because I almost feel like we've put traffic on and safety up on the, as the applicant here, not the home builder. Because I think the five lots to me seems like that's well within range. It's exactly like what else is out there. You have a little difference on how they've measured just based on the density. So it's kind of a, this is a, it's more of an indictment of whether we like how traffic is planned. but I don't have any more comments. Mr. Eric? I'm sorry. During briefings, didn't somebody mention something about your speed signs temporary being put up on Panerian Woods? Yes, and they're actually up there now. We installed them either yesterday or Tuesday, and what they do is as you're driving, you'll see something that says speed limit, whatever it is, and then your speed, so it reflects what your speed is. Now we deactivate number if somebody's going beyond a certain number and just tell them to slow down or I think right now we have a sad face or an angry face that flashes back at you so hopefully those work. Okay and is that something that the city would consider placing on Trenere and maybe some of the other streets there as well? Yes and also this actually is a good segue because it was commented before that speed humps were written off as not possible on Petty and Woods. No, they are possible. We're evaluating the potential for them. To segue to that, when you said that the traffic signs, the traffic, not the traffic signs, but speed signs, when you said that you hope that they work, what does that mean? Can you give me a definition of that? Yeah, typically we see about 10 to 20 percent drop in 85th percentile speed with driver feedback sign. So you know, as you'd expect, you wouldn't see what we want to have if it's closer to 25, so it would be more like 32, 33 is what we're hoping for on that, and then we'll evaluate from there. Mayor Redekopoulos- Eric, I don't want to really throw you under the bus here, but, and we're just here for one reason, waiver of standards. If it wasn't going through, if Trenere wasn't going through, we wouldn't have all these people here. This is probably, we have one person opposed to the square footage. So bottom line is we're here for something different under Trenere. But we're being thrown into this because of the public. So this isn't new. I remember a planning commissioner 25 years ago on Paradise Hills standing, he was a planning commissioner. And he stood up there and said there was a problem on Paradise Hills 25 years ago. So this isn't happening just because growth and turnier is going through. This area up here has a tremendous amount of traffic going to and from. Then you throw in Mission Hills where it has an event, which just is insane. All these people, when they leave, they aren't going to the freeway. They're headed down to Trenere, they're headed down to Fort, they're headed down Paradise Hills, they're headed down anywhere except that intersection at Mission and College. So I have a hard time supporting his application if the rest of it isn't fixed. And I hate to do that to him, but for some reason, we can't put stop signs, we can't put speed bumps, we can't put a crash gate, we can't do anything up there except put the road through and hope it works. and hope that some child doesn't get run over because somebody's speeding down Ternere now instead of going 28 miles an hour or whatever, three miles over the speed limit, which they're gonna go a lot faster because bottom line is Paradise Hills, I've been down it multiple times, and it's a speed zone. Mission Hills, not so bad, but it's still fast, but it's got a lot of lanes and it's got sidewalks and curbs and gutters, so it's a lot better controlled street. But I have a hard time supporting this without some way looking at the rest of these streets, working with the fire department, working with the public, and making this a safer area for traffic to flow. And I don't see that just by going, well, we'll stick it through to college and good luck. I just don't see that. So if there's anything you could tell me that could be done differently than just sticking the street through and calling it a day. I'd love to hear it. I'm sure they would love to hear it. And it's something that I can't support unless the rest of this is fixed. Yeah, so I can comment on, let's start with Patty Ann Woods because Patty Ann Woods was brought to the Citizens Transportation Advisory Board, I believe it was a couple of meetings ago earlier this year, talking about these exact same issues. So these are important to us and we are doing something about them. We put striping in on Petty-on-Woods and evaluated that the speed drop and it didn't actually drop. So now we're looking at driver feedback signs on Petty-on-Woods. The next step would be potentially speed humps. So as I mentioned before, speed humps are on the menu of items we can look at. Of course, we would bring it to the neighborhood to see if they wanted it, but because some neighborhoods don't want those. but in terms of what you're saying with safety, yeah, that's our concern as well. MR. Well, I think just to piggyback on Commissioner Beeson, what he's saying though, Eric, is you used the phrase, we hope that works, we hope that slows down. We've already talked about the numbers being only 10% stoppage, and now we're focusing on Patty and Woods, where this subdivision's on Trenere. And just to piggyback on the safety perspective, of the overall safety for the whole neighborhood, for everyone involved. And so I too have not heard any information different from what has been presented previously that would garner my support as well. So that's what we're asking for. Instead of like, hey, is it good, or hope this, or want that, that's why I'm asking for direct information. Correct information? Better information. I mean, I've given the information that we have. And forgive me, I'm not meaning to say that Patti-Anne Woods is all we're looking at, because Trenier, we would see Trenier as a potential issue, as the same things we're seeing on Patti-Anne Woods. And that's what Commissioner Beeson is saying, is why would we open up, why would we develop a new problem? Why would we open ourselves to another problem that we haven't even solved on Patti-Anne Woods? I'm not sure I'm following that Patti-Anne Woods is a One is it has zero to do with here, but if there aren't very many incidents, it's pretty similar, it runs parallel. Like I think we're starting to get kind of tied up in the weeds here. We have a guy with a tentative map, and we're sort of instead indicting our traffic department, who seems pretty trustworthy, spends all day doing this, I'm kind of thinking we need to move forward with this, either whatever it is. I'll make a motion. I've got another question. Mark, could you come back up? Mark? Public safety? Fire department? Where is he? Oh, there he is. Keep pointing to him. Sorry. What are you looking at me for? So, Mark, tell me what the city's objective is from response time. I don't know those statistics as far as it's eight minutes or less, I believe, for response time. Yeah, I think so. Okay. And they maintain that because they have the great ratings that they've had over the years. How much time, if there was a crash gate to be put up, how much time would that add to an emergency call? You'd have to ask the people to do that because I don't know. I don't know that. That's not something that we do in plans examining. But one to two minutes? And doesn't one to two minutes make the difference between life and death? It absolutely could. One minute could make the difference. Okay. Absolutely. That's, did anybody else have any questions? Yeah, I have a question. One last question. Okay, go ahead. The map you're showing right now, I just want to make sure I understand this is 20 years? 20 years, 16 incidents. So 16 incidents. In that whole area. Based on those two streets. Okay. And not one has been on Pattian Woods between... Greenway and College. There hasn't been one incident called in 20 years. Do you know off the top of your head at Greenway and Patty Ann Woods, is that a four-way stop? I don't know. It's a two-way stop. And Tredere and Greenway, is that also two-way? One-way stop. Okay. But 16 incidents over a 20-year period, I'd say that's a pretty safe neighborhood to live in. Well, that's a great point that you bring up actually, because you're saying if there's only 16 incidents over 20, which is not true by the way, but the crowd behind you is leading to that. There's been incidents on Patty Ann Woods and that's why they're so concerned. But let me speak first, Mark. So when you asked about the, one of the commissioners asked about the crash gate and someone said about the crash gate on the school, and I think we kind of avoided that, is Does the city maintain, does it go into school district property? No, the school maintains those crash gates. Thank you. So if someone else maintained on the private street of both Crystal Heights, which has a gate on it as well as the other Heights Street, College Heights. Yeah, those would be private streets and they're privately maintained by their HOAs. So they could privately maintain the gate as well, like other subdivisions? No. across the public street or private street? Private streets is where we only see gates. We don't put gates across public streets. MR. True. And what I'm saying is the same type of crash gate in the same school district. School district is, in this conversation, is a private entity. MR. Correct. MR. And so that is a possibility that a private entity on College Heights could maintain a crash state. MR. On College Heights, sure. Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Thanks, Mark. No further questions? Are there any further questions? I'll make a motion to deny WOS-2025016961. faulting the waiver of standards due to a lack of a compensating benefit. Could you be more descriptive on the lack of compensating benefit? And we also need you to make some findings of that consistent with the staff report. So according to the staff report, the compensating benefit for the smaller lots is the primary compensating benefit of this request will be increased connectivity of the neighborhood, which includes improving accessibility and turnaround capability for emergency and utility services. This has not been presented. The findings of fact do not support this conclusion. The conclusion of improved accessibility and turnaround capability as exhibited by the current neighborhood has been maintained even by the current fire standards that there's been little incidents and little required. And so I am making a motion to deny. So just to be clear, which finding of fact in the staff report The compensating benefit that the primary compensating benefit to the reduction of lots is compensated by the benefit of this request is connectivity of the neighborhood. Page four. Oh, but yeah, but page four is the exact compensating benefit. Do you have anything to say about how it advances the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan, which is another finding. I would say that it fails to exhibit a comprehensive, can you ask me the question again, City Attorney? Sure. I'm wondering how you will justify this recommendation for denial, how it advances the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan and the code. The way the tentative map is laid out as it's currently proposed does not support the RNP zoning. It does not support increased lots and the reduce of lot sizes for the purpose of additional lots. Yeah, there are four. I'm taking them sort of out of order. Mayor Paterson- Do we have to, do I have to counter all four? Ms. The staff report is pretty solid on these recommendations and findings of facts, so I think that to the extent that you can advance a different argument, it helps support your recommendation for denial. Would denying this application impose no greater impacts on the adjacent property? as would occur through compliance with the specific requirements of the ordinance. Mayor Paterson- True. I'm looking for the number one through four. What number is that on, Mike? Mayor Paterson- It's on page seven of your staff report. Oh, achieves the intent of standard. So number one, I'm recommending denial because it does not achieve the intent of the subject standard to the same or better degree than the subject standard based on the tentative map that is presented before us today, based on the lot size reduction as well as the intended traffic flow from those lots. B, Advance the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. Part of the comprehensive plan is for the overall safety of the city. As the fire department quoted before, we've had very few incidences in the current condition that it is. Increasing the traffic flow down Trenere due to more lots on it would increase the potential for public safety to go down. C, provide compensating benefits, which I already addressed. D, infoses no greater impacts on the adjacent properties than would occur through compliance. That is not true because increased traffic flow, if Trenier went through, would increase the, would reduce the compliance and would reduce the opportunity for us to correct the other out of compliance that we currently exhibit. Is that satisfactory? So the motion on the floor is to deny from Commissioner Humes. Please keep in mind a vote of yes on this is for denial. Please vote. So there are four yeas and two no's. That item is your motion for denial is approved. Thank you. I really appreciate the input that was shared tonight. To the two young ladies that were brave enough to come up and talk. I really appreciate your comments, so thank you for doing that. It's a good example of how we allow the public to come present to us. So again, thank you for all being here. Next item, please. That takes us to item number 12. Item 12 is a request to vacate a non-exclusive utility easement located northeast of Lake Las Vegas Parkway and Highland Shores Drive. Staff recommends approval because the easement is no longer needed and this item will be heard at the October 7th Council meeting. Name and zip code for the record, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Michael Tassi, 218 Lead Street, along with John Marciano representing the applicant. We thank staff for the recommendation and we'll answer any questions as needed. At this time, I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to speak on this item? See no one to close the public hearing. Commissioners, any questions or comments or a motion? Sure, I'll go ahead and make a motion for approval of VAC 2025107246, subject to finding a fact and conditions. Commissioner Lewis made the motion. Please vote. Next item is item number 13, which is a three-part request for 15.3 acres located north of Sunset Shores Lane. Request A is to amend the land use category from MDR to LDR, low density residential. Request B is to rezone from RN10-MP-H with master plan and hillside overlays to a lower density of RS4-MPH with master plan and hillside overlays. Request C is for a 35-lot single-family residential subdivision. Staff recommends approval of all applications and that they are in compliance with the master plan standards. This item was also to be heard at the October 7th City Council meeting. Staff has received one response from the public hearing notice in support of the project. Thank you. Damon Sipko, for the record. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Michael Tassi, 218 Lead Street, along with Sean Marciano Reinhardt. Representing the applicant, as Mr. Allen had indicated, this is for essentially a down zoning of this parcel located here on one of the island pieces in the northern part of Rainbow Canyon in Lake Las Vegas. Thank you for the staff recommendation. We agree with the conditions of approval and happy to answer any questions. Thank you. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here wishing to speak on this item? Seeing no, I'll close the public hearing. Commissioners? If there's no questions, I'll make a motion to approve CPA 202-501-6801, ZZA 201-1500286, TMA 202-501-6800, subject to finding facts, conditions, and existing waivers. Could you read the TMA again for me? Did you add an extra? The TMA number? Oh, I put a 00. I'm sorry. Dyslexic TMA 2025-01-6807. Thank you. Commissioner Beeson made the motion. Please vote. Thank you very much. That takes us to item number 14, which is to approve a master sign plan for Bruner Marketplace. This is located on the southwest corner of Bruner Avenue and Raiders Way with the following two modifications. One, to allow freestanding signs on Raiders Way where only one is allowed. And then second is to increase the maximum allowed area for a multi-tenant freestanding sign from 128,000, sorry, 128,000. square feet to 160 square feet. Staff recommends approval for both applications. The applicant has agreed to relocate one of the two freestanding signs allowed on Brunner Avenue to Raiders Way. The signs are surrounded by industrial development on all sides and the increase in size is considered minimal for this multi-tenant sign. This action would be final unless appealed. Mayor Redekopoulos, to the record. Me again, Mr. Chairman, Michael Tessy, 218 Lead Street, along with Tom Amick. Representing the applicant on this one, just to give you an idea where this is at, it is over by the Raiders headquarters, the 1-0 Las Vegas Raiders headquarters along Raiders Way and Bruner. Basically what we're asking to do is we're allowed to have two signs on Bruner and one on Raiders, and we're just asking that to be swapped so that we can have our freestanding sign where we see most of the traffic. We thank staff for their recommendation of approval. We accept the conditions and are happy to answer any questions. Thank you. At this time, I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to speak on this item? Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing. I'll make a motion to approve MSP-2025-017-270, subject to findings of facts and conditions and modifications. Commissioner Humes made the motion. Please vote. Thank you very much. Item 15 was continued, so that takes us to item 16, which is a conditional use permit approval to relocate a smoke and tobacco, pardon me, tobacco vape shop within the same retail center. And this is located at 1999 West Sunset Road, and this would be from Suite 6 to Suite 2. This includes updating the previously approved distance separations to protected uses which are a school, park, and to the nearest residential property line. Staff recommends approval as the separation of protected uses is properly justified. This action would be final unless appealed. Staff receive one response from the public notice in opposition. Thank you. Name and zip code for the record. I'm at Shukla 89015. Do you agree with staff's recommendation? Absolutely. Do I have any other comments you'd like to add? No. Okay, thank you. At this time I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here wishing to speak on this item? Seeing no, I want to close the public hearing. Commissioners, questions, comments? Commissioner Brunson, do you want to make a motion? Yeah, hearing no further discussion, I would motion for final approval of CUP-2025-01-7245, subject to findings of fact, conditions, and modifications. Commissioner Brunson made a motion. Please vote. If that item passes. Thank you. Item 17 was continued. That brings us to item 18. It's a two-part request for the Gibson Commerce Center located on the northeast corner of Gibson and Sunset Roads. Request A is for five waivers from the development code standards to reduce perimeter setbacks and reductions in landscaping and open space. Second request is for design review approval for the proposed architecture and site design of an office warehouse facility. Staff recommends approval of all the waivers and overall site design because it's an oddly shaped and mostly narrow parcel that makes development challenging. This action is final unless appealed. Staff has received two responses from the public notice in support and one in opposition. Name and zip code for the record please. Andres Gonzalez 89134. Move forward, thank you. you say your name and zip code again for the record yeah andres Gonzalez eight nine one three four thank you and you agree with staffs recommendation I do you have anything you'd like to add I do not okay what about at this time I'll open the public hearing is there anyone here wish to speak on this item see no one opposed a public hearing commissioners sure if no one has any I'm happy to go ahead and make a motion for final approval of WOS 202517291 and DRA 2025017292, subject to findings of fact, conditions, and waivers. Motion was made by Commissioner Lewis. Please vote. That and it passes. Good luck with your project. Item 19 is a waiver from the development code standards to increase the maximum height of a masonry retaining wall from six feet to eight feet, and this is generally located east of Lake Las Vegas Parkway, approximately 1,000 feet south of the intersection of Grand Mediterra Boulevard. Staff recommends approval finding that the applicant has provided acceptable compensating benefits, and this action will be final unless appealed. Name and zip code. Thank you, Mr. Chair, commissioners. Tom Amick, 1980 Festival Plaza. WITH ME IS MR. MARCIANO AND MR. TASSE. WE'RE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT WHICH IS POLTY. THIS IS PARCEL H-1 WITHIN THE FALLS IN LAKES LAS VEGAS. WALL HEIGHT WAIVER FROM 6 FEET TO 8 FEET. THESE ARE COMMONLY GRANTED OUT HERE. I THINK AS YOU GUYS KNOW, THIS HELPS US PRESERVE THE HILLSIDE. YOU HAVE TO TAKE LESS OF THE the hillsides down, you get to do more landscaping. So we appreciate the staff recommendation of approval. The tenant map is already approved with these wall heights, but it didn't have the waiver with it at the time. So we're coming back to do it now. Thank you. At this time, I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to speak on this item? Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing. Commissioners? I make a motion to approve 00S2025017354, Waiver of Standards, recommendation for final approval. Subject to? Subject to findings of the facts. Conditions and a waiver. Okay, a motion was made by Commissioner Grzmanowskis. Please vote. That on it passes. Thank you. Next item is item 20. This is a request to approve a master sign plan for Circle K located on the northeast corner of Boulder Highway and Galleria Drive. That includes two modifications in conjunction with an approved site plan. Modification A is to increase the allowed height from eight feet to 17 feet. This would be for sign A. The second modification is to increase the allowed area from 64 square feet to 146 square feet for the same sign. recommends a denial because the proposed height and area are both excessive and more than double what the code permits for a single tenant monument sign. The site will also have a large gas canopy structure that includes logos and pricing that will be elevated to approximately 23 feet in height with clear visibility. Additionally, staff and the commission have been consistent with enforcing the size and height and area of these sign types along Boulder Highway. this action would be final unless appealed. Thank you. Applicant? Name and zip code for the record, please. James Carpentier 85207. And Chair Boekelman and Planning Commissioner, I really appreciate the opportunity to speak. And I do have a presentation. Yep, that's up. Thank you. So it's actually 16 feet, 10 and 1⁄2 inches, just to be precise. But rounded up to 17 feet. And we're asking for additional square footage from 64 to 146 per your code. The actual sign area is 118.75 because your code includes the structural portion that's below the sign. And I just wanted to mention that that's not really I would consider and many others best practices because what you're doing is you either compromise the design or the height. You have to take one or the other and it makes for not the best environment when it comes to signs. It's a give and take that isn't the best case scenario. And justification for the request is we're proposing enhanced wall signs. for the building and the canopies, which is the front illuminated and also halo illuminated, so it's going to have a softer look. And it's definitely an upgrade. And that's where we have an unused portion of the allowed sign area based upon the 1.75 versus 1.5 square foot allowance. It gives us a little bit more square footage that we're not using that we're proposing to transfer over to the ground sign. And this shows exactly what I talked about, proposing a forfeiture of 64.45 square feet and a reduction of one wall sign. That's the trade-off for the Master Sign Plan. And the justification is really essential due to the enhancements on Boulder Highway. I strongly believe, and I've got a little bit more evidence, that the because of the right-of-way of 250 feet, which is really like a freeway type of right-of-way. It's not an arterial width, which is typically sometimes half that. And you've got BRT station going there at those intersections. And you've got landscaping, which is pretty substantial based on the plans I looked at. And one thing I wanted to mention is that, like the landscaping for existing 7-Eleven, And I've got a few images. It basically kind of covers up all the signs on that site, including the canopies. And I would suggest that your code have language that deals with signs should be legible. And the landscaping should be designed to try to make that happen so that the messages on there aren't obscured. Because that's really the case that's happening. And just to reiterate, the current standards on Boulder Highway just will not support the goal to increase safety on that quarter. And there's another issue too. It's NRS 590260. And all that is really is just the requirement that the price changers be visible. I mean, everybody wants to know how much a gas is going to cost. And if you can't see it, it is a problem. Because if I can't see what the price is, I'm not going to pull in. The recommended sign area by Street Graphics and the law is 128 square feet for this type of environment. It's actually 35 miles an hour, but it's close enough that the 64 is definitely too small based upon studies. These are done by University of Pennsylvania a number of years ago. And one thing I wanted to mention with the eight-foot height and 64 square feet, the signs will be obscured a fair amount of time because they recommend a five foot height above grade in relation to the sign copy as a minimum. And when you have eight feet and then you have designs that are compromised and often they're smaller than eight feet because of your standards, that sign is fairly invisible and not legible a certain amount of time. And that's a real issue, especially for people that aren't familiar with the area. I mean, people that drive it daily, they're going to know what's there. But people that don't know the area are going to have a real problem. And this, I'm not going to go through this in detail, but basically the average daily traffic there is about 26,000 based on the most recent numbers I could find. And that equates to the freestanding signs at meeting your current code would be blocked 59% to 76% of the time. And that's really before the onslaught of SUVs and trucks. They're like 60 plus percent of the sales. So that's even more pronounced nowadays because vehicles are taller than they were 15, 20 years ago. So I really believe, and just based on these studies, that it would... lead to decreased visibility or will lead to decreased visibility and legibility which could result in unsafe driving behaviors where people are making last minute moves and you know because they can't see the sign to the last minute or they might not see it at all and this is just the NRS 590 260 I already talked about it we believe that the current standards especially for Boulder Highway would not allow for the advertising for the price changers, that's really what they're talking about, would be plainly visible. On 7-Eleven, it depends where you're coming from, but a lot of times it's invisible. And this is something too that, especially for Boulder Highway, where you've got everything is set back so far. The desired satisfactory, what's called cone of vision, is 20 degrees, everything that we're talking about even the ground signs. But certainly the canopy signs even, they're way outside of the 20-degree cone of vision. And according to these studies, it's just not satisfactory or safe. Because the canopies are set back 160 feet from the travel lanes. So that puts it beyond the 20 degrees. And here's the 7-Eleven to show you. sure that the improvements you have out there including the landscaping probably follow the the plants for both the highway. It's pretty invisible when you're going north or south and the small ground sign on Galleria both ways even without any traffic in front of it is very hard to pick out and to find and to see especially if you're driving by there. And we request approval and clearly you know I don't expect you to approve anything tonight if you had any inclination but you might have an inclination to refer it back to staff maybe continue it have us work something out that's going to actually be safe and function well as maybe a good alternative because i really feel that something else is needed i mean if i were to you know when i looked at the existing conditions the context of all of boulder highway I wouldn't have designed a code that you currently have there. It doesn't match the context. And that's the big issue. It's not the signs. Sure, they'll be there, but they're not going to work as intended. They won't be safe. But just to put it in summary, it's primarily because of the existing conditions out there. The huge right-of-way is not normal. It's atypical. and freeway-like, even though speed limits are a lot slower. But with that, I'm not going to repeat what I already said. I don't know if you have any questions. It says I have three minutes left, but I think you turned it off. You're allowed more than three minutes. OK. If you have any questions, we're happy to answer. Thank you. At this time, I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here wishing to speak on this item? Seeing no, I want to close a public hearing. Commissioners, questions? Yeah, I have a few questions. I didn't get your name. I'm sorry. James Carpenter. James, do you know, and I need to know, are you here on behalf of Nevada Sign Association or are you here on behalf of Circle K? Circle K. Okay, so do you understand that you are in a redevelopment zone? And do you know that that master plan changes a whole lot of things when we have to make a decision to do that? Well, I took a look at everything I could, including the plans and the improvement plans for Boulder. So, yeah, I looked at everything I could, yeah. Okay, and you do understand Boulder Highway has been there about a million years, and there's not a sign on there that meets the master plan standard because it's been there longer than the master signs. So as redevelopment plans, through and does this, they've done a pretty good study to figure out what fits the design of redevelopment. And the two-lane road, the slower speeds, and everything involved with it. So you're asking us to change the master sign plan in a redevelopment zone for two locations. Well, I would suggest you change it, quite frankly, for the whole thing. If I were to deal with your code, what you have out there right now isn't going to function very well. I mean, sure, you saw the images from 7-Eleven. It just doesn't work. If I had my choice, there wouldn't be a sign on a pole in the city of Henderson. It'd all be on the ground. Because I don't care what city you go to, the ones in the air look like junk, and the ones that are at Monument Sign makes it much more appealing. So that's my opinion, but you're trying to change 5, 10 miles worth of signage on a redevelopment zone that's been very well studied and very well looked at. So just because of your, and we'll deal with the next one in a minute, but I don't see your findings of facts making this work. It's not only the studies, but it's based on experience too. And the one that I can talk to exactly is City of Sedona. They've adopted very strict standards. I've been going there for over 25 years. There's things I still can't find. And it's because the standards don't match the context. And I can clearly say based on not only the studies that I brought forward, but based on experience, it's... doesn't match what's really needed for a safe signage. And safety is a big issue with the Boulder Highway. I understand all those arguments. If you can't find something, it's pretty easy to find on this. It tells you where it's at and how much the gas is going to cost. So putting a big, huge sign up and making it obtrusive to the vision of everybody else just to get your sign in place doesn't make sense. I understand the GPS thing, but for final destination, sometimes it doesn't take you to exactly where you need to go. And you do need that final little sign to help you out often. At least I do. Any other questions there? I don't have any questions. I'll make a motion to deny. I do have some questions. Oh, you have some questions? Go ahead. So staff, NRS... The 590.260, according to the applicant, specifies clearly visible, at least this is what I heard, clearly visible pricing for price signs for gas stations. Is that correct? Or do we know? I will admit I'm not familiar with the statute, but I think his presentation indicated that any signs with letters or numbers had to be visible or You can ask that applicant to clarify. I'm not familiar with it. All right. Thanks. So can you give me a little more understanding of the visibility requirement under that NRS statute? Yeah. I mean, the way the statute reads, it just says that it's talking about price changers have to be clearly visible. And as you can see with 7-Eleven, they're not, at least in my opinion. And the pictures kind of show that. It's not just what I think. So what? that's another reason to consider something else. And even if there's just consideration when you're installing landscaping or have an approved landscape plan, that you have a consideration for where the signs are going. Because right now, there's no consideration for that. And they're covering up a high percentage of the messages that are not just gas station, but probably for any sign. So what's the definition of clearly visible according to NRS? I don't know if they have that defined in the statutes. Probably not, would be my guess. So there's a lot of ambiguity in that language, which I'm sure you've never seen in any other statutes before. It's clearly visible on the parking lot. If you're there versus driving down the road, there's just no definition to that. Yeah, and I think visible from our end is just so you can see it. It doesn't say legible, it says visible. So there's a difference. Chairman, if I could, just to speak to the applicants. there's a proposed sign on the fuel canopy that has the gas prices already, so that's clearly visible. And using this gentleman's same logic, if there's a 100 tall foot tree in front of the site, then by that logic we have to allow a 105 foot tall sign because the tree is there. So I'm not familiar with this NRS standard either, but I don't know. It's probably as rigid as what we're kind of being told. Does the landscaping that the applicant's referring to Is the landscaping, is it going to block the visibility of the sign if it were lowered to standard? I do not see that. I mean, the landscaping shown on the plan does not show it that way. This sign is over double the height of what the zoning district would allow. So, I mean, some of that is landscape maintenance as well. They can maintain it to be below. This is a sign that has two support poles that are also five and a half feet tall. So it's very rare that we would see landscaping unless... if it was on KEMT, that would grow to be that large. Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Does part of this application change, include the one that's on the canopy that's 20 foot in the air? Or is that part of your wanting to change? Or is that legal now in the master plan to be able to put it on the canopy 20 foot in the air? Commissioner Beesman, I can answer. That's not part of the request. That's not a modification request. That's allowed by code. So you're going to get a 20-foot sign on two sides of your canopy, 20 foot in the air, 36 inches tall, 3 feet tall, by probably, looks like 120 inches long. Is that going to be visible coming down Boulder Highway? Well, part of the thing I showed you was the cone of vision thing. It's going to be way outside the 20 degree, which is satisfactory. It's going to be way outside of that. So that was part of the argument. in relation to those canopies. Sure, they're going to help, they're going to be beneficial, but they're not ideal. The ground sign would be located closer to the right-of-way and would provide not perfect legibility. It's still probably a little bit outside the 20 degrees, but those other signs of the canopy are well outside a satisfactory cone of vision visibility. So what you're basically saying... the ultimate sign would be over the highway with a finger pointing at your business and your neighbor business and the price of gas. Is that what you're trying to say? Not quite, no. Just what we've applied for. But you're asking for so many different things that work for every other business in all of Henderson, not just redevelopment. And you're asking for that change. You can't justify to me with your presentation that just because you're saying the NRS says it and everything else, I don't see that making the point. Yeah, I think, I don't think you have any right-of-ways for an arterial street that are 250 feet. So this is pretty unique. And you don't have a boulevard planned for any other arterial. Well, maybe you do, but I should speak to something I don't know about. So it's a pretty unique scenario. You've been down St. Rose Parkway lately? Pardon? You should not speak to that because there's plenty of streets that are that wide much faster with all shorter signs that meet the master sign plan So you're just not making your point here to get two locations in the five or ten miles worth of redevelopment zone to justify what you want Commissioner Beeson do you want to make a motion? Yeah, I'd like to make a motion to Deny MSP 202-501-7262. Commissioner Beeson made a motion to deny. Please vote. Next item. Next item is item 21. It's a similar request on different sites. A master sign plan request for Circle K located on the northwest corner of Boulder Highway and Warm Springs Road. Same modifications, a request to increase height from eight feet to 17 feet and increase area from 64 square feet to 146 square feet. Staff is recommending a denial because the proposed height and area are excessive. and more than double the allowance from the development code for a single tenant monument sign. The site also has a large gas canopy structure that includes logos and pricing that will be elevated to 23 feet in height and clear as determined by staff. Additionally, staff and the Commission have been consistent with enforcing height and area for these sign types along Boulder Highway. The action would be final unless appealed. layman zip code for the record? So I have basically the same presentation, which I won't go through because the only difference is the forfeiture of square footage is a little bit different for this site. Otherwise, it's pretty much the same. Same thing. Okay. With that, I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here wishing to speak on this item? Seeing no, and I'll close the public hearing. Commissioners? If you have any questions, make a motion to deny MSP 202-501-7266. COMMISSIONER BEESON MADE THE MOTION TO DENY. PLEASE VOTE. AND THAT ITEM IS DENIED. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME DENYING THE PRESENTATION. That takes us to item number 22. It's a two part request for 1.2 acres located on the southeast corner of the intersection of College and Horizon Drives. Request A is to amend the land use category from public, semi-public to commercial and request B is a rezone from PS to community commercial. Staff recommends approval of both applications. City emergency services have vacated this site, therefore city supports a land use and zone change to allow commercial uses that are more conducive to the surrounding area. This item is to be heard at the October 7th City Council meeting. Staff has received one response from the public notice in support and one in opposition. Name is up code for the record. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Brian Podmenik, City of Henderson Public Works, 89015. I'm here representing the applicant, which is the City of Henderson. This is the site of the old fire station 81. Now that that station has moved over to Boulder Highway, the city intends to sell that property, so we're changing the zoning and the land use. We're asking to change the zoning and land use to be similar to all of the other corners at that intersection. And staff agrees with, or we agree with staff's recommendations, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Great, thank you. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here wishing to speak on this item? Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing. Commissioners, questions, comments, or a motion. I make a motion to approve CPA 2025017301 and CZA 2025017304, subject to findings of fact and conditions. Commissioner Humes, may a motion please vote. That on passes. Thank you. Very much. Was that the last item? Yes, it was. At this time, I will open the public comment portion of the meeting. Is there anyone wishing to address the commission at this time? Seeing no one, I oppose the public comment. Staff, anything to share? I just want to, once again, thank all of you for your time and thank all of our public safety folks for being here, keeping us safe. I know they are behind the scenes, but they're there, and we're very thankful for them. to the team down in the pit here to keep the things moving. So onward and upward. Thank you for your time. Thank you. And for all of you, those of you in the back, thank you very much for being here, as always, and the public safety officers that are here in the very, very back hiding somewhere in the side. I think there's one over there probably. Thank you for your time and service. With that, I will adjourn the meeting. I want to thank our IT guys back there again, once again. And I want to thank our technical study guys too. I appreciate you guys being here.