Las Vegas City Commission Minutes, November 20, 1957 to December 2, 1959, lvc000011-448

P. Sharp, and carried unanimously, the following Resolution is adopted, and order made: BE IT RESOLVED, this 3rd day of June, 1959, by the Board of Commissioners of the City of Las Vegas, County of Clark, State of Nevada, that the deed, dated the 26th day of May, 1959, executed by John Pappas to the City of Las Vegas, County of Clark, State of Nevada, and that the real property described therein be, and is hereby accepted, for the purposes of street; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this Resolution be attached to said deed, and that the same be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of Clark, State of Nevada, and this resolution be filed in the records of this Board. STATE OF NEVADA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF CLARK ) I, R. F. Boos, Acting City Clerk, of the City of Las Vegas, County of Clark, State of Nevada, hereby certify the foregoing to be a full, true and correct copy of the Resolution accepting the deed attached hereto duly adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners held on the 3rd day of June, 1959. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal this 5th day of June, 1959. /s/ R. F. Boos__________ Acting Clerk of the City of Las Vegas By____________________________Deputy FOR: _____Bonanza Road________ Motion seconded by Commissioner Sharp and carried by the following vote: Commissioners Fountain, Sharp and His Honor Mayor Pro Tem Whipple voting aye; noes, none. Absent: Mayor C. D. Baker. REZONING (Z-10-59) The Commission considered the application of M. S. McCoy for the reclassification of M. S. McCoy property located at the northeast comer of West Charleston and Rancho Road from R-E to C-1. Approved Planning Director Bills advised that there were eight protests and approximately fifty-three in favor of this rezoning. Mr. Bills advised further that a special committee from the Planning Commission had studied and investigated this rezoning and it was the recommendation of the Planning Commission that it be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the property be used strictly for the proposed use of a drive-in branch bank. 2. That the building conform to all City Ordinances and building codes including setbacks, landscaping, signs, traffic and parking facilities, etc. His Honor Mayor Pro Tem Whipple asked if there was anyone present who wished to protest this rezoning and Mr. Murle Perry, 2318 Sherman Place, presented the Board a petition in protest, stating that it was his opinion this area should be strictly residential. He said that he lived in the McNeil Tract adjacent to the property in question and he received notice of this proposed rezoning. Commissioner Fountain asked Planning Director Bills if the favorable petitions were on file and he replied that there was a petition, some letters, and also personal appearances in favor, totalling 53 in all. Mrs. Stephanie Hurley spoke in protest and was of the opinion that many signed the petition in favor of this rezoning thinking it was against making this commercial. She added that this was a most unrealistic approach in dropping from R-E to C-1 and stated that this corner was most dangerous. She referred to many recent rezonings which might be all right as they now stand but thought the zoning ordinance should be upheld when surrounding property is affected and certain rezoning applications should be denied on the grounds that they are not in the public interest. Mr. Perry again spoke to the Board in regard to procuring enough signers to reject a rezoning such as this as the signers he had on the petition he presented to the Commission were from his block only, but that with adequate time he believed he could get signers all the way to Westleigh. Mr. Art Ham, Jr., attorney for the Bank of Nevada who now has the property in question in escrow, spoke, to the Commission stating that he believed this was exaggerated. He further stated that Mrs. Hurley's protest had been heard by the Planning Commission and yet this application had been approved unanimously. He believed that what they were afraid of was subsequent rezonings. He added that the 33 in favor were voluntary signatures from people who want the bank there, and that rather than a hazard this rezoning would take away a traffic problem in that the use would be limited to that of a drive-in bank. He stated that there were some people who wanted all of Charleston zoned Commercial and some that wanted none of it zoned Commercial, but stated he was sure the City Commission and Planning Commission would give appropriate protection to the residents in the area. Mrs. Hurley mentioned that the signatures in favor of this particular rezoning were signed by people that want all of Charleston Commercial. She added that this 6-3-39