Las Vegas City Commission Minutes, November 20, 1957 to December 2, 1959, lvc000011-626

DOWNTOWN His Honor Mayor Gragson opened the meeting with the statement that the Commission IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT was not going to take any action on the Downtown Improvement District this evening and that it would ha postponed for some time, in order for the plans to he worked out more completely; so property owners concerned could know exactly what the improvements were to be; then they could determine whether or not they would want them. VACATION This being the time heretofore set for public hearing regarding the petition of (VAC-5-59) Charleston Plaza, Inc. for the vacation to clear lot lines and vacate some street right-of-way for the development of a shopping center, vacation to consist of Public Hearing Charleston Village Tract #1, with the exception of Lots 9, 10, 11 and 12, in Block 7, and that portion of Peyton Drive commencing .at Burnham and extending 240' Order Adopted westerly. This vacation petition was approved at the regular Commission meeting on October 23, 1959, subject to the following conditions, as recommended by the Planning Commission, and Public Hearing was set for this time: 1. The dedication of utility easements; as requested by the Southern Nevada Power Company. 2. Dedication and improvement of a cul-de-sac, as shown on the westerly end of Peyton Drive. 3. Easements to the Las Vegas Valley Water District for existing water mains. 4. A street drainage design on the westerly edge property, to provide for proper drainage of the Hillside Terrace area; including the dedication and improvements of Peyton Drive across the power company easement; all to be done in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineering Department. $. Installation of fire hydrants, in accordance with the requirements of the Fire Department. 6. Signing of an agreement, to be drawn up by the City Attorney, whereby Charleston Plaza, Inc. will be fully responsible for drainage in the area and will not hold the City liable for any resulting damage; said agreement to be signed prior to the public hearing. Paul Dollar, 1820 Peyton Drive, Mrs. Anthony Mazzuca, 1836 Peyton Drive, and Wilma Grigor, 1830 Peyton Drive, were present to protest this vacation. Mr. Dollar advised the Commission that Wendell Norman, 1824 Peyton Drive, who was unable to attend this meeting, also wished to protest. Mr. Lollar stated further that he did not know what this was all about; that he had never received any notice of a hearing, and he was protesting because he did not know what was going to be built around them. Wilma Grigor stated she had received a notice of a Planning Commission Hearing to be held on October 12, 1959; however, she had been informed this hearing had been postponed, but never received notice of the postponement or of a subsequent meeting to take its place. She added there was such a meeting and it was approved to go ahead with the shopping center parking lot. Planning Director Bills was of the opinion these people were confused with a hearing conducted in relation to the change of the zoning in this area in which the proposed vacation was located. He continued that this hearing tonight was for the vacation of the streets recorded with the subdivision some six or seven years ago which had never been improved, with the exception of a portion of Peyton Drive, and this had been excluded from this vacation, due to the fact there were four developed properties on this street which were under different ownerships. These properties were also the reason for the cul-de-sac requirement included in the Planning Commission recommendation. William Peccole, President of Charleston Plaza, Inc., stated they were attempting to develop a regional shopping center, consisting of approximately 35 acres, and located at East Charleston Boulevard and Burnham Avenue. He continued that this matter had been before the Board of Zoning Adjustment, Planning Commission and the Board of City Commissioners, and he did not know of any meetings ever being postponed. He added they were attempting at this time to vacate the streets which have never been put in and were not asking to vacate that street in front of the developed properties; furthermore, they were giving an easement for the cul-de-sac on the westerly end of Peyton Drive. Wilma Grigor asked what sort of structures were to be built around their homes and it was determined they were to be surrounded by the parking areas. Mr. Lollar stated he vigorously protested this. Mr. Peccole stated notices were sent out for the hearing in regard to the rezoning of this property to C-1 and, inasmuch as there were no protests to the rezoning, he did not know what else they could expect in a C-1 zone and they should be willing to accept businesses that would be developed. Mrs. Grigor stated she did not intend to approve the C-1 zoning, but did not attend that hearing, as no notice was received of the hearing after the first postponement. Mr. Bills stated he could recall no postponement and, at the time of the rezoning hearing, there were three property owners who wished to protest; however, after an explanation of the proposal, they took the position if this particular plot plan was followed they would have no further objection to it. He added this rezoning had been accomplished and this property was now zoned C-1; the matter presently before the Board was whether or not to approve the vacation of these streets. Commissioner Whipple reiterated that the zoning which permitted the parking lot had already been accomplished. Mr. Lollar stated he received no notice of that hearing. Mr. Bills stated he was in no position to swear these notices were received, but he could testify a notice was sent to Ruth Lollar at 1820 Peyton Drive; furthermore, these notices were mailed on October 30, 1959, setting forth the hour of 7:30 P.M., November 12, 1959, for the Planning Commission Hearing, and said hearing was legally advertised In a local newspaper for this time. Mr. Bills continued that the Planning Commission minutes indicated that action was taken at that time to forward the rezoning to the Board of City Commissioners, with the recommendation for approval. He did not comprehend what was meant by a postponement, as there was nothing in their records in that regard. 12-2-59