[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6523569,"mediaKeyId","5029328-827e22aaebe06e6b0592aeb75f236d1d","parentId",5029328,"title","Votes at a glance: key City Council actions June 18, 2025","audioSeconds",3528,"startMs",2012000,"endMs",5540000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5029328-827e22aaebe06e6b0592aeb75f236d1d&start=2012&end=5540","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5029328-827e22aaebe06e6b0592aeb75f236d1d/thumbnail_2012000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6523569/Las-Vegas/Clark-County/Nevada/Votes-at-a-glance-key-City-Council-actions-June-18-2025","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6523569-8d0f6afbd987f2a1c29eef2ef150d45a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771153908&Signature=TLTAv1YpSbbW3-~V4v9ZFzdvfyja4kLDlHYncXlwdT~0tyPzWYXdZL6oeLwpsl2jRqCCDZFeO9WVr0sji4d0b~G6GVFywT~dwGTQsj0RnZ94tkN3QcXKxGB4Pfbgc8VIUe9LdNgf2yHPUNwbiq3qH9tfveBnYnXu~Fui8mSJp6Xv8lHHoMP-O~EwVBiYJVezdGMLt-bs8OqMvj2yH9wW4rE1-rS7qi0ac4xw2WNT1ZCL7jtkpP1rraRWHTFNZYXU~TnkLhCL0CTAqNkKmcBcHNNoFhEoHujB~8px8F63WuZOYFN2pNa~WOLHd0cMPGAKC4cDG8kM~uX47IXnBEGK6A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Las Vegas, NV","date","2025-06-18T20:21:54.81Z","article","The Las Vegas City Council on June 18 took a range of formal actions summarized below. This roundup lists motions recorded on the meeting transcript; individual agenda items with extended debate are covered in separate articles.

Key votes and outcomes

- Abeyances and procedural motions: The council approved staff and applicant requests to hold several hearing items in abeyance. Notably, items including land-use item 50 and item 59 were held to the July 16, 2025 meeting or otherwise continued as requested by applicants or counsel.

- Consent agenda (items 10\u000b34): The council approved the consent agenda in a single motion. Councilmember Seaman commented on item 10 (animal services contract) and said she would vote yes following negotiated changes; the consent motion carried.

- Appointments (item 35): The council appointed Alicia Arora, Vanessa Murray and Roxanne McCoy to the board of directors of City of Las Vegas Strong Start Academy Elementary Schools, Inc., to two-year terms ending June 18, 2027; motion carried.

- Items 43\u000b49 (one-motion items): Planning and land-use items 43 through 49 were approved on a single motion after no public testimony opposed the staff recommendations; motion carried.

- Item 56 (Southwest corner of Decatur and Evergreen; Golden Gaming / Arizona Charlie's site): The council approved rezoning to C2 and the associated site and subdivision items (56A\u000b56D) with conditions including commitments on building orientation and coordination on event parking; motion to approve carried.

- Item 58 (Donald & Leon subdivision): The council approved the rezoning and tentative map for an eight-lot single-family subdivision after the applicant reduced density from 10 to 8 lots and agreed to public improvements and tree-sizing conditions; motion carried.

- Item 62 (Craig Road / Taneya Way): Planning commission and staff recommended approval of a major amendment to add a 16,877-square-foot commercial building to an existing shopping center; council approved the site development plan amendment.

- Item 63 (5313 Redberry Street fourplex): Council approved an extension/renewal of a parking variance and the site development plan for a fourplex at the address after the applicant confirmed maintenance covenants and conditions; motion carried.

- Items 60 and 61 (Jackson Street/Van Buren projects): After public testimony and staff analysis, the council denied both of the large-scale Jackson Avenue land-use applications (see separate article). Motions to deny carried.

How the council voted

Recordings show motions were seconded where required and votes were taken by roll call or electronic post, with outcomes announced on the public record. Several items were continuances or abeyances requested by applicants and approved by the council.

What comes next

Applicants whose proposals were denied were directed to consider scaled plans that conform to current form-based zoning and to continue community outreach. Several approved projects proceed to permit review with conditions that require construction of deferred infrastructure, recorded covenants, or coordination with public-works standards.

For details on the larger contested items, see the separate articles on the Harbor Cove wall variance appeal and the Jackson Street/West Side projects.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","CLV 06-18-2025 City Council Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","A roundup of formal motions and outcomes from the June 18 Las Vegas City Council meeting, including approvals of multiple land-use items, appointments, and the council\u001fs motions to hold several items in abeyance.","taxTitle","Las Vegas , Clark County, Nevada","taxId",2670,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6523573,"Council rejects large West Side Jackson Avenue projects; developer told to return with smaller proposal",4124,6201000,10325000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5029328-827e22aaebe06e6b0592aeb75f236d1d&start=6201&end=10325","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5029328-827e22aaebe06e6b0592aeb75f236d1d/thumbnail_6201000.jpg","/articles/6523573/Las-Vegas/Clark-County/Nevada/Council-rejects-large-West-Side-Jackson-Avenue-projects-developer-told-to-return-with-smaller-proposal","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6523573-8e3a8f257925dcdf7e8b23ee8a0f58ba/orig.mp4?Expires=1771153909&Signature=ibMiM1YlskIiFSrAS66nN14IKw00y9nIJZ4S3xzElQQ~5wqojwseczo5PuQFNLvTjIkX5M3Q6-SgNmDX731-giuZD4Gtfug9bELtfFd~r2aDyX2VXUFH6l2xX0B6CUn~AEV6926P1d8I6K4vyEeCoNz09vqx~Dy7~tzs98vkqVwDb3GgcMdfNYxj22A11zPZA-bqDw1yFyvkKlCAiRt1dgDX1gDQvf-pNyaU9Q3g2YqC-0VUIWyxnfbNF269PyrqTCaWc6radPbRgUkpypL4RvzEMwSPOtIkEXE78D9GyzeypFi1jgn1AosbnKIgkk4TtPy4~rfVuVuUlh6cDz5wZg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Las Vegas City Council on June 18 denied two land-use applications—commonly referred to at the hearing as the Jackson Street projects—that would have rezoned properties on Jackson Avenue and Van Buren Avenue and allowed high-rise mixed-use developments including a hotel, casino and more than 300 apartments.

The developer\u001fs team framed the proposal as a catalytic investment in the historic West Side, citing the site\u001fs mid-century Town Tavern history and stressing job creation, a theater and a boutique hotel. Architect Kevin Thistle and project representatives laid out a multi-building plan that included a gated casino space, a 207-room hotel, a rooftop pool, about 336 multifamily units on an adjacent parcel, theatrical and cultural venues, and an eight-level public parking structure.

\"This project will be a landmark destination,\" project architect Kevin Thistle told the council, outlining theater, performing arts and cultural spaces and telling councilmembers the applicant had preliminary Federal Aviation Administration clearance for proposed heights.

City staff and the planning commission recommended denial. Staff said the applications would constitute spot zoning, would rely on variances for height well above the T4 transect limits the form-based code assigns to the neighborhood, and did not conform to the 2045 downtown master plan and the West Las Vegas/Hunter Plan guidance. Peter Lowenstein, planning staff, said the requests represented \"self-imposed hardships and preferential\" zoning changes.

Residents and neighborhood representatives expressed broad concern about traffic, noise, incompatible scale, incomplete outreach and the project\u001fs financial readiness. Several longtime West Side residents and community leaders urged the council to require a lower-scale, more incremental project. \"This is a behemoth on less than 2 acres,\" Councilwoman Sandra Summers Armstrong said in explaining her motion to deny. She said the community wants development but not at the intensity and scale proposed.

The council held separate motions on the two project applications: the southern parcel application (item 60) and the northern parcel application (item 61). Councilwoman Summers Armstrong moved to deny the southern parcel application; the motion passed. The council then denied the northern parcel application in a separate vote.

Project representatives said they would consider reworking the plan to match existing zoning and work more closely with neighborhood stakeholders. City Attorney Jeff Dorkak noted that if the rezoning requests were denied, the property owner retains existing zoning and the site\u001fs grandfathered nonrestrictive gaming license; the owner could come back with a project that fits current zoning at any time.

The council\u001fs action leaves in place city zoning rules in the West Side and underscores the council\u001fs caution about spot zoning and high-intensity development on small historic parcels. Developers who wish to pursue revitalization in the West Side were urged by councilmembers to pursue smaller-scale, community-aligned proposals and to return with proposals that match the area\u001fs form-based code and the goals of the Hunter Plan.","Two related West Side proposals that would have changed zoning and allowed buildings well above current form-based-code limits were denied after residents and staff said the scale was incompatible and community outreach remained incomplete.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6523578,"City Council upholds HOA appeal, blocks Harbor Cove homeowner'9s boundary wall",2732,2878000,5610000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5029328-827e22aaebe06e6b0592aeb75f236d1d&start=2878&end=5610","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5029328-827e22aaebe06e6b0592aeb75f236d1d/thumbnail_2878000.jpg","/articles/6523578/Las-Vegas/Clark-County/Nevada/City-Council-upholds-HOA-appeal-blocks-Harbor-Cove-homeowner9s-boundary-wall","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6523578-a8f508e26c70c13f794c289e857ef3f8/orig.mp4?Expires=1771153909&Signature=cvdqZo6ZNMybzo5I7S6Ex~h-Pnou~cqN36rllF0hNyLZEcCdRF84czj9BfbDIX0jOQ4CKH3F-U~d0EKmhJ9y5vZ-7GR33E3FY4eiw02J5LPo467zuubSctvDEftaW5hQDkfJOaVmJVFboMaZn67wFHMzJtxWzVaRtgvF1M2WLbm6DHWibqZTyaJq5IF-lBFi9K8f-hgplAiziSosLWAYzcDeETDPHPJgOX9ZeBrR8~7JurJIjFHeo8~hGdNWO9fBG6NFWHciwTMYJaGgo9lvjCcQBdXA3lvOJn9X8UzXF2W9tHE5RXvZVyOyboPoLTSLt~GP2oIozMtFAavswwWvmQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Las Vegas City Council on June 18 upheld an appeal from the Harbor Cove Homeowners Association and denied a variance requested by homeowner Alan Harvey to construct a front-yard wall that would encroach toward the public sidewalk.

The appeal decision came after multiple residents, the HOA\u001fs attorney and the homeowner testified during a public hearing that drew prolonged public comment and repeated references to the association\u001fs covenants and prior board actions. Councilwoman Allen Polinski moved to approve the HOA\u001fs appeal; the motion carried, removing the city\u001fs earlier variance approval and preventing construction of the proposed wall.

The council\u001fs action followed competing accounts at the hearing. David Brown, attorney for the HOA, told the council that the HOA had attempted to reach a settlement and had even offered to pay for privacy landscaping, but that the homeowner \"was completely unwilling to compromise in any way.\" Robert Krimmer, a member of the HOA and a nearby homeowner, said the HOA had offered to install and pay for landscaping and that 75 residents filed written opposition.

Homeowner Alan Harvey said his ARC (architectural review committee) application had been approved through the management company and posted on the HOA\u001fs management portal. He said he sought to move the wall outward to gain privacy but did not seek to increase its height. \"There is hardly any difference between where the wall is now and moving it forward,\" Harvey said, adding he and his wife did not want to add plants because of water use.

Board members and neighbors offered different accounts of whether the HOA had voted to approve the wall. Several residents said they believed the board had misled the community about the proposed wall and complained about the board\u001fs spending on outside counsel. Others on the board or familiar with earlier votes said an ARC approval had been recorded and that one board member had signed off earlier.

City staff recommended approval of the variance based on the parcel\u001fs irregular shape and Nevada Revised Statutes standards for variances, and they noted the planning commission had approved the request. Nevertheless, councilmembers weighed private CC&R enforcement and neighborhood cohesion in their deliberations. Councilwoman Seaman said the item felt like an HOA enforcement matter and expressed discomfort acting as a court for HOA disputes; Councilwoman Polanski said she was not satisfied that meaningful negotiations had occurred.

Polanski moved to approve the HOA\u001fs appeal, removing the variance approval. Following a roll call, the motion passed and council confirmed \"no wall to be built\" under the city variance. Council members urged the parties to continue local negotiation and noted the HOA and homeowner retain private remedies and obligations under the community\u001fs governing documents.

The council\u001fs action addressed only the land-use variance before the city; private CC&R and potential civil litigation remain separate. The decision also leaves in place the city\u001fs authority to review future applications and requires any future requests to conform to both city development standards and the HOA\u001fs private covenants.","After hours of testimony from neighbors, an attorney and the homeowner, the Las Vegas City Council granted an appeal by the Harbor Cove homeowners association and denied a variance that would have allowed Alan Harvey to build a nonconforming wall adjacent to the sidewalk.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: key City Council actions June 18, 2025

Council rejects large West Side Jackson Avenue projects; developer told to return with smaller proposal

City Council upholds HOA appeal, blocks Harbor Cove homeowner'9s boundary wall