Results
Planning Commission 7:00 P.M.,
Board of
The PC decisions/recommendations may be appealed
to the BCC within five business days of the date of the PC hearing. Appeal form is found at:
An appeal may be made in person at the Current
Planning desk or by fax (702-455-3271). Call Current Planning (455-4314) to find out how to file an appeal.
Help in filling an appeal may be obtained from the Southwest Action
Network(SWAN). You can contact SWAN at:
702-837-0244 · 702-837-0255 (fax)
email: swan@lvswan.org
COMMISSION CHAMBERS
CP-0076-09:
That the Planning Commission hold a
public hearing to review the proposed changes and make a recommendation on a Major Update to the
Enterprise Land Use Plan, then forward their recommendations to the
Board of County Commissioners.
The latest information on the Enterprise Land Use Plan Major
Update can be found on the
Draft
Enterprise Land Use Plan
Note: If you
click on the blue underlined text
it will take you to the detailed documents to explain the agenda item.
AGENDA
Date:
CALL
TO ORDER*:
1. Approve
the Agenda with any corrections, deletions or changes.
2. Approve
the Minutes for the meetings held on May 14, May 27, and
COMMITTEE
REPORTS
1. Receive
a report from the Enterprise TAB Residential Buffering Sub-Committee and take
any action deemed necessary. Held
until
PUBLIC
COMMENTS: None
PUBLIC
COMMENTS: None
NEXT
MEETING DATE
ATTACHMENT
H: Holdover Zoning Agenda
H-1. UC-0159-09 - USA: Held by the applicant
until July 1, 2009 Enterprise TAB
USE
PERMIT for a
place of worship.
WAIVERS
OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
for the following:
1) full off-sites (excluding paving); and
2) allow access to a local street.
DESIGN
REVIEW for a
place of worship and accessory uses on a 5.7 acre portion of 42.5 acres in an
R-E (Rural Estates Residential) (RNP-I) Zone.
Generally located on the northwest corner of
ATTACHMENT
A: Zoning Agenda
1. UC-0334-09 - Southern
USE
PERMIT to
expand a place of worship
.
WAIVER
OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
to reduce parking in conjunction with a proposed expansion of a place of
worship within an existing office/warehouse building on a portion of 3.1 acres
in an M-D (Designed Manufacturing) Zone in the MUD-3 Overlay District. Generally located on the
north side of
2. DR-0902-08 – BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT: Held by the applicant
to
Companion
items 3, 4 and 5
DESIGN
REVIEW for a
public park and all associated uses on an approximate 0.6 acre portion of a
300.0 acre site in a P-F (Public Facility) P-C (Planned Community Overlay
District) Zone in the Mountain’s Edge Master Planned Community. Generally located on the west
side of
Items 2 - 5 drew a large response from the
Mountain’s Edge residents (250+ opposed to the new park plans). The residents were given one view of what
Mountain’s Edge would be like when they purchase their homes. That view does not match the proposed park
plans. It was apparent the current park
plans were not widely circulated prior to this meeting and were different from
the one’s presented at the Nov 2008 Master HOA meeting. There were numerous questions raised: How were the parks to be funded? How did we arrive at this point? Who will maintain the parks? Will the proposed park plans meet Clark County
Park Standards? The TAB felt that additional meeting(s) between Focus and the
residents are necessary prior to the park Design Reviews and associated
conditions be accepted or denied.
The TAB has offer to mediate the meeting
between the developer and the residents. BCC agenda item # 60
3. DR-0903-08 – BUREAU of LAND MANAGEMENT and
Held
by the applicant to
Companion
items 2, 4, and 5
DESIGN
REVIEW for a
public park and all associated uses on approximately 15.0 acres in a P-F
(Public Facility) P-C (Planned Community Overlay District) Zone in the Mountain’s
Edge Master Planned Community. Generally
located on the southwest corner of
4. DR-0904-08 – BUREAU of LAND MANAGEMENT and
Held
by the applicant to
Companion
items 2, 3, and 5
DESIGN
REVIEW for a
public park and all associated uses on approximately 20.0 acres in a P-F
(Public Facility), P-C (Planned Community Overlay District) Zone in the Mountain’s
Edge Master Planned Community. Generally
located 280 feet north of
5. DR-0905-08 – BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT: Held
by the applicant to
Companion
items 2, 3 and 4
DESIGN
REVIEW for a
public park and all associated uses on approximately 15.0 acres in a P-F
(Public Facility) P-C (Planned Community Overlay District) Zone in the
Mountain’s Edge Master Planned Community.
Generally located on the northwest corner of
6. DR-0313-09 – RICHMOND LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: Held by the applicant
to
Companion
item # 7
DESIGN
REVIEW for a
convenience store with gasoline pumps and a car wash on a portion of 4.1 acres
in a C-2 (General Commercial) (AE-60) Zone in the MUD-3 Overlay District. Generally located on the west
side of
7. DR-0312-09 - RICHMOND LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: Held by the applicant
to
Companion
item # 7
DESIGN
REVIEW for
modifications to a mixed-use project on a portion of 4.5 acres in a U-V (
8. NZC-1153-03 (ET-0092-09) – HUDGENS,
RICHARD: TAB Denied
HOLDOVER
ZONE CHANGE SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME to reclassify 2.5 acres from R-E (Rural Estates Residential) Zone
to C-1 (Local Business) Zone for a plant nursery. Generally located on the west
side of
The applicant was a no show for the TAB
meeting. This application was forwarded
to the BCC because the applicant has not meet the original conditions of the
non-conforming zone change. In addition,
the applicant is operating without a Clark County Business License. This item needs to be reviewed by the
BCC.
There have been several items in front of the
TAB where an applicant has sought extensions of time and not completed the
original conditions approved for the application. The BCC has been enforcing the original
conditions by either denying the extension of time or placing very short limits
on compliance. BCC agenda item # 64
9. UC-2093-04 (ET-0111-09) – LEI, LI CHUN AND
O’NEILL, KIM T.: TAB
Approved
Change: Current Planning
bullet #1 to read: Until
USE
PERMIT SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME to commence a place of worship.
DESIGN
REVIEW for a
proposed monastery on 2.5 acres in an R-E (Rural Estates Residential) (RNP-I)
Zone. Generally located
on the north side of
10. ZC-1643-00 (ET-0128-09) – NORMAN FAMILY LP,
ET AL: TAB Approved per staff
condition
ZONE
CHANGE FOURTH EXTENSION OF TIME to reclassify 2.6 acres from R-E (Rural Estates Residential) Zone
to C-P (Office and Professional) Zone for an office complex. Generally located on the
south side of
This property was considered during the
Enterprise Land Use Plan Major Update.
The TAB has recommended Commercial Neighborhood which would allow the
applicant to apply for C-1 zone district.
The commercial development along
11. WT-0300-09 – LH VENTURES, LLC: TAB Approved
Change
Major Projects – Engineering bullet #1
to read: 2 years to complete per
WAIVER to extend the time limit for an improvement
bond in conjunction with a residential subdivision in an R-3 (Multiple Family
Residential) Zone in the Pinnacle Peaks Concept Plan Area. Generally located on the east
side of
12. WT-0316-09 – LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC: TAB
Approved
Change
Major Projects – Engineering bullet #1
to read: 2 years to complete per
WAIVER to extend the time limit for an improvement
bond in conjunction with a residential subdivision in an R-2 (Medium Density
Residential) Zone in the Pinnacle Peaks Concept Plan Area. Generally located on the
south side of
13. WT-0317-09 – LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC: TAB
Approved
Change
Major Projects – Engineering bullet #1
to read: 2 years to complete per
WAIVER to extend the time limit for an improvement
bond in conjunction with a residential subdivision in an R-2 (Medium Density
Residential) Zone in the Pinnacle Peaks Concept Plan Area. Generally located 270 feet
south of
14. WT-0318-09 – LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC: TAB Approved
Change
Major Projects – Engineering bullet #1
to read: 2 years to complete per
WAIVER to extend the time limit for an improvement
bond in conjunction with a residential subdivision in an R-2 (Medium Density
Residential) Zone in the Pinnacle Peaks Concept Plan Area. Generally located 450 feet
north of
15. WT-0319-09 – LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC: TAB Approved
Change
Major Projects – Engineering bullet #1
to read: 2 years to complete per
WAIVER to extend the time limit for an improvement
bond in conjunction with a residential subdivision in an R-2 (Medium Density
Residential) Zone in the Pinnacle Peaks Concept Plan Area. Generally located on the
north side of
16. WT-0320-09 –
Change
Major Projects – Engineering bullet #1
to read: 2 years to complete per
WAIVER to extend the time limit for an improvement
bond in conjunction with a residential subdivision in an R-2 (Medium Density
Residential) Zone in the Pinnacle Peaks Concept Plan Area. Generally located 180 feet
north of
17. WT-0321-09 – LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC: TAB Approved
Change
Major Projects – Engineering bullet #1
to read: 2 years to complete per
WAIVER to extend the time limit for an improvement
bond in conjunction with a residential subdivision in an R-2 (Medium Density
Residential) Zone in the Pinnacle Peaks Concept Plan area. Generally located on the east
side of
BCC routine action agenda item # 48
18. WT-0322-09 – LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC: TAB Approved
Change
Major Projects – Engineering bullet #1
to read: 2 years to complete per
WAIVER to extend the time limit for an improvement
bond in conjunction with a residential subdivision in an R-2 (Medium Density
Residential) Zone in the Pinnacle Peaks Concept Plan Area. Generally located 270 feet
south side of
19. WT-0323-09 – LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC: TAB Approved
Change
Major Projects – Engineering bullet #1
to read: 2 years to complete per
WAIVER to extend the time limit for an improvement bond
in conjunction with a residential subdivision in an R-2 (Medium Density
Residential) Zone in the Pinnacle Peaks Concept Plan Area. Generally located on the south side of
Windmill Lane, on the east side of Windsor Oaks Street within
20. WT-0324-09 – LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC: TAB Approved
Change
Major Projects – Engineering bullet #1
to read: 2 years to complete per
WAIVER to extend the time limit for an improvement
bond in conjunction with a residential subdivision in an R-2 (Medium Density
Residential) Zone in the Pinnacle Peaks Concept Plan Area. Generally located 630 feet
west of
21. WT-0325-09 – LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC: TAB Approved
Change
Major Projects – Engineering bullet #1
to read: 2 years to complete per
WAIVER to extend the time limit for an improvement
bond in conjunction with a residential subdivision in an R-2 (Medium Density
Residential) Zone in the Pinnacle Peaks Concept Plan Area. Generally located 600 feet
west of
22. WT-0326-09 – LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC: TAB Approved
Change
Major Projects – Engineering bullet #1
to read: 2 years to complete per
WAIVER to extend the time limit for an improvement
bond in conjunction with a residential subdivision in an R-2 (Medium Density
Residential) Zone in the Pinnacle Peaks Concept Plan Area. Generally located 600 feet
west of
23. WT-0327-09 – LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC: TAB Approved
Change
Major Projects – Engineering bullet #1
to read: 2 years to complete per
WAIVER to extend the time for an improvement bond in
conjunction with a residential subdivision in an R-2 (Medium Density
Residential) Zone in the Pinnacle Peaks Concept Plan Area. Generally located 600 feet
west of
24. WT-0328-09 – LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC: TAB Approved
Change
Major Projects – Engineering bullet #1
to read: 2 years to complete per
WAIVER to extend the time limit for an improvement
bond in conjunction with a residential subdivision in an R-2 (Medium Density
Residential) Zone in the Pinnacle Peaks Concept Plan area. Generally located on the
north side of
25. WT-0329-09 – LAND DEVELOPMENT, INC: TAB Approved
Change
Major Projects – Engineering bullet #1
to read: 2 years to complete per
WAIVER to extend the time limit for an improvement
bond in conjunction with a residential subdivision in an R-2 (Medium Density
Residential) Zone in the Pinnacle Peaks Concept Plan Area. Generally located on the east
side of Torrey
26. ZC-0332-09 –
Add condition: Design Review as a public hearing for lighting and
signage.
ZONE
CHANGE to
reclassify 6.3 acres from H-2 (General Highway Frontage) Zone to M-D (Designed
Manufacturing) Zone in the MUD-3 Overlay District.
USE
PERMITS for the
following:
1)
on-premise
consumption of alcohol (tavern);
2) a restaurant;
3)
allow outside dining and drinking in
conjunction with the proposed restaurant; and
4)
allow the outside
storage portion of a RV and boat
storage facility to be visible from a public street where screening is
required.
DESIGN
REVIEWS for the
following:
1)
a restaurant/tavern;
and
2)
a mini-warehouse
facility with RV and boat storage.
Generally located on the
southwest corner of
27. ZC-0336-09
- ROCKY-G LIVING TRUST, ET AL: TAB
Approved/Denied
TAB
APPROVED the Zone Change to C-P
TAB
DENIED the Design Review
If Approved:
If approved, require a Design Review as a public hearing for
lighting and signage.
If approved, require a Design Review as a public hearing for changes
to the design.
ZONE
CHANGE to
reclassify 7.7 acres from R-E (Rural Estates Residential) Zone to C-2 (General
Commercial) Zone in the MUD-3 Overlay District.
DESIGN
REVIEWS for the
following:
1) a hotel including accessory and incidental uses;
and
2) a shopping center.
Generally located on the
northeast corner of
40
area residents present were against this item.
This is the second time a hotel has been proposed on this site. This is the second time the TAB has denied
the design review and not agreed with the applicant’s zone district request.
The
BCC, in August 2008, decided the zoning should be C-P along Dean Martin and C-1
along I-15. The applicant threatened a
lawsuit because of the BCC decision, then withdrew the application before it
could become final. The BCC decision was
within the legal range of zone districts
for the CT land use designation. Because
of this, the threatened applicant lawsuit would have little chance of success. This left withdrawal as the best option for
the applicant to come back another day.
The result is the application we see today.
The
TAB used the following factors in its decision:
Zone
Change
· The previous BCC
decision on this property
· The consensus
opinion during the Enterprise Land Use Major Update is this area is not
suitable for tourist activities.
· The C-2 uses are
too intensive for this property given it is next to two current residents.
· It is too early to
grant the applicant C-2 rights on this property. The area is currently developed as
residential, as allowed by pre-2004 land use.
· When easements for
flood control are taken into account, the property will be significantly less
than the 10 areas normally required for a C-2 project. Even less if the church (2.5 acres), has
trouble relocating.
· The current
residents east of Dean Martin need to be protected until they decide to
relocate.
· There is a need for
an orderly transition from residential uses to more intense uses.
· The property aggregation
will be difficult and will lead to abandoned houses.
o East of Las Vegas Blvd,
the aggregation did not occur because
the land use and zone district were set too high.
o Many of these properties are in foreclosure or have been foreclosed.
o The banks are unwilling to accept $0.25 on the dollar being
offered.
o Most likely, these properties will go to the FDIC. This will delay productive use of this land
by years.
· The TAB has
recommended this area be planned for Office Professional.
· The RNP-1 overlay
west of Dean Martin should be protected.
Design
Review
The
plan as presented did not take the following into account:
· The Regional Flood Control District has a project planned
across the southern portion of this property.
o
Will require the
entire project to be redesigned.
o
This land will have
to be purchased by the county.
· The area is in a 100 year flood plain which could make a 2
story, sub-terrain garage impractical.
· Any redesign of the parking garage would significantly
impact the design of this project.
· As of the TAB meeting, the applicant has taken no action
to initiate the vacation of Agate VS-0617-08.
o
Part of Agate will
be required for the flood control channel.
o
The vacation process
would establish the easement required for flood control.
o
This flood channel
has been completed on the east side of I-15 and will be difficult to relocate.
· The applicant planned their buildings and buffering
assuming they had the complete use of Agate.
The
TAB felt the plan presented did not take the above factors into account and was
denied for those reasons. The TAB has requested two conditions be added if this
application is approved. BCC agenda item # 72
Addition
items to be heard by the PC or BCC.
These items were previously heard by the
PC ROUTINE ACTION AGENDA:
Any person who does
not agree with the conditions recommended by staff or TAB and all applicable
standard conditions for the application type, should request that the item be
removed from this portion of the agenda and be heard separately when directed
by the Planning Commission.
PC AGENDA:
None
BCC ROUTINE ACTION AGENDA ITEMS (Morning):
Any person who does not agree with the conditions recommended by
staff, Planning Commission or TAB and all applicable standard conditions for
the application type, should request that the item be removed from this portion
of the agenda and be heard separately when directed by the Board of County
Commission.
BCC AGENDA ITEMS (Morning): None
BCC (Afternoon):
77. UC-0098-09 – MILTON, ROGER:
APPEAL USE PERMIT for a school.
WAIVERS OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS for the following:
1) eliminate landscaping;
2) eliminate a decorative screen wall;
and
3) allow non-decorative walls.
DESIGN REVIEW for the conversion of an existing single family residence to
a school on 0.5 acres in an R-E (Rural Estates Residential) (RNP-I) Zone.
Generally located on the west side of
TAB Denied:
Due to numerous code infractions,
public complaints, and non-conformities with Title 30 code.
Until such time that these might
be resolved.
This action resulted from
resident comments during the public comment period on
The applicant states that use
of the property will be as a meeting place for a group of 30 children to engage
in cooperative homeschooling activities, otherwise known as a “homeschool
co-op” Several county and state agencies have taken action against the use of
this property as a school. There have
been five Public Response complaints, Three responses by the METRO, a cease and
desist letter from the NV State Dept of Education and the requirement by
Southern Nevada Health District to hook the property up to the sewer system and
remove the septic tank.
The TAB has several
concerns:
·
the occupancy permits have not been obtained to use this
building as a school. This presents a
possible safety hazard for the children.
·
this property is too small for a school.
o
There insufficient separation from the neighbors for the
noise generated.
o
Adequate parking is not available.
·
the septic system cannot support the number of
students.
·
this use is not appropriate in the middle of an RNP-I
overlay area.
PC Action - Denied
APPEAL USE PERMITS for the following:
USE PERMITS:
1. a. Allow an accessory structure (30,000 square foot indoor riding
arena) that exceeds one-half the footprint of the principal structure (4,310.5
square feet) (a 596% increase).
b. Allow an accessory agricultural building (4,500 square foot barn) that
exceeds one-half the footprint of the principal structure (4310.5 square feet)
(a 4.4% increase).
2. Allow an accessory structure (indoor riding arena) that is not
architecturally compatible with the principal structure when the structure is
located in the side or rear yard visible from any street or residential development
within the urban area.
3. Allow the cumulative area (34,500 square feet) of accessory structures
to exceed the footprint of the principal structure (8,621 square feet) (a 301% increase).
4. Allow vertical metal siding on an accessory structure (indoor riding
arena) where decorative or horizontal siding is the standard.
WAIVERS OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
1. Increase perimeter block wall height to 8 feet where 6 feet is the
standard (a 33% increase).
2. a. Increase the height of an accessory structure (indoor riding arena)
to 37 feet 5 inches where 25 feet is the standard (a
50% increase).
b. Increase the height of an accessory structure (barn) to 26 feet 4
inches where 25 feet in the standard (a 5.5% increase).
on 2.5 acres in an R-E (Rural
Estates Residential) (RNP-I) Zone. Generally located on the south
side of
TAB APPROVED/Denied per staff recommendations
Approval of use permit #1b, waivers of development standards
#1 and #2b; and denial of use
permits #1a, #2, #3 and #4 and denial
of waiver of development standards #2a.
PC Action - Approved
Use Permits #1a, #2, #3, and #4, and Waiver of Development Standards #2a were
Denied
Waiver of Development Standards #2b was Withdrawn
ORDINANCES – INTRODUCTION
The statements,
opinions and observations expressed in this document are solely those of the
author. The opinions state in this
document are not the official position of any government board. The project descriptions, ordinances
board/commission results are reproduced from publicly available
David D. Chestnut, Sr.