Results
Planning Commission 7:00 P.M.,
Board of
The PC decisions/recommendations may be appealed
to the
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
Note:
If you click on the blue underlined text
it will take you to the detailed documents to explain the agenda item.
REGULAR
BUSINESS
1.
Approve the Agenda with any corrections, deletions or changes. Approved with changes
2.
Approve the Minutes for the meeting held on
3.
Board discussion and report to the Board of County Commissioners
regarding Enterprise Land Use Plan update.
Tabled until the
4.
Authorize the Chair to forward a thank you letter to County staff
for their support with the Enterprise Land Use Plan Major Update. Approved
PUBLIC COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION:
The TAB is looking for a representative and alternate to the Community
Development Advisory Committee (CDAC).
The TAB nominees must be submitted by
The purpose of the CDBG/HOME programs is to meet the needs of low to
moderate income groups through decent housing, developing viable communities
and neighborhoods, and promoting economic growth. CDAC representatives will
again work with staff in developing project selection criteria, reviewing
proposals, holding public hearings, and making project recommendations to the
1. UC-0159-09 -
HOLDOVER
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
2. UC-0425-09
– TOTI, MARY: TAB
approved with conditions:
1) East wall
to be no higher than 7 feet
2) 8 foot
high wall on Oleta
3) Extend
landscaping the entire length of the East wall.
USE
PERMITS for the
following:
1) increase the size of an accessory structure;
2) allow an accessory structure not
architecturally compatible with the principal dwelling;
3) reduce the minimum roof pitch design standard
for an accessory structure; and
4) allow an accessory
structure prior to a principal use or structure.
WAIVER
OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
to increase wall height.
DESIGN
REVIEW for an
accessory structure in conjunction with a proposed single family residence on
2.4 acres in an R-E (Rural Estates Residential) (RNP-I) Zone. Generally located on the
northeast corner of
The neighbors to the east objected to the 8 ft
block wall requested. Their desire is
for a 7 ft wall which is higher than the normal 6 ft wall in the area. The neighbors did not raise any objections to
the accessory structure. The accessory
structure has a painted stucco finish that looks much better than the standard
metal-sided building.
The TAB felt that the 7 ft wall was a good
compromise between the neighbors.
However, the applicant’s representative could not provide assurance that
the owner would agree to the 7 ft wall.
The TAB also felt that the landscaping should be extended the full
length of the eastern wall to increase the security and privacy the applicant
seeks. PC routine action item agenda item # 10
3. UC-0553-07 (ET-0167-09) – MORGAN SLOAN,
LLC: TAB approved per staff
conditions
HOLDOVER
USE PERMITS FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME to commence the following:
1)
a proposed child day
care (preschool) use; and
2)
accessory structure
roof pitch
.
WAIVERS
OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS for
the following:
1)
a portion of the
street landscape buffer; and
2)
permit secondary
access to a residential local street.
DESIGN
REVIEW for a
child day care facility on 2.0 acres in an R-E (Rural Estates Residential)
Zone. Generally located
on the northeast corner of
4. VS-0706-07 (ET-0192-09) –
VACATE
AND ABANDON FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME to vacate a portion of right-of-way being Rainbow Boulevard located
between Mardon Avenue and Eldorado Lane in a C-1 (Local Business) Zone within Enterprise (description on
file). BCC routine action item agenda item # 13
5. WS-0920-05 (ET-0194-09) – RED
WAIVER
OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME to commence
the reduction of lot area in conjunction with a single family residential
subdivision on 4.1 acres in an R-E (Rural Estates Residential) (RNP-I)
Zone. Generally located
on the northwest corner of
6. ZC-0989-02 (ET-0201-09) –
WAIVER
OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
to permit commercial access onto a residential street (
This extension of time is different for two
reasons. First, the Enterprise Land Use
Plan has designated the property as Commercial Neighborhood, which would make
C-1 zoning a conforming district.
Second, the applicant has pulled building permits which make the second
Current Planning bullet unnecessary. BCC routine action item agenda item # 12
10. DR-0902-08 – BUREAU OF
Denial 5-0 with the recommendation that Staff
conditions be applied to this park. This
includes using Parks and Recreation Policy # A.7, Revised:
HOLDOVER
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
The discussion that follows applies to Items
10 thru 13.
Two
primary questions were before the TAB concerning the Mountain’s Edge
parks.
The
first question was the acceptance or denial of concept drawings for the four
parks. The following is from the staff
agenda sheets on each of the parks: “The intent of this design review submittal is
conceptual in nature and a final design and layout will occur at a future date
with the Department of Parks and Recreation Division and the Master Developer.” The actual design of the parks was not the
question before the TAB.
Second question before the TAB was to determine the
what the how park finance mechanism should be revised. The question of how to finance the parks was
not before the TAB. Two Major Projects
conditions address how the park funding
would be revised.
·
Applicant to amend the Development
Agreement with the County in order to update language on the park sites within
Mountain's Edge, including a park financing mechanism;
·
Compliance with park design team
Policy #A.7 - Parks and Recreation Division dated
Both
Major Projects conditions above involve the Board of County Commissioners
determining the funding mechanism.
The
staff recommendations on the parks:
·
The regional park - to deny
·
The three neighborhood parks - no
recommendation.
The
TAB recommended to deny all four park plan concepts. TAB also recommended the staff conditions be
adopted as a means to develop current park concepts in the Mountain’s Edge
master plan. The TAB decision was based
on the following:
The
TAB felt very strongly that all the park acreage should be developed. The proposed park concepts did not accomplish
a full build out. The denial of the
proposed concept drawings leaves the original concept drawing in place. The TAB felt approval of the new concept
drawings presented would endorse a reduction of the park acreage.
The
TAB recommended that the staff conditions be followed as the parks move
forward. The Parks and Recreation Division Policy #A.7 provides a method to determine the final park design, funding
sources and keeps the process open to public review. The staff recommendations also address the funding
mechanism which is broken. The need for
a new funding mechanism is based on the applicant testimony to the TAB.
·
The applicant does not have a budget item or set aside for park
construction in the out years.
·
The applicant has very little land left for sale in Mountain’s
Edge, their primary funding source
o
Note: bond prospectus for
Mountain’s Edge has land sale revenues at approximately 490 million dollars
·
220 to 240 million has been spent for infrastructure in
Mountain’s Edge
·
The applicants estimated cost to build the parks was estimated
in the 24 to 26 million dollar range
o
Note: bond prospectus for
Mountain’s Edge has park costs closer to 40 million dollars
·
Approximately 15 million dollars was spent developing the
The
applicants lack of a park budget/set aside disturbed all TAB members. The result was the recommendation to follow
the staff conditions which would help establish a new funding mechanism.
11. DR-0903-08 – BUREAU OF
Denial 5-0 with the recommendation that Staff
conditions be applied to this park. This
includes using Parks and Recreation Policy # A.7, Revised:
HOLDOVER
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
12. DR-0904-08 – BUREAU OF
Denial 5-0 with the recommendation that Staff
conditions be applied to this park. This
includes using Parks and Recreation Policy # A.7, Revised:
HOLDOVER
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
13. DR-0905-08 – BUREAU OF
Denial 5-0 with the recommendation that Staff
conditions be applied to this park. This
includes using Parks and Recreation Policy # A.7, Revised:
HOLDOVER
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
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.
No
additional items of interest to
PC AGENDA:
3. CP-0076-09:
That the
Planning Commission receives a report on the changes made by the Board of
County Commissioners on the Enterprise Land Use Plan.
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.
6. UC-1381-02 (ET-0183-09) – ELDORADO RESORTS CORP:
TAB
– approval (per staff conditions).
HOLDOVER USE PERMITS THIRD EXTENSION OF TIME to complete the following:
1) a hotel timeshare project; and
2) increase building heights for the
project including recreational facilities, registration/office building,
maintenance building, and all other associated accessory and incidental
building/structures and uses.
WAIVER OF
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS to reduce front and corner setbacks on 27.0 acres in an H-1 (Limited
Resort and Apartment) Zone in the MUD-1 Overlay District. Generally
located on the southwest corner of
7. UC-0918-06 (ET-0189-09) – ELDORADO RESORTS CORP:
TAB – approval (per staff conditions).
HOLDOVER USE PERMIT SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME to commence and review a parking
garage.
DESIGN REVIEW for a parking garage on a portion of 16.3 acres in an H-1
(Limited Resort and Apartment) Zone in the MUD-1 Overlay District.
Generally located on the west side of
8. UC-1439-07 (ET-0182-09) –
ELDORADO RESORTS CORP:
TAB – approval (per staff conditions).
HOLDOVER USE PERMIT FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME to complete increased building
height.
DESIGN REVIEW for a hotel timeshare tower on a portion of 27.0 acres in an
H-1 (Limited Resort and Apartment) Zone in the MUD-1 Overlay District.
Generally located on the northwest corner of
18. WT-0143-09 – RHODES RANCH, GP:
HOLDOVER
WAIVER to extend the time limit
for an improvement bond in conjunction with a residential development in an R-E
(Rural Estates Residential) Zone, and an R-2 (Medium Density Residential) Zone
all in a P-C (Planned Community Overlay District) Zone in the Rhodes Ranch
Master Planned Community. Generally located 1,950 feet east of
55. NZC-0100-09 – VISION QUEST DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC; ET AL:
TAB– denial (applicant
withdrew the waiver of conditions, but the Town Board insisted the request is
better suited being addressed through the current land use plan update rather
than a non-conforming zone change. With the denial, the Town Board also
indicated if the application is approved, that:
Major Projects -
Engineering bullet No. 1 be revised to state “Applicant to contribute to SID
for
PC Action - Approved
Waiver of Conditions was Withdrawn
HOLDOVER
WAIVER OF CONDITIONS of a Concept Plan (MP-0420-02) requiring a 30 foot
wide buffer along the north, east, south, and portions of the west boundaries
of the northeast RNP area, the buffer will be designed in accordance with the
exhibit submitted at the Planning Commission meeting, and shall be installed
concurrently with the development of projects adjacent to the RNP area.
DESIGN REVIEW for a neighborhood retail center consisting of 2 buildings
in the Mountain’s Edge Master Planned Community. Generally located
on the southwest corner of
TAB DENIED the land use request for Commercial Neighborhood at the
· The
RNP residents are opposed to any use higher than Office Professional.
o
No residents spoken in favor of this
application.
o
Office Professional land use was promised to
the residents for their inclusion in the Mountain’s Edge Concept Area/Plan.
· The
west side of Rainbow south of Blue Diamond was examined by the TAB during the
Enterprise Land Use Plan Major Update.
o
The TAB concluded it is too early to place a
higher zone district or land use classification on this property.
o
Current C-1 zone district has too many special
use permits available. Therefore, it is
not suitable next to RNP-1 overly.
o
Need to examine the entire strip in two
years.
o
The SID #142 for this area must be completed
prior to any development
· The
Enterprise TAB will forward recommendations for an enhanced Office Professional
zone district or new zone district
o
Landowner will have more options to use the
land.
o
Better buffer next to low density
residential.
· The
applicant is participating in SID #142
o
The applicant has met his/her obligation for
offsites through SID participation.
61. WS-0385-09 – JOHNSON
HOLDINGS, LLC:
TAB
denied
Exceeds county noise standards and height is inappropriate
in a residential area.
PC Action – Denied
APPEAL WAIVER OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS to increase height for an electrical
generation wind turbine tower on 2.5 acres in an R-E (Rural Estates
Residential) (RNP-I) Zone. Generally located on the south side
Recent changes to the
Nevada Resided Statues (NRS) allows solar and wind alternative energy systems
in any zone district. It also, allows
the BCC to exercise judgment on noise, height and safety.
Part of the current
change is “Wind energy towers proposed in Clark County are guided by the Nevada
State Law and the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) particularly NRS 278.0208,
Subsection 1 (derived from Senate Bill 114 effective July 1, 2009) which reads:
Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2:
(a) A governing body shall not adopt an
ordinance, regulation or plan or take any other action that prohibits or
unreasonably restricts the owner of real property from using a system for
obtaining wind energy on his property;
(b) Any covenant,
restriction or condition contained in a deed, contract or other legal
instrument which affects the transfer or sale of, or any other interest in,
real property and which prohibits or unreasonably restricts the owner of the
property from using a system for obtaining wind energy on his property is void
and unenforceable.
2. The provisions of
subsection 1 do not prohibit a reasonable restriction or requirement:
(a) Imposed pursuant to a
determination by the Federal Aviation Administration that the installation of
the system for obtaining wind energy would create a hazard to air navigation;
or
(b) Relating to the
height, noise or safety of a system for obtaining wind energy.”
The TAB liked the
technology involved in this project.
However, the TAB agreed with the Staff analysis that the height is too
tall for a residential area. In
addition, the data submitted by the applicant demonstrated the noise level
exceeded the county noise standard for residential areas. The safety aspect of the project was not
addressed in the staff report.
It is interesting to note
Civil Engineering had no comment on a 137 ft tower in a residential
neighborhood.
Other questions need to
be answered:
·
What is
the safe separation between wind turbines?
·
What is
the safe separation to residential or commercial structures?
·
Will
the height of future development disrupt the wind pattern needed for efficient
power generation?
·
What
are the effects on adjacent property owners/neighborhoods?
·
Do the
adjacent property owners need to consent?
·
What
are the design standards?
·
What
are the construction standards?
·
Are
there environmental impacts that need to be considered?
These are items
that need to be addressed in Title 30 and the building codes to accommodate the
recent changes to NRS on alternative energy. The BCC
should be requested to initiate action in this area.
ORDINANCES – INTRODUCTION
(These
ordinances will be scheduled for a public hearing as part of their
introduction)
That the Board of County
Commissioners receive a report on the 2009 Updated Planning Commission Rules of
Procedures.
66. AG-0943-09:
That the Board of County
Commissioners consider modifications to the standard zoning agenda, and direct
staff accordingly.
ORDINANCES
- PUBLIC HEARING
67. ORD-0873-09:
That the Board of County Commissioners consider an ordinance to modify
various affected sections of Title 30
due to the 2009 legislative session and direct staff accordingly.
An ordinance to amend Title 30, Chapters 30.04, 30.08, 30.28, 30.36,
30.44, 30.48, 30.56, and Appendix G, Sections 30.04.020, 30.08.030, 30.36.010,
30.36.080; adding Part N Chapter 30.48, Sections 30.48.990, 30.48.1000,
30.48.1010, 30.48.1015, 30.48.1020; 30.56.120, Tables 30.28-1, 30.28-2, 30.44-1
and adding Map 20 to Appendix G, to reflect various changes from the 2009
Nevada State Legislative session and providing for other matters properly
related thereto.
69. ORD-0903-09:
That the Board of County Commissioners consider an ordinance to update
various regulations in the Clark County Unified Development Code (Title 30); and direct staff
accordingly.
An
ordinance to amend Title 30, Chapters 30.08, 30.16, 30.24, 30.44, 30.48, 30.56,
30.60, 30.64, 30.72, Appendix F, Appendix G Map 14, Sections 30.08.030, 30.24.040,
30.44.010. 30.48.550, 30.48.640, 30.48.930, 30.48.935, 30.56.040, 30.56.050,
30.56.080, 30.64.020, 30.64.030, and 30.64.070 Tables 30.16-3, 30.16-9,
30.16-10, 30.44-1, 30.56-2, 30.60-1, 30.60-5, and 30.72-1 Figures 30.56-21,
30.56-22 and 30.56-23 to update various land use requirements and procedures
and make corrections and clarifications as appropriate; and providing for other
matters properly related thereto.
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,
organization or group. The project
descriptions, ordinances board/commission results are reproduced from publicly
available
David D.
Chestnut, Sr.
Attachment 1
Policy # A.7:
Revised:
PURPOSE
The Department of Parks
and Community Services has adopted a planning process involving the
"Design Team" concept for department facility project planning,
design and development. The following process has been developed to guide and
define the Design Team Process.
POLICY STATEMENT
It is the policy of the
Department of Parks and Community Services to use a "Design Team"
concept for park and facility project planning, design and development.
Although this process may seem somewhat complex, it has been designed to permit
necessary public access and input into the process, balanced by budget and
other considerations of the owner, operator(s), and end user(s) of the
facility/project. When upgrades, plan changes, or other project modifications
can be made at the design paper stage, rather than having to field modify the
facility/project during construction,- or after opening, it saves the
department significant time and fiscal resources. It also helps guarantee a
superior end-product that will meet the needs of owners, operators and the
public for many years to come. Since the department's construction agent is the
Department of Real Property Management, all participants in the design process
will strive for mutual cooperation between the Department of Parks and
Community Services and Real Property Management to ensure the best possible
outcome.
Design Team appointments
are specific and unique to each project under consideration. Each Team should
generally include a representative from each of the following areas:
Parks and Community Services:
• Park Planning Division
• Fiscal Services Unit
• Park Maintenance Division
• Recreation and/or Cultural Division
• Park Police
Real Property Management:
• Architectural/Engineering Division
• Consultant
Citizen Representative:
A representative should be
chosen from the community, town board, or a specific interest group the project
is intended to serve. This citizen shall act as a spokesperson for the
represented group and shall serve as the liaison between the Design Team and
the represented group.
DESIGN
The following process has
been developed to generally guide and define the Design Team:
·
The
Department Director will authorize and charter each Design Team.
·
The
Design Team Leader will be responsible to schedule team meetings and ensure
coordination with other departments, agencies and the public.
·
The
first meeting of the Design Team will be utilized to define the scope,
parameters and limitations of the project, budget, schedule of design and
construction and to provide guidance and direction to the project consultant.
·
Subsequent
meetings of the design team will generally be scheduled to review and evaluate
the work of the project consultant. The consultant shall attend all meetings
and shall present the project work for critique and evaluation. The Design Team
will provide comments, direction and approval to the consultant for the next
phase of the work to be accomplished.
·
Conduct
at least one public design workshop to solicit community input. Two public
design workshops during the course of the project are preferred.
·
Review
concepts and draft designs with the respective commissioner prior to finalizing
the plan.
·
Generally,
design team meetings will be required as follows:
o
Prepare
project scope as designed above.
o
Make
recommendations regarding artists and specialized consultants to incorporate
cultural, artistic and historical elements to park design.
o
Review
project schematics and design concepts.
o
Review
of project preliminary drawings (including proposed details and room finishes
when applicable), with a list of the redlined modifications and corrections to
be incorporated in the revised plans.
o
Engage
the public and solicit input and feedback.
o
Review
of revised plans and specifications for final revision, prior to beginning the
bidding phase of the project.
NOTE: Meeting schedules
will be modified as required, based upon the complexity or the progress of the
project.
PROJECT DESIGN APPROVAL
The Director of the
Department of Parks and Community Services reviews and comments
on construction drawings at 50% and 95% completion. The Director also gives
final
approval and signs off on completed construction drawings before any project
goes to bid.
DOCUMENT REFERENCE
Project Development
Agreement between the Department of Parks and Community Services and the
Department of Real Property Management of
Design Process Flow Chart (See Attached).
Attachment 2
See attached file
Park and Recreation Design Process