ENTERPRISE
TAB WATCH
Results August 26, 2009
Planning Commission 7:00 P.M., Tuesday, September
1, 2009.
Board of County Commissioners 9:00 A.M. and 1:00
P.M., Wednesday, September 2, 2009.
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
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. TAB approved
2. Approve
the Minutes for the meeting held on August 12, 2009. TAB approved
3. Board
discussion and report to the Board of County Commissioners regarding Enterprise
Land Use Plan Major Update. TAB
reviewed and approved. See attachment 1
4. COMMITTEE
REPORTS:
Receive a report from the Enterprise TAB
Residential Buffering Sub-Committee and take any action deemed necessary. Tabled until September 30, 2009
PUBLIC
COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION
1. The TAB is looking for a representative and
alternate to the Community Development Advisory Committee (CDAC). The TAB nominees must be submitted by Sept
14, 2009. The TAB will make their
selection at the September 9, 2009 meeting to meet this deadline.
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
County Commissioners.
2.
A TAB member requested the county reconsider
the 25 mph speed limit on Valley View between Warm Springs and Maule Ave. Request the County evaluate the area and
determine whether additional traffic control devices are required, additional
enforcement by METRO, or the speed limit be raised.
3.
The Chairman noted that beginning on October
7, 2009 the Board of County Commissioners’ zoning meetings will be a single
session with a 30 minute break at noon rather than the present arrangement of
separate morning and afternoon sessions.
NEXT
MEETING DATE:
September
9, 2009 6:30p.m.
AGENDA
09/01/09
PC
1. VC-0761-07 (ET-0204-09) – SOUTHERN
HIGHLANDS DEVELOPMENT CORP:
TAB
approved per staff conditions
VARIANCE
SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME to
commence the reduction of separation requirements between accessory structures
(walls) and principal or other structures on approximately 13.9 acres in an R-2
(Medium Density Residential) P-C (Planned Community Overlay District) Zone in
the Southern Highlands Master Planned Community. Generally located
on the south side of
2. WS-1059-05 (ET-0213-09) – KAFOURY AND
ARMSTRONG CO., PSP:
TAB
approved per staff conditions
WAIVERS
OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME to commence the following:
1)
reduced setbacks;
2)
reduced lot area;
3)
reduced street
widths; and
4)
modified landscape
standards
in conjunction with a residential planned unit
development on 5.0 acres in an RUD (Residential Urban Density) Zone. Generally located
on the northwest corner of
3. WT-0740-07 (ET-0205-08) - SOUTHERN
HIGHLANDS DEVELOPMENT CORP:
TAB
approved per staff conditions
WAIVERS
SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME to
commence the following:
1)
early grading; and
2)
modified improvement
standards
in conjunction with a single family subdivision
on 13.9 acres in an R-2 (Medium Density Residential) P-C (Planned Community
Overlay District) Zone in the Southern Highlands Master Planned Community.
Generally located on the south side of
4. UC-0438-09 – COOKINGHAM, GARY AND
JANIS:
TAB approved
Added condition for a two year review
USE
PERMIT to
increase the number of inoperable vehicles stored outside for automobile hobby
repair and restoration in conjunction with an existing single family residence
on 1.0 acre in an R-E (Rural Estates Residential) Zone. Generally located
on the north side of
The applicant stated there are currently 11 inoperable
vehicles on the property with the number to be reduced to 8. The TAB felt rather strongly that the Use
Permit should be reviewed after two years to insure compliance and again verify
this is a hobby, not a commercial venture.
The applicant has worked closely with Code Enforcement to resolve the
zoning violation on the property. The TAB looked at the septic problem noted by
Southern Nevada Health District and
found it does not impact the Use Permit. PC routine action item agenda item # 13
5. UC-0452-09 – REAL EQUITIES, LLC:
TAB
approved/denied
o
Approved 5-0
Use Permit #1: Permit a communication tower.
o
Approved 5-0
Use Permit #3: Reduce the separation between communication towers to 439 feet
where 600 feet is required (a 27% reduction).
o
Deny 5-0 Use
Permit #2: Reduce the separation from a communication tower to a residential
development to 10 feet where 240 feet is required (a 96% reduction).
o
Deny 5-0 the
Design Review because no design was submitted.
USE PERMITS for the following:
1)
communication tower;
2)
reduced separation to
a residential development; and
3)
reduced separation to
another communication tower.
DESIGN
REVIEW for a
communication tower in conjunction with an existing shopping center on 28.7
acres in an H-1 (Limited Resort and Apartment) Zone in the MUD-1 Overlay
District. Generally located on the north side of Serene Avenue and
the west side of
This was a difficult item for the TAB for
several reasons.
First, the applicant did not have the required
materials for a design review, only an aerial with the proposed site marked was
presented. A TAB member suggested a two
week hold to present a proper design review.
The applicant questioned why drawings were required for a design review
and stated he would rather take his chances with the PC.
Second, the applicant was not willing to
discuss moving the cell tower further north on the west property line.
The TAB felt placing this tower so close to a residential development
was a poor idea when other options were available. The applicant desires to keep the cell tower
out of adjacent residents line of site. However, a large sign is already in their line
of sight. The property northwest of the
proposed cell tower is not developed and the residents’ view will radically
changed when it is developed.
Thirdly, cell tower placement along LV Blvd is
difficult because of high land values and land owners not wanting a cell tower
in the middle of their property for 30 years.
Another factor is as building heights increase along LV Blvd the current
cell towers’ coverage is reduced.
The TAB felt there is a need for additional
cell towers in the area. In this
instance, it would be beneficial to reduce the distance between two
towers. This is reflected in the
approval of Use Permits #1 and #3. The
TAB would support a further reduction in the separation called for in Use
Permit #3. The lack of drawings and plot plan for the Design Review resulted in
denial. The applicant would not agree to
a two week hold. The applicant’s refusal
to discuss a different location for the cell tower and the very close proximity
to residential resulted in the denial for Use Permit #2. PC item agenda item # 20
6. WS-0455-09 – CLARK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
AVIATION:
TAB
approved per staff conditions
WAIVER
OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS to
allow streets to exceed the length permitted for a dead end street on a portion
of 101.5 acres in an R-E (Rural Estates Residential) Zone, an R-E (Rural
Estates Residential) (AE-60) Zone, a P-F (Public Facility) Zone, a P-F (Public
Facility) (AE-60) Zone, an M-D (Designed Manufacturing) Zone, and an M-D
(Designed Manufacturing) (AE-60) Zone. Generally located east of
7. WS-0457-09 – SALETTA. ANTHONY: TAB approved staff
conditions
WAIVER
OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS to
reduce a setback in conjunction with an existing single family residence on 0.2
acres in an R-1 (Single Family Residential) Zone. Generally located
on the south side of the intersection of
09/02/09
BCC
8. DR-0463-09 –
TAB
approved with amended Current planning bullet # 2 to read:
·
All exterior
parking lot pole lights shall not exceed 14 feet in height within 50 feet of
the east property line where residential development is approved and 24 feet high
on the rest of the property.
DESIGN
REVIEWS for the
following:
1)
restaurant;
2)
signage; and
3)
exterior lighting
plan
on 1.2 acres in a C-2 (General Commercial) Zone
in the MUD-3 and CMA Design Overlay Districts. Generally located
on the east side of
This property has a partially built restaurant
that will be finished by McDonald’s USA Restaurants. The Current Planning Bullet #2 was altered
because of electrical wiring already in the ground. The staff and the applicant agree with the
change which will limit the spillover lighting to the adjacent residential
project. BCC routine action item agenda item # 4
9. DR-0874-07 (ET-0203-09) – SILVER CREEK I.
LLC:
TAB
approved per staff conditions
DESIGN
REVIEW FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME to commence a shopping center on 1.1 acres in a C-1 (Local
Business) Zone. Generally located on the southwest corner of
10. ZC-0369-03 (ET-0209-09) – CASTLE
TAB
approved per staff conditions: Added Current Planning bullet #4
Design
Review as a Public Hearing
ZONE
CHANGE SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME to reclassify 2.4 acres from R-E (Rural Estates Residential) Zone
to C-1 (Local Business) Zone for a shopping center. Generally located
on the southeast corner of
The original Design Review for this property
was combined with the adjacent property to the west. This extension of time does not include the
property to the west or the original Design Review. The TAB felt the nature of this project could
change and a new Design Review, as a public hearing, is appropriate. BCC routine action item agenda item # 10
11. UC-0362-09 – BOUQUET. INC:
TAB
Approved per staff conditions
USE
PERMIT for auto
repair.
DESIGN
REVIEW for a
restaurant with a drive-thru, auto repair and maintenance, and retail
development on 0.8 acres in a C-2 (General Commercial) Zone in the MUD-4
Overlay District. Generally located on the west side of
The applicant has packed a lot on this property. This design is better than the previous plans
submitted. Some TAB members felt there
is too much packed on the parcel and parking may not be adequate, although
parking meets Title 30 requirements.
There are no waivers requested for this project. The retail space does not appear to have good
placement within the project and could be better used. One item the TAB could not determine is the
amount of fill required on this property and the effect it will have on the
adjacent residential. The property to
the north has a significant amount of fill.
The look and feel of a project can significantly change when the site
engineering is accomplished. This is a good example where site engineering
should be submitted with the design review. BCC routine action item agenda item # 11
Additional items to be heard by the PC or
BCC. These items were previously heard
by the Enterprise TAB or went directly to the PC/BCC.
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 Enterprise
PC AGENDA:
No additional items of interest to Enterprise
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.
No
additional items of interest to Enterprise
BCC AGENDA ITEMS (Morning):
No
additional items of interest to Enterprise
BCC (Afternoon):
22. DR-0902-08 – BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT:
Denial 5-0 with the recommendation that Staff
conditions be applied to this park. This
includes using Parks and Recreation Policy # A.7, Revised: May 24, 2004 to develop an incremental plan
that insures all the park acreage is fully developed.
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
Buffalo Drive and the south side of Mountains Edge Parkway within Enterprise.
SB/jm/rk/co
23. DR-0903-08 – BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT & CLARK COUNTY
PARKS & RECREATION:
Denial 5-0 with the recommendation that Staff
conditions be applied to this park. This
includes using Parks and Recreation Policy # A.7, Revised: May 24, 2004 to develop an incremental plan
that insures all the park acreage is fully developed.
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 Cimarron Road and
Montecito Ridge Road within Enterprise. SB/jm/rk/co
24. DR-0904-08 – BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AND CLARK COUNTY
PARKS AND RECREATION:
Denial 5-0 with the recommendation that Staff
conditions be applied to this park. This
includes using Parks and Recreation Policy # A.7, Revised: May 24, 2004 to develop an incremental plan
that insures all the park acreage is fully developed.
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 Mountains Edge
Parkway, 630 feet east of El Capitan Way within Enterprise. SB/jm/rk/co
25. DR-0905-08 – BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT:
Denial 5-0 with the recommendation that Staff
conditions be applied to this park. This
includes using Parks and Recreation Policy # A.7, Revised: May 24, 2004 to develop an incremental plan
that insures all the park acreage is fully developed.
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 Erie Avenue and
Montessouri Street (alignment) within Enterprise. SB/jm/rk/c
28. WS-0385-09 – JOHNSON HOLDINGS, LLC:
TAB
denied
Exceeds county noise standards and height is
inappropriate in a residential area.
PC Action – Denied
HOLDOVER 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 Pyle
Avenue (alignment) and the west side of Hinson Street within Enterprise.
SB/rs/nd
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.
30. CP-0076-09:
Confirmation to the Board of County Commissioners that the Clark County
Planning Commission received a report on the changes made by the Board of
County Commissioners to the Certified Draft of the Enterprise Land Use Plan.
31. CP-0613-09:
That the Board of County Commissioners conduct a public hearing, and
after taking appropriate testimony, approve, adopt, and authorize the Chairman
to sign a resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan by adopting the Certified
Draft of the Spring Valley Land Use Plan.
ORDINANCES – INTRODUCTION
(These
ordinances will be scheduled for a public hearing as part of their
introduction)
32. ORD-0994-09:
That the Board of County Commissioners introduce an ordinance to clarify
and allow a partial release of bonds; and direct staff accordingly.
An ordinance to amend Title 30, Chapters 30.08, 30.32, 30.52, Sections
30.08.030, 30.32.150, and 30.52.090 to clarify and allow a partial release of
bonds and providing for other matters property related thereto.
That the Board of County Commissioners consider an ordinance to allow
animated signs within the CMA Overlay District subject to conditions; and
direct staff accordingly.
An ordinance to amend Title 30, Chapters 30.48, Section 30.48.680 to
modify sign standards within the Cooperative Management Area (CMA) Overlay
District 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 Clark County Records. This document may be
freely distributed and reproduced as long as the author’s content is not
altered. Additional comments maybe
added. Additional comments must be
clearly attributed to the author of those comments and published or reproduced
with the document. The additional
comments author’s affiliation with any government board, organization or group
must be clearly identified. This
attribution statement must accompany any distribution of this document.
David D.
Chestnut, Sr.
Attachment
1
Enterprise Land Use Plan Major Update
Enterprise TAB Report to the Board of County Commissioners
The Enterprise
TAB used the following criteria to review the Enterprise Land Use Plan Major
Update requested changes.
·
Provide land
use areas to create jobs in Enterprise.
·
Provide local
services and employment opportunities in neighborhoods to reduce vehicle
travel.
·
The land use
should have sufficient area to aggregate land into a well designed project.
·
Identify deed
restricted land and make appropriate land use changes.
·
The low and
medium residential areas need to be properly buffered.
·
Some areas
will not be developed for years and can be reviewed on annual updates.
The following
are items and issues that surfaced during the Enterprise land use hearings and
in discussions with the Enterprise residents.
1. There is a need for job creation
opportunities in Enterprise.
·
The CMA deed
restricted land must be dealt with, good place for job creation or dispersed
recreational uses.
o
Hundreds of
residential acres shown on the 2004 Enterprise Land Use Plan maps are deed
restricted and cannot be developed as residential. Convert into BDRP
o
The annual
amendments should look at additional deed restricted areas.
·
Establish BDRP
land use in the western part of Enterprise,
to create jobs and reduce vehicle travel
2. The TABs and PC need additional buffering
tools.
·
Reluctance by
the TAB to use Commercial Neighborhood next to low to medium residential.
o
Special use
permits in the C-1 zone district allow significantly higher intensity uses.
o
Not desirable
next to low to medium density residential neighborhoods.
·
Enhance Office
Professional uses.
o
Office
Professional does not have sufficient uses to develop the large amounts of land
available.
o
Approximately
1/3 of the Office Professional land use was removed.
o
Single purpose
zone districts are too restrictive.
o
Need to have
the ability to mix low intensity commercial and residential use within the same
zone district.
o
MUD is too intense
to be used as a buffer next to low or medium residential.
·
Establish
live/work standards in Title 30
o
This concept
is lower density that the current mixed-use development in Title 30
o
Would provide
an additional buffering tool and increase land use.
3. Extended multi-family housing to Residential
Medium land use in the RUD zone district.
·
Current
multi-family housing requires the use of Residential High land use or
greater.
·
The compact
single-family residential has produced some very poor projects.
·
There is a
need for lower density multi-family housing.
·
This change
would allow for a greater diversity of residential projects.
4. The CMA design overlay should be extended to
all BDRP within Enterprise.
·
BDRP borders
many low density residential areas.
·
Well designed
projects can serve as a buffer -- the key to a project blending into a
neighborhood.
·
The CMA design
standard is part of Title 30 and could be easily extended without writing new
code.
5. Mixed-Use Overlay (MUD) and development
standards are dated.
·
MUD in
industrial or BDRP land use areas is not appropriate
o
The
residential component will discourage job creation.
o
Potential
safety hazards
o
Some MUD
overlay is on deed restricted land and should be removed
o
Implement this
restriction in Title 30
·
The MUD
transitions are not applied according to the definitions in Title 30.
·
There are no
adjacency standards. However, they are
being used by the staff.
o
Would require
standards for uses other than residential
o
There are
areas where density bonuses and special use permits for height are not
appropriate.
o
Implement in
Title 30
·
Rapid
development in Enterprise has invalidated the MUD overlay in many places.
6. The Gateway should be monitored to see if it
accomplishes its intended purpose.
·
The TAB had
seen very little use of this section.
·
Should the
southern part of Las Vegas Blvd be developed as part of the Gateway?
·
If the Gateway
works, there will be a need for work force housing along the I-15 corridor.
·
Can the
Gateway objective be accomplished using other sections of the Goals and
Policies?
·
The Gateway
policies appear to add an additional layer of complexity.
·
There is very
little Title 30 code to back up the Gateway polices.
7. There should
be one set of land use categories used in Enterprise.
·
The county has
unified land use categories.
·
Enterprise has
three Major Projects and part of a fourth.
Each has a different set of land use categories.
·
The TAB dealt
with five sets of land use categories.
·
The multiple
Major Project land use designations create confusion; need to conform to county
standard.
·
The county did
not have maps for the Major Projects.
Poor quality maps were made by the developer.
·
Current
Planning provided excellent data to the TAB, Major Projects did not.