Results
Planning Commission 7:00 P.M.,
Board of
Note the date for each item below
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
2. Approve the Minutes for the meeting held on
3. Discuss and make recommendations as required
on AG-0967-10. APPROVED
Reduce the
length of time to commence and extension of time:
·
The current expiration limit for
projects approved via special use permit, waiver of development standards or
design review is two years to commence construction or commence the approved
use.
·
No further review is required.
·
Reducing the time limit to one
year may not be realistic for plans to be prepared, reviewed and construction
started.
·
modify the definition of
commence
·
Different benchmark to use for
the time limit, such as requiring one year for building permits to be issued.
·
If a building permit is issued,
plans have been prepared, plancheck fees have been paid, and studies have been
completed, indicating viability of the project.
The Chair will
prepare a letter to the Board of County Commissioners in support of the changes
suggested in AG-0967-10. It will be
reviewed by the Board on
PUBLIC COMMENTS
1.
Email addresses will be changed on
2.
3.
A
road hazard exists on Shelbourne just east of Haven.
4.
Intersection
of Lindell and Warm Springs: better
traffic control device is needed. Also,
a traffic hazard exists due to irregularities in the roadway and obstructions. Warm Springs westbound has a significant
backup during the evening rush hour.
ZONING
AGENDA
December
15, 2010, 2010
ADJOURNMENT:
Holdover
Items
H1. WS-0508-10 – L V PYLE, LLC:
Approved
per Current Planning
conditions
WAIVER
OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
to increase the number of project identification signs.
DESIGN
REVIEW for a
comprehensive lighting and sign package in conjunction with an approved
multi-family residential development on 16.4 acres in H-1 (Limited Resort and
Apartment) Zone in the MUD-4 Overlay District.
Generally located
on the south side of
This is a very well done signage and lighting
package. The applicant has provided a
detailed description for each type of lighting and signage. Title 30 allows this project one monument
sign and two wall signs. The applicant
has requested three wall signs and no monument sign, which requires a waiver of
development standards. The signs will
use up-lighting. The TAB has no
objections to the signage waiver.
The
only question was on the decorative fixtures to be used at the front door,
balcony, and patio of each unit. Each bulb is 60 watts. The concern is the bulb
may be visible for some distance. The
applicant stated the fixture has opaque glass, but not frosted and decorative
type bulbs will be used.
H2. ZC-0300-06 (ET-0169-10) –
APPROVED
per Staff conditions
H3. UC-0504-10 –
DENIED due to insufficient and conflicting information
which did not allow the Town Board to properly consider this application. Request that the application be returned to
the Town Board when complete information pertaining to the application is
available and when conflicting opinions on the application history have been
resolved.
Note: The applicant requested an up or down vote and
did not want to hold this item to obtain the necessary information.
USE
PERMITS for the
following:
1) Reduced front setback to a garage;
2) Reduced lot size;
3) Increased wall height;
4) Allow early grading;
6) Modify required street improvements in
accordance to the County’s Uniform Standard Drawings in conjunction with a
residential development.
DESIGN
REVIEW for a
single family residential development on 95.5 acres in an R-2 (Medium Density
Residential) P-C (Planned Community Overlay) Zone in the Mountain’s Edge Master
Planned Community. Generally located between
The TAB denied this application for three
reasons:
·
The
applicant was not prepared to fully discuss the application details
·
The
TAB has serious concerns about the design and livability of the project
·
The
number of waivers required and the staff statement about not conforming with
development standards
The applicant was not prepared sufficiently to
answer the TAB questions on this request. The Board was asked to approve the use
permits and design review based upon a concept - not a real plan. When the applicant has a definitive plan,
this item should be sent back to the TAB for review and recommendations. The Board felt this applicant did not want to
seriously discuss the project.
Several aspects of this project were
questioned or not acceptable to members of the TAB:
• 100
of 576 lots are less than the 3500 sq. ft. required for R-2
• The
location and distribution of the less than 3500 sq. ft. lots could not be
determined.
• No
usable open space in the entire project
• Waiver
for back of curb return to 2 feet where 12 feet is required viewed as a safety
issue
• Flow
pattern for traffic could not be demonstrated
• What
streets lead to the school site?
• What
is the pedestrian flow to the school for a neighborhood to the east was answered
with “this is not a gated community.”
• Most
likely, block walls would prevent pedestrian flow to the school
The following staff statements raised serious questions
about this project:
“All of the modifications submitted with this
request result in the creation of a subdivision which does not conform to the
modified residential standards established for Mountain’s Edge and the Clark
County Uniform Standard Drawings.”
“Staff has no issue with the concept of
providing a different product type and design which may not meet exact Code
requirements.”
This raises a question. Why can this project not meet the development
standards? The reduction of lot size to
less than 3500 ft. sq. ft. is particularly onerous. Is the developer producing a compact lot
neighborhood while calling it an R-2 development? The lack of detail from the applicant
prevented the TAB from determining the answer. With the diversity of the
project, the applicant should be able to meet development standards.
The Board felt this applicant considered the
hearing as another check mark on the way to
The applicant stated they were under a deadline
to get this project approved. They will
close escrow later this month. The
deadline should not prevent a thorough review of the project.
H4. VS-0505-10 –
DENIED due to insufficient and conflicting information
which did not allow the Town Board to properly consider this application. Request that the application be returned to
the Town Board when complete information pertaining to the application is
available and when conflicting opinions on the application history have been
resolved.
Note: The applicant requested an up or down vote and
did not want to hold this item to obtain the necessary information.
VACATE
The applicant did not have a diagram which
showed what was being vacated or abandoned.
Without a detailed diagram of what was proposed, it was not possible for
the TAB to determine what this request entailed. The TAB was not able to determine the
following:
·
The
disposition of the Chartan Paseo or how it would be developed.
·
The
road access to the school site was not defined.
·
What
would be the resulting traffic flow?
·
The
pedestrian flow to the school for neighborhoods to the east was answered with “this
is not a gated community. “
·
Most
likely, block wall would prevent a pedestrian flow to the school
·
A
concept plan was presented. The new
tentative map was not presented to allow the TAB to visualize what was being
requested.
The applicant was not prepared to answer the
TAB questions on this request. We were asked to approve the vacations and
abandonment based upon a concept - not a real plan. When the applicant has a definitive plan,
this item should be sent back to the TAB for review and recommendations.
The Board felt this applicant considered the
hearing as another check mark on the way to
The applicant stated they were under a deadline
to get this project approved. They will
close escrow later this month. The deadline should not prevent a thorough
review of the project.
ATTACHMENT
A
1.UC-0534-10 –
APPROVED 3-2 (Chestnut, Kapriva nay) per Staff conditions
ADD Current Planning conditions:
• The Use
Permit and Design Review apply only to area shown per plans on file;
• Hours of
operation limited to the current hours of operation of all existing tenants:
USE
PERMITS for the
following:
1) Convenience store; and
2) Alcohol sales - packaged only (beer, wine, and
liquor) in conjunction with a convenience store within a commercial
development.
DESIGN
REVIEW for a
convenience store on 2.8 acres in an H-2 (General Highway Frontage) Zone in a
MUD-4 Overlay District. Generally located on the southwest corner of
The applicant is requesting approval to allow a
convenience store and the sale of packaged alcohol within this commercial development, which is
located in an H-2 zone. These uses require approval of use permit applications
which are discretionary and shall not be approved unless it is established that
the use is appropriate at the proposed location.
The TAB was split on this item. One opinion looked at this project as another
business being established in this shopping center. The other opinion did not see a compelling
justification to establish a business in this location with a 24 hour
operation, gaming and alcohol sales.
The hours of operation for the other
businesses in the center are from
The TAB did agree that the use permit should
be restricted to current pad and not encompass the entire center.
The TAB disagrees with the staff position that
this is a defacto C-2 zone district. The
staff cited two actions by the Planning Commission and the Board of County
Commissioners to support their analysis.
A close examination of these two actions does not support the staff analysis
that C-2 type businesses are permitted.
In fact, the businesses cited in that staff analysis can be operated in
less intense zone districts.
The staff reasoning is also valid, too, for a
C-1 zone district which degrades their original argument for more intense uses.
Other factors that apply to this application:
·
The H-2 zone district was designed to be a combination of
residential and neighborhood businesses
·
This parcel is zoned H-2.
·
The applicant has not applied to change the land use designation
(residential high)
·
The applicant has not applied to change the zone district
·
The project was developed in the H-2 zone district
·
The project does not meet the Title 30 Criteria for the C-2 zone
district.
·
The way to change zone districts is prescribed by NRS and Title
30. They have not been followed.
·
There is no guarantee the public process would result in a zone
change to C-2
·
The way this center has been handled could leave the county
vulnerable to legal action.
The H-2 zone district should be converted to
the appropriate County zone district through public hearings
2.UC-0520-10 – BLACK
BONGO, LP:
APPROVED per Staff conditions
ADD Current Planning condition:
Limited to 5 auctions per month.
USE
PERMIT for an
auction service.
WAIVER
OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
to reduce parking within an existing office/warehouse facility on 16.5 acres in
an M-D (Designed Manufacturing) (AE-65) Zone in the MUD-2 Overlay
District. Generally located on the southeast corner of
The auction service is an appropriate use for
this location.
The parking requirements for this location
need to be coordinated between all the approved use permits. To date, six use permits have been approved
to allow retail sales, service uses, and a place of worship. Approximately 40% of the space is not
leased. The current uses require 838
parking places while 599 are available.
This application has a waiver of development standards for parking with
a two year review.
The TAB suggestion to the staff is to coordinate
all the parking reviews. This would
prevent any one applicant from having to resolve the parking problems, should
one arise. It would make it easier for
the appropriate commission to resolve the problem with all the uses considered
at the same time.
3.UC-0523-10 – NV
ENERGY:
APPROVED per Staff conditions
USE
PERMIT to reduce the separation between communication towers.
DESIGN
REVIEW for a
communication tower and associated ground equipment in conjunction with an
existing electrical substation on a portion of 4.6 acres in an H-1 (Limited
Resort and Apartment) Zone in the MUD-1 Overlay District. Generally located on the east side of
4.UC-0531-10 – EVANS,
KEITH A.:
APPROVED 5-0 per Staff approved conditions:
Add Current Planning conditions:
·Enter into a restrictive covenant for off-sites if no bond is
required;
·Unpaved parking surface to comply with Clark County Health District
Air Quality mitigation requirements.
USE
PERMITS for the
following:
1) A recreational facility (zoo) with accessory
commercial uses; and
2)
A minor training
facility
WAIVERS
OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
for the following:
1) Reduced perimeter wall setback and street
landscaping required with a recreational facility;
2) Reduced parking;
3) Waive parking lot landscaping;
4) Waive a portion of on-site paving;
5) Waive off-site improvements (excluding paving);
6) Eliminate the required trash enclosure; and
7) Eliminate the loading space.
DESIGN
REVIEWS for the
following:
1) Metal storage buildings;
2) Paved parking area; and
3) Unpaved parking area
for a proposed recreational facility (zoo) with
accessory commercial uses in conjunction with an existing single family
residence and exotic animal compound on 5.7 acres in an R-E (Rural Estates
Residential) Zone. Generally located on the southwest corner of
The purpose of this application is to allow
private and public tours of the facility, a minor training facility for
instruction in the handling of exotic animals, and incidental commercial
activity such as souvenir photos and a snack bar.
This is an existing compound. The use permits changed the development
standards applied to the compound. This results in waivers to maintain the
compound in its current configuration.
The TAB discussions focus on two areas:
·
The
parking area
·
Off
sites completion
The parking area must have dust control
applied, but does not have to be paved to accomplish this.
This compound is located south of
5.VC-0513-10 – CANFAM
HOLDINGS, LLC:
APPROVED
per Staff conditions
VARIANCE to reduce the front setback in conjunction with
a single family development on portions of 84.3 acres in an R-2 (Medium Density
Residential) Zone in the Pinnacle Peaks Concept Plan Area. Generally located on the east side of
The variance is on a limited number of parcels
and only on some designs. The variance
should not affect the overall quality of the neighborhood.
6.VC-0514-10 – CANFAM
HOLDINGS, LLC:
APPROVED
per Staff conditions
VARIANCE to reduce front setback in conjunction with a
single family development on portions of 39.6 acres in an R-2 (Medium Density
Residential) Zone in the Pinnacle Peaks Concept Plan Area. Generally located on the east side of Torrey
The variance is on a limited number of parcels
and only on some designs. The variance
should not affect the overall quality of the neighborhood.
The
statements, opinions and observations expressed in this document are solely
those of the author. The opinions stated
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.