Results
The ATTACHMENT A items will be heard on the
following dates:
Planning Commission 7:00 P.M.,
Board of
HOLDOVER/RETURNED
APPLICATIONS will be heard on the date in the applications header.
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 ctrl+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.
Discussion of the proposed route and terminals of the Desert Express
high speed rail system.
Representing DesertXpress were Greg Gilbert,
lead council, and Mitch Trageton.
·
Project
is subject to the Federal Environmental Impact Study
·
Safety
issues are covered by:
o Federal Railroad Administration
o Surface Transportation Board
·
Records
of Decision by Stakeholders:
o Final Alignment: suggested in FEIS
§
Local
government is overruled if federal funds or loans are used
o Rules of the road; the way the railroad
functions
o Station sites and Maintenance facilities
·
o McCarran Runway 19 capacity could be reduced
with potential impact to air travel
·
Subject
to NDOT and CALTRAN regulations
·
Finance:
o Private investment
o No grant money
o Railroad Rehabilitation Infrastructure Fund
for loan guarantees
o If the loan is not paid, the federal
government owns and may operate the railroad at a loss
·
Completion
schedule: four years from date of final financing
·
Federal
grants or loan guarantees allow federal eminent domain to be used to obtain
right-of- way of required land.
·
The
following concerns were voiced:
·
Alignment,
route, environmental impact, financing, liability, viability, safety,
completion schedule, ridership study accuracy
4.
Discuss agenda and set date for a special meeting of the town board to
discuss land use concepts, waivers, and board actions.
Proposed subjects for the agenda:
• History
of TABs
• Process
for interaction with the Board of County Commissioners
• Land
Use terms
• Recommendations:
parameters and alternatives
• How
TABs look at waivers
• Title
30 and Title 29 reciprocity
Meeting date set for
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
State legislative bill AB400: Tiffany Hesser
reported that as currently amended, this proposed legislation would only apply
to towns that are 25 miles or more from a city with over 500,000 in
population.
The Legislative Counsel’s Digest: “This bill requires the members of a town
advisory board for an unincorporated town that is in a county whose population
is 700,000 or more (currently Clark County) and that is located 25 miles or
more from an incorporated city whose population is 500,000 or more (currently
Las Vegas) to be elected by the registered voters of the unincorporated town.”
ZONING
AGENDA
Regular
meeting
HOLDOVER
APPLICATIONS
H-1 WS-0620-10 – MORLEY, COREY & SALLY:
Held by the applicant until
WAIVER
OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
for reduced setbacks in conjunction with a proposed 8 lot single family
residential subdivision on 1.0 acre in an R-2 (Medium Density Residential)
Zone. Generally located on the north side of
H-2 UC-0106-11
–
APPROVED per Current Planning conditions
ADD a Current Planning condition:
• Tower and
related structures to be removed when no longer needed.
USE
PERMIT to
reduce the separation between communication towers.
DESIGN
REVIEW for a
communication tower and associated ground equipment on 2.5 acres in an M-1
(Light Manufacturing) Zone in the
There is a concern that towers and associated
equipment may not be removed when they become obsolete. The
ATTACHMENT
A
1. UC-0127-11 –
APPROVED per Current Planning conditions
ADD a Current Planning condition:
• Tower and
related structures to be removed when no longer needed or in service
USE
PERMITS for the
following:
1.Reduce the separation from a communication tower
to a residential use to 70 feet where 270 feet is required (a 70% reduction).
2.Increase the height of a communication tower to 90
feet where 80 feet is allowed (an 11 % increase).
DESIGN
REVIEW for an
existing communication tower on a portion of 2.5 acres in an H-2 (General Highway
Frontage) Zone in the MUD-3 Overlay District.
Generally located
on the east side of
The cell tower was built in 2000 when there
were no residences in the area. The
residences were built about 5 years later.
This accounts for the large reduction in separation distance.
There is a concern that towers and associated
equipment may not be removed when they become obsolete. The
2. UC-0132-11 – 9555 PRIME, LLC & 9555
MDN, LLC:
APPROVED per staff conditions
USE
PERMIT for
offices as a primary use (reflexology) within an existing retail building on
3.8 acres in an H-1 (Limited Resort and Apartment) Zone in the MUD-1 Overlay
District. Generally located on the northwest corner of
3. UC-0133-11 – MC-2
APPROVE per staff conditions
REMOVE Current Planning bullet #1;
ADD the following Current Planning conditions:
• No live
entertainment outdoors;
• Design
Review for lighting and signage as a Public Hearing;
USE
PERMIT to allow
live entertainment and outdoor dining.
VARIANCE to reduce parking.
DESIGN
REVIEW for a
retail building consisting of a specialty grocery store, general retail uses,
restaurants, and banquet facility with an open reception garden on 4.9 acres in
a C-2 (General Commercial) Zone in the Pinnacle Peaks Concept Plan area. Generally located on the northwest corner of
There were no adjacent residents in attendance at the TAB
meeting.
This application has an intense commercial development with
moderate intensity residential on two sides.
The question is how to protect the residents while allowing the property
owner to proceed with development. The
Pinnacle Peaks Master Plan has not done a good job of providing transitions
between intense commercial and residential.
The plans show a 39,684 square foot retail building on the
northwest comer of
The TAB examined the following:
·
Building placement on the property
·
Building mass
·
Building design
·
Proximity to residential
·
Types of activities
·
Lighting and signage
·
Parking
·
Landscape design
The applicant withdrew the request for live entertainment
outside. The TAB added a condition for
no live entrainment outside to indicate it is not appropriate for this site now
or in the future. The request for outside dining was retained. With no live entertainment the Current
Planning bullet # 1 is not needed.
The applicant did not present a design for
lighting and signage. The TAB added a
condition for lighting and signage as a public hearing.
The Current Planning condition to restrict the
reception garden hours is appropriate for this location.
4. ZC-0069-09 (ET-0035-11) – ELADES, PETER:
APPROVED per staff conditions
USE
PERMITS to
review the following:
1) A banquet facility on a property less than 2
acres; and
2) A banquet facility with outside uses.
WAIVERS
OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS for
the following:
1) Increased fence height within setbacks;
2) Alternative landscaping;
3) Attached sidewalk;
4) Eliminate the setback to access gates;
5) Reduced throat depth;
6) Allow commercial access onto a local street (
7) Reduced driveway width.
DESIGN
REVIEW for a
banquet facility with manager’s unit.
Generally located
on the southwest corner of
A question was raised about why the Waivers of
Development Standards did not match the
The staff agenda sheet for an extension of
time uses the original application verbiage.
The NOFA is not included in the extension of time because the only
question is how long this application will be in effect. It would take a new application and approval
by the PC or
The applicant may request to modify the NOAF
as part of extension of time. This will be
explained in the current staff agenda sheet and be reviewed by the TAB and the
appropriate commission.
5. VS-0137-11 – CANFAM HOLDINGS, LLC:
APPROVED per staff conditions
VACATE
6. WS-0139-11 – CANFAM HOLDINGS, LLC:
APPROVED per staff conditions
APPROVE All Waivers
WAIVERS
OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
for the following:
1.a. Increase
subdivision boundary wall height to 7 feet 4 inches where 6 feet is the standard
(a 19% increase).
b.
Increase Interior wall 'height to 6 feet 8 inches where a 6 foot wall
height is the standard (a 10% increase);
2.Increase the height for a single 'family
residential dwelling to 38 feet where 35 feet is the standard (a 9% increase).
3.Reduce the rear yard setback for single family
residences (cul-de-sac lots only) to 13.5 feet where, 15 feet is required (a
10% reduction).
4.Increase the, length of a cul-de-sac to 580 feet
where 500 feet is the standard (a 16% increase). .
5.Allow an alternative gutter design at the radius
of interior streets.
6.Reduce the street off-set distance to 65 feet
where 125 feet is the standard (a 47% reduction).
7.Reduce the back of curb radius to a driveway to
1.5 feet where 12 feet is the standard (an 87% reduction).
8.Allow an attached sidewalk and a 10 foot
landscape buffer on a collector street (
WAIVERS
OF CONDITIONS of a
zone change (ZC-1755-05) requiring the following:
1) Extend hammerhead to north boundary line of
power company property; and
2) Provide secondary access to
Generally located on the south side of
The TAB examined the waivers and found them to
be consistent with development in this area.
The TAB has consistently favored a uniform
design along a street for type of sidewalk and landscape. The approval of waiver # 8 keeps a consistent
design along Lindell. The first
developer in an area is usually the one who sets the standards for that section
of road. It is up to the TAB and
Commissions to enforce the County standards with the first development in an
area.
Waiver of conditions #2 would have provided a
secondary access point for the previous subdivision design. However, the current subdivision design now
has 2 access points onto
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.