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 Minutes for the meeting held on
2.
Approve the Agenda with any corrections, deletions or changes. APPROVED
None
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
None
ADDITIONAL
BUSINESS
None
ZONING
AGENDA:
PUBLIC
COMMENTS
None
ATTACHMENT A
1.NZC-0495-11 – PEPPERMINT PATTY'S PROFITABLE, ET AL:
APPROVE
per staff conditions
ADDED
Current Planning
conditions: The applicant agreed to the
conditions below:
·
Design
review as a public hearing for significant changes to plans
·
The
project is limited to 108 residential units
·
Design
review as a public hearing if pad height on 176-08-201-001 is higher than
adjacent property pads.
·
Negotiate
with the adjacent residents on the placement and type of boundary wall to be
constructed.
WAIVERS
OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
for the following:
1) Increased wall height; and
2) Modified off-site improvements.
Generally located on the southeast corner of
There is strong neighborhood opposition to
this project. The neighbors had a
petition signed by over 160 people. The
neighborhood would prefer this area remain commercial. Their key points are:
1. 2009 Enterprise Land Use Plan - Planned
Land Use is Commercial/General
2. Ingress and egress at
3. Conflict on the Rhodes Ranch property line
wall
4. Grade and water flow issues adjacent to
Rhodes Ranch
The expanded version of their key points is
attached.
The strongest argument for not granting the
non-conforming zone change is the long term best use of the property is
commercial. The following would favor
commercial in this location:
·
Intersection
of two arterial roads
·
Limited
properties available for commercial along
·
Reduce
the increase in the long term traffic congestion
·
Reduce
travel for residents
·
Reduce
future air pollution due to vehicle use
The above items were not seriously discussed
by the TAB.
The TAB focused on the following:
·
Previous
TAB experience indicates residents usually prefer residential projects over
commercial projects adjacent to their property.
·
The
need for up front engineering studies to fully evaluate the project
o
The
property elevation drops 35 ft. over 1200 ft.
o
The
amount of fill required is unknown
·
How
to mitigate the project impacts.
·
Explaining
the possible commercial that could go into a C-2 zoned district
·
How
the boundary wall would be constructed
·
Insure
the access to flood control and water pipe easements.
The TAB added four conditions. The applicant agreed with all conditions.
The applicant volunteered to limit the project
to 108 residential units. The TAB, also,
recommended a design review if the plans shown on the tentative map are
significantly changed so the residents can voice their opinion.
The TAB opinion is the boundary wall should be
connected to the current wall of the adjacent residents. A second wall to satisfy code would have
several negatives including a safety hazard, a good hiding place, and a place
for trash to accumulate. A negotiated
solution between the residents and the applicant is the best solution.
Another concern is how the drainage studies
and the grading plan will change what was presented to the TAB. This project is another example of why
engineering studies are needed up front.
The property elevation changes over 35 ft. from south to north in 1200
ft. This is a 2.9% grade. How will the property be graded and how much
fill is needed cannot be shown at this time.
The TAB wants to ensure the fill will not significantly change how this
project blends with the neighborhood. The TAB and the applicant discussed when
a design review would be required because of the required fill. The condition on pad height was an agreement
reached between the applicant and the TAB.
1.VS-0496-11 -
PEPPERMINT PATTY'S PROFITABLE, ET AL:
APPROVED
per staff conditions
VACATE
3. VS-0488-11 –
APPROVED
per staff conditions
ADDED
public works condition:
Update plans for drainage improvements to show a
fifteen foot (15') wide area to accommodate the horse trail alignment on the
north side of Le Baron
VACATE
The RNP residents and Mountain Edge’s developer
negotiated an agreement when the RNP was included in the Mountain Edge Master
Plan. This agreement was part of the
original Master Plan approved by the
The TAB recommendation is the original
agreement must be upheld contrary to the Public Works opinion.
Other factors reviewed by the TAB were:
·
The
alignment of Canyon Estates Ave and Le Baron is offset. This would create a traffic hazard.
·
All
the property in the RNP can be accessed from the east.
·
A
cul-de-sac can be constructed along Le Baron alignment for emergency
equipment. This may require a waiver
when the area is developed. These
waivers have been granted on a routine basis.
The applicant requested the TAB add the
following condition to the Public Works conditions.
Update plans for drainage improvements
to show a fifteen foot (15') wide area to accommodate the horse trail alignment
on the north side of Le Baron
This condition satisfies the trail
requirement shown on the County Trails map for the Southwest.
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.
Attachment 1 Resident Concerns
NZC-0495-11 - PEPPERMINT PATTY'S PROFITABLE, ET AL
1.
2009 Enterprise Land Use
Plan - Planned Land Use is Commercial/General
1.1.
Residential zoning is not
better than commercial zoning in this economic climate. In an I.5-mile radius
38% of the homes are unoccupied. The report and corresponding map are in your
packets I provided.
1.2.
There have been no
significant changes in this area that would justify the non-conforming zone
change from the 2009 Enterprise Land Use Plan.
1.3.
The corner of
1.4.
On
2.
Ingress and egress at
2.1.
2.2.
It is not safe to have the
proposed
2.3.
The financial
responsibility for any repairs to the property needs to be established in case
of foreclosure or bankruptcy (i.e. if the proposed road,
2.4.
A traffic study is
presented at the Board of County Commissioners Meeting?
3.
Conflict on the Rhodes
Ranch property line wall
3.1.
The homes in Rhodes Ranch
that border the proposed development have wrought iron open fences, as seen in
the photographs in your packets, and Lennar is proposing to put in a solid
block wall.
3.2.
Redundant walls pose a
safety concern.
4.
Grade and water flow issues
adjacent to Rhodes Ranch
4.1.
Water pools behind our
homes along the fence-line of Rhodes Ranch during a heavy rain. Where will this water go? Will water become
trapped between the redundant walls and flow over into the Rhodes Ranch homes?
A drainage study should be presented at the Board of County Commissioners
Meeting.
4.2.
What is the proposed grade?
4.3.
Which way will the water
flow?
4.4.
How much fill will be used?
4.5.
According to Erik Denman
(Deputy County Surveyor) and Layne Weber (Principal Engineer) at Pubic at
Public Works any landscaping over the drain channel poses a safety concern
because irrigation and the roots system can erode the drain channel.