The ATTACHMENT A items will be heard on the following dates:
Planning Commission 7:00 P.M.,
HOLDOVER/RETURNED APPLICATIONS will be heard on the date in the applications header.
The PC decisions/recommendations may be appealed
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)
Note: If you ctrl+click on the blue underlined text it will take you to the detailed documents to explain the agenda item.
Approve the Minutes for the meeting held on
2. Approve the Agenda with any corrections, deletions or changes. APPROVED
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS None
Rainbow Blvd left
PERMIT to allow
a truck/trailer rental business in conjunction with an existing retail business
within a shopping center on 4.1 acres in a C-1 (Local Business) Zone. Generally located on the northwest corner of
applicant has an active Clark County Public Response Office (CCPRO) complaint
since March 2010, ZV-2982-11, for a truck rental business without the proper
approvals. The applicant’s attorney was
not prepared to discuss the application at the
applicant submitted a letter to hold the application until the
The hold request was not accepted by the TAB. The TAB elected to hear this item for three reasons. First, there is significant resident opposition to this Use Permit. Second, residents have complained about a 24 hour-a-day operation and truck noise. This is a commercial neighborhood center and is not an appropriate location for a 24 hour-a-day operation. Third, the applicant has continued to operate a truck rental business instead terminating the operation until the use permit and business license were obtained. This raises doubts about the applicant’s willingness to comply with any conditions placed on the truck rental operation.
A site inspection by TAB members revealed 10 to 12 parking spaces taken up by rental vehicles. This makes the delivery of supplies to other businesses difficult. Also, the trucks were backed into the landscaping damaging the trees. There is reduced clearance for emergency vehicles.
All vehicle servicing would have to be done offsite as ZC-0814-02 prohibited vehicle servicing as an activity for this shopping center.
H-2 VS-0560-11 – RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES OF NEVADA: PC item # 18, January 3, 2012
ADD Current Planning condition:
· Design Review as a public hearing for future plans
This community is being redesigned with larger lot sizes from 118 lots to 85 lots. This request eliminates the map that was submitted with the original project and requires a new map be submitted. The conditions attached to the original zone change remain in effect.
The TAB recommended a design review for the new project to ensure the concerns of the surrounding neighborhoods are taken in to account.
H-3 WS-0561-11 – MONTE CRISTO, LLC: PC item # 29, January 3, 2012
ADD Current Planning conditions: (Applicant agreed to these conditions)
ft. landscape buffer with large trees on 20 ft. centers required on
· Block wall to be split face block
WAIVERS OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS for the following:
1) Allow non-decorative walls;
2) Increased wall height; and
3) Waive landscaping requirements
for a proposed single family residence on 5.0 acres in an
R-E (Rural Estates Residential) (RNP-I) Zone.
Generally located on the
northwest corner of
The TAB concern was how this residence fits into the
neighborhood and meets county code for the RNP.
The original plans call for block wall on three sides with no
The TAB held this item for two weeks to give the
applicant time to work with neighbors.
Most, but not all, neighbors agreed with the compromise plan
developed. The wall is to be set back 6
ft. from the right-of- way with large trees planted every 20 feet. This will help soften the effect of walls
that extend 300 ft. on two side and 600 ft. along
1. CP-0978-11: Use this hyper link to view the maps for items 1 to 8 below
That the Enterprise Town Advisory Board hold a public meeting on an amendment to the Enterprise Land Use Plan and take appropriate action. (For possible action)
From PF (Public Facility) & RS (Residential Suburban) to PF (Public Facility) and RH (Residential High) Generally located on between Wigwam Avenue and Pebble Road and between Durango Drive and Ft. Apache Road
This request by staff is to amend the Enterprise Land Use Plan
to reflect the preferred alternative as shown in the Durango-Blue Diamond
Public Facilities Plan Summary report dated
If adopted, the plan will provide the following:
20 acres for a neighborhood park,
10 acres for an elementary school,
13 acres for a second elementary school,
20 acres for a junior high school,
37 acres for single family development and,
20 acres for multi-family development.
There was some opposition to the plan as presented. The primary concern was the placement of a multi-family
development on the southeast corner of the project. The design presented is the result of several
public meetings and a decision by the
(Residential Suburban) and
(Commercial General) to RUC (
This property has been reviewed several times for a land use
change. A change to another land use,
other than commercial, would create development problems for adjacent property
owners. Commercial General is an appropriate
land use for the northeast corner of
(Commercial Neighborhood) to RS (Residential Suburban) Located
This request was thoroughly discussed during the Enterprise Land
Use major update. Commercial Neighborhood
is the best fit for the area. When the Starr/I-15
interchange is completed, the traffic volume on Starr will increase. The intersection of Starr and
(Commercial General) to RS (Residential Suburban) Located
on the north side of
The applicant submitted a new land use plan to the county staff on the TAB hearing day. This new plan requested a large portion of the property to become Residential Urban Center (RUC). The applicant stated the intention to only develop 24 to 26 units per acre. However, intentions change and this property could be developed to the max allowed. The RUC was opposed by several area residents present. RUC is not appropriate for this location.
The TAB considers the last minute changes inappropriate. The last minute request has not been reviewed by the staff and they could not provide staff comments.
The applicant’s plans appear to be in a state of flux. The applicant’s map did not show size or location of the commercial element. They requested a zone change to C-2 within the last month.
The TAB opinion is the Residential Suburban is a good fit with the adjacent properties. The staff has reviewed and approved the Residential Suburban. The TAB suggested the applicant could request a non-conforming zone change with plans when their plans for multi-family firms up. This would allow the decision makers to evaluate the increased density for the area.
First motion to approve Change to Residential Low: NO RECOMMENDATION vote split 2 - 2.
Second motion to remain commercial Neighborhood: APPROVED 4 - 0
(Commercial Neighborhood) to RS (Residential Suburban) generally located on the west side of
The requested Residential Suburban (RS) was opposed by a number of area residents. This area was thoroughly discussed during the Enterprise Land Use major update. The TAB opinion at that time was the area should be Residential Low as a buffer to the RNP-1.
The RS request is a z-shaped area that will be hard to develop and buffer the RNP to the north. If the request is approved, it will leave 2.5 acres for commercial development, about enough land for a convenience store. The current 10 acres would allow sufficient land to develop a Commercial Neighborhood with several businesses to serve the community.
The first TAB motion was a change to Residential Low to match the adjacent properties and expand the RNP buffer. The motion resulted in a tie vote. The second motion was made to have the property remain Commercial Neighborhood. The motion was approved 4 - 0.
A side note is it appears that Residential Suburban is the fashionable land use of the day. During the last major update, commercial was the favored land use. This does not lead to cohesive land use planning.
APPROVED change to Residential Low
From OP (Office Professional) to RS (Residential Suburban)
There is not a good land use solution for these properties. To the west is Commercial Tourist and to the east RNP-1.
The property in this application was part of the RNP-1 prior to
The land owners now feel Residential Suburban is the best use of their land. However, a significant number of property owners in the RNP-1 are opposed to Residential Suburban. A realistic Residential Suburban project would require properties to be combined (19 separate owners). Existing structures would need to be demolished. With the availability of open land, it is highly unlikely a developer would make the effort required to create a project in this area. The result is boarded up houses and no land sales.
The TAB considered the office professional land use to be
impractical in this area for the reasons above and two other reasons. Once the apartments were approved, the Office
Professional area was too isolated from
The other option is to move this area back into the RNP and give it the protections it needs to be a viable neighborhood.
From BDRP (Business and
Located between Jones Boulevard and Torrey Pines Drive on the north side of Warm Springs Road
position is the application should be denied.
The scarcity of these (Business and
Most of the land in this request has already been granted a zone district and the variation of zone districts will make it difficult to establish additional BDRP in the area. The applicant has proposed a single residential land use. This will eliminate the jumble of zone districts that may not be compatible next to each other.
This area is an excellent example of why zone districts C-1 and C-2 should be eliminated from the BDRP land use now. The current staff position is to wait until the next major land use update in 2014 to effect the change. This change has already been accomplished in several townships. We cannot afford to lose land devoted to job creation.
2. VS-0587-11 – MIXED INCOME, LLC:
3. UC-1418-06 (ET-0114-11) – RICHMOND LIMITED PARTNERSHIP:
USE PERMIT SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME to commence reduced setbacks for a convenience store.
DESIGN REVIEW for a tavern, convenience store with gasoline pumps and a
car wash, and retail shops on a portion of 4.5 acres in a C-2 (General
Commercial) (AE-60) Zone and an R-2 (Medium Density Residential) (AE-60) Zone
in the MUD-3 Overlay District. Generally
located on the northwest corner of
4. VC-0431-98 (ET-0116-11) – ERGON ASPHALT & EMULSIONS, INC:
FOURTH EXTENSION OF TIME
to review the manufacture and storage of petroleum products (asphalt emulsion
mill) and the storage of acid where not permitted and where required to be in
an M-2 (Industrial) Zone with a use permit in conjunction with an existing
asphalt and heavy road oil storage and shipping facility on a portion of 4.4
acres in an M-1 (Light Manufacturing) Zone.
on the north side of
5. ZC-0380-08 (ET-0117-11)
USE PERMIT to allow a parking lot.
WAIVER OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS to reduce parking lot landscaping.
REVIEW for a
parking lot. Generally located on the west side of Interstate 15,
1,500 feet south of
6. UC-0534-11 – AGLH
DENIED: The developer has not considered or planned for the effects of the DesertXpress adjacent to their property. Request this application be returned to the TAB.
USE PERMIT for a residential planned unit development.
VARIANCES for the following:
1) Reduced perimeter setback;
2) Reduced building setback from a right-of-way;
3) Reduced building setback adjacent to a freeway;
4) Reduced separation from an accessory structure to buildings;
5) Reduced driveway length; and
6) Remove requirement for trash enclosures.
REVIEW for a
multi-family development on 25.7 acres in an H-1 (Limited Resort and Apartment)
P-C (Planned Community Overlay District) Zone within the Southern Highlands
Master Planned Community. Generally
located on the east
The applicant was unaware that the DesertXpress high speed train is planned along their east property line. The result is a project that could place a residence as close as 30 ft. from the train. The TAB could not approve a project that did not take the effects of the DesertXpress into account.
The DesertXpress plan has changed land use and project planning along its route.
The TAB was made aware of the DesertXpress plans earlier this year and has monitored the federal reports and plans since. Any project that is located next to or near the DesertXpress tracks needs to have mitigating factors planned into the project.
This application included a 60% reduction in the distance from the residence to the I-15 right-of-way where the DesertXpress will be located along the west side I-15 right-of-way. The DesertXpress may require an entirely different plan for this project and construction materials to reduce the sound levels and vibrations.
The applicant would not agree to hold the application and provide the TAB with how they intend reduce the effect of the DesertXpress. The TAB is also concerned with the number of reduced setbacks and short driveways. These reductions were not discussed. The TAB requests the application be returned when the concerns with DesertXpress have been addressed.