Results
The ATTACHMENT A items will be heard on the
following dates:
Planning Commission 7:00 P.M.,
Board of
Note: The
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
ANNOUNCEMENTS: None
ADDITIONAL
BUSINESS None
ZONING
AGENDA:
PUBLIC
COMMENTS
Rainbow Blvd left
turn to
ADJOURNMENT:
HOLDOVER APPLICATIONS
H-1 UC-0570-11
– BAHJI PARTNERS,
DENIED
USE
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
This
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
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
APPROVED
ADD Current Planning condition:
·
Design
Review as a public hearing for future plans
VACATE
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
APPROVED
ADD Current Planning conditions: (Applicant agreed to
these conditions)
·
6
ft. landscape buffer with large trees on 20 ft. centers required on
·
Block
wall to be split face block
·
Wall
height along
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
buffering. Along
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
ATTACHMENT A
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)
1.
PA-0002-11
APPROVED
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
2.
PA-0003-11
APPROVED
From RS
(Residential Suburban) and
3.
PA-0004-11
DENIED
From CG
(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
4.
PA-0005-11
DENIED
From CN
(Commercial Neighborhood) to RS (Residential Suburban) Located
on between
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
5.
PA-0006-11
APPROVED
From CG
(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.
6.
PA-0007-11
First motion to approve Change to Residential Low: NO
RECOMMENDATION vote split 2 - 2.
Second motion to remain commercial Neighborhood: APPROVED
4 - 0
From CN
(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.
7.
PA-0008-11
APPROVED change to Residential Low
From OP
(Office Professional) to RS (Residential Suburban)
Located between
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 2009
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.
8.
PA-0012-11
APPROVED
From BDRP (Business and
Located
between Jones Boulevard and Torrey Pines Drive on the north side of Warm
Springs Road
The Staff
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:
APPROVED
VACATE
3. UC-1418-06
(ET-0114-11) – RICHMOND LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP:
APPROVED
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:
APPROVED
VARIANCE
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.
Generally located
on the north side of
5. ZC-0380-08 (ET-0117-11)
- MAJESTIC
APPROVED
USE
PERMIT to allow
a parking lot.
WAIVER
OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
to reduce parking lot landscaping.
DESIGN
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.
DESIGN
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
side of
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.
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.