Results
The ATTACHMENT A items will be heard on the
following dates:
Planning Commission
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
NOTE: There is no item #4 on the agenda
ANNOUNCEMENTS: NONE
ADDITIONAL
BUSINESS NONE
ZONING
AGENDA:
PUBLIC
COMMENTS
Several residents commented on the
establishment of an assisted living facility in their cul-de-sac at 8020
ADJOURNMENT:
HOLDOVER and RETURNED APPLICATIONS
H-1 WS-0070-12 – LENNAR COMMUNITIES
APPROVED per the landscaping plans submitted to the TAB
WAIVER OF
DEVELOPMENT STANDARD to reduce the corner
side setback.
DESIGN REVIEW on common lot elements (pool/cabana and other associated
amenities) in conjunction with an approved compact lot single family
development on 20.0 acres in an R-3 (Multiple Family Residential) P-C (Planned
Community Overlay District) Zone in the Mountain’s Edge Master Planned
Community. Generally located on the east side of
Only part of this development has been mapped. The landscaping plans submitted included the
entire project including the unmapped portion.
The TAB specified the approval is based upon the landscaping plan
presented.
H-2 NZC-0982-04 (WC-0020-12) – HURLEY, STEVE
& DONNA:
APPROVED Per Staff Conditions
ADD Public Works condition:
·
Waiver of full offsite
until
WAIVER OF
CONDITIONS of a non-conforming zone change
requiring full off-sites to include paved legal access on 2.0 acres in a C-1
(Local Business) Zone. Generally located on the north side of
The TAB considered the following:
·
The
property owner should not be relieved of the responsibility to construct the
off sites.
·
The
off-sites are not required at this time.
·
The
off-site expense could negatively effect the business.
·
The
second extension of time is up on
·
The requirement for off-sites should be
coordinated with the end date for the second extension of time. The applicant will need to assess the
business at this location when the extension ends.
ATTACHMENT A
1. WS-0101-12 – RICHMOND AMERICAN HOMES NV,
INC:
APPROVED
WAIVER OF
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS to reduce side
setbacks on a 0.5 acre portion of a developed 5.0 acre single family
subdivision in an R-2 (Medium Density Residential) Zone. Generally located
on the south side of Red
2. DR-0088-12 – PEPPERMINT PATTY'S PROFITABLE,
ET AL:
APPROVED
DESIGN
REVIEW for a
foothill transitional area on 21.1 acres in R-2 (Medium Density Residential)
Zone in conjunction with an approved single family residential
development. Generally located on the southeast corner of
3. UC-0096-12 – EMERY FAMILY LIVING TRUST
1980:
DENIED
USE
PERMIT to allow
an accessory commercial building not compatible with existing buildings
on-site.
DESIGN
REVIEW for an
accessory commercial building in conjunction with a convenience store on 1.5
acres in a C-2 (General Commercial) Zone.
Generally located
on the northeast corner of
The TAB considered the following:
·
Placement
of the building on the site.
·
Number
of expected patrons - up to 20 mingling around the site amongst traffic.
·
Conflicts
between pedestrian and vehicular traffic
·
Number
of parking locations around the building
·
Staff
analysis and recommendation
·
The
ramifications of a precedent.
·
Kiosks
could proliferate. How many should be
allowed?
·
At
what point are the design standards for a particular site no longer valid.
Pedestrian safety is a major concern with
these kiosks with how they are placed in parking lots of these busy commercial sites. The design of these kiosks does not blend
into the surrounding area commercial buildings.
The site currently has a water windmill kiosk
that was approved administratively in August 2009. It appears that all kiosks are not treated
equally in the development code. The TAB
questioned why one is approved administratively and the other requires use
permit and design review.
5. UC-0104-12 – MP BARROW, LLC, ET AL:
APPROVED
USE
PERMIT for a
recreational facility (indoor mountain biking facility).
WAIVER
OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
for parking lot landscaping.
DESIGN
REVIEW for a
recreation facility in conjunction with an existing office/warehouse and
distribution center on a portion of 25.5 acres in an M-1 (Light Manufacturing)
(AE-60 & AE-65) Zone. Generally located on the west side of
6. VS-0105-12 – PARDEE HOMES OF NEVADA, INC,
ET AL:
APPROVED
VACATE
7. WS-0106-12
– IOTA CINNAMON, LLC:
APPROVED
(3 – 1) per staff condition
ADDED
conditions by the
applicant
·A minimum of 17,200 square foot lots approved only on Lots 5 — 10;
All other lots must be a minimum of 18,000 square feet.
·Lots 1 & 10 shall front
·Front setback to Lots 1 & 10 shall be a minimum of 20 feet from
the edge of the right-of-way.
·Paving on
·Modified 30 inch roll curb is permitted if allowed by Drainage study
·No streetlights, curb, gutter or sidewalk along Pebble,
CHANGE
Public Works condition
#3 to read:
·Execute a Restrictive Covenant Agreement (deed restrictions) along
WAIVERS
OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
for the following:
1) Reduced lot area;
2) Increased length of a dead end street;
3) Full off-site improvements; and
4) Modified street improvement standards
in conjunction with a proposed single family
residential development on 7.3 acres in an R-E (Rural Estates Residential)
(RNP-I) Zone. Generally located on the southwest corner of
The applicant has added 5 acres to their original
project. The design standards from the
original application are carried through this application to produce a
consistent neighborhood. The added
conditions are similar to those previously approved for the project.
The TAB did not see the necessity for the
restrictive covenant when the local public roads are being developed to current
county standards.
One TAB member objected to the lots less than
18,000 sq. ft.
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.