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.
The application number UC-0399-08 would be
entered as 08-399. The year is entered
first. Then the item number is entered
with no leading zeros. The type of
application is not used.
REGULAR
BUSINESS
1.
Approve
the Minutes for the meeting held on
2.
Approve
the Agenda with any corrections, deletions or changes. APPROVED
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Southwest
Ridge Recreation Study
Community
Open House
Date:
Time:
Drop in anytime between
Location:
Multi-purpose
Room
The Southwest Ridge area, located near Summerlin
South,
The Clark County Comprehensive Planning
Department is completing a study to develop a community vision for Southwest
Ridge and conceptual plan that will guide future park development.
Please help us plan the County's newest park by
attending the upcoming Community Open House, or completing a short survey where
you can share your ideas for Southwest Ridge
ADDITIONAL
BUSINESS
1. Receive
a report from the Enterprise Town Advisory Board Committee on RNP Traffic
Mitigation (For possible action).
The
committee decided the scope of their discussion as follows:
·
Frame
discussion within RNP-1 boundary.
·
Guiding
principles:
o
Preserve
and maintain identity of RNPs as viable neighborhoods.
o
RNPs
are unique areas requiring protections .
o
Traffic
safety and mitigation
·
Committee
recommendations should accommodate circulation patterns for roads, trails and
pedestrians.
ZONING
AGENDA:
PUBLIC
COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT:
ATTACHMENT A
1. DR-0475-10 (ET-0044-12) – HOPE BAPTIST CHURCH LV, INC:
NO APPLICANT: Held to May 9,
DESIGN REVIEW
FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME to commence the
redesign of a place of worship with ancillary uses, buildings, and lighting on
14.3 acres in a P-F (Public Facility) Zone.
Generally located on the
north side of
2. WS-0155-12 – LB STRONG, LLC:
NO APPLICANT: Held to May 9,
WAIVER
OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
to allow an alternative roof pitch for a proposed single family residence on
0.7 acres in an R-E (Rural Estates Residential) (RNP-I) Zone. Generally located on the east side of
3. DR-0165-12
– GRIMM NORTON 1, LLC:
APPROVED
Per Staff Conditions
DESIGN
REVIEW for a
multiple family residential development on 20.0 acres in an R-3 (Multiple
Family Residential) Zone.
WAIVER
OF CONDITIONS of a zone
change (ZC-0296-11) requiring landscape plan with provided open space per plans
on file. Generally located between
This
is an excellent project. The project has
been redesigned for greater compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood
than the July 2011 design presented. The
developer has incorporated resident and TAB comments in their new design. One of the larger units has been replaced
with mansion homes. Another larger unit
has been moved to the interior. The mansion homes have been reoriented to face
along the street. The parking on the
west side is no longer adjacent to the street.
The
project includes the use of mansion homes.
This is the first time I have seen this of type multi-family housing
used in a project. Mansion homes combine several residences within one large
structure. The difference between a mansion home and the standard apartment is
the mansion home looks like a single large residence. This is a type of construction favored by Current
Planning as an alternative to the standard apartment construction.
4. VS-0164-12 – GRIMM NORTON 1, LLC:
APPROVED
Per Staff Conditions
VACATE
5. WS-0151-12 – MERITAGE HOMES OF NEVADA, INC:
APPROVED
Per Staff if approved Conditions
WAIVER
OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
to appeal the administrative denial of an off-site improvement bond extension
of time in conjunction with a residential condominium development in a C-2
(General Commercial) P-C (Planned Community Overlay District) Zone in the
Mountain’s Edge Master Planned Community.
Generally located
on the east side of
This application raises two concerns. First, how viable is this property if the
bond is called? Second, can the County
legally collect the bond? This
application is typical of foreclosed or bankrupt projects that were bonded
prior to the real estate market decline.
Situation as presented:
·
County
foreclosed on the property for back taxes.
·
A bank paid the property taxes.
·
Bank subsequently foreclosed on the property
owner.
·
Control
of the property is split between the developer, County and a bank
·
The
bond is held by the original developer, not the bank
·
Approximately
60% of the infrastructure is completed
Information not presented to the TAB:
Units Constructed - 56 Total Units in 13
Buildings
·
Homeowners
Owns 55 Units
·
Units Not Constructed - 136 Total Units in 27
Buildings
·
·
Meritage
Homes Nevada, Inc. Owns 24 Units in 4 Buildings
Note:
The Bond holder, Meritage Homes, currently controls approximately 12% of
the property.
The
TAB considered the following:
·
Public Works has stated in public
hearings that bankruptcies and foreclosures complicate the calling of
improvement bonds.
·
The County may not be able to collect
on a bond held by an entity that no longer owns or controls all the common
elements and easements.
·
If the bond is called, the county must
complete the bonded work.
·
The money available from this bond may
not be sufficient to complete the infrastructure.
·
Meritage Homes is bonding
infrastructure for property they no longer own.
·
Infrastructure completion would limit a
successor developer’s ability to redesign the project to be commercially
viable.
·
The project residents would like to
have the vacant land built upon.
·
Today’s market is not conducive to
completing a condo project.
·
The developer is exploring alternative
solutions.
The
TAB opinion is the best course of action is to grant the Waiver of Development
Standards for a minimum of two years.
The bondholder and the bank should have additional time to work out a
solution for this project. The
infrastructure completion at this time would lock the project into the current
configuration. This configuration could
result in a very long time to complete build out. Allowing the bondholder additional time to
work out alternative solutions is in the best interest of all parties.
The
legal questions are not part of this application, but have a bearing on how the
bond call would affect the County. It
appears that some of the posted bonds are inadequate to cover the intended work
or may not be enforceable due to foreclosure or bankruptcy. The TAB has asked
the staff to provide information on the following questions:
·
Can
·
Can
·
What off-site improvements and
improvement bond obligations can
·
What off-site improvements and
improvement bond obligations can
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.