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
PRESENTATION:
Presentation and discussion regarding
Cooperative Management Area (
This presentation covered the changes to the
Note: Answers to several bond questions from the
last TAB meeting are attached.
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
NZC-0004-12:
Discuss the non-conforming zone change to build single family homes at
the southeast corner of Pebble and
Windmill Library
ADDITIONAL
BUSINESS: None
ZONING
AGENDA:
PUBLIC
COMMENTS None
ADJOURNMENT:
HOLDOVER
APPLICATIONS
H-1. DR-0475-10 (ET-0044-12) – HOPE BAPTIST
CHURCH LV, INC:
APPROVED
Per Staff Conditions
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
H-2. WS-0155-12 – LB STRONG, LLC:
APPROVED
Per Staff Conditions
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
The TAB’s only question was to the staff. Why do we have a fixed roof pitch in the
code? A range of acceptable roof pitches
would allow an applicant to proceed without a Waiver of Development Standards.
The applicant needed less roof pitch to
position solar panels for the house.
ATTACHMENT
A
1.
VS-0183-12 – ROCKY-G. LIVING TRUST, ET AL:
DENIED
VACATE
The TAB considered this item and WS-0181-12
together. The TAB recommendations on
both applications are coordinated to provide a single solution.
The TAB considered the following:
·
Proposed
flood control project along Agate linking to current flood control east of I-15
o
County
may need to repurchase land to complete drainage project if the vacation is
approved.
o
Commission
has been reluctant to release public right-of-way when the County has a planned
public improvement project in that right-of-way.
o
Too
early to release public right-of-way, build-out of the area has not been
determined.
o
Flood
plain across this area may require a different approach to development.
·
The
land use in this area will continue to evolve
o
In
the last three years, the land use has gone from Commercial Tourist to
·
No
Design Review on file
o
TAB
has constantly recommended denial for right-of-way vacations without plans
·
Applicant
does not own all the property along Agate.
·
The
applicant does not own all the property required to complete the project as originally
proposed.
·
The
market has not determined how this property will be used
·
Property
to the south may need additional access along Agate to be successfully
developed.
·
If
Assemblies of God, 3085 Raven, does not sell the property, additional access on
Agate may be needed.
The TAB determined is too early to vacate the
Agate right-of-way for the following:
·
The
County may need public right-of-way for flood control.
·
The
applicant does not have a project plan
·
The
eventual use of the applicant’s and surrounding property has not been
determined.
2.
WS-0181-12 –
ROCKY-G. LIVING TRUST, ET AL:
APPROVED
the bond extension
subject to a review on
WAIVER
OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
to appeal the administrative denial of an off-site improvement bond extension of
time in conjunction with an approved hotel and retail center on 4.6 acres in an
R-E (Rural Estates Residential) Zone and a C-2 (General Commercial) Zone in the
MUD-3 Overlay District. Generally located on the north and south sides of
The TAB considered this item and VS-0183-12 together. The TAB recommendations on both applications
are coordinated to provide a single solution.
The TAB recommended the bond be extended until
Answers to several questions were provided to
the TAB.
- What exactly was bonded?
The offsites were only designed and required
on
-
Were the offsite improvements on the project only involving Agate (nothing on
Dean Martin)?
Yes, see answer above.
-
Would approval of VS-0183-12 make WS-0181-12 obsolete?
Once the vacation is approved by the board,
staff will not pursue calling in the bond to allow time to process the
vacation. Therefore, the waiver is no
longer necessary. Once the vacation is recorded, the applicant can
request to release the bond. If the applicant lets the vacation expire,
Public Works could call in the bond.
-
How many times has the bond been extended? Is the recommendation for
denial solely because of how long it's been extended or are there other
extenuating circumstances?
Yes and yes. This is only the 2nd
extension. However, the 1st extension wasn't
granted until 2011. This applicant did not respond to continued mailings
from our department that their bond was expired and finally filed for an
extension approximately 5 years later. The other factor considered is
that no physical improvements have been started on the site since 2004.
-
What would be the impact of denying both applications? Would the
developer be required to put in offsites right now?
Yes, the offsites would be required now.
Public Works (PW) would look for progress in the offsites being
completed. Once it was determined that no progress was being made, PW
could call in the bond.
3.
ZC-0184-12 – LEWIS INVESTMENT CO NV, LLC:
APPROVED
Per Staff Conditions
ADDED
Current Planning
conditions:
·
Design
Review as a public hearing for lighting and signage.
·
Provide
a pedestrian access to the west end of the communal development.
DESIGN
REVIEW for an
apartment complex. Generally located on the north side of
This
is generally a well-designed project.
The plan depicts 6 different models of apartment buildings that vary in
height from 24 feet to 28 feet. The buildings will all have pitched tile roofs
and stucco exterior. The buildings will have a variety of pop-outs, window
fenestrations, covered entries, and varying roof lines to break up the vertical
and horizontal building surfaces.
One
TAB concern was the 24 ft. drive isles.
If any parking occurs on drive isles this narrow, it will form a choke
point.
The
pedestrian circulation can be improved by adding southern access to the planned
commercial property. The TAB added a
condition to accomplish this.
Light
and signage were not part of the Design Review.
A condition was added to require a public hearing for these items.
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.
DEVELOPMENT
BONDING
1.
Bonds are posted to guarantee off-site
improvements infrastructure, not building, landscaping or any other
developmental improvements. There are three types of bonds; performance, cash
in the treasurer's office and cash-in-lieu in a bank.
2.
Bonds are typically posted by the owner
of the project, occasionally contractors have posted the bonds.
3.
If a bond holder goes into bankruptcy,
the County files with the courts to protect our interests. That does not
relieve the bonding company of their obligations. Some courts have required the
bond holder to continue to pay the bond premiums while the properties were in
receivership to complete the development.
4.
If the bond holder loses ownership of
their property, that does not relieve them of their obligation to
build/complete their off-site improvements based upon what they have recorded
or built. The County may still call in their bond.
5.
Bonds are based on an estimate of the
costs of the off-site improvements. The more of a project that is completed,
the better the chances of the County recovering all costs associated with
completing the project. County costs to complete are generally more than the
developer costs due to our bidding process and prevailing wages.
6.
Any project can be abandoned and their
bonds released:
a.
Any commercial project that never built
or completed and their building permits have expired.
b.
Any recorded subdivision that is
reverted to acreage.
c.
In both cases there can be no safety
issues caused by the project.
7.
The county has no way to verify the
financial viability of the project or developer.
8.
Bonding is a requirement at the time of
map recordation or building permits. The County cannot require the new owner of
a subdivision to post a new bond, but we have the ability of holding building
permits for the posting of a new bond. That plan does have issues with
subdivisions that have been sold to multiple owners as to who is obligated for
which portion of the infrastructure improvements.
9.
Funds collected on a default bond can
only be spent on that project, any excess funds must be returned to the bonding
company/bond holder from which the funds were collected.