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
with following changes:
Held by the applicant until
8. VS-0046-13 - PARDEE
HOMES OF NEVADA, INC; ET AL:
14. WS-0045-13 PARDEE
HOMES OF NEVADA, INC; ET AL:
Companion items that will be heard together:
2. TM-0015-13
5. VS-0058-13
7. WS-0057-13
9. VS-0060-13
15. WS-0059-13
12. VS-0066-13 TOWN
19. ZC-0065-13TOWN &
COUNTRY BANK
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
NONE
ZONING AGENDA:
1. UC-0597-10
(ET-0012-13) JAHA TRUST:
APPROVED per
staff conditions
USE PERMIT FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME to commence an accessory structure (garage) which exceeds
one-half the footprint of the principal building.
DESIGN REVIEW for an accessory structure (garage) in conjunction with a
single family residence on 1.1 acres in an R-E (Rural Estates Residential)
(RNP-I) Zone. Generally located on the east side of
2. TM-0015-13
APPROVED per
staff conditions
TENTATIVE
3. UC-0052-13 SILVERADO
DENIED
USE PERMIT
to allow vehicle rental (U-Haul trucks and trailers) in conjunction with an
existing mini-warehouse facility.
WAIVER
OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
to allow outside storage/display of rental commercial vehicles (U-Haul trucks
and trailers) visible from public streets and residential developments on 5.6
acres in a C-1 (Local Business) Zone in the MUD-4 Overlay District. Generally located on the east side of
The requested vehicle rental (truck and
trailer) use in a C-1 zone requires approval of a use permit which is subject
to the discretion of the Planning Commission and shall not be approved unless
it is established that the use is appropriate at the proposed location.
The TAB determined the
use is not appropriate for the following:
·
This
storage facility is surrounded by residential.
·
No
landscape buffer between truck parking and the residential.
·
Application
does not meet the code requirement, to
be permitted only if not visible from public streets or residential
development.
·
U-Haul
trucks would be visible to adjacent residents when parked in the storage
location.
·
Display
of commercial trucks along
·
After
hours truck returns will leave truck outside the gate and visible from
·
Engine
noise and back-up alarms would affect adjacent residents.
4. VS-0053-13
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY:
APPROVED per
staff conditions
VACATE
5. VS-0058-13
APPROVED per
staff conditions
VACATE
6. WS-0039-13
MARCETTA-WLODEK LIVING TRUST:
APPROVED per
staff conditions
WAIVERS OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS for the following:
1) Reduced
front setback; and
2) Reduced
setback from the right-of-way
for an
addition to an existing single family dwelling in conjunction with a planned
unit development on 0.4 acres in an R-E (Rural Estates Residential) (RNP-I)
Zone. Generally located on the east side of
7. WS-0057-13
Approved per staff conditions with the following:
Wavier of
Development Standards #3 applies to cul-de-sac lots 15-18 on the tentative map
DENY Waiver
of Development Standards #5;
CHANGE
Current Planning condition bullets 1 and 2 to read:
Front and rear
elevations, facing public streets, shall
include architectural enhancements around windows and door openings to match
the front elevations.
Provide pedestrian
access on the end of the cul-de-sac for additional connectivity to the adjacent
property, designated as a school site, if approved by the Clark County School
District (CCSD).
WAIVERS OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS for the following:
1) Increased
wall height;
2) Increased
building height;
3) Reduced
rear yard setback;
4) Increase
the length of a cul-de-sac; and
5) Modified
street improvement standards.
DESIGN REVIEW for a single family residential development on 5.0 acres
in an R-2 (Medium Density Residential) Zone.
Generally located on the
northeast corner of
Residents,
east of the project, strongly opposed the application. Their concerns were:
·
The proposed density
is too high when compared with their neighborhood (1/4 to1/3 acre lots)
·
Increased traffic in
the area
·
Decreasing their
property value
·
Three story, 38 foot
high residences, are not appropriate in their area. Residences to the east are
all single story. One of six models
offered is three stories.
·
Concern that the
CCSD land reservation adjacent to their property could become some other land use,
further degrading their neighborhood.
The TAB recommendations are based upon the following:
·
The
project density is appropriate for the area.
The area development shows an orderly transition from RNP to low density
to medium density housing.
·
The
increased height is within the 10% that could be approved administratively
·
The
reduced rear yard setback should be restricted to houses on the cul-de-sac bulb
only. Not a blanket waiver for the
entire project.
·
The
increased wall height is below 8 ft.
·
The
non-standard road improvements have been routinely granted for projects in the
area.
The pedestrian access may not be desired by CCSD due to security
concerns. The TAB recommends the CCSD
approval be required to implement the pedestrian access.
The TAB has consistently recommended the Waiver of Development
Standard # 5, back of curb return, not be waived as a safety factor.
Title 30 has recently changed to require fenestrations (the
arrangement, proportioning, and design of windows and doors in a building) on all sides of a house. This application was processed prior to the
Title 30 change, as a result the staff added requirements for fenestrations on
all elevations. The TAB has advocated
for elevations facing a road or public facility have fenestrations instead of a
flat building side. One question, not
resolved, is the side wall fenestrations requirement between two tightly spaced
buildings. Does it make sense to expend
money where the fenestration is not easily seen?
8. VS-0046-13
PARDEE HOMES OF NEVADA, INC; ET AL: Companion item 14
HELD by the
applicant to
VACATE
9. VS-0060-13
APPROVED per staff
conditions
VACATE
10. VS-0062-13
APPROVED per
staff conditions
VACATE
11. VS-0064-13
APPROVED per
staff conditions
VACATE
12. VS-0066-13
TOWN
APPROVED per
staff conditions
VACATE
13. WS-0042-13
VAG HOLDINGS II, LLC:
APPROVED per
staff if approved conditions
ADD Public
Works Development Review condition:
·
Install pedestrian
operated protected cross walk on
WAIVERS OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS for the following:
1) Requirement
for parking areas to be designed in a series of smaller, connected parking
courts; and
2) Required
trash enclosure.
DESIGN REVIEW for a parking lot on 5.0 acres in a C-2 (General
Commercial) Zone in the MUD-3 and
The staff recommended this application be denied due to not
meeting the
Parking will be provided for 457 vehicles. The TAB is
concerned about the lack of a pedestrian crossing between the parking area and
the work area across
14. WS-0045-13
PARDEE HOMES OF NEVADA, INC; ET AL: Companion item 8
HELD by the
applicant to
WAIVERS OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS for the following:
1) Reduced
lot area;
2) Full
off-site improvements; and
3) modified
street improvement standards
in
conjunction with a proposed single family residential development on 7.7 acres
in an R-E (Rural Estates Residential) (RNP-I) Zone. Generally located
on the north side
15. WS-0059-13
APPROVED per staff conditions with the following:
CHANGE
Current Planning condition bullets 1 and 2 to read:
·
Front and rear
elevations shall include architectural enhancements around windows and door
openings to match the front elevations.
·
Provide pedestrian
access on the end of the cul-de-sac for additional connectivity to the adjacent
property designated as a school site, if approved by the
DENY Waiver of Development
Standards # 3b
WAIVERS OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS for the following:
1) Increase
wall height;
2) Increase
building height; and
3) Modified
street improvement standards.
DESIGN REVIEW for a single family residential development on 2.5 acres
in an R-2 (Medium Density Residential) Zone.
Generally located on the
north side of
Residents,
east of the project, strongly opposed the application. Their concerns are:
·
The proposed density
is too high when compared with their neighborhood (1/4 to1/3 acre lots)
·
Increased traffic in
the area
·
Decreasing their
property value
·
Three story, 38 foot
high residences are not appropriate in their area. Residences to the east are
all single story.
·
Concern that the
CCSD land reservation adjacent to their property could become some other land
use, further degrading their neighborhood.
The TAB recommendations are based upon the following:
·
The
project density is appropriate for the area.
The area development shows an orderly transition from RNP to low density
to medium density housing.
·
The
increased height is within the 10% that could be approved administratively.
·
The
increased wall height is below 8 ft.
·
The
non-standard road improvements have been routinely granted for projects in the
area.
The pedestrian access may not be desired by CCSD due to security
concerns. The TAB recommends the CCSD
approval be required to implement the pedestrian access.
Title 30 has recently changed to require fenestrations (the
arrangement, proportioning, and design of windows and doors in a building) on all sides of a house. This application was processed prior to the
Title 30 change, as a result, the staff added requirements for fenestrations on
all elevations. The TAB has advocated
for elevations facing a road or public facility have fenestrations instead of a
flat building side. One question, not
resolved, is the side wall fenestrations requirement between two tightly spaced
buildings. Does it make sense to expend
money where the fenestration is not easily seen?
16. WS-0061-13
Approved per staff conditions with the following:
Wavier of
Development Standards #3 applies to lots located on the cul-de-sac bulb
CHANGE
Current Planning condition bullet # 1 to read:
Provide enhanced
fenestration on elevations that face public rights-of-ways or public
facilities.
WAIVERS OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS for the following:
1) Increased
wall height;
2) Increased
building height;
3) Reduced
setbacks; and
4) Reduced
intersection off-set
in
conjunction with a single family residential development on 5.1 acres in an R-2
(Medium Density Residential) Zone.
WAIVER OF CONDITIONS of a zone change (ZC-1450-04) requiring provide a 15 foot
wide landscape buffer with detached sidewalks along
The TAB recommendations are based upon the following:
·
The
project density is appropriate for the area.
The area development shows an orderly transition from RNP to low density
to medium density housing.
·
The
increased height is within the 10% that could be approved administratively
·
The
increased wall height is below 8 ft.
·
The
non-standard road improvements have been routinely granted for projects in the
area.
The Waiver of Conditions maintains a consistent design for
sidewalk and landscaping along
The reduced rear yard setback should be restricted to houses
that are on the cul-de-sac bulb only.
Not a blanket waiver for the entire project.
Title 30 has recently changed to require fenestrations (the
arrangement, proportioning, and design of windows and doors in a building) on all sides of a house. This application was processed prior to the
Title 30 change; as a result, the staff added requirements for fenestrations on
all elevations. The TAB has advocated
for elevations facing a road or public facility have fenestrations instead of a
flat building side. One question, not
resolved, is the side wall fenestrations requirement between two tightly spaced
buildings. Does it make sense to expend
money where the fenestration is not easily seen?
TAB approved Waiver of Development Standards #4 because the
reduced distance between intersections is being proposed at a 60 foot roadway
and residential streets with minimum traffic flows. The drop off and pick up traffic around the
abutting elementary school may pose a problem.
17. WS-0063-13
APPROVED per staff conditions with the following:
CHANGE
Current Planning condition bullets 2 and 3 to read:
·
Provide enhanced
fenestration on elevations that face public roads and public facilities.
·
Provide pedestrian
access on the north end of the subdivision for additional connectivity to the
adjacent property designated as a school site, if approved by the
DENY Waiver of Development Standards # 3b
WAIVERS OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS for the following:
1) Increased
wall height;
2) Increased
building height; and
3) Allow
alternative off-site improvements
in
conjunction with a single family residential development.
WAIVER OF CONDITIONS of a zone change (ZC-1599-06) requiring right-of-way
dedication to include 30 feet for
DESIGN REVIEW for a detached single family residential development on
2.5 acres in an R-2 (Medium Density Residential) Zone. Generally located
on the north side of
The TAB recommendations are based upon the following:
·
The
project density is appropriate for the area.
The area development and planned land use shows an orderly transition
from RNP to low density to medium density housing.
·
The
increased height is within the 10% that could be approved administratively.
·
The
increased wall height is below 8 ft.
·
The
non-standard road improvements have been routinely granted for projects in the
area.
Title 30 has recently changed to require fenestrations (the
arrangement, proportioning, and design of windows and doors in a building) on all sides of a house. This application was processed prior to the
Title 30 change; as a result, the staff added requirements for fenestrations on
all elevations. The TAB has advocated
for elevations facing a road or public facility have fenestrations instead of a
flat building side. One question, not
resolved, is the side wall fenestrations requirement between two tightly spaced
buildings. Does it make sense to expend
money where the fenestration is not easily seen?
The TAB has consistently recommended the Waiver of Development
Standard # 3b, back of curb return, not be waived as a safety factor.
The pedestrian access may not be desired by CCSD due to security
concerns. The TAB recommends the CCSD
approval be required to implement the pedestrian access.
Two positions were presented on the requirement to
dedicate
IN FAVOR:
·
Do not dedicate
Mohawk to eliminate a possible cut-through route in the RNP to the north.
·
Mohawk probably will
not be included in the future development of the
·
The
·
The distance between
Mohawk and other intersections is too close for safety.
OPPOSED:
·
The adjacent
property to the north is designated as a future elementary school site in the
Enterprise Land Use Plan.
·
The traffic flow
around elementary schools is a problem.
·
The removal of
Mohawk alignment would eliminate one of two of the possible access points from
an arterial.
·
The lack of
sufficient access points to an arterial would constrain future project, road and
access design.
·
One arterial access
point (
·
The area is not
sufficiently developed to determine what local roads will be needed for traffic
flow.
The TAB recommends the Waiver of Conditions be approved.
18. ZC-0043-13
BGD, LLC:
APPROVED per
staff conditions
USE PERMIT
for vehicle repair in conjunction with a proposed vehicle/automobile sales
facility.
WAIVER OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS to waive the requirement for parking areas to be designed
in a series of smaller connected parking courts.
DESIGN REVIEW for a vehicle/automobile sales and repair facility in the
MUD-3 and
The
application replaces under-developed land with a Porsche car dealership. The TAB found the plan is consistent with
other developments in the area and the
19. ZC-0065-13
TOWN & COUNTRY BANK: Companion item 12
Initial motion on the application was approved
5-0:
APPROVED
waiver of development standards #s 3a & 3b
DENIED
waiver of development standards #s 1a, 1b, 2 & 4
CHANGE
public works development review condition #1 to read:
Waive full offsites on
ADD public
works development review condition
Street lighting along
The zone
change was omitted from the initial vote:
APPROVED 5-0 Motion to reconsider
Second motion
on the application was approved 5-0
APPROVED
zone change
APPROVED
waiver of development standards #s 3a & 3b
DENIED
waiver of development standards #s 1a, 1b, 2 & 4
CHANGE Public
Works Development Review condition #1 to read:
Waive full offsites on
ADD Public
Works Development Review condition
Street lighting along
WAIVERS OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS for the following:
1) Reduced
lot sizes;
2) Reduced
setbacks;
4) Full
off-site improvements
in
conjunction with a proposed single family subdivision on 7.5 acres in an R-E
(Rural Estates Residential) (RNP-I) Zone and an R-D (Suburban Estates
Residential) Zone. Generally located on the east side of
This application was strongly opposed by current RNP
residents because of lot size both within and bordering the RNP. Their opinion is lots should all meet or
exceed the Title 30 standards. The lot
standard in Title 30 is comprised of two parts.
First, is the number of units per acre.
Second, is the minimum square footage.
In an RNP-1 overlay, the standard is a 20,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size
and not more than 2 units per acre. The
RD zone district standard is more than 10,000 sq. ft. and no more than 3 units
per acre.
Over the last several years, the unit per acre standard
has been adhered to while the square footage standard has drifted toward 18,000
sq. ft. in the RNP. The developers have
pushed the minimum lot size toward 18,000 sq. ft. and in some cases below
18,000 sq. ft. This lot size reduction under the minimum is not a good
trend. At what point does the trend
stop? If both standards cannot be met the project should not be approved. This project met one, but not both standards.
The RNP is the most fragile land use within the county.
Once it is gone or not developed to standards, it cannot be reclaimed. The TAB is concerned with two areas, first is
the drift toward smaller lot sizes.
Second is adequate buffer be maintained around the RNP area. The
Enterprise Land Use Policy is lots abutting the RNP should be at least 10,000
sq. ft. The developers within and
bordering the RNP must plan their projects to meet or exceed the minimum
standards. This project as presented continues to degrade of RNP standards.
The TAB opinion is the trend toward lot sizes less than
the minimum needs to be stopped. A lot
size smaller than the minimum (20,000 sq. ft.) should be the exception, not the
standard.
The TAB did recommend approval for several parts of the
application. The zone change is
conforming and appropriate for the area.
The requested street modifications standards have been approved in
numerous other projects. The lighting
condition was added to help lighting standard consistence with the lighting
within the RNP and reduce light pollution.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS NONE
PUBLIC COMMENTS
The TAB will begin discussions concerning the
Enterprise 2014 Major Land Use update.
The discussions will include land
use category descriptions, goals and policies, administrative procedures and
descriptive land use. The public is
encouraged to submit ideas and suggestions for this discussion. The TAB will not take action on the any item
discussed until it has been placed on the agenda for action.
ADJOURNMENT:
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 Clark County Records. This document may be
freely distributed and reproduced as long as the authors content is not
altered. Additional comments maybe
added. Additional comments must be
clearly attributed to the author of those comments and published or reproduced
with the document. The additional
comments authors affiliation with any government board, organization or group
must be clearly identified. This
attribution statement must accompany any distribution of this document.
David D. Chestnut, Sr.