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 the following order: 1,3,4,5,6 & 7
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Extreme Thing
Sports & Music Festival,
ZONING
AGENDA:
1.UC-0008-11
(ET-0023-13) – DEBREMIHRET SAINT MICHAEL ETHIOPIAN ORTHODOX TEWAHDO CHURCH LAS
VEGAS, INC:
APPROVED
per staff conditions
USE PERMITS FIRST
EXTENSION OF TIME to commence and review
the following:
1) A place of worship; and
2) Reduced setbacks.
WAIVER OF
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS to allow
non-decorative walls adjacent to a less intensive use.
DESIGN REVIEW for a place of worship on 1.3 acres in an R-E (Rural
Estates Residential) Zone. Generally located on the south side of
2.UC-0080-13 –
Motion APPROVED as
follows:
APPROVE Use Permit per staff conditions:
DENY Waiver of Development Standards:
DENY Design Review:
ADD Current Planning “if approved” conditions
·
This application to be
returned to the Enterprise TAB with a Design Review for all project phases.
·
Public services will be
sized to accommodate all four project phases.
·
Limit outdoor activities
to daylight hours.
ADD Public Works conditions
·
Traffic study as a
public hearing to include impact of peak flows on the entire RNP and mitigation
measures required.
·
Off-sites to be reviewed
with the design review and traffic study.
·
·
Lighting along
·
Primary access to be
from
·
Secondary access from
Pebble
·
Traffic circle to remain
at
·
Pebble Road to be
designed to restrict traffic into the RNP.
USE PERMIT for a place of worship.
WAIVER OF
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS to allow access onto
a residential local street or minor residential collector street (
DESIGN REVIEW for Phase 1 of a multi-phase place of worship facility on
20.0 acres in an R-E (Rural Estates Residential) (RNP-I) Zone. Generally located
on the north side of
This item was strongly opposed by 20 RNP residents at the
TAB meeting. There were no residents in
favor of this project. The objections
were:
·
The mass of the
building is too large to blend into the neighborhood.
·
The building style
does not blend with the rural neighborhood.
·
Did not want access allowed
to local streets.
·
Concern with
undefined expansion plans and additional intense uses.
·
The traffic volume increase
introduced into the area.
·
A project of this
size does not belong in an RNP.
·
The lack of Title 30
code to protect the RNP
·
The lack of an
equestrian crossing on
Project design elements beneficial to the neighborhood:
·Open design, no walls except for school play area (school
parameters not submitted for review)
·Excellent landscape buffers
·Campus-like environment of trails and a small park open
to the neighborhood.
·Develops equestrian trail along
The TAB concerns:
·It was difficult to obtain any hard answers, leading the
TAB to conclude this is not a well thought out project.
·It appears this project is based upon a vision, not
backed up with sound land use planning.
·No Design Review presented for the entire project.
·TAB was not able to determine if the envisioned build out
will fit on the site.
·When the architect was questioned about need for 57,000
sq. ft. building, the following was revealed.
The proposed building is designed to increase the chapel size from 675
seats to 1350 seats by converting the building’s Sunday school section to
additional chapel seating. Sunday school is then moved to another building not
covered by this Design Review.
·A vision for a school
o
Intense use located
the deepest into the RNP
o
Size not defined
o
Indicated the desire
for sports field and a football team.
o
No Design Review
submitted
·Peak traffic volume would flood the neighborhood.
·The current infrastructure is not capable of handling the
anticipated traffic.
·Long traffic queues, to access
·No determination if space was available to park at all
the proposed functions.
·No parking access off of
·There are no plans on
·The current church is 250 seats.
·No substantial plan changes based upon resident concerns
raised in the neighborhood meeting.
·The statement they would initially use well and septic.
The church has the right to establish a place of worship
at this location. The TAB fully agrees
with the excellent staff analysis to deny local street access and comments on
building mass. A consistent TAB position
is not to allowing access to local roads.
Further, the building is too massive and the industrial style is out of
character for the rural neighborhood.
The Design Review presented did not cover all the project
phases. This leaves the TAB, Commissioners
and Staff without the ability to determine the overall effects on the rural neighborhood
and determine the size of public services to serve the full build out. The TAB experience is the piece meal planning
approach produces years of conflicts with the neighbors and the very real
possibility the project runs out of space to complete the vision.
The TAB impression is the project, as envisioned by the
pastor, will not fit into this site. This
being the case, it would not be prudent to approve the Design Review for only
one phase. The TAB has requested a
condition to return this Design Review to the TAB with plans for all project
phases.
The rural street infrastructure is not designed to accommodate
the peak traffic volume generated by this project. The TAB suspects the final traffic volume
will be much higher than currently indicated.
This is a regional church as the congregation does not reside in the neighborhood. It appears that the site is designed for a much
greater population than was presented. The
additional traffic load will spread into the RNP. The TAB opinion is the applicant who generates
the traffic should be responsible to mitigate its effects. The requested
condition is the traffic study and mitigation measures be a public hearing
because of the severe impact on the rural neighborhood. This is in addition to the other public works
conditions added by the TAB to help mitigate impact to the area residents.
Pebble Road needs to be closely examined due to Commission
decisions to restrict the roadway width at
3.UC-0099-13 –
APPROVED per staff conditions and,
CHANGE Current Planning bullet #1 to read,
·
3 years to commence and
review as a public hearing;
USE PERMIT for a temporary material processing and rock crushing
operation on a portion of 156.0 acres in an R-E (Rural Estates Residential)
Zone under Resolution of Intent to R-2 (Medium Density Residential) Zone, R-3
(Multiple Family Residential) Zone, C-2 (General Commercial) Zone, and H-1
(Limited Resort and Apartment) Zone all in a P-C (Planned Community Overlay
District) Zone in the Southern Highlands Master Planned Community. Generally located
on the west side of Interstate 15 and the southwest side of
The TAB does not want to see this temporary use in
existence 10 or 12 years from now. The
proposal to make this application not extendable was considered. The applicant’s estimate is that it will
take about two years to complete the operations. The TAB felt a three year review would be
appropriate to determine if the application should be extended as the area
development would occur in that time frame.
4. ZC-0107-13 –
APPROVED per staff conditions
WAIVERS for the following:
1) Increase the length of a dead-end street; and
2) Allow early finished grading
in conjunction with a proposed single family residential
development in the Southern Highlands Master Planned Community. Generally located
on the west side of
5. UC-1947-05 (ET-0022-13) –
APPROVED per staff conditions
USE PERMITS
SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME to commence the
following:
1) An expansion of the Gaming Enterprise District;
2) A 2,400 room resort hotel;
3) Resort condominium units;
4) Public areas including casino areas, shopping/retail,
meeting areas, showrooms/lounges, theaters, recreational uses, restaurants, outside
dining areas, live entertainment, and meeting room areas;
5) Increase building height;
6) All associated back-of-house areas, incidental and
accessory uses; and
7) Deviations to development standards.
DEVIATIONS for the following:
1) Permit encroachment into airspace; and
2) Permit all other deviations as shown per plans on file.
WAIVER OF
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS to permit early
grading.
DESIGN REVIEWS for the following:
1) Redesign a previously approved resort;
2) A resort condominium tower consisting of 800 units; and
3) All associated accessory and incidental uses buildings and
structures
on 97.0 acres in an H-1 (Limited Resort and Apartment) Zone
in the MUD-1 Overlay District. Generally
located between
6. VS-0046-13 – PARDEE HOMES OF NEVADA, INC;
ET AL:
APPROVED as follows:
AMEND the application, Amended Holdover Vacate and Abandon to read:
AMENDED HOLDOVER
VACATE
AMENDED HOLDOVER
VACATE
This item was extensively discussed with 22
residents. When asked, 18 of 22 were not
in favor of the
The TAB considered the following:
·
The closing of
internal RNP roads increases someone else’s traffic.
·
Only local roads
leading into the RNP should be examined for vacation.
·
The RNP is an open
neighborhood, not groups of walled-in houses.
·
The ten acre land blocks,
surrounded by local roads, encourage a more open development on large lots.
·
The area development
pattern is residences facing local roads.
·
With each local road
vacated, there is less opportunity to build facing a local street.
·
The local street
vacations do affect the future RNP building pattern.
·
Street vacations
encourage walled groups of houses making the RNP more like suburban sub
divisions not an open rural area.
The resident and TAB opinion is the removal of
7. WS-0045-13
– PARDEE HOMES OF NEVADA, INC; ET AL:
Motion
APPROVED as follows:
DENY
Waiver of Development
Standards #1
APPROVE
and RESTATE Waiver of Development Standards
#2 to read:
·
Waive
full off-sites along public street frontages: Tomsik,
APPROVE
Waiver of Development
Standards #3 per staff “if approved” conditions
ADD Public Works condition:
·
Waive
off-sites on Pebble except for 32 feet of paving;
AMENDED
HOLDOVER 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
All residents present (22) were opposed to
reducing the lot sizes below the RNP minimum within this project or any other. The plan presented to the TAB included the
vacation of
In the past, the TAB has been split on the
issue of lot size reduction below the minimum standard. This no longer is the case. The TAB opinion is without a compelling
reason, lot sizes must not reduce. The
TAB recommended the reduction of lot size be denied.
The TAB considered the following:
·
The closing of
internal RNP local roads increases someone else’s traffic.
·
Only the local roads
leading into the RNP should be examined for a vacation.
·
The RNP is an open
neighborhood.
·
A ten acre block of
land, surrounded by local roads encourages open development.
·
The pattern of
development in this area is residences fronting on local roads.
·
With each local road
vacated there is less opportunity to build fronting a local street.
·
The local street
vacations do affect the future RNP building patterns and traffic flow.
·
Local street
vacations encourage walled groups of houses making the RNP more like suburban
sub divisions not an open rural area.
The applicant’s presentation that this project
is a buffer to the RNP is not correct.
The project is in the middle of the RNP.
The lot size reduction is a self-imposed hardship that could be fixed by
reducing the number of lots in the project. The project, as presented, is a
cookie cutter version of a walled suburban subdivision. In the past, the developer has worked well
with the neighbors. It appears that this
is not the case with this project.
A resident presented an alternate design that
has two cul-de-sacs exiting onto
The roads around this project should be rural
roads including
ADDITIONAL
BUSINESS
The TAB will discuss items 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.
The
PUBLIC
COMMENTS
Three people spoke against the ordinance that would change the
county code such that the Fire Chief is no longer supervising the Fire
Prevention Bureau. The fire prevention
bureau and fire inspectors would then be supervised by the building department. The key points are:
· The proposal is to merge Fire Prevention Bureau into the
Building Department to provide a service point for the developer community.
· Fire Prevention serves the entire community
· Fire Prevention services extend well beyond the traditional
Building Department role.
· There is no objection to being co-located with the Building
Department.
· The Fire Chief should remain the official responsible for Fire
Prevention Bureau.
· The merger would place an additional layer of bureaucracy to
accomplish some fire prevention services.
· Would tend to isolate fire prevention personnel from the fire
fighter.
· The net effect would be to reduce fire prevention safety for the
entire community.
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
author’s 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 author’s 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.