The ATTACHMENT A items will be heard on the following dates:
Planning Commission 7:00 P.M.,
HOLDOVER/RETURNED APPLICATIONS will be heard on the date in the applications header.
The PC decisions/recommendations may be appealed
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)
Note: If you ctrl+click on the blue underlined text it will take you to the detailed documents to explain the agenda item.
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
Sports & Music Festival,
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
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.
Primary access to be
· Secondary access from Pebble
Traffic circle to remain
· Pebble Road to be designed to restrict traffic into the RNP.
USE PERMIT for a place of worship.
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
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
6. VS-0046-13 – PARDEE HOMES OF NEVADA, INC; ET AL:
APPROVED as follows:
AMEND the application, Amended Holdover Vacate and Abandon to read:
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
Motion APPROVED as follows:
DENY Waiver of Development Standards #1
APPROVE and RESTATE Waiver of Development Standards #2 to read:
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
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
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.
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.