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 changes:
Companion Items to heard together:
1.NZC-0129-13 – S & E INVESTORS, LLC, ET AL:
6. VS-0130-13
– S & E INVESTORS, LLC, ET AL:
2.NZC-0131-13 – CACTUS & BERMUDA, LLC, ET
AL:
7. VS-0132-13
– CACTUS & BERMUDA, LLC, ET AL:
4.NZC-0138-13 – DALEY FAMILY TRUST, ET AL:
8. VS-0139-13
– DALEY FAMILY TRUST, ET AL:
ANNOUNCEMENTS: NONE
ZONING
AGENDA:
1.
NZC-0129-13 – S & E INVESTORS, LLC, ET AL:
DENY Zone Change;
DENY Waiver of
Development Standards #1a & 1b;
DENY Waiver of
Development Standards #2;
APPROVE Waiver of
Development Standards #3;
ADD Current
Planning conditions:
• ROI be established for this project
specifically;
Motion APPROVED (
WAIVERS OF
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS for the
following:
1) Reduced setbacks;
2) Reduced driveway length; and
3) Increased cul-de-sac length.
Generally located on the
east side of
Six individual attended the TAB for this application.
The TAB had two principle questions to make
recommendations on. First, is the
non-conforming zone change appropriate for the area? Second, should the waivers of development standards
be granted? The developer presentation
concentrated on the second question not the first. The zone change is the critical question.
The Staff analysis on the zone change is excellent and
very helpful to the TAB’s understanding of the issues involved.
The TAB considered the following for the non-conforming
zone change.
·
The area is land use
planned for industrial
·
The industrial area
is a primary job creation area
·
There is a limited
amount of industrial land in
·
The TAB has receive
requests for more industrial land
·
The present of
residential discourages industrial use from being established
·
Adjacent parcels are
currently zoned M-1
·
A change of this
magnitude should be done in a major land use update.
·
The applicant did
not provide compelling justification required.
·
Would increase the
student population in overcrowded schools
The TAB opinion is the applicant did not present
compelling reasons to justify the non-conforming zone change. The request to add a ROI specific to this
project be added to prevent flipping to a high density project.
The TAB considered the following for the waivers of
development standards:
·
The four foot rear
set back is used as driveway
·
The front 10 foot
setback is used for a common sidewalk and entry to each unit
·
The four foot
driveway is not adequate.
·
Silverleaf, a
similar DR Horton product, has a lack of open space and potential parking
problems
·
26 on street parking
places are not enough to accommodate a development of 130 units.
·
The pool area is not
adequate to compensate for the lack of open space.
The TAB opinion is this type of compact development has
not worked well in previously developed area.
2.
NZC-0131-13 – CACTUS & BERMUDA, LLC, ET AL:
APPROVE Zone Change reduced to RD;
APPROVE Waivers of Development Standards 1, 2, & 3;
Waiver of Development Standards #4 WITHDRAWN per applicant
request;
STRIKE Current Planning bullet #1;
ADD Current planning conditions;
·
Provide cross access to
property on the northwest corner of Cactus and
·
Provide pedestrian
access at the
ADD Public Works conditions:
·
Waive off-sites on,
except for 32 ft. of paving, on
·
Street lighting to be
fully shielded along Cactus and
WITH the added proposed conditions submitted by the applicant:
·
Lots numbered 3, 4, 5,
6, 7, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32 will be constructed as single story homes.
·
No vehicular access from
·
·
Construct a 9 foot high
perimeter decorative block wall along the north property line on
·
Construct a 9 foot high
perimeter decorative block wall adjacent to
·
Perimeter landscaping
along
·
Construction traffic on
·
An emergency access gate
to be constructed on
·
Internal lighting shall
be coach lighting on the homes. No
interior street lights.
·
Any significant changes
to the site plan will require a new design review as a public hearing before
the Board of County Commissioners.
·
Approval is subject to a
resolution of intent for one year from approval. Applicant is required to record a final map
within one year from approval.
WAIVERS OF
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS for the following:
2) Increase the length of a street without a County approved
turnaround;
3) Waive full off-site improvements; and
4) Modified street improvements in accordance with
Generally located on the
north side of
The TAB had two principle questions to make
recommendations on. First, is the
non-conforming zone change appropriate for the area? Second, should the waivers of development standards
be granted? The developer presentation
concentrated on the second question not the first. The zone change is the critical question.
The Staff analysis on the zone change is excellent and
very helpful to the TAB’s understanding of the issues involved.
The residents expressed two primary concerns to the
TAB. First, is the lot sizes being
10,000 sq. ft. or larger. Second, limit
traffic into the RNP.
The TAB considered the following for the non-conforming
zone change.
·
The area is land use
planned for Residential Low and Commercial Neighborhood
·
Residents
surrounding the project desire larger lots than presented.
·
The land use and
development north and south is RNP-1
·
The applicant did
not provide compelling justification required.
·
This land was
removed from the RNP during the 2009
·
The R-1 zone
district is needed due to the smaller lot sizes
·
The project density
is lowered by including the wash area.
The TAB opinion is the project should be developed using
the RD zone district. This would provide
a minimum of 10,000 sq. ft. lots which meets the area resident’s objective and
the
The applicant has made an extra effort work with the area
residents to mitigate the project effects.
The applicant submitted a number of conditions to mitigate the impact on
the surrounding RNP. The TAB added these
conditions. In addition the TAB added several conditions for street lighting
and conductivity within the area.
A resident concern is an increase of cut through traffic
into the RNP. The TAB supports the crash
gate on Rush and the Placid termination south of Rush. Both Rush and Placid should be developed with
the non-urban road standards. Rush
boarders the RNP, as a result Rush should not have off-sites unless they are required
for drainage.
The TAB questioned the need for a 9 foot wall to be
installed. In most cases a 6 foot wall
with landscaping is a sufficient visual block.
The residents were in favor of the 9 foot wall.
3. NZC-0134-13 – PECK, JERRY JON & SHELLY
ANNE:
Motion was APPROVED
as follows:
REDUCE Zone Change to MD
APPROVE Waiver of Development standards # 1 & 2
APPROVE Design Review #1
DENY Design Review #2
WAIVERS OF
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS for the
following:
1) Landscaping; and
2) Full off-site improvements.
DESIGN REVIEWS for the following:
1) Convert an existing single family residence into an office
building; and
2) An outside storage yard.
Generally located on the
southwest corner of
The M-1 zone district is not appropriate in this
location. The TAB considered the
following:
·
The RNP-1 in on the
north side of Pebble
·
Any change to land
use in this area should be done in the major land use update.
·
If this land changes
hands, other M-1 uses may not fit in the area.
·
Light industrial is
not a good boarder to the RNP.
·
Approval could set a
precedent along the south side of Pebble
The staff offered the following as way for this business to
operate on this site. “If building were provided to allow inside storage the
business could be allowed in the M-D zone and this would be a conforming zone
change.” Some outside storage would be
allowed as an accessory use which would reduce the size of building
required. The placement of the new buildings
would allow outsize storage behind them.
The applicant has provided a plan that complements the RNP
neighborhood to the north.
The TAB recommendations are tailored to allow the applicant to
proceed in the direction suggested by the Staff. If the TAB recommendation are approved the applicant
would be able to establish their business in the MD zone district without the
need to file another application.
4. NZC-0138-13 – DALEY FAMILY TRUST, ET AL:
Motion was APPROVED
as follows:
DENY Zone Change
APPROVE Waivers of Development Standards #s 1 & 2
DENY Waivers of Development Standards #3
ADD Public works condition:
• Street lighting to
be fully shielded;
WAIVERS OF
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS for the following:
1) Allow modifications to standard drawings for public street
sections;
3) Allow modified elevations.
Generally located on the
north side of
The TAB had two principle questions to make
recommendations on. First, is the
non-conforming zone change appropriate for the area? Second, should the waivers of development
standards be granted? The developer
presentation concentrated on the second question not the first. The zone change is the critical question.
The Staff analysis on the zone change is excellent and
very helpful to the TAB’s understanding of the issues involved.
The TAB considered the following for the non-conforming
zone change.
·
This area is planned
for Business Design Research Park (BDRP)
·
The area present
contains a large percentage of deed restricted land to commercial or industrial
uses.
·
Residential use in
business or industrial area discourages primary job creation.
·
This project would significantly
influence the land use in the area.
·
Two significant land
use changes requires the entire area be examined in the upcoming land use plan
update
o
The significant
increase the RNP-1 overlay
o
The possible removal
or relaxation of deed restrictions.
·
The applicant did
not provide compelling justification required
·
This application is
a good example of spot zoning that will influencing the future area
development.
·
Area resident are
opposed to the density proposed.
The TAB opinion is the land uses in an area bounded by
The Waivers of Development Standards to allow modified
elevations is not appropriate for the area.
The current homes in the area are high end with extensive
elevations. Deviations for the current
county standard would degrade the neighborhood and set a poor precedent for the
area.
5. VS-0124-13 – GRIMM NORTON 1, LLC:
APPROVED per staff conditions
VACATE
6. VS-0130-13 – S & E INVESTORS, LLC, ET
AL:
APPROVED per staff conditions
VACATE
7. VS-0132-13 – CACTUS & BERMUDA, LLC, ET
AL:
APPROVED per staff conditions
VACATE
8. VS-0139-13 – DALEY FAMILY TRUST, ET AL:
APPROVED per staff conditions
VACATE
9. DR-0120-13
– SOUTHWEST REALTY HOLDINGS, LLC:
APPROVED per staff conditions
DESIGN
REVIEW for a
vehicle (automobile) sales showroom facility with outside display areas and
ancillary uses on 7.4 acres in a C-2 (General Commercial) Zone and a C-2
(General Commercial) (AE-60) Zone in the MUD-3 and
WAIVER OF CONDITIONS of a zone change (ZC-1288-05) requiring incorporation of a
pedestrian realm consistent to Title 30.48.
Generally located on the
southwest corner of
10. UC-0118-13 –
APPROVED per staff if approved conditions
USE PERMIT for a private recreation facility (zoo).
WAIVERS OF
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS for the following:
1) Waive design standards for a temporary modular structure;
2) Reduced perimeter wall setback and waive street
landscaping requirements;
3) Eliminate parking lot landscaping;
4) Reduced parking;
5) Eliminate the loading space;
6) Waive on-site paving; and
7) Waive full off-site improvements (including paving).
DESIGN REVIEW for a recreational facility (exotic animal displays and a
modular structure) on 2.1 acres in an M-1 (Light Manufacturing) Zone in the
MUD-3 Overlay District. Generally located on the northwest corner of
The applicant indicates the facility will not include
large carnivores such as lions and tigers or large primates such as chimpanzees,
nor are planned in the future. The purpose of Wild Adventures Zoo is the exhibition
of exotic animals for the education and conservation of animals in a zoological
manner.
There was no opposition to this application was present
at the TAB.
The applicant has a business plan that indicates they
will be able to meet the requirements in this application and bring the site up
to the code over as the finances become available. One factor in the TAB recommendation is the
County paved Oleta within the last two weeks as part of legal settlement. This provides paved access to the applicant’s
site that was not in place when the applicant filed the application.
The one year review period will provide a look at the
applicant’s progress. If this project
succeeds it will provide a facility for rescue animals.
11. ZC-0136-13 – BRANDO HOLDINGS, LLC:
APPROVED per staff conditions
WAIVERS
OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
for the following:
1) Provide alternative landscaping;
2) Screening roof mounted mechanical; and
3) Non-standard improvements within a
right-of-way.
Generally located on the south side of
ADDITIONAL
BUSINESS NONE
PUBLIC
COMMENTS NONE
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.