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:
Applications held until TAB meeting on
16. VS-0661-13 - PHANTOM GROUP, LLC:
17. WS-0662-13 – PHANTOM GROUP, LLC
Companion items:
1. SC-0704-13
–
6. WS-0703-13
–
9. ZC-0147-04
(ET-0100-13) – ADAVEN MANAGEMENT, INC
10. VC-0667-13 – ADAVEN MANAGEMENT, INC
11. VS-0681-13 – BRINTON, ROBERT B.:
12. WS-0680-13 – BRINTON, ROBERT B
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
1. Crime
Prevention Training
At the
Representatives from the Las Vegas
Metropolitan Police Department have scheduled Crime Prevention Training. The
training is open to residents of
The class will provide tips on how to protect
your house and family from crime and will focus on residential burglaries. The
forming and maintaining of neighborhood watches will also be discussed.
Representatives from the police department will be available for questions.
2. Town Hall meeting
Southern
With Commissioner Brager
Capriotti's 11350
Southern
3. Next TAB meeting is
ADDITIONAL
BUSINESS
Discuss, take public input and finalize capital
budget funding requests for upcoming fiscal year. (for possible action)
·
The
following funding requests are under consideration:
·
Complete
the intersection at Jones and Blue Diamond
·
·
·
Build-out
Cactus from
·
Complete
the
·
Connect
Agate from any point west of
·
Neighborhood
park in the area bounded by Decatur, Silverado Ranch, Jones and Blue Diamond.
·
·
Jones
built-out to 4 lanes between Blue Diamond to Erie/Shinnecock Hills.
·
·
Review
and rework the drainage on Camero between
APPROVED
ZONING
AGENDA:
1. SC-0704-13 –
APPROVED per staff conditions:
STREET
NAMING
The site was previously approved as a condominium project and
the site was partially constructed. The owner would now like to develop the
remainder of the site as a compact lot single family subdivision. The street
names are required to continue with the development of the single family
subdivision. This will require the
condominium owners to change their address.
The TAB questioned if there was any way to keep the current condominium
address. If the current addresses were
retained, it would cause confusion for dispatch of emergency services.
The address change will inconvenience the
current condominium owners. One condition
is the applicant will reimburse the current condominium owners for the address
change expenses. The time required to
make the address changes is not compensated.
2. UC-0669-13 – NV
APPROVED per staff conditions:
USE
PERMITS for the
following:
1) Allow public utility structures with overhead
transmission lines;
2) Increased height of public utility structures;
and
3) Waive development standards for a public
utility facility.
DESIGN
REVIEW for
public utility structures including utility lines and power line poles on a
portion of 19.3 acres in a C-2 (General Commercial) Zone and an M-D (Designed
Manufacturing) Zone. Generally located on the south side of
3. UC-0695-13 – KTRLV LOAN, LLC:
APPROVED per staff conditions:
USE
PERMIT for an
accessory retail use (snack foods and coffee shop) in conjunction with a travel
agency and bus depot within an existing office/warehouse complex on a portion
of 8.3 acres in an M-D (Designed Manufacturing) (AE-65) Zone in the MUD-2
Overlay District. Generally located on the east side of
4. WS-0690-13 – SANDCASTLE ENTERPRISES, LLC:
APPROVED per staff conditions:
WAIVER
OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
to allow alternative landscaping materials.
WAIVER
OF CONDITIONS of a use
permit (UC-0615-12) requiring east property line to have an intense landscape
buffer.
DESIGN
REVIEW for
lighting in conjunction with an approved day care facility on 1.5 acres in an
R-E (Rural Estates Residential) Zone.
Generally located
on the south side of
5. WS-0694-13 – IOVINO LEASING ENTERPRISES I,
LLC:
APPROVED per Staff “if approved” conditions:
WAIVER
OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
to reduce the setback for an accessory structure.
DESIGN
REVIEW for
existing accessory structures in conjunction with an existing office/warehouse
building on 2.0 acres in an M-1 (Light Manufacturing) Zone in the MUD-3 Overlay
District. Generally located on the north side of Serene Avenue and
the east side of
There is an active complaint, 09-10890, on this site regarding
buildings and structures built without permits or proper inspections. There are
several building permits being processed on this site related to the accessory
structures that are a part of this request and UC-0153-11.
The staff recommended this application be
denied. The four accessory structures
with offset reductions were approved in June 2011 by the Planning
Commission. The two structures in this
application should have been included in the 2011 application. The TAB views this application as a clean-up
item.
6. WS-0703-13 –
DENIED per staff conditions:
WAIVER
OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
for modified street improvements in accordance with Clark County’s Uniform
Standard Drawings in conjunction with a
compact lot single family development on 18.4 acres in an RUD (Residential
Urban Density) P-C (Planned Community Overlay District) Zone within the
Mountain’s Edge Master Planned Community.
Generally located
on the north side of
The TAB has consistently denied the back of
curb return reduction as a safety hazard.
The Staff has indicated this standard is under review for private roads
and may be changed in the near future.
7. ZC-0714-13 – LH VENTURES, LLC:
APPROVED
per staff conditions:
and,
ADD Current Planning condition:
• Per plans
submitted.
DESIGN
REVIEW for a
single family residential development.
Generally located
on the west side of
This request is for a non-conforming zone change based on the
adopted land use plan for the Pinnacle Peaks Concept Plan area which designated
the subject property as Commercial Regional. Specifically, this request is for 2 distinct,
5 acre subdivisions which are across the street from each other. The northerly
development is located on the north side of
·
The site should be reserved for commercial uses
·
Project access is on Jones
·
The sub-division should be part of the residential development
to the west.
·
Location of residential at the intersection of two arterials is
not appropriate.
The TAB considered the following:
·
The area is moving away from commercial and light industrial to
residential
·
The sub-divisions to the west are independent HOAs not associated
with American West Homes
·
To combine these parcels with the sub-divisions to the west
would require private property be purchased.
·
Proposed commercial projects at this location have not been
funded.
·
The sub-divisions to the west are private roads.
·
Public roads are proposed for this project.
·
The entry on Jones meets county standards offset for the
intersection.
·
The density is 5.1 units/acre.
The TAB found the applicant cannot be compelled to attach his
project to the sub-divisions to the west where purchase of private property would
be required. Residential on these
parcels is appropriate and meets or exceeds current county standards.
The TAB added the condition “per plans submitted” to limit the
density to the 5.1 units/acre. TAB
reasoning is the schools are overcrowded and each new residential project will
add to that overcrowding. Any increase in density will increase the impact on
the school and should be done in a public hearing. The TAB recommends the application be
approved.
Note: The Pinnacle Peaks Concept Plan terminates on
8. DR-0687-13
– VAC BARN, LLC:
APPROVED per staff conditions:
DESIGN
REVIEW for a
monument sign in conjunction with an existing office building on 1.4 acres in a
C-1 (Local Business) Zone. Generally located on the east side of
9. ZC-0147-04 (ET-0100-13) – ADAVEN
MANAGEMENT, INC:
APPROVED per staff conditions:
USE
PERMIT for
compact lots.
VARIANCE for reduced lot size. Generally located on the north side of
10. VC-0667-13 – ADAVEN MANAGEMENT, INC:
APPROVED per staff conditions:
WITH a Recommendation that redundant wall not be used
if allowed by adjoining neighbors.
VARIANCE to increase wall height in conjunction with a
single family development on 5.0 acres in an R-2 (Medium Density Residential)
Zone in the Pinnacle Peaks Concept Plan Area.
Generally located
on the north side of
There are three residences on the northeast
corner that could be affected by a redundant wall. The TAB is opposed to redundant walls between
residences as a potential safety hazard and the area will become a trash
collector. However, the County cannot
compel an individual to work with a developer to attach to or replace an
existing wall. The TAB recommended the
developer approach the three neighbors for an agreement to eliminate the need
for a redundant wall.
11. VS-0681-13 – BRINTON, ROBERT B.:
DENIED
per staff conditions
and,
CHANGE
Public Works bullet #2
to read:
·
Right-of-way
dedication to include 45 feet to back of curb for
VACATE
The TAB agrees with the following staff
analysis presented for the non-conforming zone change on this property:
“The
applicant generally states that approval of the Mountain's Edge major project
constitutes a change that would make this request consistent with surrounding
development. However, the aforementioned project is master planned and went
through a process to address land use planning on a more comprehensive scale. A
request to reclassify 5 acres outside of the disposal boundary surrounded and
within an area designated as Open Space/Public Lands Management area is not
consistent with the development pattern. There are no unique or special
circumstances that have occurred in the immediate area since the adoption of
the
This area must be thoroughly planned before
development is allowed. Currently, there
is no plan for what alignments will become roads. This application, if approved, may land lock
parcels to the west. The TAB recommends
a 30 ft. right-of-way dedication be made on the parcel’s southern boundary.
The TAB recommended the non-conforming zone
change be denied in a previous application.
If the denial is approved by the
If this project goes forward, it should comply
with the Mountain’s Edge development standards.
12. WS-0680-13 – BRINTON, ROBERT B.:
DENIED
per staff conditions
and,
CHANGE
Public Works bullet #3
to read:
·
Right-of-way
dedication to include 45 feet to back of curb for
WAIVERS
OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
for modified street improvements in accordance with
The TAB agrees with the following staff
analysis presented for the non-conforming zone change on this property:
“The
applicant generally states that approval of the Mountain's Edge major project
constitutes a change that would make this request consistent with surrounding
development. However, the aforementioned project is master planned and went
through a process to address land use planning on a more comprehensive scale. A
request to reclassify 5 acres outside of the disposal boundary surrounded and
within an area designated as Open Space/Public Lands Management area is not
consistent with the development pattern. There are no unique or special circumstances
that have occurred in the immediate area since the adoption of the
This area must be thoroughly planned before
development is allowed. Currently, there
is no plan for what alignments will become roads. This application, if approved, may land lock
parcels to the west. The TAB recommends
a 30 ft. right-of-way dedication be made on the parcel’s southern boundary.
The TAB has consistently denied the back of
curb return reduction as a safety hazard.
The Staff has indicated this standard is under review for private roads
and may be changed in the near future.
If this project goes forward, it should comply
with the Mountain’s Edge development standards.
13. ZC-0720-13 – LEO FAMILY TRUST, ET AL:
APPROVED per staff conditions: 3-0 and,
ADD Current Planning conditions:
·
Limit
density to 6.4 units per acre;
·
Access
to be taken from Le Baron.
DESIGN
REVIEW for a
single family residential development.
Generally located
on the west side of
No builder is associated with this
development. The designs presented by
the applicant are preliminary at best. It appears that this project is highly
speculative and will likely change in the future.
A residential project is appropriate in this
location. The TAB had concerns that the
project access was taken from Lindell, a collector, rather than La Baron, a
local street. The project could easily
be planned to take access from La Baron and the TAB recommended entry be taken
from La Baron.
The TAB added the
condition to limit the density to the 6.4 units/acre. TAB reasoning is the schools are overcrowded
and each new residential project will add to that overcrowding. Any increase in
density will increase the impact on the schools and should be done in a public
hearing.
14. NZC-0590-13 - HEWELL 03 IRREV BUSINESS
TRUST, ET AL:
Motion:
DENY Zone Change
DENY Design Review
DENY Waivers of Development Standards
Per staff “if approved”
conditions
ADD Current Planning conditions:
· Density limited to 5.15
units/acre;
· Provide an intense
landscape buffer adjacent to all planned and existing commercial uses;
· Provide a separate
notice to inform potential buyers of the restricted covenants financial impact,
including a current dollar estimate for full off-sites along Pebble;
ADD Public Works – Development Review
conditions:
· All pole-mounted street
light fixtures to be full shielded;
· Full off-sites on Pebble,
except lighting, and install pull boxes and conduit;
MOTION APPROVED
WAIVERS OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS for the following:
1) Allow alternative landscaping; and
2) Off-site improvements.
DESIGN
REVIEW for a
single family residential development. Generally located on the south side of
The TAB position on the non-conforming zone
changes was based upon answering the following:
·
What
significant changes have occurred in the neighborhood to compel this
application?
·
What
is the cumulative effect of numerous non-conforming zone changes on
neighborhood development and public services required?
·
Does
the non-conforming zone change significantly alter surrounding land uses?
·
Has
the applicant met the Title 30 compelling justification?
This non-conforming zone change is opposed by
area residents including some adjacent to the project south of Pebble. There was an extensive project discussion at
TAB. Some questions were not answered by
the applicant’s representative. The TAB
considered the following:
Staff analysis missed several key points
·
Three
of five compelling justifications were not met
o
No
staff analysis on compelling justification #2
on surrounding compatible uses.
o
The
project area has planned commercial or industrial uses on three sides.
o
Approval
of this request would reduce the amount of land available for commercial
development and conflicts with Goal 7 of the land use plan to provide
opportunities for appropriate retail commercial development.
o
Area
was not planned for this level of residential, affects schools, roads, water
and other public facilities and will have adverse effects.
o
Residential
in the location may jeopardize business development the
·
Last
large commercial piece available in
·
The
elimination of commercial on this site will add to vehicle traffic as area
residents seek retail and services.
·
Need
property 725 to 750 deep from an arterial for future commercial needs.
·
Pebble
east of the site is planned for business/industrial uses.
·
Restricted
covenant leaves the future property owner with a potentially large
infrastructure bill.
·
Purchaser
must be informed as to the extent of their financial obligation to fully build
out an arterial road.
·
The
remaining irregularly shaped commercial land to the south would be difficult to
develop.
·
Change
of this size is so big and will impact the area. It should be done through the
land use plan update.
The applicant did not have an answer to the
Public Works condition to provide the right-of-way for
The TAB opinion is this project does not meet
the compelling justification for a non-conforming zone change and would not
provide the balance needed for a cohesive community. The question of where the new residents will
work, play, go to school and shop need to be examined as in terms of the larger
community, not as a single project.
The TAB added the condition to limit the
density to the 5.15 units/acre. TAB
reasoning is the schools are overcrowded and each new residential project will
add to that overcrowding. Any increase in the proposed density will increase
the impact on the schools and should be done in a public hearing.
The
The TAB is concerned about the delayed cost to
build out full off-sites on Pebble. The
cost to finish off-sites on an arterial road would be prohibitive to many
homeowners or HOAs. The TAB added a
condition for those costs to be disclosed prior to purchase.
All the pole-mounted light fixtures should be
fully shielded to help the RNP-1 residents to the north. The TAB added a condition for this item.
Pebble is an arterial with business/industrial
uses to the east and will eventually connect to Jones. The design of the Pebble to Jones connection
has not been determined. Previous reduction
in the Pebble off-sites was in place where the road transited RNP-1 on both
sides. This is not the case for Pebble
east of Rainbow. Pebble should be built
out except for the street lighting to accommodate the business/ industrial uses
to the east.
One idea not explored by the TAB is the reduction
of Pebble to a collector between Rainbow to Jones.
15. UC-0603-13 – HURLEY, STEVEN & DONNA M.:
Motion:
APPROVE Use Permits #1, 2, & 3;
DENY Waiver of Development Standards #1;
APPROVE Waivers of Development Standards #2 and
#3;
DENY Design Review;
ADD Public Works conditions:
· Waive the construction
of full off-sites until October 2015, consistent with a previous
· Any access off of Gomer
to the cell tower must be paved;
ADD condition:
· Applicant to work with
neighbors on the aesthetics of the cell tower prior to the Planning Commission
meeting.
Motion APPROVED
USE
PERMITS for the
following:
1) Communication tower;
2) Allow accessory structures in the front yard
without architectural features compatible with the principal building; and
3) Increase the size of accessory structures.
WAIVERS
OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
for the following:
1)
Reduce setback for 2
access gates;
2) Reduce front setback for accessory structures;
and
3) Increase lot coverage.
DESIGN
REVIEW for a
communication tower in conjunction with an existing single family residence on
2.2 acres in an R-E (Rural Estates Residential) Zone. Generally located on the north side of
The application has three parts. The cell tower use, accessory structures not
associated with the cell tower and off-sites on Gomer. The three parts will be discussed separately.
The cell tower was strongly contested by
adjacent residents to the east. The residents presented the following points:
·
This
property is not an appropriate location for a cell tower.
·
Any
new cell tower should be located west of
·
There
are a number of waivers required for the property.
·
The
evergreen tree tower design is not appropriate for the area.
·
The
applicant has not complied with the well and septic regulations.
·
There
are potential health hazards associated with cell towers.
AT&T presented the following:
·
There
are complaints of poor service in the area.
·
There
was little or no landowner response from other possible locations, including
the area west of
·
Public
lands obtained through the
·
The
proposed design uses a three branch design as opposed to the two branch design.
·
There
are other designs possible including a water tower or windmill
The TAB found the proposed cell tower meets
all County standards and should be approved.
There is a legitimate question about the aesthetics. The TAB recommended alternate designs are
presented to the neighbors to determine if another design is more acceptable. The TAB recommendation is Design Review
denial until other designs are presented to the neighborhood.
The
second area is the accessory structures. Since
an existing street (Dapple Gray) was vacated along the eastern property line,
the south property line became the front. As a result, the structures which
were originally in the side yard are now located in the front yard and subject
to different setback and design requirements.
The property is exceptionally well buffered and the accessory
structures are generally not visible from Gomer. In similar circumstances, the TAB has
recommended setback and size waivers be granted when a road vacation has
changed the setback requirements.
The third part of this application is the
off-sites on Gomer. This property has
been under a resolution of intent as a commercial property. In October, the requests for the commercial
uses were allowed to expire. Part of the
commercial approval was a waiver for full off-sites on Gomer until October
2015. The TAB has held the position that
until the property directly to the west is developed, the Gomer off-sites on
this property can be waived. The
recommendation is waive the off-sites until October 2015 which is in line with previous
The setback waiver for gates on Gomer should
be denied. This is a safety issue. One gate at the center of the property is not
in use and can be blocked off. If access
to the cell tower area is taken from Gomer, the gate must meet setback
standards. If access is taken from Gomer,
it must be paved.
16. VS-0661-13 - PHANTOM GROUP, LLC:
HELD by the applicant to
VACATE
17. WS-0662-13 – PHANTOM GROUP, LLC:
HELD by the applicant to
WAIVERS
OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
for the following:
1) Reduced lot size;
3) Waive off-site improvements (curb, gutter,
sidewalk, streetlights, and reduced paving); and
4) Allow non-through street improvements in
conjunction with a proposed single family residential subdivision.
DESIGN
REVIEW for a
single family residential subdivision on 12.5 acres in an R-E (Rural Estates
Residential) (RNP-I) Zone and an R-E (Rural Estates Residential) (RNP-I)
(AE-60) Zone. Generally located on the west side of
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.