Results
The Zoning 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
1. Items on the agenda may be taken out of
order.
2. The Town Advisory Board may combine two or
more agenda items for consideration.
3. The Town Advisory Board may remove an item
from the agenda or delay discussion relating to an item at any time.
The following zoning items have been held by
the applicant until the
4. UC-0202-14 – WJVC, LLC:
5. VS-0203-14 – wjvc, llc
1st Tuesday: Metro's
South Central Area Command's Meeting
Tuesday, May 6th @
South Central Area Command,
702-828-8292.
ADDITIONAL
BUSINESS:
Receive an update on the Community Plan Project
and select two representatives to serve on the Community Plan Project Working
Group. (Action item)
TAB members Dave Chestnut
and Cheryl Wilson were selected to be representatives on the Community Plan
Project Working Group.
APPROVED
Planning Manager, John
Wardlaw, provided the following update on the Community Plan Project.
· Community Plan Project
and current Enterprise Major Land Use Update are not connected.
· Community Plan Project
will seek input from the urban TABs.
o
Start
o
Overall schedule to be released in near future after initial
meetings of the group.
· Plan to complete by
November, 2014.
· Hold at least two
public meetings at the
· Community Development
Plan is a more comprehensive look at community development than the current
land use plan.
· The community plan is being
developed.
· If the Community Development
Plan is approved by the
·
The intent of this process is to give all parties more
information and input as the plan is developed.
ZONING
AGENDA:
1. AG-0348-14:
TAB recommended APPROVAL
That the urban town boards and citizens advisory
councils discuss whether to allow large livestock in R-U, R-A, R-E, and R-D
zoning districts at 1 animal per 7,500 square feet of lot area. (For possible action)
The following points were discussed:
·
Horses
are herd animals. They are better off in a group of two or more.
·
Some
homeowners are not aware their ½ lot is slightly less than 20,000 sq. ft.
·
Standard
consistency with adjacent towns helps home owners along the county/town borders.
·
Some
concern that a large animal could be present on a small lot.
·
A
large home may not leave sufficient open space for a large animal.
·
The
zone districts included are all 10,000 sq. ft., or greater, minimum lot sizes
·
It
is at the homeowner’s cost to obtain a Special Use permit.
·
Special
Use Permit may not be appropriate if this change is approved, consider removing
this option.
2. ZC-0140-14 – CHURCH REMNANT MINISTRIES
INTERNATIONAL & CUNNINGHAM FAMILY TRUST:
A
Motion was made as follows:
APPROVE Zone
Change
APPROVE Use
Permits 1 & 2
APPROVE Waivers
of Development Standards #1
DENY Waivers
of Development Standards #2
Waivers
of Development Standards #3 was WITHDRAWN by applicant
APPROVE Waivers
of Conditions 1 & 2
APPROVE Design
Review 1 & 2
ADD Current
Planning conditions:
·
Design Review as a public hearing for
lighting and signage with a suggestion to use motion sensors and timers on
lights;
·
Current access on
·
Pedestrian access be added to both
corners, east and west corners of Placid, with a cross-walk.
Also,
recommend (not a condition):
·
Landscaping and block wall for the eastern
portion of the parking lot be moved south to next property line;
·
Western parking lot to be constructed
before construction of expansion of existing church building.
Motion APPROVED: Per staff
conditions
USE PERMITS for the following:
1) A place of worship; and
2) A parking lot.
WAIVERS OF
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS for the following:
1) Reduced on-site parking;
2) Allow access to a residential local street; and
3) Reduced street landscaping.
WAIVERS OF
CONDITIONS of a zone change (ZC-0219-04)
requiring the following:
1) Per plans submitted at the Board of County Commissioners’
meeting; and
2) The office portion of the project to be 1 story only at a
maximum height of 17 feet.
DESIGN
REVIEWS for the
following:
1) An expansion to a place of worship on 2.0 acres
in an R-E (Rural Estates Residential) Zone and a
2) An off-site parking lot on 1.9 acres in an R-E
(Rural Estates Residential) Zone.
Generally located on the south side of
PREVIOUS ACTION:
The neighbors to the south of this project are very
concerned with this project. The project
is a major church expansion. The neighborhood concerns include:
·
Traffic into the
RNP-1.
·
Parking along Placid
St.
·
Emergence vehicle
access along
·
What effects will
the eventual build out bring to the neighborhood?
·
Where should the
buffering be placed? And what should its intensity be?
·
What is the plan for
all the church owned property?
The TAB recommendations were hampered because the application
only covered one of three phases. The applicant did present a concept for the
phase two and three. The opinion is all
project phases should be presented in one application. The TAB has found creeping expansion through
multiple applications results in poor planning, unanticipated effects, and
prolonged conflicts with the neighbors and insufficient land to meet the
vision.
The TAB considered the following points:
·
There is a
significant pedestrian safety hazard created because of the parking being separated
from the church.
·
Parking along
·
Any curb cut on
Placid will create a queue at
·
The church construction
will further restrict parking around the church.
·
The new construction
will significantly increase the mass of the building.
·
The parking lot’s
southern wall and landscaping should be placed on the southernmost project
border shown on phases two and three.
·
Lighting and signage
were not covered in this application.
·
No access to a local
street as the only traffic mitigation being applied.
·
Current landscaping
south of the church is excellent and should be replicated on west of placid St.
·
When the day care
Use Permit was granted in 2007, the parking lot portion was not completed.
The TAB recommends that no vehicle access be granted on
Pedestrian access should be created in western parking
lot at the northeast corner and church parking lot at the northwest
corner. In addition, a painted cross walk
should be added at the southern intersection of
Building construction will reduce parking around the
church below what is approved in this application. The
western parking lot should be completed before building construction
beings. This will provide adequate off
street parking during the construction.
The TAB recommends a Design Review as a public hearing
for lighting and signage because they were not included in this application.
Some lots in phases two and three were not included in
this application. The TAB could only
suggest the following. A training area
and additional parking is planned along
3. UC-0191-14
– GONZALEZ, RIGOBERTO & LETICIA:
APPROVED
USE PERMIT to increase the size of an accessory structure in
conjunction with a single family residence on 1.2 acres in an R-E (Rural
Estates Residential) (RNP-I) Zone.
Generally located on the
south side of
This application was strongly opposed by a neighbor. The neighbor’s position is this barn is not
allowed by Title 30, is an unsafe structure and not appropriate for the
neighborhood. The neighbor’s solution
was to tear down the barn and build a smaller one. No other solution was acceptable to the
neighbor.
The TAB considered the following;
·
The applicant has
cleaned up what was a junk yard.
·
The applicant’s
parents will live on the property.
·
The applicant
purchased the property approximately one year ago.
·
The ongoing CCPRO
action was not revealed during the property closing.
·
The applicant’s
plans enhance the barn design.
·
The aerial photos
show the house and barn together occupy approximately the same building area as
the surrounding properties.
·
The barn design is
appropriate for the area.
The TAB option is the Use Permit should be granted.
One question raised during the discussion, is the CCPRO
information readily available so it can be disclosed to the property purchaser
prior to property purchase?
4. UC-0202-14 – WJVC, LLC:
HELD by the applicant until the
USE PERMIT for a major training facility (gymnastics).
WAIVER OF
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS to reduce parking.
DESIGN REVIEW for an office/warehouse complex on 2.2 acres in an M-1
(Light Manufacturing) Zone. Generally located on the southwest corner of
5. VS-0203-14 – WJVC, LLC:
HELD by the applicant until the
VACATE
6. ZC-0192-14 – SHER-INN, LLC:
APPROVED per staff conditions and,
ADD Current Planning conditions:
• Design
Review as a public hearing for building lighting and site signage;
• All pole-mounted
lighting to be fully shielded.
USE
PERMIT to
increase building height.
DESIGN
REVIEW for a
hotel and restaurant with all associated accessory and incidental uses. Generally located on the south side of
This application was generated because there
was a long series of administrative time extensions on the 2005 application. Commissioner Sisolak felt it was time to
bring this project back into the public hearing process, and have all the
issues discussed and a decision made.
There are several adjacent residents opposed
to this application. The original
conditions on this property included a condition for no restaurant. The primary objection is the inclusion of a
restaurant in the hotel. The residents
are concerned with noise from trash pickup; smells emanating from the
restaurant kitchen operation and trash disposal; attracting additional traffic
to the area and bar operation within the restaurant.
The operation of a bar within the restaurant
was questioned due to the close proximity of two elementary schools. The residents were informed the granting of
any liquor license is done by Business Licensing. Business Licensing will review the site for
appropriate separation from the schools.
The separation distances are not considered in a land use application
because distances are not part of Title 30.
The land use on this property is Commercial
General since the major land use update in 2004. Given the property history (11
administrative approvals for the zone change application), the TAB could not
find sufficient reasons to recommend a zone district other than C-2. Because this is a new application the current
Title 30 applies. In a C-2 zone district,
a restaurant is allowed by right.
If the hotel restaurant changed to a named
restaurant, the change would generate sufficiently more traffic on the
property.
The TAB recommended lighting and signage design
be a public hearing. Parking lot
lighting is currently in Plans Check and would be delayed if a design review is
required. The applicant agreed to the following: Design review for the building lighting and
signs. Also, all pole-mounted lighting
to be fully shielded. This will allow
the applicant to keep the plans check moving forward.
The TAB requested the applicant ask the
property owner to fully shield the parking lot lighting along the southern
residential border. This could not be
included as a condition because the southern border area is not included in
this application. The TAB has received
several complaints from residents about the light spillover from the parking
lot.
PUBLIC
COMMENTS
1.
A
resident commented that housing developments are too dense at 8 units per
acre. There are not enough schools to
support this many residents. Yards are
too small for children to play and there are no open spaces for them play in.
2.
At
the intersection of Jefferies St. and St. Rose Pkwy, near some new town homes,
is a cross walk at St. Rose and a no-crossing sign, but people cross
anyway. This is a safety hazard.
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
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.