Results
The Zoning Agenda 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.
CALL TO ORDER:
Pledge of Allegiance:
Introduction of
Procedures & Conduct
1. This meeting has been duly notified and is
conducted in conformance with open meeting law.
2. Please turn off or mute all cell phones,
pagers & other electronic devices.
3. Please take all private conversations outside
the room
4. Request all attendees sign in
5. Observe the protocol for speaking before the
Board. The protocol is posted in the
meeting room.
REGULAR BUSINESS
1. Approve the Minutes for the meeting held on
2. Approve the Agenda with any corrections,
deletions or changes. Requires
a vote of the Board.
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.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS:
1. County planning staff updates TAB on the land use plan
update. (For discussion only.)
2. Liaison update TAB on budget requests from prior fiscal
year. (For possible action.)
ZONING AGENDA:
1. NZC-0832-13
– PANNEE LEITCH MCMACKIN SEPARATE PROPERTY TRUST:
HOLDOVER
DESIGN REVIEW for a multi-family
residential development. Generally located on
the east side of Dean Martin Drive, 660 feet south of Cactus Avenue within
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?
There are several
unique factors with this application considered by the TAB. The applicant has made significant plan
changes to greatly improved project than previously presented to the TAB.
The TAB is concerned
with the project density is approaching the maximum for the R-3 zone
district. The current land use calls for
a maximum of 14 units per acre, not the 17.9 proposed. However, the 14 units per acre is only allowed for RUD single family zone district. Experience indicates the RUD zone district
has not produced very livable neighborhoods.
Given the location of
this application a multifamily project, just south of the new Cactus I-15
interchange and along Dean Martin, and next to I-15, is more appropriate than
single family. The TAB recommendation is
the density should be limited to no more than that allowed in RM land use (14 units/acre). The
Design Review was denied because the density is too high for the area and the
additional burden it would place on public facilities.
It should be noted
that the TAB did not agree with the staff analysis. The staff position is the applicant has meet
50 % of the compelling justification is sufficient reason to recommend
approval. The application’s compelling
justification was based upon the assumption the property could be developed as
a MUD-3 project, not realistic. The staff
analysis was not based upon the actual Residential Medium (RM) land use
designation. This project is residential
only, while the MUD-3 project would require a commercial element that was not
included in the staff analysis. The TAB
considers the use of MUD overlay as part of the compelling justification analysis
to be an inappropriate criteria. The TAB view is the applicant has met only 1
of 4 compelling justification reasons.
2. UC-0531-14 –
USE PERMIT to waive screening from
rights-of-way for an existing outside storage yard.
WAIVERS OF DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS
for the following:
2) Off-site improvements
(curb, gutter, sidewalk, and streetlights)
in conjunction with an
existing outside storage yard on 14.7 acres in an M-1 (Light Manufacturing)
Zone. Generally located on the south side of
This request is
appropriate for the area. The applicant
agrees with the staff conditions for a rockscape to
be installed. One concern raised is the
inclusion of an asphalt curb to contain the rockscape. The applicant is willing to include an
asphalt curb which was included in the TAB recommendations.
3. VS-0526-14 –
VACATE
Public Works did not
list the right-of-way dedication for
After the TAB meeting
the following was determined.
The Public Works
analysis did not provide any useful information and no criteria on what
determines if a right-of-way is needed.
4. VS-0555-14 – THOMAS PITTMAN JR. &
AGNES PITTMAN
VACATE
5. VS-0560-14 – D.R. HORTON, INC:
VACATE
6. DR-0533-14 – ST. SHARBEL MARONITE
CATHOLIC TRUST:
DESIGN REVIEW for a decorative fence
in conjunction with a place of worship on 2.1 acres in a P-F (Public Facility)
Zone. Generally located on the southwest corner of
7. DR-0554-14 –
DESIGN REVIEW for a retail/restaurant
building with a drive-thru within an existing shopping center on 0.7 acres in a
C-2 (General Commercial) Zone. Generally located on the east
side of
This is a continuation
of a previously approved project.
Signage was not part of the application and the TAB added a condition
for a design review as a public hearing for signage. Previous applications have included lighting
standards that this new addition should comply with.
8. UC-0541-14 – DARUL-
USE PERMIT for a place of worship.
WAIVERS OF DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS
for the following:
1) Reduce parking;
2) Waive or provide
alternative screening and landscape buffering;
3) Waive architectural
design standards (wood shake roof);
4) Reduce drive aisle
width;
5) Reduce setback from a
trash enclosure to a residential use;
6) Reduce driveway design
standards in accordance with
7) Waive full off-site
improvements (partial paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and streetlights) along
DESIGN
REVIEW
to convert an existing single family residence to a place of worship on 0.5
acres in an R-E (Rural Estates Residential) (RNP-I) Zone. Generally located on the north side of
9. UC-0563-14 – TOP SHELF DEVELOPMENT, LLC:
USE PERMIT to reduce the separation
between an on-premise consumption of alcohol establishment (tavern) and a
residential development.
WAIVERS OF DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS for the following: 1) reduced parking; 3) reduced
setback for a trash enclosure; and 3) waived landscape buffer to a less
intense use.
DESIGN REVIEW for a proposed retail
center on 2.1 acres in a C-2 (General Commercial) Zone. Generally located on the northwest corner of
The tavern portion of
this project is strongly opposed by the nearby residents. They feel this is not an appropriate location
for a tavern given the close proximity to the Rhodes Ranch entrance. This is a heavily trafficked area with school
bus stop. The current tavern location does
require a Special Use Permit for setbacks.
The TAB agreed with the residents and recommends denial of the Use
Permit. However, it may be possible for
the applicant relocated the tavern on the property so it does not require a
setback waiver. In this case the tavern
would be allowed as a right.
The Design Review denial
was recommended for two reasons. First,
is the current tavern location. Second, the drive
aisle located behind the inline building will create a nuisance for the
adjacent residents. The drive aisle
would allow deliveries other traffic at any hour adjacent to resident’s
backyards. Experience indicates
restricting delivery hours is not enforceable. The TAB recommended no drive
aisle behind the in line building. The
TAB also recommends the western doors be emergency exits only. Again, experience indicates these areas are
used for break area where load talk and smoking are nuisances to the adjacent
residents.
The TAB recommends all
the lighting be low level because of the residence to
the east of this project. The suggested
change to the Current planning bullet reflects the TAB opinion on
lighting. Signage was not part of this
application. The close proximity of
residential is the reason for a public design review for signage.
10. UC-0552-14 – BARTSAS
USE PERMITS for the following:
1) Retail uses;
2) Restaurants;
3) A convenience store,
4) Vehicle wash
(automobile); and
5) A gasoline station
within a shopping center.
WAIVERS OF DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS
for the following:
1) Alternative landscaping
buffer along a street; and
2) Allow non-standard
improvements within the right-of-way.
DESIGN REVIEW for a shopping center
on 4.9 acres in an H-1 (Limited Resort and Apartment) Zone and an H-2 (General
Highway Frontage) Zone in the MUD-1 and MUD-4 Overlay Districts. Generally located on the south side of
The Design Review was
denied because the plot plan includes the vacation of
The TAB added two
conditions. Perpetual access to the
property south of this location should be established if compatible uses are
established. This will help business
access between properties and result in a better traffic flow at a major
intersection. Signage and lighting were
not part of this application and should be reviewed as public hearing.
11. VS-0553-14 - BARTSAS
VACATE
12. WS-0550-14 – BUSINESS SOCKS, LLC:
WAIVER OF DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS
for waive off-site improvements (curbs, gutters, sidewalk, streetlights, and
reduced width of paving) along Cimarron Road in conjunction with a single
family residential development on 2.1 acres in an R-E (Rural Estates
Residential) (RNP-I) Zone. Generally located on the
southeast corner of
PUBLIC COMMENTS
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.