Results
The Zoning Agenda items will be heard on by the
Board and the date given with each application.
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 August 13 & 14,
2014. APPROVED
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.
2.
TM-0128-14 - STENT, CAROL
6.
WS-0673-14 – STENT, CAROL
9.
TM-0131-14 – AINSWORTH GAME TECHNOLOGY, INC
10.
VS-0675-14 – AINSWORTH GAME TECHNOLOGY, INC
11.
WS-0674-14 – AINSWORTH GAME TECHNOLOGY, INC
18.
DR-0635-14 – LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY NV, LLC
19.
TM-0119-14 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY NV, LLC
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 applications have been held:
12. ZC-0678-14 – WIGWAM
ROUTE 15-1.25, LLC: Held to the 9-10-14 TAB meeting.
21. TM-0102-14 - DRB
HOLDINGS, LLC, ET AL: Held to the 9-10-14 TAB meeting.
GENERAL
BUSINESS:
1. Liaison update TAB on budget requests from
prior fiscal year. NO ACTION
2. TAB discuss and take
public input regarding suggestions for next funding year budget requests. (For possible action.)
Action to be taken at
the September 10, TAB meeting.
3. TAB will take applications and nominate a
primary and alternate representatives Clark County Community Development
Advisory committee (CDAC) for the County's Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) program. (For possible action)
Nominated Adrian Shahbazian as the primary
representative:
ZONING
AGENDA:
1. UC-0220-12 (ET-0093-14) - CRUMLEY SELECT
TRUST: (7364 ROGERS ST)
The applicant did not appear.
Hold to the 9-10-14 TAB meeting. APPROVED
USE
PERMIT SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME to complete the increase in area of an accessory apartment.
DESIGN
REVIEWS for the
following:
1) Maintain a relocated single family residence
over 5 years of age; and
2) Permit an accessory apartment
in conjunction with a proposed single family residence
on 1.2 acres in an R-E (Rural Estates Residential) (RNP-I) Zone. Generally located 280 feet south of Warm Springs Road, on the east
side of Rogers Street within Enterprise. SS/jt/ml (For possible
action) 09/16/14
PC
2. TM-0128-14 - STENT, CAROL
DENIED per staff “if approved” conditions
TENTATIVE
The TAB is strongly opposed to this project as
presented.
This developer has consistently sought
exceptions to Title 30 standards and has ceased to work with the neighbors and
area groups. This is in contrast to
other developers who hold neighborhood meetings, when not required, and meet
Title 30 standards.
The applicant has proposed a 10 lot
subdivision with two smaller lots inside the RNP-1 as a buffer to the higher
density residential to the north. This
is not a good buffering precedent to establish inside the RNP-1. It would lead to more buffering to inside the
RNP instead of the current buffering outside the RNP-1 boundary. The TAB is strongly opposed to this idea.
The pervious Mistral alignment vacation
removed a potential buffer for the RNP-1.
In turn setup the current conditions.
The TAB opinion is to use some of the 30 ft. gained from the Mistral
vacation to create larger setback than required by Title 30.
The Staff raised a number of objections to
this application including:
·
The
2 lots do not meet the zone district minimum size.
·
Several
of the lot a encumbered by landscape and street
easements significantly reducing the net usable area.
·
Typical
lot count in the RNP is 8 lots per 5 acres
·
Other
developments in the area have complied without deferential effects to their
projects.
The TAB concerns were:
·
Title
30 lot development standards were not being followed as no home faced the local
street as required.
·
The
developer did not ask for a waiver for wall height.
o
The
TAB has observed the developer using a 3 foot berm
then a 3 ft. retaining wall and 6 ft. wall
o
This
is technically allowed by title 30
o
The
TAB has received a number of complaints as this has the same visual effect as
building a 12 ft. wall.
o
This
isolates a sub division from the rest of the RNP neighborhood.
·
No
grading plan was submitted
·
The
vacation of Mistral alignment has given the developer an additional 30 ft.
along the northern property line.
Other developers in the RNP have been able to
comply with Title 30 standards, with the large lot sizes and open neighborhoods. The single Cul-de-sac proposed is not
appropriate for this area. This project
build as a double cul-de-sec would be a much better
addition to the neighborhood and more consistent with other development in the
neighborhood.
Given the developers previous projects which
withdrew the waiver for over height walls and then used a three foot berm to increase wall height to achieve the same wall
height. The TAB opinion is an additional
condition is required for a new design review if the finished floor height is
greater than 2 ft. above the current natural grade.
The TAB does agree that both Shelbourne Ave. and Warbonnet Way
should be developed as rural roads. This
is constant with the development in the neighborhood.
3. UC-0644-14 – WINDMILL-91, LP: (8174 S LAS
VEGAS BLVD)
APPROVED per staff conditions
USE
PERMIT for a
vehicle rental agency in conjunction with a shopping center on 4.5 acres in an
H-1 (Limited Resort and Apartment) Zone in the MUD-1 Overlay District. Generally located on the east side of Las Vegas Boulevard South,
350 feet south of Windmill Lane within Enterprise. SS/al/ml (For possible action) 09/16/14 PC
4. UC-0667-14 – URBAN INVESTMENTS, LLC, ET AL:
(121 E SUNSET RD)
APPROVED per staff conditions
USE
PERMITS for the
following:
1) A recreational facility;
2) A training facility;
3) A golf course in an RPZ zone; and
4) A parking lot in an RPZ zone.
DESIGN REVIEW
for a recreational facility on 65.0 acres in an H-1 (Limited Resort and
Apartment) (AE-65, AE-70, & RPZ) Zone. Generally
located on the south side of Sunset Road and the east
side of Las Vegas Boulevard South within Enterprise. ss/pb/ml (For possible action) 09/16/14 PC
5. VS-0664-14 – SOMERSET HILLS HOLDING, LP:
(10695 DEAN MARTIN DR)
APPROVED per staff conditions
VACATE
6. WS-0673-14 – STENT, CAROL
DENIED
per staff “if approved”
conditions;
ADD Current Planning "if approved"
condition:
• If
finished floor height is greater than two feet above existing grade then a new
Design Review as a public hearing is required;
CHANGE
Public Works –
Development Review condition #3 to read:
• Construct
32 feet wide pavement along Shelbourne Avenue and Warbonnet Way per non-urban standards.
WAIVER
OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
to reduce lot area.
DESIGN REVIEW
for a single family residential development on 5.0 acres in an R-E (Rural
Estates Residential) (RNP-I) Zone. Generally
located on the east side of Warbonnet
Way and the north side of Shelbourne Avenue
within Enterprise. SB/dg/ml (For possible
action) 09/16/14 PC
The TAB is strongly opposed to this project as
presented.
This developer has consistently sought
exceptions to Title 30 standards and has ceased to work with the neighbors and
area groups. This is in contrast to
other developers who hold neighborhood meetings, when not required, and meet
Title 30 standards.
The applicant has proposed a 10 lot
subdivision with two smaller lots inside the RNP-1 as a buffer to the higher
density residential to the north. This
is not a good buffering precedent to establish inside the RNP-1. It would lead to more buffering to inside the
RNP instead of the current buffering outside the RNP-1 boundary. The TAB is strongly opposed to this idea.
The pervious Mistral alignment vacation
removed a potential buffer for the RNP-1.
In turn setup the current conditions.
The TAB opinion is to use some of the 30 ft. gained from the Mistral
vacation to create larger setback than required by Title 30.
The Staff raised a number of objections to
this application including:
·
The
2 lots do not meet the zone district minimum size.
·
Several
of the lot a encumbered by landscape and street
easements significantly reducing the net usable area.
·
Typical
lot count in the RNP is 8 lots per 5 acres
·
Other
developments in the area have complied without deferential effects to their
projects.
The TAB concerns were:
·
Title
30 lot development standards were not being followed as no home faced the local
street as required.
·
The
developer did not ask for a waiver for wall height.
o
The
TAB has observed the developer using a 3 foot berm
then a 3 ft. retaining wall and 6 ft. wall
o
This
is technically allowed by title 30
o
The
TAB has received a number of complaints as this has the same visual effect as
building a 12 ft. wall.
o
This
isolates a sub division from the rest of the RNP neighborhood.
·
No
grading plan was submitted
·
The
vacation of Mistral alignment has given the developer an additional 30 ft.
along the northern property line.
Other developers in the RNP have been able to
comply with Title 30 standards, with the large lot sizes and open neighborhoods. The single Cul-de-sac proposed is not
appropriate for this area. This project
build as a double cul-de-sec would be a much better
addition to the neighborhood and more consistent with other development in the
neighborhood.
Given the developers previous projects which
withdrew the waiver for over height walls and then used a three foot berm to increase wall height to achieve the same wall
height. The TAB opinion is an additional
condition is required for a new design review if the finished floor height is
greater than 2 ft. above the current natural grade.
The TAB does agree that both Shelbourne Ave. and Warbonnet Way
should be developed as rural roads. This
is constant with the development in the neighborhood.
7. DR-0654-14 – WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION; ET AL: (
APPROVED
per staff conditions
and,
ADD Current Planning
condition:
• Design
Review as a public hearing for additional signage.
CHANGE
Current Planning Bullet
# 1 to read:
• Lighting
in the development to be low level with any light source to be shielded with
"full cut-off" fixtures (light lens not visible), floodlights,
spotlights, or other similar lighting shall not be permitted to illuminate
buildings;
DESIGN
REVIEW for a
shopping center on approximately 28.2 acres in a C-2 (General Commercial) P-C
(Planned Community Overlay District) Zone in the Mountain’s Edge Master Planned
Community. Generally located on the south side of Blue Diamond Road between
Cimarron Road and Buffalo Drive within Enterprise. SB/rk/ml (For possible
action) 09/17/14
This project is a welcome addition to the
area. It will add many amenities that
are not current available.
The TAB has two concerns with the
project. First is the size of the entry
sign. Some TAB members believe at 50 ft.
the sign is too high for the area. Other
TAB members felt entry sign is appropriate.
Only two signs were covered in the staff agenda sheet. As a result, the TAB added a condition for a
design review as a public hearing for any additional signage.
The second concern is the lighting for the
entire complex. The TAB opinion is all
the lighting in the project should comply with staff lighting conditions. There are indications that property north of
Blue Diamond Rd. will be developed as residential. The same lighting standards
proposed along the southern property line, should be used throughout the
project.
8. DR-0660-14 –
APPROVED per staff conditions
DESIGN
REVIEW for a
redesign (modifications) to a portion of a previously approved shopping center
on 6.2 acres in a C-2 (General Commercial) Zone. Generally located on the northwest corner of Silverado Ranch
Boulevard and Bermuda Road within Enterprise. SS/mk/ml (For
possible action) 09/17/14
9. TM-0131-14 – AINSWORTH GAME TECHNOLOGY,
INC: (Jones Boulevard between Sunset Road and
Rafael Rivera Way)
APPROVED per staff conditions
TENTATIVE
10. VS-0675-14 – AINSWORTH GAME TECHNOLOGY,
INC: (Jones Boulevard between Sunset Road and
Rafael Rivera Way)
APPROVED per staff conditions
VACATE
11. WS-0674-14 – AINSWORTH GAME TECHNOLOGY,
INC: (Jones Boulevard between Sunset Road and
Rafael Rivera Way)
APPROVE
Waiver of Development
Standards 1;
DENY
Waiver of Development
Standards 2;
APPROVE
Waiver of Development
Standards 3 CHANGED to read:
Eliminate
parking lot landscaping per plans shown;
APPROVE
Design Review;
ADD Current Planning
conditions:
• Design
Review as public hearing for significant changes to plans;
• Design
Review as a public hearing for lighting;
• Total number of plants required for this development under Title 30
standards to be maintained.
Per staff "If Approved" conditions
WAIVERS
OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
for the following:
1) Cross access with adjacent non-residential
lots;
2) Alternative street landscaping, and
3) Eliminate parking lot landscaping.
DESIGN REVIEW
for an office/warehouse building on 23.7 acres in an M-D (Designed
Manufacturing) (AE-60) Zone in the
This project is an excellent addition to the
Enterprise employment base. Part of the TAB’s considerations were
based upon the following resident input.
“First I’d like to welcome Ainsworth Technology to our neighborhood.
It’s great to see a company of Ainsworth’s stature investing in our community.
Ainsworth has an opportunity to set the “gold standard” for
development along the Sunset/215 corridor between Decatur and Jones, as well as
further west. Hopefully Ainsworth understands their responsibilities to the
residents and businesses of Las Vegas and Clark County as they undertake this
project.
We would expect that Ainsworth does not settle for the minimum
required by the County when it comes to design standards, including the look of
the building, and the surrounding grounds and landscaping. Ainsworth has the
opportunity to develop a campus in this location that the Company and its
owners, as well as the surrounding businesses and residents can be proud of for
years to come.
The residents to the north of this project object to any
lessoning of standards for this project, and as stated hope that the company
goes above and beyond to insure this project and the entire area is developed
in a manner that enhances our community for everyone involved.”
Give
the project nature and scope, the TAB agreed that cross access is not required.
The primary function is a manufacturing facility with an office component. Access to other potential area businesses can
be obtained from the 3 different roads.
The
TAB opinion on landscraping is divided into several
parts. First, there is no objection to alternate landscape designs being used.
Second, the TAB is opposed to reducing the coverage and number of plants
required below Title 30 standards.
Third, the planting of trees in parking areas where future building
expansion will occur is counterproductive.
The TAB recommendation is the denial of Waiver #2. It should be replaced with an alternate
landscape plan increasing the ground coverage and number of trees. The trees that would have been planted in the
parking lot can be used on the perimeter areas, particularly on the north side.
The
presentation did not include lighting.
The TAB added a condition for a design review for lighting. Also, added was a condition for a Design
Review for significant change to plans.
12. ZC-0678-14 – WIGWAM ROUTE 15-1.25, LLC: (
HELD by the applicant to the 9-10-14 TAB meeting
USE
PERMIT for a
manufactured home sales and display lot.
DESIGN
REVIEW for a
manufactured home sales and display lot.
Generally located on the
south side of Wigwam Avenue, 430 feet east of Dean Martin Drive
within Enterprise (description on file).
sb/pb/ml (For possible
action) 09/17/14
13. UC-0613-14 –
APPROVED per staff "If Approved" conditions and,
ADD a Current Planning condition
• Any sign
facing residential uses to be non-illuminated.
USE
PERMITS for the
following:
1) Mini-warehouse (self-storage);
2) Watchman’s quarters; and
3) Increased wall height.
VARIANCES for the following:
1) Allow RV storage in a C-2 zone; and
2) Reduced landscaping.
DESIGN
REVIEW for a
proposed mini-warehouse and RV storage facility on 4.7 acres in a C-2 (General
Commercial) 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 south side of
PREVIOUS
ACTION
Enterprise TAB
The TAB had questions
about the 15 foot wall. Which side are
the adjacent residents on, the short side or will they see a 15 ft. wall and
storage facility above their homes? This
could not be determined at the TAB hearing. If the residents are looking at a
15 ft. wall there needs to some mitigation applied to soften the wall visual impact
and the storage units.
The exact location for
the signs could not be determined. The
applicant agreed that signs facing residential shall not be illuminated.
14. UC-0633-14 –
KB HOME
APPROVED per staff conditions and,
ADD a Current Planning condition,
·
Front setback living space limited to 10 feet for no more than 20%
of the homes.
USE
PERMIT for modified residential development
standards in conjunction with a single family subdivision.
DESIGN REVIEW for a single family
development on 21.0 acres in an R-3 (Multiple Family Residential) P-C (Planned
Community Overlay) Zone in the Rhodes Ranch Master Planned Community. Generally located on the south side of Wigwam
Avenue and the east side of Grand Canyon Drive
within
PREVIOUS
ACTION
Enterprise TAB
The TAB does not favor granting blanked
waivers. The 10 ft. setback is need on
two of the seven home models. The Rhodes
Ranch standards allow up to 50% of the homes to have a 14 ft. setback. The TAB opinion is the 10 ft. setback should
be limited to no more than 20% of the homes.
15. VS-0580-14 – LV ST. ROSE, LLC: (No address)
APPROVED per staff conditions
VACATE
PREVIOUS
ACTION
Enterprise TAB
16. VS-0605-14 – SOUTHERN HIGHLANDS INVESTMENT
PARTNERS, LLC, ET AL: (No address)
APPROVED
per staff conditions
and,
ADD Public Works- Development Review condition:
• Maintain
the right-of-way dedication within the
VACATE
PREVIOUS
ACTION
Enterprise TAB
The Public Works review recommended approval
of the proposed vacations with the exception of the right-of-way within
17. WS-0618-14 – LV JEFFREYS, LLC: (No address)
APPROVED per staff “if approved” conditions;
WAIVER
OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
to allow early grading on a portion of 19.6 acres in a U-V (Urban Village -
Mixed Use) Zone in the MUD-3 Overlay District.
Generally located on the
north side of
PREVIOUS
ACTION
Enterprise TAB
18. DR-0635-14 – LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY NV,
LLC: (
APPROVED per staff "if approved" conditions and,
STRIKE Current Planning bullet #2;
ADD Current Planning
condition,
• Single
story homes on lots 16, 17, 25, & 26.
DESIGN
REVIEW for a
single family residential development on 15.0 acres in an R-1 (Single Family
Residential) Zone.
WAIVERS OF CONDITIONS
of a zone change (NZC-0539-13) requiring the following:
1) Per revised site plans
submitted at the
2) Color palette to be
neutral colors;
3) Crash gate at
4) Lots 1, 2, 15, and 16
along
5) Full off-site
improvements.
Generally located on the south side of
PREVIOUS
ACTION
Enterprise TAB
Current planning bullet #2 is no longer
appropriate per new agreement with the abutting neighbors. The new condition was added to coincide with
the new agreement with the neighbors
19. TM-0119-14 - LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY NV,
LLC: (
APPROVED per staff conditions
TENTATIVE
PREVIOUS
ACTION
Enterprise TAB
20. DR-0636-12 (ET-0084-14) –
APPROVED per staff conditions
DESIGN
REVIEW FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME to commence a maintenance yard on 1.3 acres in a P-F (Public
Facility) P-C (Planned Community Overlay District) Zone in the Southern
Highlands Master Planned Community. Generally located
on the south side of
PREVIOUS
ACTION
Enterprise TAB
21. TM-0102-14 - DRB HOLDINGS, LLC, ET AL: (
HELD by the applicant to the
TENTATIVE
PREVIOUS
ACTION
Enterprise TAB
Enterprise TAB
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.