Results
The Zoning Agenda items will be heard by the PC or
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.
ANNOUNCMENTS
Accepting
Applications Through Feb. 24
The class starts on March 21 and will meet from
“The County’s
Applications are due by
To apply for the
·
Obtain
an application from the Organizational Development Center located on the first
floor of the Clark County Government Center at 500 S. Grand Central Parkway,
(702) 455-3179, or;
·
Complete
an application online via the web link, http://goo.gl/forms/l3UeLZJqze
·
Download
the pdf application from the County website, then
fax, mail or email the completed application to (702) 455-3211 (fax), odc1@ClarkCountyNV.gov or mail,
ZONING AGENDA:
1. NZC-0018-16 – HEWEL 38 IRREVOCABLE BUSINESS ET AL:
WAIVERS OF DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS for the following: 1)
reduced setbacks; and 2) reduced residential adjacency standard
(height/setback ratio).
DESIGN REVIEW for a
multiple family residential development.
Generally located on the north side of
DENY
The
TAB is extremely opposed to this application because it does not benefit the
orderly development of
This
project is strongly opposed by the area residents. The residents would prefer the currently
planned commercial development as opposed to additional residential. When polled, 28 residents opposed the change
to residential and 30 residents supported the current commercial designation.
The applicants' position:
·
The proposed project is a transition
from the RNP-1 to more intense uses south of
·
The traffic load would be less than
with commercial uses
·
The surrounding area has not
developed into the anticipated commercial corridor.
·
The proposed plan buffers the RNP-1
residents to the north.
·
The applicant did not discuss any
possible change to plans given comments by residents and TAB or staff
conditions.
The resident position:
·
Schools are over capacity
·
No available
·
Single entry/exit point on
·
The traffic pattern created by 500 +
residents is concentrated around commute time.
o
When the charter school is built the
commute time traffic will increase.
o
While commercial traffic may be
greater volume it is spread out through the day and has less impact on the area
than peak traffic.
·
Commercial uses better serve the
area.
·
No resident suggestions were
incorporated in to the project.
TAB position and considerations:
·
In the last two
·
This application does not comply
with the following Urban Land Use Policies.
1. Encourage
urban/suburban growth patterns that promote employment
opportunities/development, reduce automobile dependence, support alternative
modes of transportation, and reduce air pollution.
2. The
cumulative impact developments will have on area services including fire,
police, water, sewer, roads, schools, and adjacent municipalities should be
considered.
3. Discourage
nonconforming zone changes. Any approvals for nonconforming zoning requests
should be conditioned to provide buffering from adjacent conforming properties.
4. This
project will reduce employment opportunities in
5. This
application is a non-conforming zone change and should be discouraged. It is a major change to the land use plan
that will have detrimental effects including loss of employment opportunities
in
· Land
within
· The
4 corners around
· The
great majority of the available commercial land is only suitable for strip type
commercial.
· This
area is part of the commercial buffer being developed as part of the
o
The
o
A likely outcome of the proposed
project will be a UPRR refusal to develop the
o
· Buffer
is required to take place on the non-conforming property.
o
All the buffering should be done on
the applicant’s property.
o
20 ft. of public right-of-way should
not be use as buffer.
o
Any buffer in the right-of-way can
be removed in the future by Public Works.
o
The 4 house cul-de-sac should have a
40 ft. land scape buffer around the cul-de-sac as
proposed in two previous projects.
· The
apartments need an entry/exit point on Torrey Pines
Drive.
The
intersection of Torrey Pines Dr. and
This
would provide a safe means to proceed east on
· The
applicant did not offer or was willing to discuss any changes to their plans
given the resident, staff, and TAB comments.
· All
the staff conditions should be implemented if the project is allowed to go
forward.
Given
the high level of resident opposition and TAB concern, plan changes presented
to the PC or
2. NZC-0024-16 – MOUNTAIN
WAIVERS OF DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS for the following: 1)
increased building height; 2) increased wall height; 3) full
off-site improvements (Pebble Road); 4) allow non-standard improvements;
and 5) reduced street intersection off-set.
DESIGN REVIEW for a proposed single family residential
development. Generally
located on the south side of
DENY
The
TAB is extremely opposed to this application because it does not benefit the
orderly development of
This
project is strongly opposed by the area residents. The residents would prefer the currently
planned commercial development as opposed to additional residential. When polled, 28 residents opposed the change
to residential and 30 residents supported the current commercial designation.
The applicants' position:
·
The proposed project is a transition
from the RNP-1 to more intense uses south of
·
The traffic load would be less than with
commercial uses
·
The surrounding area has not
developed into the anticipated commercial corridor.
·
The proposed plan buffers the RNP-1
residents to the north.
·
The applicant did not discuss any
possible change to plans given comments by residents and TAB or staff
conditions.
The resident position:
·
Schools are over capacity
·
No available
·
Single entry/exit point on
·
The traffic pattern created by 500 +
residents is concentrated around commute time.
o
When the charter school is built the
commute time traffic will increase.
o
While commercial traffic may be
greater volume it is spread out through the day and has less impact on the area
than peak traffic.
·
Commercial uses better serve the
area.
·
Reduce the number of cul-de-sacs
that enter/exit on
·
No resident suggestions were
incorporated in to the project.
TAB position and considerations:
·
In the last two
·
This application does not comply
with the following Urban Land Use Policies.
1. Encourage
urban/suburban growth patterns that promote employment
opportunities/development, reduce automobile dependence, support alternative
modes of transportation, and reduce air pollution.
2. The
cumulative impact developments will have on area services including fire,
police, water, sewer, roads, schools, and adjacent municipalities should be
considered.
3. Discourage
nonconforming zone changes. Any approvals for nonconforming zoning requests
should be conditioned to provide buffering from adjacent conforming properties.
4. This
project will reduce employment opportunities in
5. This
application is a non-conforming zone change and should be discouraged. It is a major change to the land use plan
that will have detrimental effects including loss of employment opportunities
in
·Land
within
·The
4 corners around
·The
great majority of the available commercial land is only suitable for strip type
commercial.
·This
area is part of the commercial buffer being developed as part of the
o
The
o
A likely outcome of the proposed
project will be a UPRR refusal to develop the
o
·Buffer
is required to take place on the non-conforming property.
o
All the buffering should be done on
the applicant’s property.
o
20 ft. of public right-of-way should
not be use as buffer.
o
Any buffer in the right-of-way can
be removed in the future by Public Works.
o
The 4 house cul-de-sac should have a
40 ft. landscape buffer around the cul-de-sac as proposed in two previous
projects.
·Rural
road standards are not appropriate for
o
Commercial or high density
residential south of
o
The right-of-way will be needed for
drainage.
o
Too many cul-de-sacs front on
·The
intersection of Torrey Pines Dr. and
·This
would provide a safe means to proceed east on
·The
applicant did not offer or was willing to discuss any changes to their plans
given the resident, staff, and TAB comments.
·All
the staff conditions should be implemented if the project is allowed to go
forward.
Given
the high level of resident opposition and TAB concern, plan changes presented
to the PC or
3. NZC-0025-16 – GILMUD, LLC:
WAIVERS OF DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS for the following: 1)
alternative landscape and screening; 2) reduced setback; 3)
increased wall height; and 4) modified street improvements in accordance
with
DESIGN REVIEWS for
the following: 1) a proposed single
family residential development; and 2)
increased finished grade. Generally located on the east side of
APPROVE
Zone Change;
APPROVE
Waiver of Development Standards #1, #3, #4;
APPROVE
Waiver of Development Standards #2: Restricted to single story model only;
APPROVE
Design Review
#1 and #2.
The applicant has talked with the neighbors along the
northern boundary. The neighbor’s
preference is single story homes next to their homes. The one story model being offered requires a
4 ft. side setback instead of the normal 5 ft.
The TAB is usually not willing to recommend a setback
waiver that could be applied to the entire project. The TAB recommendation is Waiver of
Development Standards #2 be limited to the single story model presented
only. This will allow the applicant to
meet the neighbors request.
4. TM-0005-16 – Gilmud, llc:
TENTATIVE
APPROVE
per staff conditions
5. UC-0008-16 – DOSE,
EDWARD ALLEN & REBECCA NOEL:
USE PERMITS for the
following: 1) proposed accessory
structure (storage container) within the rear yard that is not architecturally
compatible with the principal building; 2) waive architectural
enhancements; 3) non-decorative metal siding; and 4) a flat roof
without a parapet wall in conjunction with an existing single family
residence on 0.5 acres in an R-E (Rural Estates Residential) (RNP-I) Zone. Generally located on the
north side of
DENY
The applicant is working to improve the property. However, the TAB does not consider the conex box a suitable accessory structure for the area.
6. UC-0011-16 – SUNSTONE DIAMOND, LLC:
USE PERMIT
for a proposed major
training facility within an existing shopping center on 8.4 acres in an H-2
(General Highway Frontage) Zone and a C-2 (General Commercial) Zone in the
MUD-4 Overlay District. Generally located on the north side of
APPROVE
per staff conditions
7. UC-0017-16 – NCW
USE PERMIT to waive the minimum 48 inch wide pedestrian
access around the perimeter of an outside dining area.
DESIGN REVIEW for a
restaurant with drive-thru within an existing shopping center on 0.6 acres in a
C-2 (General Commercial) Zone in the MUD-4 Overlay District. Generally located on the
east side of
APPROVE
per staff conditions and,
ADD
a Current Planning condition:
·
Incorporate safety bollards into the outside
dining area fence design.
The TAB recommends the fence surrounding the outside
dining incorporate bollards in the design as a safety feature. This is in place of the 48-inch sidewalk
required by the code.
8. VC-0003-16 – THE CASTLE FAMILY
REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST:
VARIANCE to reduce the rear setback for a patio cover in conjunction with a single family
residence on 0.1 acres in an R-2 (Medium Density Residential) Zone in
the Southern Highlands Master Planned Community. Generally located on the
north side of
APPROVE
per staff conditions
9. VS-0023-16 – D.R. HORTON, INC:
VACATE
APPROVE
per staff conditions
10. VS-0026-16 - GILMUD, LLC:
VACATE
APPROVE
per staff conditions
11. WS-0009-16 – MODEL RENTING 2014,
LLC & CANFAM HOLDINGS, LLC:
WAIVER OF DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS to increase the height of existing and proposed residences
within an existing single family subdivision on 5.8 acres in an R-2 (Medium
Density Residential) Zone in the MUD-3 Overlay District. Generally located on the
northwest corner of
APPROVE
per staff conditions
12. WS-0019-16 –DISTINCTIVE HOMES VALLEY VIEW, ET AL:
WAIVER OF
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS to
increase wall height in conjunction with a developing single family
residential subdivision on 5.1 acres in an R-E (Rural Estates Residential)
(RNP-I) Zone. Generally
located on the northeast corner of
APPROVE
per staff conditions
13. DR-0020-16 – TENAYA
DESIGN REVIEWS for
the following: 1) a proposed single
family residential development; and 2)
increased finished grade on 5.1 acres in an R-2 (Medium Density Residential)
Zone. Generally
located on the south side of
APPROVE
per staff conditions
14. TM-0003-16 - INVESTOR EQUITY HOMES, LLC, ET AL:
TENTATIVE
APPROVE
per staff conditions
15. TM-0004-16 – TENAYA
TENTATIVE
APPROVE
per staff conditions
16. UC-0030-16 – CRAMER-STEPNIK,
USE PERMIT for the proposed retail sale of landscape
materials (rocks).
WAIVERS OF DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS for the following: 1) design standards for a temporary
modular structure; 2) street
landscaping requirements; 3)
eliminate parking lot landscaping; 4)
eliminate loading space; 5)
eliminate trash enclosure; 6)
on-site paving; and 7) full off-site
improvements (excluding minimum paving).
DESIGN REVIEW for a
landscape material (rocks and concrete pavers) retail/wholesale and storage
facility including a modular building
on 2.1 acres in an M-1 (Light
Manufacturing) Zone in the MUD-3 Overlay District. Generally located on the
northwest corner of
HELD
per request of the applicant to the
17. VS-0016-16 - INVESTOR EQUITY HOMES, LLC, ET AL:
VACATE
APPROVE
per staff conditions
18. VS-0021-16 – TENAYA
VACATE
APPROVE
per staff conditions
19. ZC-0015-16 – INVESTOR EQUITY HOMES,
LLC, ET AL:
DESIGN REVIEW for a
proposed single family residential development.
Generally located on the north side of
APPROVE
per staff conditions
GENERAL BUSINESS:
TAB to review input from their appointees to the Community Plan Work Group and provide feedback regarding the process and final staff recommendations. (For possible action)
The TAB reviewed the input
from their appointees to the Community Plan Work Group. Current Planning staff was asked to comment on
the process during the discussion.
Outstanding points of discussion were:
·
The TAB felt that the proposed Land Use Categories are going in the
wrong direction.
·
The proposed Land Use Categories are too subjective and vague.
·
The Plan should be more specific rather than broader.
·
The consideration of elements of the Plan was taken out of order: Goals
and Policies should have been considered before Categories.
·
The TAB appointees felt that an experienced current planner should have
been in the work group to provide that specific expertise.
·
Only one format option was presented to the work group.
·
It appeared to some TAB members that this new Plan being proposed is
much like an old system from the 1990's referred to as the "bubble
system", which was abandoned in 1998.
·
This old system was abandoned because the most intense zoning was usually
requested and people wanted more control through more detailed planning
categories.
·
The entire product should be reviewed before any further adoption of the
Plan.
·
Do not need a concept Plan; need specifics.
·
The TAB consensus is that this Plan is not workable.
A TAB appointee to the Community
Plan Work Group submitted several self-authored documents in support of his
opinion of what was incorrect with and needed revisions to the Community Plan Work
Group Plan. These were referred to
during this discussion and will be attached to these minutes below. He asked the TAB to forward the documents to
the county as part of the TAB recommendation.
Motion
to draft letter to county expressing the TAB's views
including the reference material and proposals submitted by the TAB member.
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.