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
NONE
ZONING AGENDA:
1.
TM-0122-15
– ZAK MAK, LLC, ET AL:
AMENDED HOLDOVER TENTATIVE
PREVIOUS ACTION
HELD
per prior request of the applicant to the April 13, 2016 TAB and the April 20,
2016
2.
VS-0409-15
– ZAK MAK, LLC, ET AL:
AMENDED HOLDOVER VACATE
PREVIOUS ACTION
HELD
per prior request of the applicant to the April 13, 2016 TAB and the April 20,
2016
3.
WS-0408-15
– ZAK MAK, LLC, ET AL:
AMENDED HOLDOVER WAIVERS OF
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS for the
following: 1) reduced lot area (previously not notified); 2)
allow single family residential lots to front a collector street (previously
not notified); and 3) off-site improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalks,
streetlights, and partial paving) (previously not notified).
DESIGN REVIEWS for
the following: 1) a single family
residential development; and 2)
increased finished grade (previously not notified) on 37.5 acres in an R-E
(Rural Estates Residential) (RNP-I) Zone.
Generally located on the east and west sides of
PREVIOUS ACTION
HELD
per prior request of the applicant to the April 13, 2016 TAB and the April 20,
2016
4.
TM-0021-16
–
TENTATIVE
APPROVED
per staff conditions
5.
UC-0111-16
– CHAIYA MEDITATION MONASTERY:
USE PERMIT for a place of worship (monastery).
DESIGN REVIEW
for a monastery on 0.6 acres in an R-1 (Single Family Residential) Zone. Generally located on the
east and west sides of
APPROVED
per staff conditions and,
ADD
Current Planning conditions:
·
Execute a shared parking agreement with
·
Design Review as a public hearing for
lighting;
The use permit is appropriate in this location.
The neighbor just west of this project objected to the
building height.
The TAB found:
·
The building height
is a maximum of 35 ft. in compliance with the code.
·
The rear yard
setback is 20 feet, greater than required by the code.
·
The residential
appearance fits in the neighborhood.
·
The building meets
or exceeds all the residential setbacks for the zone district.
·
The building could
be moved 2 feet closer to the street.
The TAB is concerned that 5 parking places are not
sufficient for 8 bedrooms in each building.
There are three ANPs, all owned by the same
entity. The concern is if the proposed
buildings were sold in the future there would be insufficient parking verses
the number of possible residents. The
TAB recommendation is a shared agreement should be executed.
The TAB also recommends the lighting be reviewed as a
public hearing due to adjacent residential.
6.
UC-0117-16
– 8480 SOUTH, LLC:
USE PERMIT for packaged liquor sales (liquor store)
within an existing retail building on a portion of 0.9 acres in an H-1 (Limited
Resort and Apartment) Zone and a C-2 (General Commercial) Zone in the
MUD-1 Overlay District. Generally located on the
east side of
APPROVED
per staff conditions
7.
UC-0128-16
– ROBINDALE, LLC:
USE PERMITS for the following:
1) allow accessory structures (garages) not architecturally
compatible with the principal structure; and 2) allow alternative design
standards in conjunction with an existing single family residence on 1.4 acres
in an R-E (Rural Estates
Residential) (RNP-I) Zone. Generally located on the northeast corner of
DENY
The applicant’s position is that approval would circumvent
the need to meet the architecturally compatible requirement of stucco exterior
finish and tile roof. The applicant did
not have elevations or pictures of the proposed structure. The only image he provided was a web picture on
his cell phone of a similar building.
The TAB considered:
·
Cumulative square
footage of both buildings would be only slightly less than the footprint of the
primary residence.
·
Because each
building was under 50% of the foot print of the residence and collectively did
not exceed 100% of the footprint of the resident, no waiver is required.
·
The TAB agreed with
the staff position that the proposed garages do not preserve or enhance the
residential area.
·
The mass of both
building does not fit in the neighborhood.
·
The proposed landscaping
was not adequate to break up the appearance of the metal exterior construction
and design of the buildings.
8.
UC-0129-16
– JAMAIL, MICHAEL L.:
USE PERMITS for
the following: 1) allow the area of
existing accessory buildings/structures to be more than 50% of the area of a
proposed single family residence; and 2)
allow the total area of all existing accessory buildings/structures to be more
that the area of a proposed single family residence.
WAIVERS OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS for the following: 1) permit an existing solid block wall
within the front yard area; and 2) increase wall height for existing
walls in conjunction with a single family residence on 1.9 acres in an R-E (Rural Estates
Residential) (RNP-I) Zone. Generally located on the
south side of
APPROVED
per staff conditions
This application is interesting because it involves legal
non-conformity, see the note below. The
current structures were built before the accessory structure code was
developed. The applicant has home plans
that cannot be finalized because the current structures are not in compliance
with the current code. The use permit
established the legal non-conformity and allows development to proceed.
NOTE:
“
9.
VS-0137-16
– Scotty’s junction, llc:
VACATE
APPROVED
per staff conditions
10.
WS-0131-16
– CENTURY COMMUNITIES
WAIVER OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS for reduced rear setbacks in conjunction with an approved single family
residential development on 5.0 acres in an R-2 (Medium Density Residential)
Zone. Generally
located on the west side of
APPROVED
per staff “if approved” conditions
The TAB considered the following:
·
The applicant has
requested the setback reduction to add a model that can be built as a one or
two story home.
·
This model will only
fit on the 9 lots requested for the waiver.
·
The applicant stated, the setback reduction requested is reduced to 6 inches.
·
It is unlikely that
the new model would be built on all nine lots requested.
·
The other models are
two story homes and fit on all lots.
·
In
The TAB considered the new model an enhancement to the
neighborhood as a result the setback waiver should be granted.
11.
WS-0135-16
– LJC PROPERTIES, LLC:
WAIVER OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS for off-site improvement requirements for a
minor subdivision (traffic control device, curb, and gutter) in conjunction
with a parcel map on 1.0 acre in
an R-E (Rural Estates Residential) (RNP-I) Zone. Generally located on the west side of
APPROVED
per staff conditions
The neighbors desire that
The neighbors are very upset with the applicant. The applicant has illegally graded the
desert,
The TAB explained that denying this application would
result in the full offsites being built on
12.
DR-0127-16 – AGATE SENIORS, II, LLC:
DESIGN REVIEW for
site and building lighting in
conjunction with an approved senior housing development that is currently under
construction on 5.0 acres in an R-4 (Multiple Family Residential - High
Density) Zone in the MUD-1 Overlay District.
Generally located on the south side of
APPROVED
per staff conditions
13.
DR-0138-16 – SMITH PAYNE INVESTMENTS, LLC:
DESIGN REVIEW
for a comprehensive sign plan for an approved vehicle (motorcycle,
recreational, and watercraft) sales and repair facility on 1.4 acres in a C-2
(General Commercial) Zone in the
APPROVED
per staff conditions
14.
TM-0028-16
- ROOHANI, KHUSROW:
TENTATIVE
HELD
per prior request of the applicant to the April 27, 2016 TAB and the May 18,
2016
15.
UC-0132-16 – RICHMOND LIMITED PARTNERSHIP:
USE PERMITS for the following: 1) reduce the
separation for a proposed convenience store/gasoline station; and 2)
reduce the separation for a proposed vehicle wash.
DESIGN
REVIEW for a proposed convenience store with gasoline station and
vehicle wash on a portion of 4.5 acres in a C-2 (General Commercial) (AE-60)
Zone in the MUD-3 Overlay District. Generally located on the northwest corner of
DENY
The applicant’s position is that the November 2006 approval for a convenience store with gas
pumps and car wash is a reason for approving the current application. The TAB considered the following:
·
The previous
application for a C store gas pumps and car wash expired July 2011.
·
In 2010 homes were
constructed adjacent to this property.
·
The setback
requested does not protect the neighbors.
·
This is an irregularly
shaped property with significant problems.
·
The undeveloped
western portion is effectively blocked by the tavern.
·
Very difficult to
mitigate the sound from a vehicle wash 61 or 75 feet away.
·
Operating hour
restriction on the vehicle wash is not an effective mitigation.
·
The northern
entrance from
The TAB opinion is this site is not suitable for a
24-hour convenience store with gas pumps and vehicle wash due to the close
proximity of residential and ineffective sound mitigation.
16.
UC-0154-16 – RI HERITAGE INN FLINT, INC:
USE PERMITS for the following: 1) retail sales; 2) restaurants; 3) personal services; 4) jewelry store; and 5) offices in conjunction with a proposed commercial center.
DESIGN REVIEW for a
proposed commercial center in conjunction with a hotel currently under
construction on 3.0 acres in an H-1 (Limited Resort and Apartment) Zone in the MUD-1
Overlay District. Generally located on
the north side of
Applicant
did not appear
HOLD
to the April 13 TAB meeting
17.
VS-0147-16
- ROOHANI, KHUSROW:
VACATE
HELD
per prior request of the applicant to the April 27, 2016 TAB and the May 18,
2016
18.
WS-0123-16 – WALTER, DUSTIN:
WAIVER OF
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS for
off-site improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalks, streetlights, and partial
pavement) in conjunction with a proposed single family residential development on
2.4 acres in an R-E (Rural Estates Residential) (RNP-I) Zone. Generally located on the
northeast corner of
APPROVE
per staff "if approved" conditions
Gilespie in this area has been develop
to rural roads standards and the applicant desires to keep
19.
WS-0130-16 – HARRISON KEMP & JONES 401
WAIVERS OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS for the following: 1) permit an animated sign (video unit) where not permitted; 2) increase freestanding sign area; and 3) increase freestanding sign height in conjunction with an approved retail center.
DESIGN REVIEW for a
comprehensive sign plan in conjunction with an approved retail center on 2.2
acres a C-1 (Local Business) Zone. Generally located on the north side of
DENY
Waiver of Development Standards #1;
The
applicant withdraws Waivers of Development Standards # 2 & #3;
APPROVE
Design Review with conditions:
·
Free standing sign not to exceed 25 feet in
height;
·
Applicant to use one free standing sign or
one monument sign but not both;
·
Design Review as a public hearing for wall
signs;
The applicant's design package is too intense for the
neighborhood and sets a poor precedent for additional signage along
·
The applicant has withdrawn
Waiver of Development Standards 2 and 3.
·
The applicant stated
they have acquired an addition 7.5 acres to north and
west of this site.
·
Of the 10 acres,
only this property borders on
·
No plans exist for
the additional 7.5 acres.
·
The intensity of the
current package was necessary due to the additional acreage.
·
The TAB only
considered signage for the 2.2 acres in this application.
·
Residential
properties are in close proximity to this development.
·
The internal wall signs
would face established homes to the east with no intervening street.
·
Applicant's position
is, because there is undeveloped commercial property directly to the east, it is
then OK to point wall signs toward the established residential.
·
Video signs are not
appropriate due to the close proximity of residential.
·
The max freestanding
sign height is not warranted in this location.
·
Too many signs are
requested for 2.2 acres.
·
No tenants have been
signed and their sign requirements could not be determined.
The TAB opinion is this property can be served by one
monument sign or one free standing sign not more than 25 feet high. When the tenants are determined the signage
for each location can be determined in a public hearing that considers the nearby
residential properties.
20.
WS-0140-16 – D.R. HORTON, INC:
WAIVER OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS to increase block wall height.
DESIGN REVIEW for increased finished grade in conjunction with
an approved single family residential development on 5.0 acres in an R-2
(Medium Density Residential) Zone.
Generally
located on the northeast corner of
APPROVED
per staff conditions
21.
WS-0146-16 – ROOHANI, KHUSROW:
WAIVERS OF DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS for the following: 1) reduced gross lot
area; 2) increased wall height; and 3) full off-site improvements (partial
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and streetlights).
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 north side of
HELD
per prior request of the applicant to the April 27, 2016 TAB and the May 18,
2016
22.
WS-0159-16 – MOUNTAIN
WAIVERS OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS for the following: 1) full off-site
improvements (partial paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and streetlights) along
HELD per prior request of the applicant to the
23.
DR-0097-16 – DP 20130702 VALLEY VIEW, LLC:
DESIGN
REVIEWS for the
following: 1) a proposed single family
residential development; and 2)
increased finished grade on approximately 7.5 acres in an R-E (Rural Estates
Residential) (RNP-I) Zone. Generally located on the southeast corner of
PREVIOUS ACTION
Enterprise TAB
HELD
per prior request of the applicant to the April 27, 2016 TAB
24.
TM-0020-16
– DP 20130702 VALLEY VIEW, LLC:
TENTATIVE
PREVIOUS ACTION
Enterprise TAB
HELD
per prior request of the applicant to the April 27, 2016 TAB
25.
VS-0096-16
– DP 20130702 VALLEY VIEW, LLC:
VACATE
PREVIOUS ACTION
Enterprise TAB
HELD
per prior request of the applicant to the
26.
WS-0071-16
– D.R. HORTON, INC:
WAIVERS OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS for the following: 1) reduced
setbacks; and 2) increased wall heights.
DESIGN REVIEW for
revised home models in conjunction with an approved single family residential
development on 11.7 acres in an R-D (Suburban Estates Residential) Zone and an R-1
(Single Family Residential) Zone. Generally located on the north and south sides of
PREVIOUS ACTION
Enterprise TAB
APPROVED
per staff “if approved” conditions
DR Horton is proposing an excellent set of models for
this neighborhood and the neighbors are in agreement.
At first look the number of waivers looks excessive. Only, the Waiver of Development Standard 2
will be required. The applicant has
examined all their proposed home plans verses lot sizes. The requested waivers are those that may be
needed if a particular model is built on some lots. If these models are not selected for those
lots the waivers will not be required.
This reduces the actual number of waivers that will be used. It also allows the developer to provide a
range of model and lot selections to their customers.
GENERAL BUSINESS:
1. Receive a report from the Sub-Committee on Accessory Structures. (For Possible Action)
Draft report with information from the subcommittee was distributed for
review.
Postpone
discussion to the April 13 TAB meeting
2. Discuss having traffic and drainage studies submitted with non-conforming zone changes. (For Possible Action)
Traffic and drainage studies should be up-front on all applications
Appropriate conditions could be suggested if traffic and drainage studies
were done prior to approval.
Should increase scope of drainage studies to also determine how drainage
affects neighboring properties; not just in/out of applicant's property
Consider separating zone change from design review – although not
recommended
Need to give land use boards more information
Traffic
Sub-Committee to draft a report to TAB.
3. Discuss
equestrian trails and road crossings particularly on Warm Springs at
Discussion with traffic managers, design & development services,
traffic management, and planning staff
Study did not show adequate equestrian use at this site
Lack of use does not merit cost of signalized crossing
TAB reasoning is that installation of crossing would encourage use but
because of roadway issues it would not get used
Current roadway conditions and no cross walk at
Children crossing Warm Springs are a big safety problem at the horse park
Traffic on Warm Springs is detrimental to horse crossing
White-stripe crossing may have questionable effectiveness with horses
Need traffic mitigation on Warm Springs between Valley View and Decatur:
may not happen till road is developed
Clarification: horse trail crosses Warm Springs only at Arville; not Rogers or Cameron
Hope for signalized crossing at Arville when
Warm Springs is developed
No
action taken
4. Discuss
submitting letter to
Chair
to sign and forward letter.
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.