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
Metro First Tuesday, June 7, will meet at
the Windmill Library at
REPORT
Receive
a report regarding the use and storage of dumpsters in residential areas.
What’s the issue?
·
For single family and duplex residential,
·
Containers may be placed in the right-of-way
after
·
Large containers and Dumpsters are difficult to
move.
·
Leaving them in the street can be dangerous.
·
Some lots do not have adequate space to place
containers outside of the front yard.
·
Containers be intrusive
to neighbors or occupants.
·
Leaving them in the front yard is a violation.
Proposed solution for right-of-way
· Allow containers in the right-of-way when the street is not fully improved:
o At the edge of the right-of-way but no closer than 12 feet from the edge of the pavement and in no case may it be on a sidewalk.
o Must be clear of sight zones.
o Reflectors or reflective tape must be permanently affixed to all four corners of all four sides.
o Establish minimum lot size for any container larger than 96 gallons.
· Remove language prohibiting the storage of containers in front yards.
· Establish minimum lot size for any container larger than 96 gallons.
Proposed solution for front yards
·
Remove language prohibiting the storage of
containers in front yards.
·
Establish minimum lot size for any container
larger than 96 gallons.
Implementation
· Develop new ordinance.
· Allow 6 months for compliance with new regulations.
· Notify affected citizens by mail of the new regulations.
· Potential pilot program area with a shorter timeline for compliance.
Enforcement after phase-in
· Notify residents by certified mail that their container is in violation and provide 5 days to correct the violation or the container will be impounded.
· Impounded containers will be subject to a fee if reclaimed.
o The fee will be developed to cover costs involved in removing the container.
· The owner or renter of the container must pick up the container.
o Republic Services may pick up their containers within 30 days.
· Impounded containers not reclaimed within 30 days will be destroyed.
Additional considerations
·
Temporary use of roll-off Dumpsters
o
Prior to placement in the right-of-way a permit
must be obtained from Public Works.
o
Placement on private property may only be for
the duration of an approved construction project and must be removed when the
construction is complete.
Questions
and discussion by the public and board:
· Twelve foot set-back from roadway is not
practical on a 60 foot local road.
· Set-back could be based on speed limits or
type of road for different standards.
· New front yard standards are good.
· Question of whether Republic Service or the
home owner is responsible for placement of the dumpster.
· The home owner is responsible.
· Problem is that home owners do not have the
capability of moving a heavy dumpster.
· Home owners should use containers that they
are capable of moving around.
· Home owners want Republic Services to be
responsible for placing dumpsters.
· Reflector on the dumpsters
need to be large enough.
· Zoning is better measure than minimum lot
size in determining dumpster allowance.
ZONING AGENDA:
1. UC-0254-16 – ADF-BUFFALO, LLC:
USE PERMITS for the following: 1) reduce the separation of a
convenience store from a residential use; 2) reduce the setback of a
gasoline station from a residential use; and 3) reduce the setback of a
vehicle wash facility (automobile) from a residential use.
WAIVER OF DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS for modified street
standards.
DESIGN REVIEWS for
the following: 1) convenience store; 2)
gasoline station; and 3) vehicle
wash facility on a portion of 5.1 acres in a C-2 (General Commercial)
Zone. Generally
located on the southeast corner of
PREVIOUS ACTION
DENY
The TAB opinion is the character of the area southeast of
This is a case where non-conforming zone changes have
removed opportunities for employment and commercial ventures outside of the
land use update cycle.
The TAB did not note any objections being made to the
residential shift during the 2013 non-conforming zone change hearings.
The applicant has revised the original plans to increase
the setback distance from the residential and provided a significant buffer on
the eastern boundary line. However, the smallest set back still requires a 48%
reduction.
The applicant is using only 1.3 acre of a 5-acre
plot. The TAB asked about alternate
building arrangement along the western property line but the applicant was not
interested in any alternate configuration to increase the setbacks.
The TAB agrees with the staff statement, “The reductions
in setback will negatively impact the residential development to the east,
especially since such facilities are typically open 24 hours.”
Without further significantly increased setback distances
or shielding by a building the TAB recommends this application be denied.
2. VC-0159-13 (ET-0052-16) – jones crossing 2, llc:
VARIANCES SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME to complete the
following: 1) increased
building height; 2) reduced front yard setback; and 3) reduced rear yard setback in conjunction with
a single family residential development on 29.8 acres in an R-2 (Medium Density
Residential) Zone in the Pinnacle Peaks Concept Plan Area. Generally located on the
south side of
APPROVE
per staff conditions
3. NZC-0271-16 – cougar-jones
investments, llc:
DESIGN REVIEW for
outside storage. Generally
located on the southeast corner of
APPROVE
per staff conditions
The zone change is the result of two factors. First, is the property is divided into three
zone districts. Second, the
non-conforming zone change to consolidate the zoning into one zone district is
a condition imposed by the approval of UC-0404-15.
4. UC-0276-16 – NEWHALL, AUGUSTINA OGO:
USE PERMIT for a day care facility in conjunction with
an existing single family residence on 0.1 acres in an R-2 (Medium
Density Residential) Zone. Generally located on the north side of
The
applicant did not appear. HOLD to the June 15 TAB meeting.
5. UC-0317-16 – R W S RETAIL, LLC:
USE PERMIT
to allow on-premises consumption of
alcohol (service bar) in conjunction with a proposed restaurant within a retail
center on a portion of 2.0 acres in a C-1 (Local Business) Zone. Generally located on the
southwest corner of
APPROVE
per staff conditions
6. VC-0294-16 – IOTA TUSCAN, LLC:
VARIANCE to reduce side yard setback for an approved
single family residential subdivision on a portion 87.2 acres in an R-E
(Rural Estates Residential) and R-2 (Medium Density Residential) P-C (Planned
Community Overlay District) Zone in the Southern Highlands Master Planned
Community. Generally
located 1,200 feet north of
APPROVE
per staff conditions
7. VS-0280-16 – fernandez family trust dated
VACATE
APPROVE
per staff conditions
8. VS-0300-16 – tfc holdings, inc:
VACATE
APPROVE
per staff conditions
9. VS-0302-16 – tenney family trust:
VACATE
APPROVE
per staff conditions
10. UC-0016-15 (AR-0054-16) - NOUVEAU
RESORTS CORPORATION, ET AL:
USE PERMIT FIRST
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW to allow
deviations as shown per plans on file.
DEVIATIONS for the following: 1) allow roof signs; and 2) all
other deviations as depicted per plans on file.
DESIGN REVIEWS for the following: 1) roof signs; and 2) animated
wall signs in conjunction with an approved timeshare hotel tower within an
existing resort hotel complex (Silverton) on 74.8 acres in an H-1
(Limited Resort and Apartment) Zone and an H-1 (Limited Resort and Apartment)
(AE-60 & AE-65) Zone in the MUD-2 Overlay District. Generally located on the
southeast corner of
APPROVE
per staff conditions
DESIGN
REVIEW for an on-premises consumption of alcohol (tavern) building on a
portion of 1.8 acres in a C-2 (General Commercial) (AE-60) Zone. Generally located on the
east side of
APPROVE
per staff conditions and
ADD Current Planning
conditions:
·
Design Review as a public hearing for
signage.
·
Provide for cross access and parking
agreements to the east and north if compatible uses are developed
Signage was not part of this application. The TAB recommends a condition be added for a
public design review for the signage.
The lighting is already installed on this parcel.
This lot is bordered by land designated for Commercial
General use. As
the remaining land is developed, cross access and parking agreements should be
put in place for the entire 10-acre area.
12. TM-0042-16 –
AMENDED HOLDOVER TENTATIVE
PREVIOUS ACTION
APPROVE
per staff conditions
The applicant stated the homes would front on
Currently
The applicant stated they would seek a waiver for homes
to front on
13. UC-0265-16 – JOBSITE HOSPITALITY,
LLC:
USE PERMITS for the following: 1) allow a proposed hotel in the M-D
zone; and 2) increased building height.
WAIVER OF DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS for reduced
parking.
DESIGN
REVIEW for a proposed hotel on a portion of 7.3 acres in a C-2 (General
Commercial) (AE-60) Zone and an M-D (Designed Manufacturing) (AE-60) Zone. Generally located on the
east side of
APPROVE
per staff conditions and,
ADD
Current Planning condition:
·
Design Review as a public hearing for
lighting and signage;
The hotel has a breakfast area. However, there are no restaurants within a
short walking distance. The reduced
parking should be dependent on the hotel offering van service. The van service will reduce the need for
personal vehicles, reducing the need for parking.
Lighting and signage were not part of this
application. The TAB recommends a Design
Review as a public hearing for lighting and signage.
14. UC-0305-16 – GILESPIE
USE PERMIT for a private school.
WAIVERS OF DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS for the
following: 1) increase building
height; 2) alternative landscaping; and 3) off-site improvements
(curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street lights, and partial width paving).
DESIGN
REVIEW for a private school on a 10 acre portion of 14.4 acres in an
R-E (Rural Estates Residential) (RNP-I) Zone. Generally located on the
southeast corner of
DENY
There were 20 residents of the area present in
opposition. There were some people
present in favor of the application but only a couple were
residents of the area. All the TAB
members are keenly aware of the need for additional educational opportunities
in
The land use questions before the TAB were:
·
Is the school use
permit appropriate for this location?
·
What effects will
the waivers of development standards have on the neighborhood?
·
Does the building
and property design fit in the neighborhood?
The TAB considered the following:
Proponents:
·
Top quality
educational opportunity for K thru 8 students.
·
Chose this location
due the most responses in the zip code.
·
Excellent on site
circulation plan.
·
Attractive design
and landscaping.
·
No lights on the
athletic fields.
·
Parking over the
required standard.
·
Approximately 1260
students.
·
Anecdotal evidence
that approximately 30% will car pool.
·
Morning drop off can
be accomplished in 20 minutes.
·
School is in
secession for 180 days a year.
·
Reduced summer
session.
·
Neighbors and area
residents desire to send their children to this school.
Opposition:
·
Very disruptive to
the RNP life style.
·
Most students are
from outside the neighborhood.
·
Local road system is
not designed to handle the traffic surge twice a day.
·
School traffic from
nearby schools makes it difficult to travel during some hours.
·
The building is far
bigger than any in the RNP.
·
The building is much
taller than neighboring homes.
·
Desire to maintain
rural life style and roads.
·
Design of the
building does not blend with the surrounding neighborhood.
·
Disruptive to
equestrian activities.
TAB comments and observations:
·
Internal flow for
pickup and drop off is good.
·
Two TAB members independently
drove the area.
o
Offsite traffic
circulation is the problem.
o
TAB estimates 600 to
900 vehicle trips, twice a day, would be required for student transportation.
o
No school bus
service is supplied.
o
The RNP road
structure was not designed to handle the traffic surges.
o
o
Both collectors are
developed with one lane in each direction.
o
Gilespie is dirt for 330 ft. south of
o
Traffic choke points
are created, due to single lane configuration, where
·
Fixing the area
traffic flow would require a
·
Applicant did not
suggest any area traffic mitigation measures after the residents raised the
issue at the neighborhood meeting
·
Students would be
coming from throughout the valley.
o
Once capacity is
reached students are selected by lottery.
o
Does not meet nearby
residents desire for their children to attend the
school.
·
o
Applicant stated it
is not needed because it has not been dedicated to the east.
o
Most property to the
east is undeveloped and not required to dedicated Siddall
until developed.
o
If the school is
built
·
The building mass
and height is too great for the area.
o
The mass of
o
The
o
Most homes in the
area are single story below 25 ft.
o
Church projects in other
Enterprise RNPs have been required to scale down
their building mass well below this school’s mass.
o
The building design
does not blend into the neighborhood.
Better suited to modern colonial areas.
One TAB member was supportive of the need for more and/or
better schools. Three TAB member’s felt
the school is a good thing but in the wrong location. This school is the equivalent of placing a
large commercial venture into a RNP-1.
The school would seriously degrade the established rural lifestyle.
15. VS-0332-16 –
VACATE
HOLD
to the June 15 TAB meeting per agreement of the applicant for the applicant to
hold a neighborhood meeting.
16. ZC-0040-05 (WC-0058-16) – D.R.
HORTON, INC.:
WAIVER OF CONDITIONS of a zone change requiring full off-sites to
include paved legal access 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
APPROVE
per staff conditions
17. TM-0178-15
(WC-0059-16) – D.R. HORTON, INC.:
WAIVER OF
CONDITIONS of a tentative map
requiring full off-site improvements 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
APPROVE
per staff conditions
18. WS-0652-15 (WC-0060-16) – D.R.
HORTON, INC.:
WAIVER OF CONDITIONS of a waiver of development standards requiring
full off-site improvements 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
APPROVE
per staff conditions
19. WS-0140-16 (WC-0061-16) – D.R.
HORTON, INC.:
WAIVER OF CONDITIONS of a waiver of development standards
requiring full off-site improvements 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
APPROVE
per staff conditions
20. WS-0213-16 –
AMENDED HOLDOVER WAIVERS OF
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS for the
following: 1) increased wall height; 2) full off-site
improvements (partial paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and streetlights) along a
collector street (
DESIGN REVIEWS for
the following: 1) proposed single
family residential subdivision; and 2)
increase the finish grade on a 35.0 acre (previously notified as 32.5 acre)
portion of an overall 116.0 acres in an R-E (Rural Estates Residential) (RNP-I)
Zone. Generally located on the north
side of
PREVIOUS ACTION
WAIVERS OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS #1: Approve
limited to the 5th section only in the development as described;
WAIVERS OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS #2 & 3:
Approve
DESIGN REVIEW #1 & 2: Approve
Per
staff conditions and,
ADD
Current Planning condition:
·
Walls adjacent to public roads, wall height
to be measured from the road center line elevation.
The neighbors and the developer have worked very closely
together. They have produced a project
that will fit into the RNP and enhance their neighborhood. The developer's intent is to produce an open
look in the RNP similar to the established residences.
The developer agreed to limit the use of walls over 9 ft.
to section 5 only as described in the staff agenda sheet. The TAB added this as
a condition.
The TAB has consistently recommended that all streets
within the RNP be developed to rural standards and has done so again by
recommending approval of Waiver of Development Standards #2.
The TAB is concerned about the drainage through the
private streets. They asked if the water
flow would prevent the residents from using the street during a rain
storm. The project engineer assured the
TAB the streets would be usable.
The applicant stated the homes would front on
Currently
The applicant stated they would seek a waiver for homes
to front on
21. WS-0331-16 –
WAIVERS OF DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS for the
following: 1) permit alternative
landscaping; 2) waive off-site improvements (curbs, gutters, sidewalks,
street lights & partial paving); and 3) street intersection off-set.
DESIGN REVIEWS for
the following: 1) a proposed single family residential development; and 2) increase the finish grade for lots
within a proposed single family residential subdivision on 12.1 acres in an R-E (Rural Estates
Residential) (RNP-I) Zone. Generally located on the east side of
HOLD
to the June 15 TAB meeting per agreement of the applicant for the applicant to
hold a neighborhood meeting.
22. ZC-0266-16 – DMLV1, LLC:
DESIGN
REVIEW for a proposed office/warehouse building. Generally located on the
east side of
APPROVE
per staff conditions and,
ADD
Current Planning condition,
·
Design review as a public hearing for
lighting and signage.
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.