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.
AGENDA
Public Comment NONE
Approval of September 28, 2016 Minutes
(For possible action) APPROVED
Approval of Agenda for October 12, 2016
and Hold, Combine or Delete Any Items (For possible action) APPROVED
Companion items:
7. DR-0662-16 -
COUNTY OF CLARK (AVIATION):
8. TM-0142-16 -
COUNTY OF CLARK (AVIATION):
11. VS-0663-16
- COUNTY OF CLARK (AVIATION):
9. TM-0143-16 -
TENAYA
12. VS-0667-16
- TENAYA
14. WS-0665-16
- TENAYA
Informational Items
Announcements of upcoming neighborhood meetings and County or community meetings and events. (For discussion)
·
Clark County School
District holding a neighborhood meeting on October 24, 2016, 6pm at 4905
Chartan Ave. to discuss and receive feedback on a new Elementary school.
·
LVMPD’s Trunk or
Treat will be held at the Enterprise Area Command 6975 W. Windmill October 27,
2016, 6pm-10 pm in partnership with the Windmill Library 7060 W Windmill.
Town
Advisory Board applications are being accepted for the 2-year term beginning
January 2017. Applications can be found at www.ClarkCountynv.gov (For discussion
only)
The Community
Development Block Grant program is looking for Enterprise to nominate/ appoint
a representative and alternate to serve on the Community Development Advisory
Committee. (For discussion only)
Planning & Zoning
1. Discuss and direct Staff accordingly required possible changes to Clark County’s Title 30 parking requirements (For possible action). (For the complete document see http://www.lvswan.org/Parking_study.pdf )
The parking study is the result of County Commissioner
direction. An outside consultant
examined four shopping areas for parking use.
Then stakeholders were consulted to produce the draft documents
presented to the TAB.
The TAB comments
were as follows:
·
The rapid transit
and mass transit facilities are not sufficiently developed within the valley to
support the suggested parking requirements.
o
The hot weather was
not considered when prescribing how far people would have to walk to rapid/mass
transit and then to their destination.
o
It will be many
years before rapid/mass transit are developed sufficiently to support reduced
parking requirements.
o
If the proposed
parking standards are adopted, it will harm businesses and their patrons.
·
The parking
recommendations appear focused on high density urban environment, not
suburban/rural areas predominant in Enterprise.
·
Enterprise already
has insufficient parking in some areas.
o
The current and
proposed parking standards are based on square footage.
o
The square footage
standard needs to be coupled with other metrics such as the number of seats and
the length of the patrons’ visit.
o
This would apply to
movie theaters, sit down restaurants, churches and other uses.
·
The over park
decision should rest with the business owner.
o
How the over parking
is accommodated should be the business owner’s decision.
o
Studies should not
be required to park over the county standard.
o
The proposed parking
studies change the county from a minimum parking standard to a maximum
standard.
·
The proposal is
overly optimistic on bicycle use.
·
Long term bicycle
stay requirements are not practical and should be eliminated.
·
The elimination of
the diamond planter box is being replaced by larger planter beds and should be
encouraged.
·
The proposed parking
spaces are not long enough or wide enough for larger vehicles.
·
The drive aisles do
not provide enough turning or maneuvering room for larger vehicles.
2. ADR-0727-14
(ET-0129-16) – HUGHES FAMILY #6, LLC:
Motion to:
APPROVED per staff conditions;
ADD current planning conditions:
• Design Review as a
public hearing for significant changes to plans.
• Design Review as a
public hearing for lighting and signage.
Motion PASSED
ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME to commence a retail building in conjunction with an existing shopping center on 0.3 acres in a C-2 (General Commercial) Zone. Generally located on the southwest corner of Rainbow Boulevard and Eldorado Lane within Enterprise. SS/co/raj (For possible action) PC 11/1/16
The TAB commented the proposed business will be an
excellent addition to the area merchants.
Lighting and signage were not covered in the application. The TAB recommends these two items be subject
to a public Design Review to keep them consistent with the adjoining
businesses.
The TAB requests a condition for Design Review for
significant changes to plans as a public hearing because the project has been
proposed for two years and may change in the future.
3. NZC-0648-16
– LV SILVERADO WEST, LLC:
Motion to:
APPROVED per staff conditions;
Zone Change limited to 362 units
CHANGE current planning Bullet # 9 to include a Design Review for
lighting;
ADD current planning conditions:
• Design Review as a
public hearing for significant changes to plans.
Motion PASSED
DESIGN REVIEW for a proposed multiple
family residential development. Generally located on the
north side of
This parcel has been the subject of several land use
changes over several years, some bitterly opposed by the neighbors. The current application is the result of
negotiations between the applicant, abutting residents, Commissioner Sisolak
and Staff. This resulted in the overall
unit count being reduced and several conditions being agreed to.
The applicant requested a density of 18.3 units/acre. This is just above the R-3 limit of 18
units/acre. The TAB proposed the zone
change be limited to 18.3 units per acre.
The applicant countered with a limit of 362 apartment units. The unit level was agreed to and recommended
as a zone change condition.
Signage Design Review is a Current Planning
condition. The TAB requests a lighting
design review be added to the Current Planning condition. The TAB is particularly concerned with
adjacent homes that are side loaded on the northern property line.
Any significant changes to plans should be reviewed as a
Design Review given the extensive negotiations to move this project forward. The TAB recommends a Design Review as a
public hearing for significant changes to plans.
4. VS-0644-16
– PRESTIGE FAMILY GROUP, LLC:
Held by applicant to
VACATE
5. VS-0645-16
– D.R. HORTON, INC:
DENIED
VACATE
This application is confusing for several reasons:
·
The section of
·
The explanations of
how the two vacation applications effect the
·
The application
described the easement to be vacated as the western side of
·
The applicant’s
presentation was for the east side of Rossana north of
·
The application did
not include a detailed vacate and abandon description vs. the justification
letter description.
·
The applicant stated
the west side of Rossana was a private agreement between the resident and
Wal-Mart and did not want to get involved.
·
The TAB believes the
requirement for documented legal access make it a public matter.
·
The TAB could not
determine if the conditions for the Wal-Mart vacate and abandon have been met.
Other questions that were not resolved:
What happens to the residents’ street address when the
street is vacated?
How is the residence location resolved by emergency
service?
How are Republic Services pick ups handled when the
right-of-way is vacated?
Is access to the wellhead guaranteed?
Due to the lack of accurate information the TAB decided
the best course of action was to recommend application be denied.
6. VS-0657-16
– SCHIRKA, FRANK J.:
Held by applicant to
VACATE
7. DR-0662-16
–
APPROVED
DESIGN REVIEWS for the following:
1) modifications to an approved data processing center; and
2) increased finished grade on 17.2 acres in an M-D (Designed Manufacturing) Zone.
Generally
located on the south side of
8. TM-0142-16
–
APPROVED
TENTATIVE
9. TM-0143-16
– TENAYA
DENIED
TENTATIVE
The recommendation for WS-0665-16 – TENAYA
10. UC-0652-16
–
Motion to:
APPROVED per staff conditions;
CHANGE use permit #3 to reduce setback to 7 ft. reduction;
ADD current planning conditions:
·
Design Review as a
public hearing lighting and signage;
·
Design Review as a
public hearing for significant changes to plans.
Motion PASSED
USE PERMITS for the following:
1) convenience store;
2) gasoline station; and
3) reduce the setback of a gasoline station from a residential use.
WAIVER OF CONDITIONS of a zone change (ZC-0912-08) requiring the trash enclosure to be moved to the northwest corner of the site.
DESIGN REVIEWS for the following:
1) convenience store; and
2) gasoline station on 1.9 acres in a C-1 (Local Business) Zone.
Generally
located on the south side of
The application was opposed by a resident because there
are already sufficient convenience stores and gas stations in the immediate
vicinity.
The applicant requested one waiver for an eighth fuel
pump. The eighth fuel pump was to be
added later, if needed. The TAB
recommend this pump be eliminated. This
would reduce the setback waiver from residential to 7 Ft. or a 3.5%
reduction. The applicant agreed with
this change.
Lighting and signage were not presented in this application
and the applicant intends to bring those items forward in another application.
The project design has cross access to the other adjacent
commercial parcels and included 42 parking places.
Due to the residential properties in the neighborhood,
any significant changes to plans should be reviewed as a public Design Review.
11. VS-0663-16
–
APPROVED
VACATE
12. VS-0667-16
- TENAYA
APPROVED
VACATE
13. WS-0640-16
– 32 ACRES, LLC:
Motion to:
APPROVED per staff conditions;
CHANGE Design Review #2 to increase finished grade from 8 ft. to 5
ft.
ADD current planning conditions:
• Design review as a
public hearing lighting and signage;
• Design review as a
public hearing for significant changes to plans and future pad development;
• Establish cross
access with property to the north if developed with compatible uses;
·
East property line wall
to be 8 ft. high.
Motion PASSED
WAIVER OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS to reduce the separation between an intersection and a driveway approach.
WAIVER OF CONDITIONS of a zone change
(ZC-1252-03) requiring right-of-way dedication for
DESIGN REVIEWS for the following:
1) proposed retail center including a tavern; and
2) increased finished grade
for
a proposed retail center on 4.5 acres in a C-2 (General Commercial) Zone within
the MUD-1 and MUD-4 Overlay Districts. Generally located
on the east side of
The TAB recommends this application be approved with the
suggested additional conditions. The
proposed tavern meets all Title 30 Standards.
The neighbors were concerned with the following:
·
Having a tavern in
the neighborhood.
·
Design of the tavern.
·
Design of the three
additional pads.
·
What would be
visible to residents?
·
What uses would be on
the future pads?
·
How would the
powerline easement be handled by the applicant?
The TAB considered the following:
·
The application is
for a Design Review as the zoning was previously granted.
·
The tavern meets all
Title 30 standards.
·
Uses on the future 3
pads should be reviewed due to residential uses to the east.
·
Lighting and signage
were not included in the application.
·
Cross access to the
north was not provided.
·
Applicant’s engineer
stated cross access may not be possible due to grade differences.
·
The property does
not have an easement for the powerline.
·
Residents requested
a higher wall along the eastern boundary and applicant agreed to an 8 ft. wall.
·
Applicant’s engineer
stated that no more than 5 Ft. of fill would be required for the site.
Based on the TAB considerations the recommendation is to
approved the project with the 4 additional conditions.
14. WS-0665-16
– TENAYA
Motion to:
APPROVED
Waiver of Development standards, Design Review # 2;
Deny
Waiver of Conditions, Design Review # 1
ADD current planning conditions:
• Comply with
Mountain’s Edge architectural color pallet, Lighting standards and landscape
pallet;
·
Extend the side walk on
one side into the cul-de-sacs;
Per staff if approved conditions.
Motion PASSED
WAIVER OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS to reduce street off-set.
WAIVER OF CONDITIONS of a zone change
(ZC-0613-06) requiring right-of-way dedication to include 40 feet for drainage
and paseo along the
DESIGN REVIEWS for the following:
1) a proposed single family residential development; and
2) increased finished grade on 4.7 acres
in
an R-2 (Medium Density Residential) Zone. Generally located
on the south side of
The
The applicant position:
·
The paseo is fully
built out and the dedication is no longer needed.
·
The applicant will
extend the sidewalk to one side of the cul-de-sacs.
·
The sub division
will be built per Mountain’s Edge Guidelines.
·
Intersection offset
is due to
The TAB considerations:
·
The staff has cited
several policies that do not support the applicant’s request to vacate the
paseo.
·
The paseo is part of
a linear park and should be developed as such.
·
Only one other
instance of reduced paseo width can be found in Mountain’s Edge.
·
All other sections
of the paseo have been developed to the 40 ft. width.
·
The paseo, adjacent
to the applicant’s property, could be developed with additional passive
amenities.
·
Linear park space
should not be removed to add additional homes.
The TAB recommends the paseo be developed as a linear
park as originally planned. The Design
Review for the development is not consistent with the paseo development and
should be denied. The project needs to
be redesigned to accommodate the paseo.
15. ZC-0169-16
– LEGEND
Motion to:
APPROVED per staff if approved conditions;
Motion PASSED
AMENDED HOLDOVER
The
WAIVERS OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS for the following:
1) reduce parking (not previously notified);
2)
requirements for shared access easements (
3)
enhanced paving (
4) cross access and shared parking easements (not previously notified); and
5) alternative landscaping (not previously notified).
DESIGN REVIEW for an office/warehouse
facility (not previously notified). Generally located
on the south side of
The staff recommended denial of this application due to
reduced parking and possible future parking requirements if the use changes.
The TAB considered the following:
·
The applicant intends
to occupy the entire building.
·
The surrounding property
uses are not conducive to cross access.
·
There is no
opportunity for additional parking once this site is constructed.
·
The site is
surrounded with a security fence.
·
Any other use would
have to consider the reduced parking as part of their due diligence, and not likely lease or purchase the property, if more than
60 parking spaces were required.
The TAB recommends the application be approved including all
Waivers of Development Standards.
16. ZC-0656-16
– MAILLAND, JUAN
APPROVED
per staff if approved conditions.
ADD current planning conditions:
·
Design review as a
public hearing lighting and signage;
·
Design review as a
public hearing for significant changes to plans.
Motion PASSED
USE PERMIT to waive paving for an outside area used for parking, storing, and maneuvering equipment and materials.
WAIVERS OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS for the following:
1) parking lot landscaping;
2) street landscaping; and
3) off-site improvements (sidewalk and streetlights only).
DESIGN REVIEW for an outside storage
yard and ancillary building. Generally
located on the west side of Redwood Street, 135 feet south of Richmar Avenue
within
This application is in
The applicant requests would result in their property being
developed in a manner like other developed properties in the area. Until the future development of
General Business NONE
Comments by the General Public –
Constituent again raised concerns about transparency regarding Southern Highland Development Agreements.
Next Meeting Date:
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.