Over the last year, the Enterprise TAB has heard several applications for places of worship. As part of those hearings, parking is consistently brought forward by residents as a problem. The hearings also brought out that the most impacted areas are residential uses. The Enterprise TAB is examining the following methods for determining place of worship parking requirements.
1. Alternative 1: The number of parking places be increased from 10 per 1000 sq ft to 13 per 1000 sq ft.
2. Alternative 2:
A. One parking place for each 2.5 seats available for services in any building on the property.
B. Buildings other than sanctuary be parked according to their most intense use.
C. Minister quarters per current Title 30 requirements.
D. The total parking requirement is the sum of all building uses on the property.
E. The number of sanctuary seats are determined by the Clark County Fire Department maximum occupancy standard.
3. No waiver of place of worship parking standards permitted in a residential area designated by the land use plan or residential zone district or overlay with residential component.
A place of worship can be a very intense land use in an area that is designated and designed for significantly less intense land uses. Several factors make place of worship use different from other land uses. These factors are:
1. Places of worship are permitted in all zoning districts.
2. Place of worship traffic patterns are simular to other assembly usages: sport arenas, movie theaters.
3. A high volume of vehicular traffic occurs over a short period of time.
4. Low/medium density residential areas are not designed or constructed to handle the vehicular volume.
5. Residents tend to be home during the hours of services.
6. Activities such as day care and outdoor events would not be normally permitted in residential areas, yet are allowed as church use and activities.
7.Back to back services require additional parking.
8. Religious schools add additional traffic and parking load.
The above factors require parking requirements for places of worship be consistent with the intensity of their use. Because a place of worship has the right to locate in any land use designation, careful consideration is required to protect surrounding landowners’ rights to use their land as designated in county land use plans.
The TAB has requested information from the county staff to further this discussion and provide quantitative analysis. The TAB will continue this discussion at its 9 April 2008 meeting.
Although many developers would prefer to ignore the following development code, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) is not obligated to grant the maximum height/density/intensity of any given application. For example, H-1 zoning along Las Vegas Blvd South permits hotels, apartments, and condominiums up to 100' without a use permit or waiver. However, the H-1 abuts several hard zoned RNP-1 neighborhoods 330' east of Las Vegas Blvd South. These properties (in the RNP-1) are zoned for .5 acres and above with height restrictions to 35'. In addition, many properties are larger and accommodate horses, cattle, and other large animals. Residents were adamantly opposed to maximum height H-1 zoning. Community meetings were held with Commissioner Woodbury, and a compromise of 55' was reached for all H-1 property that runs along the boundary of the RNPs.
Two developers (Mercury Development LLC and Stardust Towers LLC) have sued Clark County to have the 55' cap removed so that they can build to 100'. Both cases were lost in District Court (separately). The two judges involved ruled that Clark County did have the authority to limit development so that it does not adversely affect existing adjacent land uses.
Mercury Development LLC has taken their case to the Nevada Supreme Court. Court protocol mandates mediation before the item is heard. SWAN provided information for the mediation, and participated via telephone in one session. It is our understanding that the item will come back to the BCC which will determine whether the mediated settlement is acceptable.
Enterprise nominates a representative and an alternate to serve on the Community Development Advisory Committee for one year. Please contact the Enterprise TAB if you are interested in representing your community. Members will review applications, hearing presentations, participating on field trips and making recommendations for all CDBG, HOME, and Emergency Shelter Grant applications. The meetings will begin in October/November 2007. The meetings are planned for the first and third Tuesday evenings of each month beginning in October/November and ending in February 2008. Meetings will start at 6:00 pm and will be held at the Clark County Government Center.
Mixed Use Development (MUD) is a concept for planning communities that incorporate homes, shops, and office space. The idea is to create communities where people can live, work, and shop. Unfortunately, the current MUD laws allow developers to build vast numbers of homes with woefully inadequate shopping and office space. So the MUD overlay becomes pointless. SWAN is lobbying to rewrite the ordinances to require a sane balance.
Enterprise TAB recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners on Mixed-Use Development (MUD) within Enterprise. The discussion includes the intent of the MUD, current implementation and recommended changes.
Mixed-Use Development will significantly increase the need for public infrastructure and increase cost to Clark County and the Clark County School District (CCSD). The question is how does the county recover the infrastructure cost? The use of MUD complicates the forecasting and planning of public facilities because the property has dual uses which are vastly different. The use of small MUD projects without sufficient commercial component (currently defined as 20 acres or less) will result in high density housing without the mix of land uses needed for successful neighborhoods.
The TAB has examined two areas for comparison. The first is an area covered by the MUD overlay and bounded by Rainbow, Pebble, UPRR tracks and Blue Diamond Road. The second is the Mountain's Edge Master Plan agreement. The study area chosen is a small section of the total area covered by the Mixed-Use Development overlay in Enterprise. The results of this study would have to be multiplied many times to see the overall effect on Enterprise.
The study and cost comparison using the Enterprise Land Use Plan vs. the MUD overlay in a selected study area is attached on an Adobe acrobat file. All of the maps and data are taken from current county documents including Enterprise Land Use Plan, Enterprise Land Use map; MUD overlay map and the Mountain's Edge Master Plan and agreements. See the page on this web site devoted to the Mixed Use Development issue.