| 7/21/2021 |
Clark County Zoning Commission
|
Agenda note: SUBJECT MATTER: In the matter of the recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners receive a report on the Draft Master Plan for Transform Clark County, and direct staff accordingly. (For possible action):
REPRESENTATIVE(S): Present
SPEAKER(S): Present
DISCUSSION: Following introduction of the item, the Board was addressed by Darcie White and Paul Donegan, representatives of Clarion Associates, who provided the status on the consolidated draft of the Clark County Comprehensive Master Plan and Development Code update; stated that the update was on track per the proposed schedule and continued public outreach was planned; development code drafting was also to be continued with a meeting planned for fall 2021; advised that the public was engaged in the process through 4,200 survey responses, 43 online and in-person meetings, 311 individual comments and or letters received, and 529 meeting attendees; virtual meetings and online input would be ongoing; comments from the public included the need for a unified vision for Clark County, concerns regarding neighborhood character and rural lifestyles, desired clarity and predictability, and sustainable growth demands; a frequently asked questions portal had been created to respond to public concerns; technical information from the current master plan has been updated in an effort to supplement the update; the update had been based on core values as determined by feedback which included unique communities, neighborhoods and lifestyles, equitable access to programs, services and amenities, a healthy and sustainable natural and built environment, a more connected Clark County, a diverse and resilient economy, and sustainable and resilient growth and development; per NRS 278.160 the master plan was required to include topical elements with subtopics which consisted of housing, historic preservation, land use, recreation and open space, conservation, transportation, public facilities and services, and safety; supplemental information in the form of text boxes and graphics were incorporated to answer questions frequently asked by community members such as water plans that would meet growth demands, environmental considerations; in response to public comments, a section was added at the end of each core value in the Goals and Policies that provided explanations on how those goals and policies aligned with the County’s Alignment with Sustainability and Climate Action Plan, and would help advance some of the more technical aspects of the All In Clark County effort; the third section of the plan was the Growth Framework and was focused on how the County would grow, and the factors that influenced the growth; the 11 existing land use plan designations would be combined to one location for ease of use and administration; there had been some consolidation of categories with similar uses, density and intensity; almost all districts had some renaming in an effort to describe intent and character of the area; current RR and RA categories that pertained to outlying areas of Clark County were proposed to be consolidated into one category, and after input from the public the designations were not consolidated but were updated to ON for Outlying Neighborhood, and EN for Edge Neighborhood; shared information on other minor name changes that included RN for Ranch Estate Neighborhood, LN for Low- and Medium- Intensity Suburban, and PU for Public Use; each land use category had a page dedicated to photos, graphics, maps, density and common characteristics of the area, primary and supporting land uses, and key considerations; key considerations in identification of neighborhood land use categories included mixed housing types, infill development and elimination of abrupt transitions, connectivity between and within neighborhoods and commercial developments, and general neighborhood livability; key considerations in commercial, mixed use, and employment areas included connectivity and walkability, improved compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods, proximity and connections to supportive uses, residential compatibility, and conversion of employment land; key considerations in all categories needed to include sustainable development practices; neighborhood land use categories reviews that would convert density ranges to the maximum with the maximum not always desirable or achievable, retain rural character, distinguish large lot neighborhoods from those that that met NRS 278.0177; commercial and mixed-use land use categories would maintain one commercial-focused option, encouraged a flexible mix of uses in targeted locations, and placed emphasis on more walkable and transit-friendly development; employment land use categories would better define limits of supporting services such as commercial and retail, heavy industrial options would be maintained, and transitions to lower-intensity uses would be addressed; the Other land use category was intended to differentiate developed parks and opens lands from State and Federal lands, and carried agriculture forward, reorganized public facilities and institutional categories to group uses with similar impacts such as public lands versus services and infrastructure; and Public Facilities (PF) would become Public Use (PU); information was shared regarding the land use plan conversion or how the categories were mapped, included conversion of existing land uses to proposed equivalents based on use, density, and intensity, with no changes in designation such as residential to commercial, translation of the master plan based on zoning, area-specific maps that would be reviewed at Town Advisory Boards and Citizens Advisory Councils, area-specific maps would be included in the adoption of the draft, and that the process did not include any changes of designations and renamed categories, and clarified content and characteristics; the approach to area specific goals and policies reduced repetition and inconsistency; technical information would be shifted to the appendix, regulations would be added to Title 30; more focus would be applied to the "what" and less on the "how"; cross references to specific County policies would be included; the implementation section reflected what efforts would be County-led versus County-supported, and would set the stage for code updates; coordination of related plans and studies was reviewed which included All-In Clark County, Maryland Parkway Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Plan, the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) Access 2050 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), the Stadium District Development Plan and others; proposed methods that would amend or update the plan would be more refined and strategic, addressed and categorized in four categories which included minor amendments that related to address errors, name changes, or statistical information; major amendments that would clear evaluation criteria; review land use plans based on location and or thresholds that were based on evolving versus stable; or amendments by applications; and details on next steps towards finalization of the update were shared which included two upcoming August stakeholder meetings, virtual open house participation would be available through the end of August, TAB and CAC meetings would be held through August and September 2021, public hearings would be held in November 2021, and development code draft, review, and public meetings held October 2021 through December 2022.
In response to questions from the Board, the representatives advised that the final draft of the update would be presented to the Board prior to final discussion and vote; that splitting ON and EN specifically protected areas such as Overton and Moapa Valley; RN carried forward RNP for up to two units per acre; clarifications were added in growth framework section; and that density may be reduced based on standards that applied from the utilities or other environmental conditions.
Staff responded to questions from the Board, stated that the Update made it clear that characteristics that existed in surrounding areas were those that we wanted to protect, and those characteristics would be defined it in the master plan, and those characteristics were expanded in Title 30; tiny homes would be addressed in code updates, and further discussions regarding infrastructure availability, nearby job opportunities and public transportation related to tiny home locations would be necessary; that an item to discuss recommendations on tiny homes would be brought before the Board for discussion; Town Board meetings for outlying areas would be focused on only components that applied to their areas; code requests would be coordinated with consultants through Nancy Amundsen and Sami Real; that further discussions regarding increased standards, regulations and outside storage on properties would be needed for industrial areas; and that a moratorium was put on nonconforming zone changes months ago whereby those requests required approval by the Commissioner of the district with the understanding that there were no guarantees that the request would be granted.
Commissioner Kirkpatrick then opened the floor for comments.
Interested parties expressed concerns regarding preservation and expansion of RNP’s and rural neighborhood homeowner rights, non-conforming zoning applications, smart growth; restricted or reduced non-conforming zoning applications; the need for smart growth; restrictive effects of R1 and R2 zoned on family homes, children, handicapped and the elderly; the need for stronger language in nonconforming zone changes; retention and preservation of rural trails; responsible development; preservation of half-acre lots; recommendations for BLM land offered in smaller parcels; and implementation of reduced limitations or depletions of buffers.
Commissioner Kirkpatrick stated that the Master Plan Update would ensure that codes were in place to keep existing rural areas, that characteristics are maintained and standards within codes; that there were no zoning changes within the master plan update only name changes that more appropriately reflected the areas for preservation. | |
Action details
|
Meeting details
|
Video/Audio
|