| 10/20/2021 |
Clark County Zoning Commission
| Approved
Agenda note: SUBJECT MATTER: In the matter of the aforementioned described application of G2-Campus Village, LLC (Frank Marretti) for a zone change, use permits, waivers of development standards, and design reviews (as indicated on the ATTACHED agenda item):
REPRESENTATIVE(S): Present
SPEAKER(S): Present
DISCUSSION: There being no objections, Item No. 38 was taken in conjunction with Item Nos. 39 and 40.
Following introduction of Item Nos. 38, 39, and 40, the Board was addressed by J. T. Moran, the applicant’s representative, who advised that the proposed project was of regional significance and was consistent with the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) Chancellor’s long-term plans.
Edward Vance, the applicant’s architect, advised the Board of the overall master plan for UNLV; the project included the fourth student housing facility for the UNLV campus; the proposed student housing structure to the north of the site was incrementally larger; the proposed structure to the south of the site was composed of office space, with the primary tenant being UNLV; 7-Eleven had a long-term lease and will be moved into a new structure with tenants on either side; secured, podium parking will be constructed under each structure with approximately 123 parking spaces, and some surface parking will be available surrounding the retail structure; the proposed structures lead to a mixed-use UNLV Gateway development located to the left of Maryland Parkway; the design fits within the overall campus plan and is similar to the design plan used to develop the Arizona State University campus located in Tempe, Arizona; advised of working with staff and requested to withdraw waivers of development standards Nos. 5A, 5C, 5E, 5G, 5H, and 5J.
Discussion followed regarding the landscaping reduction and areas of concern including the most visible portion of the site was the north east corner of the parcel where the existing 7-Eleven was located; the majority of the landscaping was proposed for the corner of Maryland Parkway and Harmon Avenue where two driveways were located; heat from concrete, asphalt, large buildings, and the reflection; the design was balanced between the university system’s needs, remaining consistent and compatible with the University’s master plan of directing students across the street towards the Gateway development, and with providing amenities and living arrangements on a relatively small piece of property.
In response to Commissioner Segerblom, staff advised of concerns regarding the potential reduction of the sidewalk size and landscaping with the installation of the bus stop on Maryland Parkway, the difficulty for staff to conduct the continuous review of adjustments to the proposed project, and the rapid transit studies conducted on Maryland Parkway for passengers to utilize public transportation to various locations including the medical district and downtown.
Commissioner Gibson discussed the requested waivers; foot traffic versus vehicles; administrative changes; the community and neighborhood plan; and expressed concerns regarding the reduction in the width of the sidewalk and landscaping with the installation of the bus stop.
Julia Izzolo, the applicant’s civil engineer, advised of working with the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) who requested a ten foot wide easement, not a turnout, to install a station; the station will be 80 feet by ten feet wide with an adjacent easement for NV Energy equipment; and further advised that the applicant will be able to accommodate the request within the site plan.
Commissioner Gibson and Julia Izzolo discussed the bus rapid transit dedicated lane adjacent to the curb, the applicant’s accommodations, and the addition of a condition for the applicant to coordinate with the RTC on the project.
The Board was addressed by Frank Marretti, the applicant’s representative from G2 Capital Development, who advised that the RTC’s bus stop plans were not finalized, expressed support for the RTC’s bus rapid transit project on Maryland Parkway, and agreed to work with and coordinate plans for the bus stop with the RTC.
Erik Swendseid, the applicant’s architect, advised of creating an alternate pedestrian realm to address landscaping concerns; the gap in the trees located along Maryland Parkway was for a site visibility zone; faced multiple constraints when developing the landscaping; structured shading was planned for the middle of the plaza; and detached sidewalks were located along the south portion of the site to provide space for trees.
The meeting recessed for a ten minute break at 11:27 a.m.
Upon reconvening, Commissioner Miller made a disclosure and advised of abstaining on this matter.
George Garcia, representing a neighbor to the east, advised that the item was a transformative project for Maryland Parkway; expressed support for the proposed purpose of the project; and expressed safety concerns regarding the traffic conditions as the neighbor’s driveway was located in close proximity to the applicant’s proposed driveway in addition to being close to the Harmon intersection.
In response to Commissioner Segerblom, staff advised that a traffic study was submitted; staff will be reviewing the study upon approval of the final conditions; traffic mitigation is the fee based on the number of trips during peak hours; staff will be reviewing other concerns during the mitigation process; and the applicant was in compliance with the County’s standards by withdrawing the request for waivers.
George Garcia, the neighbor’s representative, advised that the traffic mitigation letter was usually a fee and requested that the County perform an analysis of the traffic conditions; and further advised that per the applicant’s RISE (Regional Infrastructure Services Evaluation) report the proposed project was going to be almost 570,000 square feet and was going to increase the average daily trips 46% above the transportation plan, and that the increase warrants a more extensive look.
Commissioner Segerblom advised that further discussion would be held with the applicant, RTC, staff, and the neighbor to discuss any concerns regarding the increased traffic.
Staff advised that any reduction in the sidewalk and additional impacts to the approved site would require approval through the Board. | Pass |
Action details
|
Meeting details
|
Video/Audio
|