Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM
TO:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Richard Secrist, Development Services Director
DATE:
August 8, 2017
Consideration of Resolution No. 931 (All Secure Storage) to rezone 5.13 acres from Rural Residential (RE-3) and Single Family (SF) to Light Industrial Planned Unit Development (IR-PUD) located at 200 West Hafen Lane on Parcel 1 of the Bunkerville Irrigation Company Parcel Map. RE:
Background KT Legacy LLC is asking for a zone change and master plan amendment on this parcel in order to build a second phase of the All Secure self-storage units. It is being proposed as a Light Industrial Planned Unit Development in order to adopt specific standards and allowed uses for this site that are more restrictive than a standard Light Industrial district.
This parcel was previously owned by the Bunkerville Irrigation Company (BIC). In March of this year BIC subdivided a 5.63-acre parcel into two parcels. They created a 5.13 acre parcel fronting Hafen Lane (Lot 1), and they reserved a flag shaped parcel 1.5 acres in size behind it (Lot 2), with an access easement running the length of Lot 1 from Hafen Lane.
1
Approximately 75% of this parcel lies within FEMA’s 100-year floodplain (see map in staff memo). Either the parcel will have to undergo a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) through FEMA, or the ground floors of all buildings must be 18” above the base flood elevation.
Key Facts
The property has split zoning of SF and RE-3. The rezone will rectify the split zoning, putting it all in Light Industrial PUD Surrounding Zoning and Uses: o North – SF; Southern Heights Subdivision. o West – PROS; Town Wash o South – LR; Vacant o East – SF & RE-3; Vacant The zone change consists of 5.13 acres. This parcel is within the 100-year floodplain.
Site Characteristics and Zoning of property: This is a long rectangular parcel that is fairly flat. It is sandwiched between the All Secure Storage to the west and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) property to the east. The subject property sits just north of the Bunkerville Irrigation Company’s 1.5acre parcel which gives BIC access to the Bunkerville Irrigation Diversion Structure on the Virgin River. Past Flooding We know that during the floods of January 2005 and December 2010 that flood waters rose to the Bunkerville Irrigation Company and the BLM property east of there. Also
2
attached are a couple of photos from the 2005 flood showing damage to Hafen Lane a little further east.
This is why staff doesn’t believe housing should be put east of Town Wash, notwithstanding the 2003 Pulsipher Park Neighborhood Plan calling for the area south of Hafen Lane to be low-density residential. Under existing entitlements a residential subdivision could be developed with 8 or 9 dwelling units. Given the flood potential, staff doesn’t believe this is a wise use of the property. The range of best uses to worst uses might look something like the following: Open Space – 1 Single Dwelling – Low Intensity Storage – 8 to 9 Unit Residential Subdivision – Medium to High Density Multifamily Residential - Retail or High Intensity Industrial The owner of the property does have certain development rights under existing zoning with the expectation of a reasonable return. The question is, how can that best be accomplished? Compatibility of Proposed Use When the staff was first asked about the possibility of rezoning this property for selfstorage units we explained that we had some concerns. The big problem was that the first zone where this type of use is specifically listed as “permitted” is the Light Industrial (IR1) Zone. And this zone also happens to allow many uses that would not be appropriate at
3
this location. Uses such as Salvage Yards, Taverns, Truck Stops, Medical Marijuana Establishments, and many other such uses would not be compatible with surrounding residential neighborhoods. Staff also felt, however, that self storage units could be a quiet unobtrusive neighbor. They don’t generate much traffic, and they’re predominantly a daytime use, and typically have on-site management. So, staff talked to the applicant about limiting the uses by rezoning the property to a Planned Unit Development Zone where all the allowed uses and development standards could be negotiated up-front and included in a Design Standards Handbook. This is how the large Planned Communities are approved. Standards unique to their community are adopted with the overall master plan. These, in effect, become that community’s zoning regulations. Attached to this staff memo is the proposed Town Wash Storage PUD Design Standards Handbook. The intent of this handbook is to set forth the proposed “Permitted” and “Conditional Uses” to be allowed on the property, and to establish development and design standards to ensure a high quality addition to the City of Mesquite. Permitted Uses are those allowed by-right, requiring only the necessary building and development permits. Conditional Uses require a discretionary approval by City Council. They may be approved at certain locations, or under certain conditions. The list of proposed land use activities is much more limited than with a standard Light Industrial Zone. Principal Permitted Uses include: Moving and Storage Facilities; Storage Warehouse / Mini-Storage; and Business or Professional Offices. Conditional Uses include: Building Materials Storage or Sales Yard, Lumber Yard; Contractors Equipment Storage; and Auto / Trailer Sales. While not residential in nature, the list of commercial uses is very limited in scope to those uses with minor traffic impacts, and day-time hours of operation. Commercial Creep One of the usual objections neighbors have when commercial land uses are proposed in or near their neighborhood is whether it will be just the “foot-in-the-door” to other commercial uses. Will it be the beginning of changing the character of their established neighborhood? And if allowed, where will the creeping commercial end? Due to the flooding potential around this site, staff is taking the position that the property should not be developed residentially. Additionally, staff does not feel that commercial zoning should extend west of Town Wash, or to the north side of Hafen Lane. It should also not extend east beyond the Bunkerville Irrigation Company property. East of the Bunkerville Irrigation property is land owned by the United States Government and managed by the Bureau of Land Management. This ownership by the Federal
4
Government will limit any development further east. Any commercial zoning will not extend further south either due to the presence of the Virgin River and flood plain. Traffic The current ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 7th edition, shows that a mini-warehouse with 2 employees generates 10.5 vehicle trips per peak hour. This peak hour trip generation equates to about 105 average daily vehicle trips. A traffic impact study is not required for a given land use activity that generates less than 200 vehicle trips during the peak hour. One hundred daily trips is approximately the amount of traffic generated by 10 modest single family homes. Hours of Operation Self-storage and warehousing is generally a daytime activity with hours similar to a standard business office. There wouldn’t be a lot of night-time activity. And the applicant is proposing to have an on-site manager to lease the units and maintain the premises. Development Code Compliance Section 9-5-1 Master Plan Amendments, Subsection F Planning Commission Review sets forth the findings the Planning Commission and/or City Council must make to approve or deny a Zone Change / Master Plan Amendment: 4. Findings: When making its recommendation to the city council for approval, modification of an amendment or denial, the planning commission shall, at a minimum, make at least one of the following findings of fact (subsections F4a through F4e of this section), unless a military installation is required to be noticed, then in addition to findings listed below, a finding of fact (subsection F4f of this section) shall also be made: a. Consistency With Master Plan: (1) Approval: The proposed amendment substantially complies with the policies and action programs of the master plan. (2) Denial: The proposed amendment does not substantially comply with the policies and action programs of the master plan. Commentary: See discussion on Consistency with Master Plan Policies below. b. Compatible Land Uses:
5
(1) Approval: The proposed amendment will provide for land uses compatible with (existing or planned) adjacent land uses, will support the character of the neighborhood, and will not adversely impact the public health, safety or welfare. (2) Denial: The proposed amendment would result in land uses which are incompatible with (existing or planned) adjacent land uses, does not support the character of the neighborhood, and would adversely impact the public health, safety or welfare. Commentary: Staff believes the proposed Light Industrial PUD Zoning could be compatible with nearby residential properties in terms of noise, traffic, height of buildings, and appearance. The kinds of uses proposed are transitional uses one might see between residential properties and higher intensity commercial or industrial properties. And there are definite limits on how far commercial development could expand. c. Responds To Changed Conditions: (1) Approval: The proposed amendment responds to character changing events, changed conditions, or further studies that have occurred since the plan was adopted by the city council, and the requested amendment represents a more desirable utilization of land. (2) Denial: The proposed amendment does not identify and respond to character changing events, changed conditions, or further studies that have occurred since the plan was adopted by the city council, and the requested amendment does not represent a more desirable utilization of land. Commentary: Conditions have changed since adoption of the Pulsipher Park Neighborhood Plan. The floods of 2005 and 2010, together with the breach of the dike in this area demonstrate that this site is not ideal for residential development. d. No Adverse Effects: (1) Approval: The proposed amendment will not adversely affect the implementation of the Mesquite master plan policies and action programs, with respect to traffic capacity or safety, site conditions, public services or facilities, or environmentally sensitive areas or resources. (2) Denial: The proposed amendment will adversely affect the implementation of the Mesquite master plan policies and action programs, with respect to traffic capacity or safety, site conditions, public services or facilities, or environmentally sensitive areas or resources. Commentary: The proposed amendment will not adversely affect the implementation of the Mesquite master plan policies and action programs, with respect to traffic
6
capacity or safety, site conditions, public services or facilities, or environmentally sensitive areas or resources. e. Desired Pattern Of Growth: (1) Approval: The proposed amendment will promote the desired pattern for the orderly physical growth of the city and guides development of the city based on the projected population growth with the least amount of natural resource impairment and the efficient expenditure of funds for public services. (2) Denial: The proposed amendment does not promote the desired pattern for the orderly physical growth of the city. The proposed amendment does not guide development of the city based on the projected population growth with the least amount of natural resource impairment and the efficient expenditure of funds for public services. Consistency with Master Plan Policies: The proposed amendment was evaluated for consistency with adopted Master Plan policies. The following policies are considered relevant to the amendment request: Land Use Element: LU.3.2
Adopt a balanced development pattern with adequate commercial and industrial uses to diversify the community’s tax base.
LU.3.5
Ensure that existing and proposed land uses are compatible.
LU.3.8
Ensure appropriate transitions from residential areas to non-residential areas.
LU.3.9
Buffer commercial and industrial uses from residential uses and screen the visual encroachment that commercial development imposes upon residential.
Commentary: The Single Family (SF) and Rural Residential (RE-3) zoning districts were established in this area to allow a reasonable return on investments for vacant property owners and to maintain the lower intensity atmosphere that neighborhood residents currently enjoy. Areas in the flood plain were designated Rural Residential (RE-3) to minimize the number of residential properties subject to flooding. Staff believes the proposed Light Industrial PUD Zoning could be compatible with nearby residential properties in terms of noise, traffic, height of buildings, and appearance. The kinds of uses proposed are transitional uses one might see between residential properties and higher intensity commercial or industrial properties. And there are definite limits on how far commercial development could expand.
7
Community Involvement and Issues An applicant requesting a Master Plan/Zone Change Amendment must hold a neighborhood meeting prior to the public hearing. A neighborhood meeting was held Thursday, July 27, 2017. Invitations were sent to property owners of record within 750 feet of the property to be rezoned. The applicant was able to explain to those attending what he proposed for the property and answer questions and address concerns of neighbors. Previous Council Action On September 9, 2014 the City Council approved (5-0) Resolution 836 to rezone 4.16 acres at 300 W. Hafen Lane from Single Family (SF) and Rural Residential (RE-3) to Light Industrial Planned Development (IR-1 PUD). Recommendation Based upon the recommended findings and compliance with the Master Plan Goals and Policies, Staff recommends the City Council Adopt and endorse Zone Change Case No. ZCM-17-001 (All Secure Storage) by Resolution 931, authorize the Mayor to sign the Resolution, and direct the Zoning Official to change the Official Zoning Map. Motion For Approval If the City Council approves the application, then the following motion and findings should be considered as part of that action. The City Council shall, at minimum, make at least one finding of fact. The Mesquite City Council approves Zone Change Case No. ZCM-17-001 (200 W Hafen Lane), based upon the information presented in the staff report, written testimony and the testimony received during the public hearing. The Mesquite City Council authorizes the Mayor to sign the appropriate resolution. This action is based on the findings listed below. Findings a. Consistency with Master Plan. (1) Approval: The proposed amendment substantially complies with the policies and action programs of the Master Plan. b. Compatible Land Uses. (1) Approval: The proposed amendment will provide for land uses compatible with (existing or planned) adjacent land uses, will support the character of the neighborhood, and will not adversely impact the public health, safety or welfare.
8
c. Responds to Changed Conditions. (1) Approval: The proposed amendment responds to character changing events, changed conditions, or further studies that have occurred since the plan was adopted by the City Council, and the requested amendment represents a more desirable utilization of land. d. No Adverse Affects. (1) Approval: The proposed amendment will not adversely affect the implementation of the Mesquite Master Plan policies and action programs, with respect to traffic capacity or safety, site conditions, public services or facilities, or environmentally sensitive areas or resources. e. Desired Pattern of Growth. (1) Approval: The proposed amendment will promote the desired pattern for the orderly physical growth of the City and guides development of the City based on the projected population growth with the least amount of natural resource impairment and the efficient expenditure of funds for public services. An action for approval of any portion of the Master Plan amendment request requires a two-thirds (3 members) vote of the City Council under the provisions of NRS 278.210(3). Motion For Denial If the City Council denies the application, then the following motion and findings should be considered as part of that action. The City Council shall, at minimum, make at least one finding of fact. The Mesquite City Council denies Zone Change Case No. ZCM-17-001 (All Secure Storage) Zone Change Case No. ZCM-17-001 (All Secure Storage), based upon the information presented in the staff report, written testimony and the testimony received during the public hearing. This action is based on the findings listed below. Findings a. Consistency with Master Plan. (2) Denial: The proposed amendment does not substantially comply with the policies and action programs of the Master Plan. b. Compatible Land Uses. (2) Denial: The proposed amendment would result in land uses which are incompatible with (existing or planned) adjacent land uses, does not support
9
the character of the neighborhood, and would adversely impact the public health, safety or welfare. c. Responds to Changed Conditions. (2) Denial: The proposed amendment does not identify and respond to character changing events, changed conditions, or further studies that have occurred since the plan was adopted by the City Council, and the requested amendment does not represent a more desirable utilization of land. d. No Adverse Affects. (2) Denial: The proposed amendment will adversely affect the implementation of the Mesquite Master Plan policies and action programs, with respect to traffic capacity or safety, site conditions, public services or facilities, or environmentally sensitive areas or resources. e. Desired Pattern of Growth. (2) Denial: The proposed amendment does not promote the desired pattern for the orderly physical growth of the City. The proposed amendment does not guide development of the City based on the projected population growth with the least amount of natural resource impairment and the efficient expenditure of funds for public services. An action for denial of any portion of the Master Plan amendment request requires a simple majority vote of the City Council under the provisions of NRS 278.210.
10
Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Richard Secrist, Development Services Director
DATE:
August 8, 2017
Consideration of Resolution No. 931 (All Secure Storage) to rezone 5.13 acres from Rural Residential (RE-3) and Single Family (SF) to Light Industrial Planned Unit Development (IR-PUD) located at 200 West Hafen Lane on Parcel 1 of the Bunkerville Irrigation Company Parcel Map. RE:
Background KT Legacy LLC is asking for a zone change and master plan amendment on this parcel in order to build a second phase of the All Secure self-storage units. It is being proposed as a Light Industrial Planned Unit Development in order to adopt specific standards and allowed uses for this site that are more restrictive than a standard Light Industrial district.
This parcel was previously owned by the Bunkerville Irrigation Company (BIC). In March of this year BIC subdivided a 5.63-acre parcel into two parcels. They created a 5.13 acre parcel fronting Hafen Lane (Lot 1), and they reserved a flag shaped parcel 1.5 acres in size behind it (Lot 2), with an access easement running the length of Lot 1 from Hafen Lane.
1
Approximately 75% of this parcel lies within FEMA’s 100-year floodplain (see map in staff memo). Either the parcel will have to undergo a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) through FEMA, or the ground floors of all buildings must be 18” above the base flood elevation.
Key Facts
The property has split zoning of SF and RE-3. The rezone will rectify the split zoning, putting it all in Light Industrial PUD Surrounding Zoning and Uses: o North – SF; Southern Heights Subdivision. o West – PROS; Town Wash o South – LR; Vacant o East – SF & RE-3; Vacant The zone change consists of 5.13 acres. This parcel is within the 100-year floodplain.
Site Characteristics and Zoning of property: This is a long rectangular parcel that is fairly flat. It is sandwiched between the All Secure Storage to the west and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) property to the east. The subject property sits just north of the Bunkerville Irrigation Company’s 1.5acre parcel which gives BIC access to the Bunkerville Irrigation Diversion Structure on the Virgin River. Past Flooding We know that during the floods of January 2005 and December 2010 that flood waters rose to the Bunkerville Irrigation Company and the BLM property east of there. Also
2
attached are a couple of photos from the 2005 flood showing damage to Hafen Lane a little further east.
This is why staff doesn’t believe housing should be put east of Town Wash, notwithstanding the 2003 Pulsipher Park Neighborhood Plan calling for the area south of Hafen Lane to be low-density residential. Under existing entitlements a residential subdivision could be developed with 8 or 9 dwelling units. Given the flood potential, staff doesn’t believe this is a wise use of the property. The range of best uses to worst uses might look something like the following: Open Space – 1 Single Dwelling – Low Intensity Storage – 8 to 9 Unit Residential Subdivision – Medium to High Density Multifamily Residential - Retail or High Intensity Industrial The owner of the property does have certain development rights under existing zoning with the expectation of a reasonable return. The question is, how can that best be accomplished? Compatibility of Proposed Use When the staff was first asked about the possibility of rezoning this property for selfstorage units we explained that we had some concerns. The big problem was that the first zone where this type of use is specifically listed as “permitted” is the Light Industrial (IR1) Zone. And this zone also happens to allow many uses that would not be appropriate at
3
this location. Uses such as Salvage Yards, Taverns, Truck Stops, Medical Marijuana Establishments, and many other such uses would not be compatible with surrounding residential neighborhoods. Staff also felt, however, that self storage units could be a quiet unobtrusive neighbor. They don’t generate much traffic, and they’re predominantly a daytime use, and typically have on-site management. So, staff talked to the applicant about limiting the uses by rezoning the property to a Planned Unit Development Zone where all the allowed uses and development standards could be negotiated up-front and included in a Design Standards Handbook. This is how the large Planned Communities are approved. Standards unique to their community are adopted with the overall master plan. These, in effect, become that community’s zoning regulations. Attached to this staff memo is the proposed Town Wash Storage PUD Design Standards Handbook. The intent of this handbook is to set forth the proposed “Permitted” and “Conditional Uses” to be allowed on the property, and to establish development and design standards to ensure a high quality addition to the City of Mesquite. Permitted Uses are those allowed by-right, requiring only the necessary building and development permits. Conditional Uses require a discretionary approval by City Council. They may be approved at certain locations, or under certain conditions. The list of proposed land use activities is much more limited than with a standard Light Industrial Zone. Principal Permitted Uses include: Moving and Storage Facilities; Storage Warehouse / Mini-Storage; and Business or Professional Offices. Conditional Uses include: Building Materials Storage or Sales Yard, Lumber Yard; Contractors Equipment Storage; and Auto / Trailer Sales. While not residential in nature, the list of commercial uses is very limited in scope to those uses with minor traffic impacts, and day-time hours of operation. Commercial Creep One of the usual objections neighbors have when commercial land uses are proposed in or near their neighborhood is whether it will be just the “foot-in-the-door” to other commercial uses. Will it be the beginning of changing the character of their established neighborhood? And if allowed, where will the creeping commercial end? Due to the flooding potential around this site, staff is taking the position that the property should not be developed residentially. Additionally, staff does not feel that commercial zoning should extend west of Town Wash, or to the north side of Hafen Lane. It should also not extend east beyond the Bunkerville Irrigation Company property. East of the Bunkerville Irrigation property is land owned by the United States Government and managed by the Bureau of Land Management. This ownership by the Federal
4
Government will limit any development further east. Any commercial zoning will not extend further south either due to the presence of the Virgin River and flood plain. Traffic The current ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 7th edition, shows that a mini-warehouse with 2 employees generates 10.5 vehicle trips per peak hour. This peak hour trip generation equates to about 105 average daily vehicle trips. A traffic impact study is not required for a given land use activity that generates less than 200 vehicle trips during the peak hour. One hundred daily trips is approximately the amount of traffic generated by 10 modest single family homes. Hours of Operation Self-storage and warehousing is generally a daytime activity with hours similar to a standard business office. There wouldn’t be a lot of night-time activity. And the applicant is proposing to have an on-site manager to lease the units and maintain the premises. Development Code Compliance Section 9-5-1 Master Plan Amendments, Subsection F Planning Commission Review sets forth the findings the Planning Commission and/or City Council must make to approve or deny a Zone Change / Master Plan Amendment: 4. Findings: When making its recommendation to the city council for approval, modification of an amendment or denial, the planning commission shall, at a minimum, make at least one of the following findings of fact (subsections F4a through F4e of this section), unless a military installation is required to be noticed, then in addition to findings listed below, a finding of fact (subsection F4f of this section) shall also be made: a. Consistency With Master Plan: (1) Approval: The proposed amendment substantially complies with the policies and action programs of the master plan. (2) Denial: The proposed amendment does not substantially comply with the policies and action programs of the master plan. Commentary: See discussion on Consistency with Master Plan Policies below. b. Compatible Land Uses:
5
(1) Approval: The proposed amendment will provide for land uses compatible with (existing or planned) adjacent land uses, will support the character of the neighborhood, and will not adversely impact the public health, safety or welfare. (2) Denial: The proposed amendment would result in land uses which are incompatible with (existing or planned) adjacent land uses, does not support the character of the neighborhood, and would adversely impact the public health, safety or welfare. Commentary: Staff believes the proposed Light Industrial PUD Zoning could be compatible with nearby residential properties in terms of noise, traffic, height of buildings, and appearance. The kinds of uses proposed are transitional uses one might see between residential properties and higher intensity commercial or industrial properties. And there are definite limits on how far commercial development could expand. c. Responds To Changed Conditions: (1) Approval: The proposed amendment responds to character changing events, changed conditions, or further studies that have occurred since the plan was adopted by the city council, and the requested amendment represents a more desirable utilization of land. (2) Denial: The proposed amendment does not identify and respond to character changing events, changed conditions, or further studies that have occurred since the plan was adopted by the city council, and the requested amendment does not represent a more desirable utilization of land. Commentary: Conditions have changed since adoption of the Pulsipher Park Neighborhood Plan. The floods of 2005 and 2010, together with the breach of the dike in this area demonstrate that this site is not ideal for residential development. d. No Adverse Effects: (1) Approval: The proposed amendment will not adversely affect the implementation of the Mesquite master plan policies and action programs, with respect to traffic capacity or safety, site conditions, public services or facilities, or environmentally sensitive areas or resources. (2) Denial: The proposed amendment will adversely affect the implementation of the Mesquite master plan policies and action programs, with respect to traffic capacity or safety, site conditions, public services or facilities, or environmentally sensitive areas or resources. Commentary: The proposed amendment will not adversely affect the implementation of the Mesquite master plan policies and action programs, with respect to traffic
6
capacity or safety, site conditions, public services or facilities, or environmentally sensitive areas or resources. e. Desired Pattern Of Growth: (1) Approval: The proposed amendment will promote the desired pattern for the orderly physical growth of the city and guides development of the city based on the projected population growth with the least amount of natural resource impairment and the efficient expenditure of funds for public services. (2) Denial: The proposed amendment does not promote the desired pattern for the orderly physical growth of the city. The proposed amendment does not guide development of the city based on the projected population growth with the least amount of natural resource impairment and the efficient expenditure of funds for public services. Consistency with Master Plan Policies: The proposed amendment was evaluated for consistency with adopted Master Plan policies. The following policies are considered relevant to the amendment request: Land Use Element: LU.3.2
Adopt a balanced development pattern with adequate commercial and industrial uses to diversify the community’s tax base.
LU.3.5
Ensure that existing and proposed land uses are compatible.
LU.3.8
Ensure appropriate transitions from residential areas to non-residential areas.
LU.3.9
Buffer commercial and industrial uses from residential uses and screen the visual encroachment that commercial development imposes upon residential.
Commentary: The Single Family (SF) and Rural Residential (RE-3) zoning districts were established in this area to allow a reasonable return on investments for vacant property owners and to maintain the lower intensity atmosphere that neighborhood residents currently enjoy. Areas in the flood plain were designated Rural Residential (RE-3) to minimize the number of residential properties subject to flooding. Staff believes the proposed Light Industrial PUD Zoning could be compatible with nearby residential properties in terms of noise, traffic, height of buildings, and appearance. The kinds of uses proposed are transitional uses one might see between residential properties and higher intensity commercial or industrial properties. And there are definite limits on how far commercial development could expand.
7
Community Involvement and Issues An applicant requesting a Master Plan/Zone Change Amendment must hold a neighborhood meeting prior to the public hearing. A neighborhood meeting was held Thursday, July 27, 2017. Invitations were sent to property owners of record within 750 feet of the property to be rezoned. The applicant was able to explain to those attending what he proposed for the property and answer questions and address concerns of neighbors. Previous Council Action On September 9, 2014 the City Council approved (5-0) Resolution 836 to rezone 4.16 acres at 300 W. Hafen Lane from Single Family (SF) and Rural Residential (RE-3) to Light Industrial Planned Development (IR-1 PUD). Recommendation Based upon the recommended findings and compliance with the Master Plan Goals and Policies, Staff recommends the City Council Adopt and endorse Zone Change Case No. ZCM-17-001 (All Secure Storage) by Resolution 931, authorize the Mayor to sign the Resolution, and direct the Zoning Official to change the Official Zoning Map. Motion For Approval If the City Council approves the application, then the following motion and findings should be considered as part of that action. The City Council shall, at minimum, make at least one finding of fact. The Mesquite City Council approves Zone Change Case No. ZCM-17-001 (200 W Hafen Lane), based upon the information presented in the staff report, written testimony and the testimony received during the public hearing. The Mesquite City Council authorizes the Mayor to sign the appropriate resolution. This action is based on the findings listed below. Findings a. Consistency with Master Plan. (1) Approval: The proposed amendment substantially complies with the policies and action programs of the Master Plan. b. Compatible Land Uses. (1) Approval: The proposed amendment will provide for land uses compatible with (existing or planned) adjacent land uses, will support the character of the neighborhood, and will not adversely impact the public health, safety or welfare.
8
c. Responds to Changed Conditions. (1) Approval: The proposed amendment responds to character changing events, changed conditions, or further studies that have occurred since the plan was adopted by the City Council, and the requested amendment represents a more desirable utilization of land. d. No Adverse Affects. (1) Approval: The proposed amendment will not adversely affect the implementation of the Mesquite Master Plan policies and action programs, with respect to traffic capacity or safety, site conditions, public services or facilities, or environmentally sensitive areas or resources. e. Desired Pattern of Growth. (1) Approval: The proposed amendment will promote the desired pattern for the orderly physical growth of the City and guides development of the City based on the projected population growth with the least amount of natural resource impairment and the efficient expenditure of funds for public services. An action for approval of any portion of the Master Plan amendment request requires a two-thirds (3 members) vote of the City Council under the provisions of NRS 278.210(3). Motion For Denial If the City Council denies the application, then the following motion and findings should be considered as part of that action. The City Council shall, at minimum, make at least one finding of fact. The Mesquite City Council denies Zone Change Case No. ZCM-17-001 (All Secure Storage) Zone Change Case No. ZCM-17-001 (All Secure Storage), based upon the information presented in the staff report, written testimony and the testimony received during the public hearing. This action is based on the findings listed below. Findings a. Consistency with Master Plan. (2) Denial: The proposed amendment does not substantially comply with the policies and action programs of the Master Plan. b. Compatible Land Uses. (2) Denial: The proposed amendment would result in land uses which are incompatible with (existing or planned) adjacent land uses, does not support
9
the character of the neighborhood, and would adversely impact the public health, safety or welfare. c. Responds to Changed Conditions. (2) Denial: The proposed amendment does not identify and respond to character changing events, changed conditions, or further studies that have occurred since the plan was adopted by the City Council, and the requested amendment does not represent a more desirable utilization of land. d. No Adverse Affects. (2) Denial: The proposed amendment will adversely affect the implementation of the Mesquite Master Plan policies and action programs, with respect to traffic capacity or safety, site conditions, public services or facilities, or environmentally sensitive areas or resources. e. Desired Pattern of Growth. (2) Denial: The proposed amendment does not promote the desired pattern for the orderly physical growth of the City. The proposed amendment does not guide development of the City based on the projected population growth with the least amount of natural resource impairment and the efficient expenditure of funds for public services. An action for denial of any portion of the Master Plan amendment request requires a simple majority vote of the City Council under the provisions of NRS 278.210.
10
