Neighbors press notice and traffic concerns as Las Vegas council approves Kalita general plan amendment
Loading...
Summary
Council approved a general plan amendment for a 28.07-acre Kalita development that shifts the site from TOD2 (30 units/acre) to TOC1 (40 units/acre). Neighbors raised concerns about notification, traffic, height and tree loss; staff said statutory notice requirements were met and the developer committed to further neighborhood meetings.
The Las Vegas City Council voted Dec. 17 to approve a general plan amendment and related land-use entitlements for a 28.07-acre site proposed by Kalita Residential LLC, moving a property from TOD2 (30 units per acre) to TOC1 (allowing up to 40 units per acre). The hearing drew lengthy public comment from nearby residents who said they had not been properly notified and worried about traffic, school impacts and building heights.
Bob Groenauer, representing the applicant, told the council the request is an early step in a longer entitlement process and that staff and the planning commission had recommended approval. Groenauer said the developers plan mixed-use frontage with commercial along Sahara, and that detailed design, landscaping and traffic mitigation would be worked out during subsequent site-development review. He committed to holding further neighborhood meetings.
Residents at the hearing pressed several points. Daniel Hall and Sheldon Volgatz, who live near the site, said they had not received mailed notices and raised projections that they said suggested large increases in car trips and potential safety problems near a nearby elementary school. "This area cannot support that," one neighbor said, calling attention to narrow local streets and school walking routes. Staff (Seth Floyd and others) replied that the city’s records show notices were mailed to property owners within the required distance and that association notification is voluntary when associations are not properly registered with the city.
On questions about traffic and building height, staff explained that traffic impact analyses are typically completed at site-development review once a project’s layout is known, and that code limits and private covenants (CC&Rs) can affect final height and design. Groenauer said the firm had already held a neighborhood meeting and would hold additional meetings as plans are refined.
After extended discussion and commitments to additional outreach, Councilwoman Kelly moved to approve item 43; the motion carried.
Next steps for the proposal include site-development review, formal traffic and environmental studies, and possible further council review if the site plan returns to the council.
