×

Warning message

The installed version of the browser you are using is outdated and no longer supported by Konveio. Please upgrade your browser to the latest release.

Henderson Strong Planned Land Uses

Review the Land Use Plan and Categories before March 6

In anticipation of the March 6 meeting to workshop the Land Use Plan and Land Use Categories, please review and add any questions, comments, or suggestions to the maps and category descriptions below. This will help guide and focus the discussion. Some questions to consider while reviewing:

  • What Land Use descriptions need to be revised?
  • Do the permitted zoning categories need to be adjusted?
  • What specific map changes need to be considered?
  • What policies or tools should the City consider to reinforce this Land Use Plan?
File name:

-

File size:

-

Title:

-

Author:

-

Subject:

-

Keywords:

-

Creation Date:

-

Modification Date:

-

Creator:

-

PDF Producer:

-

PDF Version:

-

Page Count:

-

Page Size:

-

Fast Web View:

-
Choose an option Alt text (alternative text) helps when people can’t see the image or when it doesn’t load.
Aim for 1-2 sentences that describe the subject, setting, or actions.
This is used for ornamental images, like borders or watermarks.
Preparing document for printing…
0%
Comment Drag

Click anywhere in the document to add a comment. Select a bubble to view comments.
Document is loading Loading Glossary…
Powered by Konveio
View all

Comments

Close

Add comment

SiteAdmin Mar 6 2025 at 3:55PM on page 10

Question whether this is still appropriate. Do Planned Communities rezone or change their land uses after the final development agreement is approved?
replies
in reply to AS's comment

SiteAdmin Mar 6 2025 at 3:46PM on page 10

There are big catalyst sites in the OSTP in West Henderson and other places. Map should reflect those projects.
Question to add an Open Space land use designation, even if there isn't a zoning district. Some people liked the idea of a specific Open Space land use because the PS land use implies development. There's not a land use that prioritizes preservation of open space.
replies

SiteAdmin Mar 6 2025 at 3:42PM on page 9

Should double check if we still use any of the Downtown zoning districts. Opps for redevelopment?
replies
in reply to AS's comment

SiteAdmin Mar 6 2025 at 3:41PM on page 9

CH is not used anymore.
replies
in reply to AWR's comment

SiteAdmin Mar 6 2025 at 3:39PM on page 9

Need to differentiate these or merge them. Need to revisit the primary and secondary uses. Should also define what is a primary vs secondary use -- use a threshold?
replies

SiteAdmin Mar 6 2025 at 3:33PM on page 8

The goal is to discourage warehousing. Need to look at the description and geographically where this land use is designated.
replies

SiteAdmin Mar 6 2025 at 3:23PM on page 6

Take out MC and add MN instead.
replies

SiteAdmin Mar 6 2025 at 3:16PM on page 6

Question: Whether we should merge Neighborhood Types into the other land use categories or transition the other residential categories to fit within the NT categories? NT is only found in West Henderson, intending to provide more flexibility and mixed use. Is there still the desire to incorporate small commercial (neighborhood-serving) within neighborhoods. Need to look across the city to see if there is common ground between NT categories and other residential categories.
replies

SiteAdmin Mar 6 2025 at 3:13PM on page 4

Be consistent in townhomes/townhouses
replies

SiteAdmin Mar 6 2025 at 3:12PM on page 4

If we add RM-16, we should include those housing products here.
replies

SiteAdmin Mar 6 2025 at 3:10PM on page 4

Universal comment to look closely at the primary and secondary uses. How can use this as development proposals come in?
replies

SiteAdmin Mar 6 2025 at 3:08PM on page 4

Note: Zoning Districts are all maximums.
replies
in reply to Shelly Labay's comment

SiteAdmin Mar 6 2025 at 3:07PM on page 4

Yes, we can look at places for HDR is appropriate.
replies

Erica Mar 6 2025 at 2:31PM on page 1

Suggested Revision
TOD land use is not compatible with IL zoning at this location (APN 17813313024).
replies

AR Mar 6 2025 at 12:09PM on page 2

Comment
we should explore doing a LVBS specific plan.
replies

AR Mar 6 2025 at 12:07PM on page 6

Comment
we should remove all the MUD zones from this LU.
replies

AF Mar 6 2025 at 9:33AM on page 1

Suggested Revision
Ensure alignment of the PS land use areas with recent OSTP update that identified catalyst sites, especially for the areas of West Henderson and Eldorado Valley.
replies

AF Mar 6 2025 at 9:31AM on page 1

Question
Curious if the NT designations should be updated to match the other LU designations.
replies

SGA Mar 5 2025 at 8:43PM on page 6

Comment
Density range should be higher per the typo note. Having said that, do we keep RS-8 under NT3 when the Code describes RS-8 as low-density residential? Seems NT3 should be medium-high density residential.
replies

SGA Mar 5 2025 at 8:28PM on page 1

Comment
Suggest a transitional land use adjacent to the industrial master plan if less intense land uses are envisioned to the west.
replies

SGA Mar 5 2025 at 8:23PM on page 1

Question
With the increasing amount of heavy truck traffic to this part of West Henderson, is there a way to designate/require certain roads for these truck heavy trucks only? There is arguably a safety issue in sharing roads with regular vehicles in town, and also the weight of these freight trucks typically damages standard roadways with more frequent use.
replies

SGA Mar 5 2025 at 8:14PM on page 1

Suggested Revision
Work with Parks and Property Management to identify property that would likely be preserved, and change the designation to PS. There seems to be a large amount of VLDR land could fall into this category.
replies

AS Mar 5 2025 at 3:50PM on page 10

Suggested Revision
Clarification is needed for areas within PS - consider adding recommendations from OSTP in to Henderson Strong update.
replies

AS Mar 5 2025 at 3:46PM on page 7

Suggested Revision
MN may not be appropriate here, should really be MR, based on density.
replies

AS Mar 5 2025 at 3:46PM on page 6

Suggested Revision
NT3 should have MN included as a zoning category.
replies

AS Mar 5 2025 at 3:45PM on page 8

Suggested Revision
It appears with recent development projects - this land use category has seen a proliferation of warehousing and distribution centers, which is not the intent of this LU category. Consider finding ways to mitigate this issue by either removing zoning categories or revising the description.
replies

AS Mar 5 2025 at 3:38PM on page 9

Suggested Revision
Consider removing this land use category to match Jared's comment on CH above.
replies

AS Mar 5 2025 at 3:31PM on page 1

Suggested Revision
Consider adding open space protections to areas we know should be protected in the Eldorado Valley area.
replies

AS Mar 5 2025 at 3:30PM on page 1

Suggested Revision
Will need to update LU in the University Area based on the study that was recently approved.
replies

AS Mar 5 2025 at 3:29PM on page 2

Suggested Revision
I don't think the small patch of UC makes sense here any longer. Would recommend switching to a LU category that allows for a blend of uses.
replies

Anthony Jukes Mar 5 2025 at 12:18PM on page 8

Is IG appropriate here?
replies

Anthony Jukes Mar 5 2025 at 10:47AM on page 6

Comment
In light of AWR's comment in NT1, NT2 is also very similar to LDR bar DH and RS-1.
replies

Shelly Labay Feb 27 2025 at 11:57AM on page 4

Suggested Revision
Look at ways to increase this category in areas that make sense to make it easier for hdr to come in by right as opposed to public hearing (land use/zone change) to increase means for affordable and attainable housing.
replies

Jared Feb 25 2025 at 11:22AM on page 3

Comment
Correction to the comment about DH. That comment should refer to CH instead, which is no longer allowed in Title 19.
replies

Jared Feb 20 2025 at 12:45PM on page 3

Suggested Revision
We may need to remove DH as a conforming zoning district from all the PLU categories since we no longer allow zone changes to it.
replies
in reply to AWR's comment

AWR Feb 20 2025 at 12:16AM on page 7

oops see it below.
replies

AWR Feb 20 2025 at 12:11AM on page 1

Suggested Revision
May be worth the effort to clean up this odd double LU in this area of the Falls @ LLV
replies

AWR Feb 20 2025 at 12:09AM on page 2

Suggested Revision
Consider changing LU of HAAS Phase 3 to something more suitable adjacent to residential.
replies
in reply to AWR's comment

AWR Feb 20 2025 at 12:08AM on page 6

i found NC land use below. oops.
replies

AWR Feb 19 2025 at 11:58PM on page 6

Comment
Intrigued by adding CN here (and moving NC as a LU category). like to hear what the staff thinks....
replies

AWR Feb 19 2025 at 11:57PM on page 7

Comment
Need to discuss removing NC more.
replies

AWR Feb 19 2025 at 11:55PM on page 8

Comment
we should limit industrial to the two lowest impactful ones.
replies

AWR Feb 19 2025 at 11:53PM on page 6

Comment
looks like cut and paste typo here.
replies

AWR Feb 19 2025 at 11:52PM on page 6

Suggested Revision
this language on NC is tricky. If we are going to allow CN zoning we should just allow it.
replies

AWR Feb 19 2025 at 11:51PM on page 6

Suggested Revision
Is there really any NT1? May be worth removing and just using LDR
replies

AWR Feb 19 2025 at 11:48PM on page 10

Suggested Revision
PS zoning should be permitted in all LU categories.
replies

AWR Feb 19 2025 at 11:48PM on page 9

Suggested Revision
Need to find a way to separate these industrial districts. May be more of a zoning issue and not LU
replies

AWR Feb 19 2025 at 11:46PM on page 4

Suggested Revision
Add RM 16 to HDR, too.
replies

AWR Feb 19 2025 at 11:45PM on page 2

Suggested Revision
there is a two parcel site owned by Odyssey that doesn't make sense for NT land use now and should consider NC or COM (may be too small for COM)
replies

AWR Feb 19 2025 at 11:43PM on page 1

Suggested Revision
LU along Via Nobila should now support the HAAS and MOSAIC projects that will bring heavy truck traffic to this area.
replies
View all