NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
AGENDA
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2012–
BOARD MEMBERS POSTING LOCATIONS
Dee Gatliff Desert Breeze Community Center-8275
W.
Duane Laible,
Vice Chair
Lee Plotkin West
Flamingo Senior Center-6255 W. Flamingo
Angie Heath Younce, Chair
Diana Morton, Secretary
I.
CALL TO ORDER
II.
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
III.
PROCEDURES/CONDUCT
A.
Conformance with
the
B.
Meeting
Guidelines
C.
Liaison/County
Staff Business Hispanic Citizen Committee
D.
Approval of
Agenda Posted, Including Any Deletions or Corrections
E.
Approval of
Minutes of
F.
Discussion Item:
Outside ancillary uses at commercial properties that are not covered under
design reviews. TAB discussed concerns about
ancillary uses such as outdoor vending, storage, donation facilities in
commercial uses that are not currently considered in design reviews. Placed action
item on 2/28/123 agenda to seek action from staff and/or
IV. COMMENTS
BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC –Comments by the General Public and Discussion – No
action may be taken upon a matter raised under this item of the agenda until
the matter itself has been included on the agenda. Public comment will be limited
to three minutes. Prior to speaking
please state your name and address and spell your last name for the record. If
any member of the Board wishes to extend the length of a presentation, this
will be done by the Chair, or the Board by majority
vote.
V. TOWN
BOARD INPUT TAB member urged regular neighborhood
meetings on most items, and was pleased that a traffic signal is planned for
Ft. Apache/Sunset. TAB clarified 3 hold “limit” on items as a maximum. TAB
passed out information for public to place cell phones on national “Do Not
Call” list.
VI. PLANNING & ZONING
Possible
action to be taken on the following applications:
Items
on the agenda may be taken out of order.
The
Spring Valley Town Advisory Board may combine two or more agenda items for
consideration.
The
Spring Valley Town Advisory Board may remove an item from the agenda or delay
discussion
relating to an item at any time.
Discussion
– No action may be taken upon a matter raised under this item of the agenda
until the matter itself has been included on the agenda. Public comment will be
limited to three minutes. Prior to
speaking please state your name and address and spell your last name for the
record. If any member of the Board wishes to extend the length of a
presentation, this will be done by the Chair, or the
Board by majority vote.
VIII. Set
next meeting date –
IX. Adjournment
ATTACHMENT A
HELD OVER FROM JANUARY 31, 2012 MEETING
1A. VS-1372-04 (WC-0123-11) –
WAIVERS OF CONDITIONS of a vacation and abandonment requiring the following:
1) applicant to grant and pave an
alternate 60 foot wide public right-of-way from Fort Apache Road to Seeliger Street, dedicate right-of-way within 30 days; and 2) no building permits to be issued
until the access road is complete on
approximately 52.9 acres in an R-2 (Medium Density Residential) P-C (Planned
Community Overlay) Zone in Rhodes Ranch Master Planned Community. Generally located on the
south side of
Held for third time at applicant’s
request. TAB
consensus was there will be no further holds accepted on the item.
1. DR-0039-12 –
USA/CLARK COUNTY:
DESIGN REVIEW for
modifications to a park facility to include additional improvements and
amenities (tennis courts, basketball court, splash pad play area, and redesign
of parking area) in conjunction with a joint use public facility (detention
basin and park) that is under construction on 76.5 acres in a P-F (Public
Facility) Zone. Generally
located on the north side of
Approved 5-0 with
staff conditions plus additional condition, as agreed by the county
representative to include demand/motion detector lighting in critical areas to
enhance overnight/dark-hours security. Demand lighting locations to be designed in consultation
with Metro. This was done in response to concerns of neighbors that a completely
darkened park would become a potential crime magnet. Staff also agreed to clean
up all “tagging” that has appeared during construction.
2. UC-0015-12 –
USE PERMITS for the following: 1)
a convenience store; 2) a service station; and 3) reduce the
setback from a service station to a residential use.
DESIGN REVIEW for a convenience store and service station with a canopy on 0.7 acres
in conjunction with an existing and approved commercial development in a C-1
(Local Business) Zone in the MUD-3 Overlay District. Generally located on the
east side of
The applicant
was unprepared to answer numerous detail questions from TAB members. He agreed
to come back before the TAB on 2/28 with complete information.
3. UC-0024-12 –
USE PERMIT to reduce the separation between 2 communication towers.
WAIVER OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS to reduce on-site parking.
DESIGN REVIEW for a broadcast facility (radio station) with a communication tower
and antennas (satellite dishes) on 0.8 acres in a C-2 (General Commercial)
Zone. Generally
located on the southeast corner of
Approved
5-0 with staff conditions.
4. WS-0006-12 – KAY, BENJAMIN A. & LILLIAN P.:
WAIVER OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS to reduce the setbacks for an existing
accessory structure (covered patio) in conjunction with an existing single
family residence on 0.2 acres in an R-2
(Medium Density Residential) Zone. Generally located on the south side of
Approved 3-2 as requested by applicant. According to the applicant, the CCPRO
actions were initiated based on a neighbor complaint. It appeared there is an
ongoing dispute between the neighbors that is not limited to this issue. Those
members in favor generally expressed the view that since this structure has
been in place since before 1990 it would inappropriate to demand its removal.
Those opposed stated a firm belief that setback requirements must be met under
most circumstances, including this one.
5. TA-0034-12 –
KRISTY C. INCE
TEXT
AMENDMENT to amend Chapter 30.52, Section 30.52.060 to allow new
utility line attachments to existing or exempt poles.
Approved 4-1 with considerable angst
expressed by the TAB.
In discussion with staff, it is clear
the county policy supports moving utility line construction underground.
However, practice and policy also effectively grandfathers all existing utility
pole installations forever. In addition, we were informed NV energy is
effectively exempt from the “underground” policy enforcement. So, in the name
of fairness as claimed by the applicant, the TAB approved the application. It
appears the clash between stated policy and actual policy/practice may leave
the goal of placing installations underground at extreme risk.
The
statements, opinions and observations expressed in this document are solely
those of the author. The opinions stated
in this document are not the official position of any government board,
organization or group. The project
descriptions, ordinances board/commission results are reproduced from publicly
available
John
Getter