NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2012–
BOARD MEMBERS POSTING LOCATIONS
Dee Gatliff Desert Breeze Community Center-8275
Lee Plotkin West Flamingo Senior Center-6255 W. Flamingo
Angie Heath Younce, Chair
Diana Morton, Secretary
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
B. Meeting Guidelines
Staff Business Hispanic Citizen Committee
D. Approval of Agenda Posted, Including Any Deletions or Corrections
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.
next meeting date –
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.
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)
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.