Results
The ATTACHMENT A items
will be heard on the following dates:
Planning Commission
7:00 P.M.,
Board of
HOLDOVER/RETURNED
APPLICATIONS will be heard on the date in the applications header.
The PC decisions/recommendations may be appealed
to the
An appeal may be made in person at the Current
Planning desk or by fax (702-455-3271). Call Current Planning (455-4314) to find out how to file an appeal.
Help in filling an appeal may be obtained from the Southwest Action
Network (SWAN). You can contact SWAN at:
702-837-0244 · 702-837-0255 (fax)
email: swan@lvswan.org
Note:
If you ctrl+click on the blue
underlined text it will take you to the detailed documents to
explain the agenda item.
CALL
TO ORDER:
Pledge
of Allegiance:
Introduction
of
REGULAR
BUSINESS
1. Approve
the Minutes for the meeting held on
2. Approve
the Agenda with any corrections, deletions or changes APPROVED
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Enterprise TAB will collect and make
recommendations for the Clark County 2012 capital budget.
Items previously submitted by the TAB.
1. A four-way stop, or other traffic calming
device, installed at Warm Springs and Lindell
2. Red Flasher added to stop signs at
Shelbourne and Placid
3. Construct a walkway along Robindale from
4. Build out Cactus from
5.
6. A four-way stop, or other traffic calming
device, installed at Robindale and Gilespie.
7. Extend the divider on Silverado Ranch east
of
8. Four-way stop at
Robindale and Haven.
9. Complete the intersection at Jones and Blue
Diamond
10. Upgrade traffic control device at
Robindale and Placid
11. Traffic signal at Warm Springs and
12. Traffic signal at Warm Springs and Valley
View
New items
13. Align traffic lanes at Cactus and
ADDITIONAL
BUSINESS None
ZONING
AGENDA:
PUBLIC
COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT:
HOLDOVER
APPLICATIONS
PC
H1. UC-0307-10 (ET-0083-11) – EMPRESS GROUP,
LLC:
APPROVED
CHANGE Current planning bullet #1 to read:
Until
USE
PERMIT FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME to review a dog kennel in conjunction with an existing shopping
center.
DESIGN
REVIEW for an
outside dog run/play yard in conjunction with a kennel on a portion of 5.8
acres in a C-2 (General Commercial) Zone.
Generally located on the
east side of
This application was originally held to seek
input from Animal Control. The revised
staff agenda sheet provided the TAB with significant additional
information. There were two complaints
about barking dogs a month after the facility opened. This was caused by taking new clients to the
dog run and the dogs reacting to unknown individuals. This practice is no longer in effect. One complaint has been settled. The other is still open. However, there has
been no action on the complaint since March 2011.
The TAB discussion centered on the dog run and
if there should be a review period. Some
TAB members felt the lack of action on the complaint warranted the review
period being dropped. Another opinion
was the review period should be retained because of the complaints and
questions about the appropriateness of the dog run location. The applicant stated the review period was a
threat to his business. Without the dog
run, the business would close. The staff
position is the dog run is not appropriate in this location.
The first motion made was to approve the
application without a review period. The
vote was a
One potential problem is the 18 inches between
the block wall and chain-link fence for the dog run. The current County standards for spacing
between redundant walls only apply to solid block walls. It does not include a chain-link fence next
to a block wall. Does the placement of a chain-link fence 30 inches or closer
to a block wall pose the same safety hazards?
H2. UC-0365-11 –
HELD to
USE
PERMIT for an
on-premise consumption of alcohol (tavern) establishment within a commercial development
on a portion of 2.7 acres in an H-2 (General Highway Frontage) Zone in the
MUD-4 Overlay District. Generally located on the
west side of
ATTACHMENT
A
1. UC-0399-11 – BIGELOW HOLDING-NEVADA, LLC:
APPROVED
ADD Current planning condition
·
Generator
testing to be conducted during daylight hours only.
SUGGEST
the site be moved to
northwest corner of the property.
USE
PERMIT for a
communication tower.
DESIGN
REVIEW for a
communication tower and associated equipment in conjunction with an existing
motel on 1.2 acres in an H-1 (Limited Resort and Apartment) Zone in the MUD-1
Overlay District. Generally
located on the west side of
Currently, the antenna site is located adjacent
to Giles. The applicant stated the
property owner wanted the site located on the back of his property as the
reason for this location. Examining the
current and potential development around the proposed antenna site, the TAB
concluded a better placement would be the northwest corner of the
property. The TAB prefers sites that
provide some setback from a right-of-way.
The antenna located in the northwest corner is a more appropriate
location. The current location is not
ideal for the property owners on the east side of Giles.
2. UC-0411-11
– MAURI, CHRISTOPHER D. & NICOLE L.:
APPROVED
Use Permits 1, 2, & 4
DENIED
Use Permit 3
ADDED
current planning
condition:
·Office hours limited to:
Monday thru Friday
Saturdays
USE
PERMITS for the
following:
1) Allow a home occupation to be conducted within
an accessory structure (existing guest house);
2) Increase the floor space of a home occupation;
3) Allow customers to come to the residence; and
4) Allow employees other than family members to
work at the site
in conjunction with an existing residence on 1.2
acres in an R-E (Rural Estates Residential) (RNP-1) Zone. Generally located on the west side of
The request for the home based business is
reasonable. The plans show the guest
house being converted into an office use with a reception and meeting area,
office, file rooms, and other accessory uses. There will be no changes to the
exterior of the buildings that will negatively impact the neighbors. The TAB agreed with the staff that the
requested increase in area of the office space allowed for a home occupation.
The primary questions the TAB had were
allowing additional employees and customers to come to the property. The following were considered:
·Customers and employees creating addition traffic
·The rural character of the neighborhood
·Precedent in granting use permits 3 and 4
·Difficulty in enforcing use permits 3 and 4
The staff recommended use permits 3 and 4 be
denied.
The applicant stated that he, his spouse, and
office manager will be at the office full time while 4 other employees would
work at locations where the projects are located. Those 4 employees may come to
the office for brief periods to pick up and deliver paperwork and answer phone
calls.
The TAB opinion was use permit 4 was required
for the business to function. The number
of employees should be limited to those stated in the application.
TAB recommended the denial of use permit
3. There are a number of ways a client
can be met off the site. Clients can be shown completed projects and plans, for
instance, over coffee at a local restaurant.
If Use Permit 3 was granted, it would be impossible to control the
number of customers coming to the property.
The TAB expects to see an increase in home
based business and does not want to see a precedent set that would change the
residential character of a neighborhood.
The TAB also recommended the office hours
given by the applicant become a condition due to employees coming to the
property.
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
David D. Chestnut, Sr.