Q&A: Clark County staff explain phasing, how to show 'how' in narratives and revision timing
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
In a public Q&A, Clark County staff said each project phase must generally stand alone for approval, transportation concurrency may require whole‑project review, and narratives can be revised but late changes may require a hold and can delay review.
During a question‑and‑answer period, applicants raised specific implementation questions about legal standards, phasing and revising narratives.
An attendee asked what 'legal standard' means; Joe Kinsman replied that it refers to the county code (for example, Title 40) and explained how applicants can demonstrate the 'how' required in the narrative: by showing plan sheets or tabled figures that match stated requirements. "If you stated that you had 20 minimum parking spaces and on the narrative or plan, you show that you meet 21, then you have met that how," Kinsman said.
On phasing, Kinsman said the county reviews each phase on its own so each approved phase can stand alone in case later phases are not completed. Dawson added that some code provisions, such as transportation concurrency, assess the whole project and may require whole‑project analysis. Dawson explained whether a later phase may begin before earlier phases depends on whether phases are interdependent.
When asked whether narratives can be revised, Kinsman said narratives can be revised "yes and no": early in review they are easier to revise, but the further along the review reaches staff report deadlines the harder it is to make significant changes and significant late revisions may require a hold so staff can backfill related analyses.
The discussion reiterated that applicants should document how they meet relevant criteria, note dependencies between phases where they exist, and plan for potential delays when revisions are requested.