April 15, 2015

Commissioner King

motions to approve. Seconded by Commissioner Clark. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7). Page 1 of 11 Yes: Bob King, Gregory Hafen II, John Koenig, Joseph Goode, Paul Carr, Robert Adams, Vincent Clark.

Commissioner Koenig

stated we should discuss if this is a grandfathered RV Park or not. Page 2 of 11

Ms. Lee

stated the Assessor records state it was first assessed in 2003 as a RV Park. The original developer was contacted and they stated early 2002 paperwork filing was started. In May 2002 a resolution was adopted creating a 6 months moratorium on the creation of RV Parks for the purpose of getting the text amendment prepared and adopted. December 2002 a text amendment became effective which required CUP approvals and Development Standards in regards to RV Parks. There is no firm construction start date.

Commissioner Koenig

asked if it is grandfathered it would still have to meet current code.

Ms. Lee

stated correct, if it is grandfathered any changes or expansions would be required to obtain an approval of a CUP.

Commissioner King

asked if the applicants are asking for the entire acreage of the RV Park for the waiver application on the overlay.

Ms. Lee

stated that is correct.

Commissioner King

asked if the BOCC approves this waiver for the overlay would that give the applicant approval to take away RV spaces and build additional casitas, without having to get permission to do so.

Ms. Lee

stated if the recreational special projects overlay is approved for the entire 15.76 acres they could do any development for recreational uses. Depending on the extent of the uses they are proposing and any conditions associated with approvals granted tonight, they may have to come for a use permit approval but they would have to get administrative approvals and development standards would have to be adhered to.

Commissioner Koenig

asked if they have to get the SO zone to build the casitas.

Ms. Lee

said they have to either follow what we are doing tonight or apply for a zone change for the casita portion to GC and apply for a CUP.

Commissioner King

asked if they could apply for a waiver of the current zoning to allow them to build the 4 casitas.

Ms. Lee

stated NCC says that if the use is identified in one zoning district it cannot be applied to another zoning district. Paul Strange, Dave Richards – representing applicants.

Mr. Strange

stated if the client makes any changes to the conceptual site plan they would have to come back for a CUP anyway, adding a condition that they can’t go beyond the 4 casitas would be duplicate.

Commissioner Koenig

stated the condition would be if anything else is to be added to the RV Park they would have to come back for a CUP. They have added park models to the RV Park.

Mr. Richards

understands that if anything needs to be added to the property they would have to come back for a CUP.

Mr. Sutton

stated the code does make a distinction between an RV Park and a Park Model RV Park.

Mr. Lacy

asked Mr. Richards if they would want to put a limit on the number of Park models that are to be added to the property.

Mr. Richards

stated he would have to speak with the property owner. Page 3 of 11

Commissioner Hafen

stated the property is currently zoned NC, and that the current zoning code for NC requires a CUP for an RV Park.

Ms. Lee

stated that is correct.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if the property has a current CUP for an RV Park.

Ms. Lee

stated they do not.

Commissioner Hafen

stated he understands that they could or could not be grandfathered. But any change to a grandfathered property would require approval of a CUP. So why are we not looking at a CUP instead.

Ms. Lee

stated that is correct to change a grandfathered use would require approval of a CUP.

Mr. Lacy

stated their approach is to put 4 casitas in place. A CUP might have been an easier approach but staff believes this would have been the appropriate way to handle the types of uses they want to do. There was discussion on whether or not Park Models can be moved to and from RV Parks. Philip Moreau, property owner, stated the Park Models in the RV Park are mobile, they have no additions attached to them. He would like to just add 4 casitas to the empty portion of the parcel. His intention is to not add any additional casitas.

Commissioner King

stated their concern is that you will remove RV spaces to add additional casitas. That would change it to a subdivision.

Commissioner Adams

stated he would motion to approve the waiver and zone change with the condition that it is only for the 4 casitas.

Mr. Moreau

stated he agrees to that.

Commissioner Hafen

asked Mr. Sutton if he concurs that if based on the conversation that a CUP is needed with the special projects overlay or not.

Mr. Sutton

stated yes, as it was proposed he had no issues with it. We will have to address the concerns if added as conditions as they come up in the motion. He doesn’t consider the special overlay to add the casitas as an expansion of a grandfathered use since they aren’t touching the RV Park. Additions to the RV Park are a different discussion. Steve Slusher described the size, color and landscaping of the casitas they will be building. They will match the other buildings from roof to landscaping.

Commissioner Koenig

asked what the building separation would be.

Mr. Richard

stated it is concurrent with the code requirements. Page 4 of 11

Commissioner King

motioned to approve WV-2015-000007 based on findings and subject to the conditions of approval. Seconded by Commissioner Clark.

Commissioner Hafen

stated we should take the Zone Change and Waiver together.

Mr. Sutton

stated we are waiving the minimum lot size required for applying the special overlay. Doing the waiver first is okay.

Commissioner Adams

asked if we should add the special condition of the limit of the casitas.

Commissioner King

modified his motion to add a special condition that there will be a limit of 4 casitas added to the property. Any additional casitas would be subject to review by the Planning Commission. Seconded by

Commissioner King

motioned to approve ZC-2015-000004 based on findings and subject to the conditions of approval. Seconded by Commissioner Clarke.

Ms. Lee

reviewed staff report and staff recommended approval.

Commissioner Goode

stated this looks like they are wanting to sell the parcels.

Ms. Lee

stated they are separating the parcels for business reasons, the purpose is not to sell the parcel.

Commissioner King

stated for special conditions of approval #22, he would like to see a shared parking agreement for parcel 1 and parcel 2 recorded and the file number recorded on the parcel map so there isn’t any issues with parking in the future and it will be part of the record of the properties.

Commissioner Clark

asked if there was any ownership change going on with this application.

Commissioner Hafen

asked Mr. Sutton if they modify the conditions do we run into an issue with the property owners not being here.

Mr. Sutton

stated no, it is an expected part of the process.

Commissioner King

motioned to approve PM-2015-000003 based on findings and item #22 as amended. Seconded by Commissioner Hafen.

Mr. Osborne

stated the property owner has requested the application be withdrawn.

Commissioner Hafen

motions to withdraw CU-2015-000005 without prejudice. Seconded by

Mr. Osborne

reviewed the staff report and staff recommends approval. Chris Dingell, applicant stated they agree with the staff conditions and want to rename the road to Honeysuckle as it is more of a major road and would be easier to find the businesses.

Commissioner Hafen

motioned to approve SN-2015-000002 subject to the conditions in the staff report. Seconded by Commissioner Clark.

Commissioner Koenig

had changes on Page 2 of 9 - Density to change the number of RVs per acre to 12 RVs per acre, net. Also on page 4 of 9 – J there aren’t any room additions on RVs shouldn’t it be changed to park models.

Mr. Osborne

stated that was intended to apply to Park Models.

Commissioner Koenig

stated to change to be specific to Park Models.

Commissioner Carbone

asked if we are allowed to make room additions to a manufactured unit. Page 6 of 11

Mr. Lacy

stated there currently aren’t codes that apply, but we can always make codes that are more stringent or exceed what the State building codes that were adopted are. The intent of a Park Model home is that it isn’t a permanent installed residence.

Commissioner Koenig

stated it could read room additions to Park Models isn’t allowed.

Commissioner King

stated we could eliminate J, for room additions.

Commissioner Koenig

stated if someone wants to add one on, it isn’t addressed.

Mr. Lacy

stated we could leave it and say no attached additions will be allowed.

Commissioner Koenig

stated we will leave it as I stated.

Mr. Sutton

stated in statutory language if you want to affirmatively prohibit something you should leave it in instead of completely omitting it.

Commissioner Koenig

stated on page 6– D, change may be landscaped to shall be landscaped.

Commissioner Koenig

stated on page 8 - 18A2, would like to add etcetera there. Same thing on A3, right after newspapers.

Commissioner Clark

, page 4 item K storage buildings. The way it reads is J and K state they can have a room addition and storage building on site. Storage buildings tend to be permanent.

Commissioner Koenig

stated they changed J to say room additions are not allowed.

Commissioner King

asked for clarification on room additions. Park Model additions shall not be allowed.

Mr. Lacy

stated for Item I, it states additions permanently attached to park models. Maybe we should say porches, car ports and other awnings should not be attached to park models and should be free standing structures.

Commissioner Koenig

stated we will change item I to state nothing permanently attached to park models.

Mr. Lacy

stated for a Building Code perspective anything attached to an RV or Mobile Home has to be engineered and approved by the manufacturer.

Commissioner Koenig

stated they could remove item I and change item J to read no permanently attached additions are allowed on Park Models.

Commissioner Hafen

stated on page 8 under 18A3, it talks about a convenience store offering money orders and wire transfer services. Doesn’t this require a CUP to be allowed to have money order services?

Mr. Osborne

stated a CUP would be required for payday loans, cash checking.

Commissioner Hafen

stated page 2, 10% of the total area of the RV Park is used in regards to Park Models being allowed in RV Parks, but page 4 section M states camping or sleeping cabins may be provided….and shall not exceed a ratio of 1 per 25 RV sites. Do we want to consider tying these two Page 7 of 11 sections together? Should we notice of contact those current RV parks of the substantial changes to the code and those that have CUP’s for RV Parks?

Commissioner Koenig

stated the sections are referring to different things. Sleeping cabins don’t provide electric etcetera, but Park models would be attached to utilities. This will only effect new RV Parks.

Commissioner Hafen

stated current code doesn’t have a restriction on how many park models you can have and those that would have more than 10% would be grandfathered but they could never expand that.

Mr. Osborne

stated existing grandfathered RV Parks, if making changes or expansions to the park would have to come back for a CUP. This would only effect new RV Parks, this would be the requirements for new RV parks.

Commissioner Adams

stated he talked with James Horton from Preferred RV, and he has no problems with this.

Commissioner Hafen

stated he respectfully disagrees with staff, this does directly affect current RV Parks, whether they have a CUP or they are grandfathered.

Commissioner Carbone

stated noticing will also happen when it goes to the BOCC.

Commissioner Clark

stated newspaper noticing is good and sending a copy of this proposed code change to all the RV Parks.

Commissioner Koenig

stated he will extend the public comment to 5 minutes per person.

Mr. Sutton

asked Mr. Moreau if the provision is sufficient in that the current definition of a Park Model RV is that they need to be certified by the manufacturer as complying with the American National Standard Institute standard A119.5 for recreational park trailers.

Mr. Moreau

stated yes. Dave Richards stated if this code does affect existing RV Parks, then they can’t take part of the code saying it does apply and the remainder saying it doesn’t apply. Verbiage could be changed to make it affect existing RV Parks in regards to the maintenance and care taking of the RV Parks.

Commissioner Koenig

stated if affects existing RV Parks if they want to make changes to the Park.

Mr. Richards

stated it says they would need building permits to place the park models. The building permit process is a large fee, they shouldn’t have to pull permits for each one that comes in and out of an RV Park. He also objects with the county being involved with the business plans for any business, whether you just single out RV Parks. This states they have to submit a business plan.

Commissioner King

stated he agrees, there is no need to do those things to place a park model in an RV Park. Page 8 of 11

Commissioner Koenig

stated they would want to see an overview of the business plan, they don’t want their whole business plan. They just want to make sure the owners have done their due diligence. Steve Slusher asked if storage sheds have been removed or are they still allowed?

Commissioner Koenig

stated that is still allowed, they have removed room additions.

Mr. Slusher

asked if these are storage sheds to RV sites or Park Models sites. If you allow a permanent structure like those it gives people the impression they can stay there for an extended amount of time, if they are allowed to add a permanent structure.

Commissioner Koenig

stated it is for storage buildings in the park, he doesn’t understand it as for specifically individual sites.

Mr. Lacy

asked if we should just remove it or it should be reworded to state for the park itself not for individual sites.

Mr. Slusher

also stated where it states camping and sleeping cabins will not be provided with no utilities. That is also referred to as dry cabins.

Mr. Moreau

stated in regards to dry camping and tent sites, it is urged to be cautious with that market, there are extreme concerns with hygiene and waste. It could be prudent to have a provision that bathhouses be in a certain proximity to those dry storage units or tent camping.

Mr. Lacy

asked Mr. Moreau if there are any other recommendations that could be suggested, in regards to length of stays or maintenance requirements.

Mr. Moreau

stated in certain jurisdictions they do run into limitations on stays at RV Parks, whether in a RV or Park Model. Those restrictions usually are 6 months at a time, but can be hard to enforce and ineffective. They have a restriction in his parks of no vehicle over 10 years without written permission to try and keep his parks clean and you can waive the rules. Bob Howard stated they should also add in trailers, they can have attachments also. You leave yourself open if you just say Park Models. You are missing a group of RVs in your RV parks like Treasures and Escapee. Some have buildings that are permanent on the sites.

Commissioner Koenig

stated those are different types of RV Parks. Once you buy the lot you can do whatever you want with them.

Commissioner Hafen

stated on page 8, Item #18A, it states a convenience stores may also offer gasoline/fuel dispensing pumps. The proposed regulations would allow RV parks in GC, NC, VC, MU, and SO. However gasoline and fuel dispensing pumps are only allowed in GC. Should we add, if allowed by zoning?

Mr. Lacy

stated that would be a good addition.

Commissioner Koenig

directed staff to reconvene the RV discussion group and bring back to the RPC for the May meeting. Meeting went into recess at 8:13 pm. Meeting reconvened at 8:20 pm. Page 9 of 11 13. For possible action: Discussion, deliberation and possible direction to staff regarding the Village Residential VR-20 and VR-10 zoning district setbacks regulations. (SO)

Mr. Osborne

reviewed the back up.

Commissioner Koenig

asked about the VR-10 definition showing 5’/10’ is.

Mr. Osborne

stated you can have 10’ on one side and 5’ on the other, with VR-20 you have 10’ on both sides.

Commissioner King

stated in VR-20 you have a 35’ rear set back and VR-10 it is 20’ set back.

Commissioner Koenig

asked if Commissioner King would like VR-20 setbacks for principal residential buildings and accessory buildings to reflect what VR-10 is.

Mr. Lacy

stated several of the waiver request we have come across are for a garage that is attached to the principal building which make it part of the principal building, Those are the ones that are trying to have garages or additions to garages extend back farther but they still have the rear setbacks to adhere to. If we could find a way to define that the main occupied portion of the building maintain the 35’ setback but we give flexibility for garages and additions we might not see as many waivers in front of us.

Commissioner Adams

asked if it would be best to work with the HOAs in areas that approve waivers for properties this affects.

Mr. Lacy

stated unfortunately not all areas have HOAs and we don’t enforce their rules along with trying to not conflict with their rules either. If we change the residential accessory buildings to include unoccupied attached portions of the principal residential buildings would eliminate some of the waiver requests.

Commissioner Hafen

stated he isn’t sure if it would make a difference in it being an accessory building not attached or one that is attached to a building in regards to the large RV garages.

Commissioner Hafen

stated one concern he would like investigated is what the Fire Chiefs comments are about the setbacks when they are attached to the buildings.

Commissioner Carbone

stated the Fire Chief doesn’t like them, he has had the conversation with him previously.

Mr. Lacy

stated there is a DA for that development and typically those are VR-8 lots or smaller.

Mr. Lacy

would like this item postponed. Page 10 of 11 Public comment opened and closed at 8:36 pm with no comments.

Commissioner Koenig

stated we will postpone the item. 15. Future Meetings/Workshops: Discussion and Direction Concerning Items for Future Meetings/Workshops; Set Date, Location and Time of Future Pahrump Regional Planning Commission Meetings.

Commissioner Koenig

would like a discussion and decision on whether they can put conditions on Zone Changes or if they should be doing a CUP. Wants staff to reconvene the sign board committee. He would also like on the next agenda regulations for greenhouses.

Commissioner Koenig

would like Mr. Roach to provide staff with any back up he might find for the item on next month’s agenda for greenhouses.