June 10, 2015

Commissioner Koenig

stated the RPC can’t do anything with this compliant. It is something staff has to address with Code Compliance.

Mr. Lacy

stated we don’t have a Code Compliance Department but stated we have sent the letters to the property owners and have to give opportunity to the property owner to cure the property issues. Closed at 6:07 pm.

Commissioner King

motions to approve the minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Adams.

Commissioner Koenig

stated they are continuing item #14 and #15 to the next meeting.

Commissioner Koenig

recognized Commissioner Goode for his years serving on the RPC, and asked the board to help supply the Planning department with paper, as they go through a lot of it.

Commissioner Koenig

asked if the only sign they want to get approval on is the Spring Mountain sign.

Ms. Lee

stated yes it is only for the Spring Mountain sign, the wall mounted sign showing on the drawing has already been approved. Russ Meads, applicant. The property is over 400’ from the highway and this sign will help those coming in at night to find the property easier. A Commercial DA will be coming soon for the development of the commercial property on the frontage. The entrance will be a shared entrance for the commercial development

Commissioner Clark

stated it is difficult to find the entrance of the raceway and asked if they plan on putting a sign up closer to the road.

Mr. Meads

stated they are in the process of working with NDOT and adjusting the easement to put a sign up closer to the road.

Commissioner Carbone

asked if this meets the lighting requirements set by the code.

Ms. Lee

stated it will be required to meet the NCC requirements.

Mr. Lacy

stated it is one of the conditions of approval.

Commissioner Hafen

asked Mr. Meads if he has read and understood the conditions of approval.

Commissioner King

motioned to approve WV-2015-000011 based on findings and subject to the special conditions. Seconded by Commissioner Hafen.

Mr. Osborne

reviewed the staff report and staff stated the site doesn’t meet the current development standards. The use has been abandoned for more than 6 months so they have lost their grandfathered status. They would like the applicant to present an as built drawing or survey so staff can see where property lines are in relation to the buildings and setbacks and to see the dimensions of the parking lot layout. Staff recommends continuing to the next meeting. Jonathan Hunton, applicant. Page 3 of 12

Commissioner King

asked if the applicant has agreed to the extension.

Mr. Hunton

stated this is the first he has heard of it. The property hasn’t been abandoned, the only thing that is separating the restaurant from the bar is a fire wall. The parking lot does need upgrades, but it is very hard to find parking spots during the day. It does have paving that could be repaired and there are not lines.

Commissioner Koenig

stated the issue is with the parking lot.

Mr. Hunton

stated the East side of the building he will use for bar parking only. There is also parking he could use along the fence.

Commissioner Koenig

asked if this is what staff was looking to get from the applicants for the continuation.

Commissioner Goode

asked if this was the same location as where the roundabouts were going.

Commissioner Koenig

stated they will be taking part of the county property.

Commissioner Carbone

stated they could possibly close part of the section of the street.

Mr. Osborne

stated they did get a response from NDOT today and the roundabout won’t directly affect the property. East Street will be a right turn only lane.

Commissioner Adams

asked if the RV Park is on the same parcel.

Mr. Hunton

stated yes, but they are fenced off.

Commissioner Adams

stated on special condition #4 states that there must be an Environmental Health services study required.

Commissioner Koenig

stated the tenant will have to negotiate with the property owner to get these conditions completed.

Commissioner Clark

asked if there will be any conflict with the mobile home and his parking.

Mr. Hunton

stated no, they are completely separated by a fence.

Commissioner Clark

asked if they are planning on food.

Mr. Hunton

stated yes, there is a separate dining area they are putting in the bar.

Commissioner Koenig

asked how many square feet this is and how many park spaces are required.

Mr. Osborne

stated including the restaurant is 4,000 and 16 parking spots required.

Commissioner King

stated he has concerns about the parking.

Commissioner King

stated the parking is based off of number of tables, number of occupants you expect to have.

Mr. Hunton

stated he only needs 8 spaces, he is only 2,000 square feet.

Commissioner King

stated the parking is shared parking with the restaurant. Another concern is that the vehicles could be backing up into the ROW. That is a safety issue.

Mr. Hunton

stated even without using that parking lot there is ample parking of 16 spaces on the East side.

Commissioner King

asks if it is gravel.

Mr. Hunton

stated the first 15 feet is asphalt from the asphalt to East Street is gravel.

Commissioner Hafen

motions to continue to the July 15th meeting, and investigate Mr. Clark’s comments, seconded by Commissioner Adams.

Mr. Osborne

stated there is one change on the top of page 7, paragraph I. They are deleting the whole detail part, but keep the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) reference.

Commissioner Adams

stated on the same item, instead of adding in the most recently adopted electrical code, it should read “codes in effect at the time of the building permit is approved.”

Commissioner Hafen

stated on page 2, items 6 & 7 for us to ask for this information why from a zoning perspective does this matter to us.

Commissioner Koenig

stated they want some assurance that when someone comes in asking for a RV Park they have done their research.

Commissioner Clark

stated there are already 700 approved RV spaces, we are trying to come up with some way for the applicant for themselves to see if it is viable for them to build an RV Park.

Commissioner King

stated the applicants need to know what the current occupancy rates is, and open spaces available at any given time for existing parks are. It is something they should know prior to submitting application.

Commissioner Koenig

stated a good point with #7 is that he wants them to tell us why they will succeed.

Commissioner Hafen

asked how much detail the sub-committee is wanting from item #6. How much information are we wanting? Page 5 of 12

Commissioner King

stated if they are going to be connecting to existing water and sewer they need to be aware of that cost estimate that is what they are asking for. Darrell Lacy stated it is the applicant’s job to sell their project to this board.

Commissioner Hafen

stated on page 2 section A #8, he would like to add an extra year changing it from one year to two years. It also states it expires in 3 years, and he asked what happens if they submit plans in phases.

Commissioner Koenig

stated that should be discussed at the time they apply, it could be added as a condition.

Commissioner Hafen

, page 3 #10-G, stated it should state “all applicable building codes and ordinances.” If new codes and ordinances are added in the future it will apply.

Commissioner King

stated they will also strike from where it states “international residential code, international building code, international plumbing code, international mechanical code, international fuel gas code, international fire code, international property maintenance code and all others,” leaving as adopted by the BOCC.

Commissioner Hafen

, page 4, section A #10 staff made the change. Also on page section A #11b it states “When a public supply of water is available, connection shall be made thereto and its supply shall be used exclusively.” There is no definition of the word available. If it is stated how much it is to connect to a service, it then is reasonably available.

Mr. Sutton

stated we could change it to read reasonably.

Commissioner Hafen

stated, page 6 section A 15-C, it states All discharge must be performed in conformance with all applicable Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) regulations. Is a discharge permit required?

Mr. Lacy

stated he didn’t know if a discharge permit is required for a pool. It is not preferable to put it in a septic tank. SNWA prefers that a pool is drained into a sanitary sewer. We can change it to at the discretion of the Utility Company that serves the area.

Commissioner Hafen

stated page 6, section A 15-E, staff answered his question as to whether a 6 foot wall required an engineered permit. If it is larger than 6 feet any place it would be required. He suggests making it 5’ 10”.

Commissioner Koenig

stated we should state a maximum of 6 feet. How do we modify it to state a 6 foot berm or wall?

Mr. Lacy

stated it could state or equivalent screening of the RPC.

Commissioner King

stated in the NCC for fences is it an option for a replacement of a fence or wall to have an urban berm.

Mr. Lacy

asked Mr. Sutton if the disclaimer is appropriate.

Mr. Sutton

stated as long as the disclaimer as approved by the RPC is include. Page 6 of 12

Commissioner Carbone

stated on page 2 section A Item 3. It talks about excluding park models, the Wine Ridge RV representatives want to leave the axels on. Is this a mandatory wheels off? Or is it okay for park models to have wheels?

Commissioner Koenig

stated yes, park models can have wheels, as long as there are no permanently attached additions.

Commissioner Hafen

stated on page 2 Section A, #2. It states park density shall not exceed twelve (12) RVs per acre. Is that gross or net.

Mr. Lacy

stated it is net area for the RVs.

Commissioner Hafen

asked to add Net per acre.

Commissioner Carbone

asked if the 12 RVs include Park Models.

Mr. Sutton

stated the document states park models can only be 20% of the total area of the park whereas we just said that RVs it can be 12 acres.

Commissioner King

stated a Park Model is an RV.

Mr. Sutton

stated then with whatever is left it can only be 20% for park models.

Commissioner King

stated that they had also discussed Park Models only being allowed in certain areas.

Commissioner Koenig

stated they have had applicants coming for extension of their CUP because they hadn’t finished in time, generally that is the procedure.

Mr. Clark

stated page 4, in regards to camping it seems like this is in addition to the 12 per acre. It should be verified somewhere.

Commissioner King

stated it shows a ratio 1 for every 25 RV sites. It has to be counted as an RV Site.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if the comment on the expiration dates. Is it intended to be retroactive for applicants?

Commissioner Hafen

asked if all the changes needed to be in the motion.

Commissioner Koenig

stated no. Page 7 of 12

Mr. Lacy

asked if they would like staff to bring back a clean version for approval at the next meeting.

Commissioner King

motioned to recommend approval to the BOCC the draft ordinance with all revisions as discussed. Seconded by Commissioner Clark.

Mr. Sutton

asked for clarification on a change. On page 2 section A, where the extension of time was discussed for changing the 1 year term.

Commissioner Koenig

stated that wasn’t changed.

Commissioner Hafen

stated nothing was agreed upon, but items were discussed.

Commissioner Adams

stated that would be recommending extending the time to two years, since it was discussed.

Commissioner King

stated it was part of the discussion but a consensus wasn’t made.

Commissioner Hafen

stated the market analysis was discussed but nothing was done with that section either.

Commissioner King

withdraws his motion.

Commissioner Koenig

directs staff to bring back a blue line copy to the next meeting for recommendation.

Mr. Osborne

stated this reflects all the changes that were discussed last month, just brought forth in ordinance form.

Commissioner Carbone

stated Commissioner Borasky will want to know why these changes are being made.

Commissioner Koenig

stated they have received many variances for these smaller lots and they are now trying to get the zoning districts for the smaller lots to have the same flexibility as some of the slightly larger lots.

Mr. Lacy

stated this change is less restrictive.

Commissioner Hafen

motioned to recommend to the BOCC adoption of a bill proposing to amend NCC Title 17, relating to the VR-20 zoning. Seconded by Commissioner King.

Mr. Osborne

stated agricultural farming uses, greenhouses if they are zoned for rural zoning areas like RH or RE or master planned for RDR then those uses would be exempt from the development standards like paved parking. If you aren’t located in the Rural zoning districts then you would not be exempt, you would have to go through site development.

Commissioner Koenig

asked if any of this would preclude them to require this if they decide to do this. At the time they come to the board they could conditionally add this.

Mr. Osborne

stated yes if it does come to the board as a CUP it is something that you could add conditions to. If it is a permissive use then it won’t come here.

Commissioner Clark

asked for clarification for Items C and D. If you can put up a greenhouse if you are in an area zoned residential.

Mr. Osborne

stated for C you are only exempt from development standards if you are in an area zoned for rural areas. If you are in an area zoned GC that isn’t a rural area.

Mr. Lacy

stated in residential your just not exempt from development standards, you can put on a greenhouse you just would be limited to the development standards for the zoning district you are in.

Commissioner Clark

asked if D was along those lines as well.

Mr. Osborne

stated yes, if farming and agricultural use doesn’t meet the exemption requirement then it would not be entitled to the exemption.

Commissioner Carr

asked where Pot farms fit into this.

Mr. Lacy

stated they have a special use permit and they would be subject to whatever conditions the BOCC put on them, they don’t come to the RPC.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if medical marijuana is considered agricultural.

Mr. Lacy

stated yes. The only thing that would come to this board would be in they came to you for a zone change, where you could put conditions on it, but those are General Commercial.

Commissioner Hafen

motioned to recommend approval to the BOCC the adoption of a bill drafted by staff related to 17.04.720 General Development Standards as outlined in the back up. Seconded by Commissioner King.

Mr. Lacy

stated this is the first of several that are being heard at the Ad Hoc committee that the County Manager has put together to look at Planning, Public Works and other types of streamlining Page 9 of 12 requirements in the valley. There may be additional changes in code coming trying to reflect the different needs of urban vs rural development. They are being reviewed at the staff level right now.

Mr. Osborne

stated they have come up with a definition of a Casita and other items that should be considered with that. Square footage not to exceed 600 sq. ft., can be a park model, cannot be rented out independent of the main residence, cannot have separate driveway or vehicle access separate from the main residence. Can have cooking, sleeping and sanitary facilities but must be used by guests of the main residence and not used as a second single family residence.

Commissioner Koenig

stated he has a problem with including a park model as a casita.

Mr. Lacy

stated by this definition the 4 transient lodging facilities being built at the Wine Ridge are a different definition. They are transient lodging buildings.

Commissioner Koenig

asked if there is a definition of transient lodging buildings.

Mr. Lacy

stated in talking to builders the more commonly used term for casitas is an accessory structure within a residential home. It isn’t a separate building used for rental lodging.

Commissioner Koenig

stated they specifically gave them permission to build casitas that is the way it was worded.

Commissioner Koenig

asked for clarification from the DA’s office. They might come back and ask to build more casitas, now they would have to come back and ask for transient lodging.

Mr. Lacy

stated in the discussion on Wine Ridge there was a distinction that there was not a definition of casitas and that they were 2 bedroom transient lodging. It was described in what you approved and within the site plans.

Commissioner King

stated in the code it allows 1,500 sq. ft. for a guest residence. In many cases 1500 sq. ft. is larger than some main residences.

Mr. Lacy

stated guest residences are becoming more frequently in front of us. The mobile home subcommittee is now addressing mobile homes coming in for guest residences, contrary to state statue on septic and wells. Staff is working on it and will bring something back to you in the future.

Commissioner King

stated park models are limited to 400 sq. ft.

Commissioner Koenig

stated to take out park model and that a casita may be site built construction.

Commissioner King

stated to change it to a casita must be site built construction.

Commissioner Adams

asked if we are primarily looking at some control on second residences.

Mr. Lacy

stated that we are trying to find the appropriate flexibility in allowing guest residences and mother-in-law quarters. In previous cases they have been approved to be used for an ailing parent with a doctor’s note as is permissive within the code under a Temporary Use Permit. We have been told by the State Manufacture housing that this is not a permissive use. Page 10 of 12

Commissioner Adams

stated that this could be applied to a smaller recreational vehicle as well. It’s simply being used as a guest house for a mother-in-law or for guests that might stop by.

Mr. Lacy

stated that RV’s and travel trailers have other problems.

Commissioner Koenig

stated that a casita must be site built constructed and a travel trailer is out. This whole thing came about when Mr. Bob Howard asked how to define a casita. He stated he does not think a casita is a park model and thinks that it should state a casita should be site built constructed.

Commissioner Hafen

stated that there is a lot of discussion that we want to make this residential only. So where it says proposed definition let’s add in parenthesis Residential so that it is very clear that this is a residential casita. It would alleviate a lot of questions on the Commercial stuff and we can deal with that later. He asked if this is intended to replace guest residences in the code or is this adding to it.

Mr. Lacy

stated that this will add it but Staff will have to come back to change the definition of guest residences to meet all of the requirements for State code.

Commissioner Koenig

stated that this discussion was intended to answer Mr. Howard’s question of “how come you haven’t defined a casita?”

Commissioner King

stated he can agree with the Chairman in striking the park model for a Temporary Use as our code already allows that for a specified amount of time. He stated he didn’t think a park model should be considered appropriate as a casita. By definition a park model is not a permanent structure and it should be a permanent structure.

Commissioner Hafen

asked Mr. Lacy if Staff could come back with guest residence answer in three months. Mr. Lacy stated probably. Commissioner Koenig directed Staff to bring back the changes in three months.

Commissioner Hafen

stated that he would like to see the changes for guest residences at the same time they see the language for the casitas. He stated that he thinks they go hand in hand and it would be nice if they both were brought back at the same time.

Commissioner Clark

stated that the fourth paragraph says that “a casita shall not be rented or operated independent of a main residence”.

Mr. Lacy

stated that is something that was intended to bring to the RPC as part of a guest residence type of ordinance change. Because it doesn’t specifically state that even though our code says only one single family residence per lot unless it’s a Multi-Family lot and we have a couple of them that have come before us where people have taken accessory buildings of some sort and offered them for rent.

Commissioner Clark

asked if he put a casita on his property and he obtains a Temporary Use Permit and he moves his mother-in-law into the casita what would prevent him from moving out of his home and putting it up for rent.

Mr. Lacy

stated that we were allowing manufactured homes to be placed that had separate power supplies, driveways if they come with a letter claiming it’s for their mother-in-law. Once it’s there it never goes away. We are trying to find how to write a code that allows flexibility for those types of things.

Commissioner Koenig

stated that the next meeting will be July 15th. At that time Items #14 & #15 will be discussed. Also discussion on VR-8 and VR-10 regarding limiting new creation of lots for those districts.