July 15, 2015

Commissioner King

motioned to accept the minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Clark. Page 1 of 11 Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 5). Yes: Bob King, John Koenig, Paul Carr, Robert Adams, Vincent Clark.

Commissioner Koenig

stated on Item #9 he knows one of the parties, there are no interest in the applicants business and he will partake in the item.

Commissioner Koenig

stated there is already asphalt paving, does staff want that stricken.

Mr. Osborne

stated yes, strike install asphalt paving.

Commissioner Clark

asked if this is ADA Compliant.

Mr. Osborne

stated yes it is part of the condition of approval it will have to be compliant with ADA. Ramin Ghaffarzadegan, applicant, stated the bar is 100 years old it was one of the first bars in Pahrump.

Commissioner King

asked the applicant if they have read and understand all conditions of approval.

Commissioner Carbone

stated we had wanted a survey of the property and asked staff about that requirement. Page 2 of 11

Mr. Osborne

stated after visiting the site and taking measurements of the parking area they were comfortable with not requiring a survey.

Commissioner Carbone

stated the issue wasn’t with the parking but where the property lines actually protrude to. He suggested requesting a survey be submitted.

Commissioner Koenig

stated it is obvious where the property lines are after visiting the site. The Public Works problem was with exiting parking exiting onto county owned property. The only way to do that would be to move the building.

Mr. Lacy

stated the property owner submitted a site plan in 2010 for the property. It essentially shows that there isn’t enough room on the property for drive aisles and entrances that would be consistent with Public Works standard requirements. This property is non-conforming to that level of activity. One reason for the CUP is that we can waive or place alternate conditions of approval on the property. The previous site plan approved in 2010 still showed the traffic to back out into the county ROW to enter and exit the parking spots. Which is not a typical approved layout for parking. It isn’t compliant with all current county codes, but when it was built things were different.

Commissioner Adams

motioned to approve CU-2015-000007 based on special conditions of approval adding condition #7 that they provide a survey on the property to Public Works. Seconded by Commissioner Carr.

Commissioner Clark

asked what the purpose of the survey is.

Commissioner Carbone

stated Public Works was concerned based on their knowledge that some of the area may be into the road, as far as the property is concerned, they want to know where the property starts and ends on all sides of the property.

Commissioner Clark

asked if it pertained to the wedge shaped property.

Commissioner Carbone

stated it could be.

Mr. Ghaffarzadegan

asked what the point of the survey is.

Commissioner Koenig

stated they voted for you to do one.

Commissioner Carbone

stated to the applicant to get with Public Works prior to the survey.

Commissioner King

asked in striking the external comments does that also include the offer of dedication of 10 feet.

Ms. Lee

stated the only part that changes in external comments is to strike the note of receiving a letter of opposition. We have not received a written or verbal opposition on the application.

Commissioner King

asked how much further on the GIS drawing does the ROW need to go.

Ms. Lee

stated just an additional 10 feet. Public Works researched that 40 feet from the center line of Gamebird to the North had been dedicated and from the center line to the South in that area had only 30 feet dedicated. They are trying to make it an even 80 foot ROW.

Commissioner King

asked if the property where the cell tower is has been dedicated also.

Ms. Lee

stated she hasn’t researched that property and Public Works hasn’t provided any comments on that property with the cell tower.

Commissioner Adams

asked if the groundwater quality is just a generic for that particular class of use and what steps can be taken so that contamination will not be a risk.

Ms. Lee

stated that statement is from the Community Source Water Protection Plan and is more of a generalized classification that covers a much larger machine shop. The applicant is aware of the EPA regulations and doesn’t appear to be a risk to water contamination.

Commissioner Carbone

asked if we could do a brownfield on this property.

Mr. Lacy

stated we can’t require it. If a new owner is potentially trying to buy it we can offer a brownfield assessment but under this circumstances we cannot. Kevin Patterson, applicant and John Farrar, property owner. Applicant would like to do a fabrication shop, not an engine based machine shop. The only water going in and out of the building is into the bathroom. Any machines would be self-contained, water-soluble cutting fluids and oils and all would be disposed of per EPA and that happens approximately once a year, no more that 50 – 100 gallons per machine and he doesn’t have any machines that have that capacity, nothing would be attached to a drain anywhere. In case of a spill they already have spill kits on site and they would be disposed of properly. No fuels are on the property either.

Commissioner Clark

asked if his intentions were to operate a metal fabrication business.

Commissioner King

asked if the applicant has read and understood the conditions of approval and if the property owner is okay with dedicating 10’ of ROW.

Mr. Patterson

stated yes but as far as the dedication he doesn’t own the property you would need to speak to him.

Mr. Farrar

, property owner stated as far as that parcel goes he has no problem with the 10’ ROW. He doesn’t know what the impact on the adjacent property would be with the cell tower. He was under the impression they already had the easement.

Commissioner King

stated the property with the cell tower isn’t a factor here, they are only looking at his parcel and he would need to get with Public Works in regards to the ROW.

Commissioner Carbone

asked what type of welder they are using, will you be using all gas, all electric. Page 4 of 11

Mr. Patterson

stated yes, Mig and Tig.

Commissioner King

motioned to recommend approval for ZC-2015-000007 based on findings and subject to the conditions of approval. Seconded by Commissioner Clark.

Ms. Lee

stated during several conversation with the property owner she stated there is no longer interest in developing her property for an Adult Day Care facility. The property owner has also willfully surrendered the business license back to the Town of Pahrump, these with the property owner’s failure to comply with the conditions of approval associated with the CUP and the numerous code and life safety violations. Staff has found sufficient supporting evidence to determine the conditions of approval have been violated and staff recommends the CUP for the Adult Day Care Facility located at 4540 S. Money St. be revoked.

Commissioner Clark

asked if there is a database we keep on CUPs we have approved in the past.

Ms. Lee

stated there is a historical database when the Planning department was started, there is a current database that also keeps track of that too.

Commissioner Clark

would like to see that.

Commissioner Koenig

asked if the property owner is present.

Commissioner King

motioned to revoke CU-12-0027 based on the affirmation of the violation of the conditions of approval. Seconded by Commissioner Clark.

Mr. Osborne

reviewed the changes. Item #2 they changed the density to 12 acres per net acre. Page 6, paragraph C, they added the discharge would be at the digression of the utility provider. Paragraph E, changed the block wall from 6’ to 5’ 10 “. Also added you can install a landscape berm as an alternative to a block wall or something similar if approved by the Planning Commissioner.

Commissioner King

asked if our fence code allow for that as well.

Mr. Osborne

stated yes. Page 5 of 11

Mr. Osborne

stated on page 7 second paragraph from top, added back in the National Fire Protection Association, just to clarify that is the electrical code.

Commissioner Clark

motioned to approve the draft bill 2014-26. Seconded by Commissioner King.

Mr. Osborne

stated the changes from last month, which are a casita must be site built constructed, deleted the part where you could have a park model or manufactured home. 600 sq. ft. or less, added the casita cannot have its own separate utility meter from the main residence, added a kitchenette would be allowed in a casita and added the definition of a kitchenette, and also added the proposed definition of transient lodging facility and transient occupancy and vacation occupancy. The definition of guest building, which is what we currently have in the code but we use guest residence. We are proposing to change that to guest residence and then we would say see casita so they would have the same definition.

Commissioner Koenig

stated when he asked for a definition of Casita he would have liked to see something that said a small accessory guest house not to exceed 600 sq. ft. and must be site built.

Commissioner King

stated if someone has a manufactured home they have to put in a site built casita if they want one.

Commissioner King

stated most of the casitas he has seen have been attached to the home. How far can a casita be from the primary home?

Commissioner Koenig

stated he still wants something in the definition section of the code.

Mr. Lacy

stated information received by the state, historically 80% of the accessory dwellings have been done through manufactured housing. A manufactured home is by definition a single family residence, under County zoning, state water, septic we cannot have two single family dwellings on a single lot using a well and septic. It makes it an RV or Mobile Home Park by definition. Staff is trying to find a way to address this.

Commissioner Koenig

stated he still would like a simple definition at the front of the code. He thinks there should be a subcommittee to review this.

Commissioner Clark

stated in the subcommittee meeting they went into detail that if they wanted to put in a casita they only could have one septic and one well. If they want to put a mobile home at the back of the residence to use as a casita, they can’t do that because it becomes a house, correct? Page 6 of 11

Mr. Lacy

stated historically they have been doing that but with recent information from the State Department of Manufactured housing we can no longer do that. Once of the possible solutions is to use a Temporary Use Permit.

Commissioner Clark

asked how we monitor TUPs.

Mr. Lacy

stated the new system allows us to monitor, historically we didn’t have that system.

Mr. Lacy

stated the definition does include the special plans of development and it was intended to pick up the smaller subdivisions. Now that Mr. Hafen has mentioned Artesia it doesn’t have a Special Plan of Development.

Commissioner Koenig

would like a subcommittee to review this and to include a two sentence definition of a Casita.

Commissioner King

motioned to form a subcommittee to meet with the planning commission and staff to define casita and to further define a guest residence. Seconded by Commissioner Carr.

Commissioner Koenig

stated the committee will be Commissioner King, Commissioner Carr, and

Commissioner Clark

and to also inform Mr. Boggs of the subcommittee meeting.

Commissioner King

asked if they will be meeting before the next RPC meeting and bring something back next month.

Commissioner Koenig

stated no it will be brought back at a future meeting.

Mr. Osborne

stated the subcommittee recommended that the manufactured homes when installed in RE-1, SE- 1 and smaller zoning districts would have to comply with the NRS provisions. Permanently affixed to the lot, must be 6 years old or newer, no singlewide manufactured homes, at least 600 sq. ft. of floor area, and installed on a permanent foundation. For RE-2 zoning districts and larger the manufactured homes could go as old as 20 years old if you refurbish the home. Page 7 of 11

Mr. Lacy

stated and the home built to modern current standards.

Mr. Osborne

stated any home older than 20 years old within the PRPD would require a waiver from the RPC, you could never install any Pre-Hud homes, 1976 or older wouldn’t be allowed under any circumstance. These requirements wouldn’t apply to Mobile Home Parks or manufactured home subdivisions that have been approved, specifically for manufactured home installations. Anything outside the PRPD the recommendation is to not allow anything older than 20 years old. Anything older than 20 years would be required to have a waiver by the BOCC or approval of the local town board or town advisory committee.

Commissioner Koenig

asked the DA’s office if they are allowed to vote on item #3 since it references outside the PRPD and the BOCC is who controls what happens outside the PRPD. Should it be removed and the BOCC can add it back in when they see it.

Ms. Zlotek

stated this board has no jurisdiction for outside the PRPD, it should be removed and the BOCC can add it back in if they choose so.

Commissioner Koenig

stated they will remove item #3. On page 2 second paragraph refers to pre-hud not being allowed. Then on item 2 it states these regulations, which he assumes means everything above that, does not apply to mobile home parks or manufactured home subdivisions. Can they place a pre-hud in one of these two?

Mr. Osborne

stated yes you could, only in a mobile home park or manufactured home subdivisions that is approved for that use.

Mr. Lacy

stated when a new mobile home park or manufactured home subdivision is approved you can place requirements that they have conditions.

Commissioner Koenig

asked if existing ones, are we allowing them to move out a manufactured home and bring in a pre-hud to fill the space.

Mr. Lacy

stated that is up to the Board, but if you adopt it this way then that is what is being stated.

Commissioner Koenig

stated they would have to change Item #2 to state no pre-hud allowed.

Mr. Lacy

stated we do have Manufactured Home Subdivisions some of which have regulations and some that do not today. It might be something the board should address.

Commissioner Koenig

stated on 1-E, it states a minimum 1200 sq. ft. living area in RE-1 and smaller but if there is a larger parcel size the minimum living area goes down to 1100 sq. ft.

Mr. Lacy

stated Gerald Schulte attended a couple of meetings. He brought up a standard home is 24’x48’, which is 1152 sq. ft. They wanted to at least allow those in some areas of town. 1200 is what the state requirements are. We have the ability to adopt something less stringent than that. The committee choice was to use the state minimums on the smaller lot subdivisions where you have a mixture of stick built and manufactured homes.

Commissioner Adams

asked if in the RE-1, under E should we change that to 1150 sq. ft. to comply with the standard mobile home.

Mr. Osborne

stated it is possible that it could have been 10.

Commissioner Clark

stated he agreed with Mr. Hafen, it was 10 years.

Commissioner Adams

stated on item 1-C, how can that be applied to one particular class of housing and not to the stick built houses that could be next door. Under B it states it has to be less than 6 years old.

Mr. Lacy

stated that applies to the day of installation, under B that is the state requirements, unless we require something different that is what applies.

Mr. Lacy

stated there still would be a 2 to 3 foot access point, the back fill is on the outside of the house, not underneath.

Commissioner Koenig

stated he still doesn’t understand why a smaller lot would be required to have a larger house and the larger lots have smaller homes.

Mr. Lacy

stated in a smaller lot subdivision they are typically done by a subdivision not a parcel map. They are intended to have more uniformity with the homes, less distance between the homes. The intent on having the constancy with the color, style and appeal is more important in a small lot subdivision. Larger lot subdivisions have less uniformity.

Commissioner Koenig

stated his neighborhood which isn’t a subdivision is zoned RE-1, if someone wanted to place a manufactured home on a piece of property they would have to place a larger home there? Not the standard older 1150 sq. ft. home on the lot.

Mr. Lacy

stated this came back from the manufactured home sub-committee. The board has the ability to change this.

Commissioner King

asked for clarification on whether or not it is 10 years or 20 years in age.

Mr. Lacy

stated what he remembers is that the larger lots it can be 10 years old. In either case they can apply for a administrative exception if they can show it was built to current design standards it can go back to 20 years old. Anything older than 20 years old requires a waiver from the RPC.

Commissioner Koenig

stated he recommends that whomever makes the motion to change E to 1150 and changes B to 10 years and deletes #3 on the back page.

Commissioner Clark

stated he believes the discussion on pre-huds were that they weren’t going to be allowed.

Commissioner Koenig

stated it should state that on #2.

Commissioner Koenig

stated #2 needs to be modified to state no pre-hud.

Commissioner King

asked if we are bringing this back as a draft bill to the RPC.

Mr. Lacy

recommends bringing it back as a draft bill. Page 9 of 11

Commissioner King

motioned for staff to bring this back to the RPC as a draft bill for review and possible recommendation to the BOCC with the following revisions – Section 1-E be changed to minimum 1150 sq. ft., Section 2-B changed to not older than 10 years not 20, and Item 3 paragraph 3, changed to read no pre- huds are allowed within the PRPD, and striking Item #3 and adding at the discretion of the BOCC. Seconded by Commissioner Adams.

Commissioner Clark

stated Section 2-B. He would like it to read not older than 10 years unless approved by the RPC.

Commissioner King

amended his motion for paragraph 2-D the second paragraph, installation of any home older than 20 years, strike 20 and change to 10 adding with the provision for 20 at the discretion of the PRPD.

Mr. Lacy

stated on 2-B it allows an administration exception up to 20 years. If you change item D to require a RPC waiver then you are adding 30 days and a fee to the individuals. The way it is written here it can be done with an administrative exception. If it is older than 20 years it requires an RPC waiver.

Commissioner Adams

agrees with Mr. Lacy it would be better for staff to approve.

Commissioner King

changed his amended motion Paragraph 2-B and 2-D change back to 20 years on both cases. Commissioner Adams amended his second.

Mr. Lacy

stated there has been discussion with staff and others on how to implement some of the recommendations in the masterplan in reducing the density of homes in some of the current development and without taking someone’s specific zoning these zoning districts have the potential to add the most people to the valley. Without taking those specific zoning districts away the most appropriate addition to the code to slow down the development in these areas would be to put in requirements on mitigation and other conservation techniques to reduce the overall density but still allow the ability to still build a cost effective subdivision. This doesn’t say they can’t build but that they need to bring things to the table with plans on how they will build. It is a simple change to the code.

Commissioner Koenig

asked if this will effect existing development agreements or lots that are not zoned into these districts.

Mr. Lacy

stated existing DA’s and Subdivision maps have the entitlement to what they are trying to do, this would be for new ones coming forward.

Mr. Lacy

stated they are leaving this as a flexible tool, if someone has invested millions they should be able to come forward and have the incentive to come in and to find a path forward that works for all of us. This is Page 10 of 11 just a discussion draft, not a bill we would have to work with the DA’s office to try to come up with something that includes appropriate language. Bill Clark stated he thinks it is a total change of zoning. Will this affect multifamily lots in the Calvada Subdivisions?

Mr. Lacy

stated they can’t take away existing subdivision maps. If they can come forward to provide a path forward to reduce water consumption as you start getting into the studies that have been done there isn’t a way that we can support 500,000 people in this valley.

Mr. Clark

stated what this proposes is that the 3,000 sq. ft. requirement in the multi-family use now needs to be 20,000 sq. ft. His concern is the Calvada units in town, this needs more consideration.

Commissioner Koenig

stated he wants this to come back as a bill and go through the water board.

Commissioner King

stated he doesn’t believe this will affect the Calvada units. It will affect the 40 acre parcels, that are zoned VR-8, 10 or 20. They would have to be developed to VR-20 standards.

Mr. Lacy

stated they already have approved subdivisions. His intent wasn’t that the lots had to be VR-20 size, but that the water impact has to be reduced to the equivalent of VR-20 size.

Commissioner King

motioned for staff to bring this back as a bill draft for recommendation to the BOCC. Seconded by Commissioner Adams.