September 14, 2016

Commissioner Oscarson

motioned to accept the minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Carr.

Mr. Lacy

stated the VA clinic and VEA have received their final Certificates of Occupancy’s. Development is up this year almost 50% from last year. d. Chairman’s Comments None.

Commissioner Hafen

stated he will be participating in Item #11 however his family owns several fourplex’s in the valley.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification that this application is before the RPC due to a previous condition of approval.

Ms. Beeman

stated that is correct.

Commissioner Hafen

stated based on the submission Cahlan Court isn’t a dedicated or accepted as a public ROW or easement. Dave Richards stated Cahlan road isn’t part of this map, it ends at what is Cahlan Road or part of this parcel.

Commissioner Hafen

clarified that the issue with the powerline and the road would need to be addressed on a different parcel.

Mr. Lacy

stated that is correct.

Commissioner Adams

motions to approve PM-2016-000015, based on findings and subject to conditions. Seconded by Commissioner Oscarson.

Commissioner Oscarson

asked if this would allow the increase in the amount of animals they are allowed to have.

Mrs. Medici

stated no it would not allow them to have any additional animals that what is stated in the CUP. Animal Control was notified and they have no issues with the kennels. They would like to combine both lots one has the kennel and a well and the other has a home and a well. The State DWR has no issue with combining the two parcels and having two wells on one parcel.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification on the statement that DWR had no issues with having on parcel and two wells.

Mrs. Medici

stated that is correct.

Commissioner Borasky

asked for clarification that Animal Control was contacted and notified. He contacted Animal Control and they stated they were not notified.

Mrs. Medici

stated yes, she forwarded over the staff report in an email today and spoke with Tim McCarty this afternoon and he advised he was unaware of any complaints as far as the kennel goes. She attempted to reach out to Detective Boruchowitz and had no response back.

Commissioner Borasky

asked if this will allow them to have additional animals.

Mr. Lacy

stated the CUP is for both parcels. There is no specific number of animals listed on the property. Page 3 of 12

Mrs. Medici

stated it is her understanding it would be a modification to the CUP if they want to have additional animals on the property.

Commissioner Clark

stated he would like to add a special condition added that the approval of the map doesn’t include an expansion of the number of animals that they are allowed to have.

Commissioner Oscarson

asked for clarification that combining the two properties wouldn’t affect the CUP or the number of animals that they are allowed to have.

Mr. Lacy

stated correct, the CUP is for both parcels already.

Commissioner Carr

stated this action complies with State, Federal and County laws. He asked why this is not on all CUPs.

Mrs. Medici

stated that it is standard language.

Commissioner Clark

motioned to approve PM-2016-000018 subject to all conditions with the addition of special condition #22 stating that this approval does not allow for the addition of animals on the property. Seconded by Commissioner Adams.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if it would be an option to continue the application to another meeting to allow the applicant more time to provide information.

Mr. Osborne

stated under county code we have 60 days to approve, we would need applicant approval to continue. Dave Richards – agent for the applicant. Mason Harvey – Manager Pahrump Lands LLC.

Mr. Richards

stated this is the first step in the process with the State for developing a commercial subdivision. They don’t have businesses yet reserved a spot. They are just wanting to try and get the hurdles of the property completed. If staff requires all these conditions listed beforehand it makes it impossible to complete. They are just trying to follow NRS procedures to prepare a Tentative Commercial Subdivision Map.

Commissioner Hafen

stated under NRS the RPC has to find certain findings, of those findings listed on page 2, staff have only been able to verify #4, #5 and #8 of the 9 conditions the Page 4 of 12 remaining have been provided insufficient information. Continuation was questioned because NRS requires these items be addressed.

Mr. Richards

stated the items they are asking is detail based on the development. They don’t have the information to provide.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification from the applicant that they are not amenable to continuing to the October 12th RPC meeting. Mason Harvey stated it is his understanding they are just asking for the subdivision and that once approved they can move lot lines around depending on the user, once the users are decided that will then be submitted then they will have to comply with the parking and the ratios all traffic analysis to accommodate that user. They agree to comply with the conditions that staff is proposing but are something they would expect on a final map. It isn’t possible at this state to answer any of these NRS requirements.

Commissioner Clark

asked who the owners of the property are.

Mr. Harvey

stated he is a manager and owner of the property.

Commissioner Adams

asked staff if there is a mobile home park and housing track adjacent to the property. Have they been notified?

Mr. Lacy

stated there is no notification of a tentative map. This development would be twice the size of the largest commercial development within town. The NRS makes it clear at this stage there are items we must be looking at. Without knowing what the uses for the property is going to be how are we to know if there will be appropriate water and access to utilities. Not information has been provided to show this. A development agreement might be an option to look at to give them the authority to move forward. When the land is sold, they record a record of survey to sell off a parcel of land.

Commissioner Hafen

stated the tentative map is for 3 parcels and asked for clarification that whether or not they are limited to three parcels or could they do more.

Mr. Lacy

stated they can do three hundred quarter acre parcels if they wanted under a record of survey with no additional approvals or maps.

Commissioner Oscarson

asked for clarification from the applicant on what the final result is with the number of lots they would want.

Mr. Harvey

stated this doesn’t give him approval to construct buildings, or permitting for development. This is just the engineering side to get the commercial subdivision started.

Mr. Lacy

stated the first step is a Tentative Map then a final map. Staff has outlined in the staff report what needs to be addressed. Unless conditions are placed now, when a developers come forward with a Final Subdivision map for a commercial subdivision the developers can subdivide and develop how they want and stated that is why a development agreement was brought up. A 12” water line that is currently installed isn’t large enough to provide a 70 acre subdivision.

Mr. Richards

asked Mr. Lacy for clarification on what development staff is concerned about that they can’t already go ahead and do even without a Tentative or Final Map.

Commissioner Hafen

stated he understands their concerns, the NRS is clear, it states the RPC shall consider these items. It isn’t planning stating these must be addressed. It is NRS stating they must be addressed. He asked if they would be amendable to continue to the October RPC meeting to provide the information that are required and outlined by NRS. Page 5 of 12

Mr. Richards

stated they are failing to find anything in staff’s concerns that they haven’t addressed or are called for in the NRS that they haven’t answered and requested for those items to be listed for them. They have answered the water, drainage and utilities.

Mr. Harvey

stated they would like to set up a date to meet with staff to address the issues. He will accept the continuation.

Commissioner Clark

asked Mr. Lacy to clarify what the difference in what they are trying to do and a Development Agreement.

Mr. Lacy

reviewed the Development Agreement process.

Commissioner Clark

asked if a DA get us to the same place that this application has taken us.

Mr. Lacy

stated they would still have to the land division processes whether you do a development agreement or not.

Commissioner Hafen

asked Mr. Lacy for clarification that the BOCC would address the Development Agreement.

Mr. Lacy

stated that is correct.

Commissioner Oscarson

motioned to continue TM-2016-000003 to the October 12th meeting with recommendation to staff to set up a meeting with the applicant to discuss what items are identified as incomplete. Seconded by Commissioner Clark.

Commissioner Hafen

reviewed his previous disclosure statement on the item.

Mr. Lacy

stated the Mixed Use zoning allows a lot of different uses, they would like to start moving forward with direction for staff. Cheryl Beeman reviewed the Mixed Use document provided in the back up. The discussion is what would be appropriate, they have provided a revision of the MU zoning. They have taken out the NC and GC permissive uses and placed Multi Family dwelling with options.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification on the document for the Multi-Family under section E where it gives “or” options.

Ms. Beeman

stated the “OR’s” are all for Multi-Family options and how to deal with the MF use in the Mixed Use district. These are staff thoughts on the use. Page 6 of 12

Mr. Lacy

stated we need to look at the general intent of Mixed Use. Large Multi-Family should be on central utilities not on septic.

Commissioner Hafen

would like to address the Multi Family “ORs” when we get to the MF section. He would also like to have the minimum lot sizes defined as gross to match with the other zoning districts.

Commissioner Adams

asked how many lots are MU based on what is already there compared to the vacant lots at this time.

Ms. Beeman

stated a majority of the MU lots are undeveloped.

Commissioner Adams

asked if we are looking at areas that aren’t developed yet, and were in appropriately zoned MU.

Commissioner Hafen

stated if there are parcels that the board would like staff to bring back for discussion then the board can direct staff to do that for a future meeting.

Mr. Lacy

stated some of these large developments are not appropriate for a MU zoning district and there are some other tools that now can address those issues that weren’t available to us before. First we need to narrow down the definition.

Commissioner Clark

asked what the level of urgency on this issue is.

Mr. Lacy

stated they have been asked by Commissioner Carbone and the Water Board to start addressing the zoning issues that affect water usage.

Commissioner Clark

asked for clarification on the mixed use zoning that is further out, they are just going to leave that alone.

Mr. Lacy

stated it goes back to what we want the MU zone to be. People on larger lots like to have a business in their back yards.

Commissioner Clark

asked Commissioner Hafen if he would want to schedule sub-committees for these items.

Commissioner Hafen

stated those would need to be open to the public, notice and as of now they are just directing staff to bring items back to them to be heard.

Mr. Lacy

stated the members can always come to schedule meetings with staff to discuss the items that they might have comments on.

Commissioner Hafen

stated for the Mobile Home section he would like it to last gross square footage for the lots. He would also like to recommend to change under B, page 2 - minimal lot area states net, the rest of the code is gross and he would like that updated.

Ms. Beeman

stated the section under note #3 where part of the code is missing it should read corner lots should have additional width.

Commissioner Oscarson

agrees that the corner lots should have an additional width added.

Mr. Lacy

stated NRS states Mobile Home parks can be converted to individually owned lots and then been sold off one lot at a time, thus allowing for 4,800 Sq. Ft. lots.

Commissioner Hafen

stated they would still have to adhere to the Mobile Home zoning, but are selling the individual lots. Page 7 of 12

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification that staff’s recommendation for a corner lot is 52 not 32.

Ms. Beeman

stated that would depend on what the minimum width is that the board settles on.

Mr. Lacy

stated they aren’t recommending that increase but to seek recommendation from the board.

Commissioner Oscarson

stated it should be standardized no matter what size mobile home you have.

Commissioner Buchanan

asked for clarification that someone can build a mobile home park using these standards then do a condo conversion.

Mr. Lacy

stated that is correct.

Ms. Beeman

stated the other properties zoned MH are about 68 acres with most of them in our rural areas. The standards should fit the character of the neighborhood they are in.

Commissioner Oscarson

stated he’s recommendation to 5200 feet whether it is a single or doublewide.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification on the recommendation to standardize the square footage for mobile home space to 5200 sq. ft.

Commissioner Oscarson

stated that is correct.

Mr. Lacy

asked if they board had an overall density they would like to stick to.

Commissioner Adams

stated a minimum of 8,000 or even 5 or 6,000 would be better.

Mr. Lacy

asked if they would want the requirement that mobile home parks be on central utilities.

Ms. Beeman

asked if there would be room for density bonuses if they provide open space, swimming pools, and recreation areas and provide their own utilities.

Commissioner Adams

is looking for a lower density community, water and sewer should simply be a requirement of development.

Mr. Lacy

stated with RV Parks they went to 10 acres minimum, and asked if they want to do something similar with these as well.

Commissioner Hafen

stated he would like to disclose for the record his family owns a private utility company on the south end of the valley and that there is no property currently zoned Mobile Home Park in their utility district.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification that the current mobile home park zoning there is zero requirement for Open Space and the yet smaller lots have a requirement for open space.

Ms. Beeman

stated no just setbacks, but new subdivisions have that standards.

Commissioner Hafen

asked staff to bring back the VR-8 and VR-10 requirements to the board for to get a better idea on what they may or may not want to add to the Mobile Home Park. Page 8 of 12

Commissioner Oscarson

reviewed what the current recommendations being brought up were. 5200 Sq. Ft., density of 1 - 5, open space requirement, and connection of water and sewer from a utility company.

Commissioner Hafen

stated that is correct, these are recommendations to staff to bring back to the board for further discussion. He would like staff to evaluate vacant properties zoned MH to get an idea if any are smaller than 10 acres. It would be helpful to know if we are planning on doing anything with existing properties or for only future re-zoning properties.

Commissioner Clark

asked if it would be valuable to break down requirements for mobile home parks into smaller parks with 20 – 25 units or larger park with 80 – 100.

Commissioner Clark

asked if there should be a requirement as to singlewides in one section and doublewides allowed in another section of the mobile home park.

Mr. Lacy

stated that is what the draft shows, there are no requirements that states they should be in different sections of the park.

Commissioner Adams

asked if Manufactured Homes and Mobile Home is being used interchangeably.

Ms. Beeman

reviewed the back up for the multifamily recommendations.

Commissioner Hafen

would like clarification of gross net.

Ms. Beeman

stated we have a minimal lot size of 3000 sq. ft. We have added 5000 sq. ft. for discussion, moving townhomes, triplex, fourplex and apartments. Triplex is added as a separate line for permissive uses, and moved apartments, fourplex and apartments for uses under a CUP.

Mr. Lacy

stated we don’t have a list of development standards, amenities and open space, we need to have a discussion on this.

Commissioner Hafen

stated NRS 278 developer shall provide recycling containers for apartments and condominiums. Should this be moved under footnote C and not E.

Ms. Beeman

stated this could be moved to under a development standard.

Commissioner Hafen

stated he would like to see triplex, fourplex and townhomes stay under permissive uses and apartments move to subject to a CUP.

Mr. Lacy

stated if we are going to leave them under permissive uses then we need spend more time on development standards. CUPs allow for conditions, we need to give staff tools for development standards.

Commissioner Hafen

stated anything over 4 units need to come forward for a CUP, no matter what they call it. Maybe it should have a four unit maximum.

Commissioner Oscarson

stated we should go with the same lot sizes that we did with the mobile homes.

Ms. Beeman

stated we have multifamily zoning from 40 acre properties down to 8,800 sq. ft. Page 9 of 12

Commissioner Oscarson

stated for any new development we need to have the same requirements we do for MH.

Commissioner Clark

asked what a congregate living facility is.

Ms. Beeman

stated it is defined in the code as apartments and dwellings with communal dining facilities and services such as housekeeping, organized social and recreational activities, transportation services and other services appropriate for the residents.

Commissioner Clark

stated for apartments, and fourplex is there a definition between single and multi-story units. Such as setbacks, minimum lot sizes etcetera.

Mr. Lacy

stated that is something we will need to discuss.

Commissioner Hafen

reminded everyone they are not directing staff to rezone any part of the town, this is just discussion.

Mr. Osborne

stated the purpose of the bill is to amend and clarify the three different categories of site development we have. Category 1 is new development, category 2 is when there is an existing building with a minor expansion, and Category 3 is for projects that already have drainage, traffic and infrastructure included.

Commissioner Adams

stated page 4, item F, it divides changes of more than 50% versus less than 50%. Is there a time frame that they can make less than 50% changes?

Mr. Osborne

stated the way it is written when you apply for your site development we look at that percentage.

Commissioner Hafen

stated under category 3 if someone is moving into an existing building that may or may not meet drainage or traffic requirements would that fall under tenant improvements. Will this require site development review?

Mr. Osborne

stated if it is an existing building and they were doing interior adjustments it would fall under category 3 for tenant improvements.

Commissioner Oscarson

stated under F-2 optional was stricken. Does this require it to be mandatory process then?

Mr. Osborne

stated if you fit under category 2 then you go under category 2.

Commissioner Oscarson

asked then it is no longer optional.

Mr. Osborne

stated yes. Page 10 of 12

Mr. Lacy

stated under category 2 the amount of relief that is being given is still discretionary. Just because they fit under category 2 staff could still determine and hold them to the same standards as a category 1 site development.

Commissioner Hafen

asked Public Works if they have reviewed and approve of this. Cody Mckee nodded in agreement.

Commissioner Adams

motioned to recommend Bill 2016-13 to the BOCC. Seconded by

Commissioner Oscarson

asked for the workshops information in Boulder City to be emailed to them.

Ms. Beeman

nodded in agreement.

Commissioner Hafen

the Groundwater Management Plan is still being worked on by staff and will be a few months before it is brought before the board.

Mr. Lacy

stated they should have the landscaping plan soon.

Commissioner Oscarson

asked if there is anything that can be done regarding the road on Item #8.

Mr. Lacy

stated it was done under a record of survey by a district court action and until they bring forward plans to develop those lots we can then discuss it with them.

Commissioner Oscarson

stated then it is out of our hands at this time.

Mr. Lacy

stated a district judge told them to do the map, there is very little they can do about it. It is a private road owned jointly by the four property owners that surround it.

Commissioner Hafen

stated his suggestion is to provide the APN’s to staff of the properties being developed illegally and he would be happy to review it with staff to see if they are in violation of the code.

Mr. Lacy

stated they are currently in site development review with the property owner and discussing it with them now.