October 12, 2016

Commissioner Oscarson

motioned to approve. Seconded by Commissioner Carr. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 6). Yes: Gregory T. Hafen II, Joel Oscarson, John Buchanan, Leah-Ann DeAnda, Paul Carr, Vincent Clark. Page 1 of 8

Commissioner Hafen

stated the Planning Commission did receive a letter from the Water District and two sections of the GWMP, have been forwarded to the RPC for consideration and potential adoption into County Code. They are requesting the RPC agendize the sections in whole, or in part, sections 5(B) and 5(L) for adoption into County Code.

Mr. Lacy

stated NDOT had a workshop on the roundabouts. NDOT has produced 3 animated videos showing how the roundabouts would look like and work. There is a link on the Nye County website to watch them on YouTube.

Commissioner Hafen

will not be participating and will also be abstaining from Item # 13, Beazer Homes is developing in Pahrump Utility Company service territory, which he is employed by.

Commissioner Oscarson

stated he be abstaining from item #10. He is a licensed contractor for the state of Nevada and a subcontractor of Shadow Mtn. Construction and is currently looking to do work for Beazer Homes and will recuse himself from Item #13.

Commissioner Clark

disclosed for item #10, 4 years ago he hired Ken Murphy to build a garage for him. Tim Sutton asked Commissioner Clark if he will be abstaining from the item.

Commissioner Clark

stated no, he will not be abstaining.

Commissioner DeAnda

motioned to approve. Seconded by Commissioner Oscarson. Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 5, No = 1, Abstain = 0). Yes: Gregory T. Hafen II, Joel Oscarson, John Buchanan, Leah-Ann DeAnda, Vincent Clark. No: Paul Carr. Page 2 of 8

Commissioner Hafen

asked how long they want the continuance for.

Mr. Richards

stated next month would be fine.

Commissioner Oscarson

asked if 30 days will be enough time, will 60 days be better.

Mr. Richards

stated 30 days would suffice, but they will accept the 60 days.

Commissioner Clark

motioned to continue TM-2016-000003 till the December 14th meeting.

Mr. Osborne

reviewed his staff report, staffs recommendation is to approve Neighborhood Commercial zoning.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for confirmation that the justification letter states they would like outdoor storage, General Commercial doesn’t allow outdoor storage, correct.

Mr. Osborne

stated GC has a provision that allows for certain uses like lumber yard or garden areas like at Home Depot.

Commissioner Hafen

stated mini storage is allowable in the NC.

Mr. Osborne

stated correct, mini storage without any outdoor storage is allowable in NC.

Mr. Lacy

stated it has been a policy of the office look at the least intensive zoning necessary to support a project and not to allow a more intensive use unless there is a need to do so.

Commissioner Buchanan

asked for clarification that if they approve NC instead of GC they would allow the mini storage with no outside storage.

Mr. Osborne

stated correct. Page 3 of 8 Mark Genet, property owner stated they would like GC because they would like to have some open storage like covers for boats and motorhomes.

Commissioner Buchanan

asked if they will pave the whole parking lot area.

Mr. Genet

stated they were looking at chip sealing the area.

Commissioner Hafen

stated there is a condition of approval that requires the applicant to obtain an approved site development plan prior to construction and asked that the applicant is aware and approves.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if boat storage with an awning would be allowable in NC.

Mr. Lacy

stated he doesn’t believe that is specifically addressed. Mini storage does require screening walls between residential and commercial uses so there would be a block wall required on the sides next to any residential uses. They would look at that favorably when site development comes in to make sure there is proper screening and consider it indoor storage.

Commissioner Buchanan

asked if site development requires total fencing or block wall to keep the neighbors out.

Mr. Lacy

stated they are allowed fencing.

Commissioner Hafen

asked Public Works if there was a request for Sandy Lane to be dedicated. Cody McKee stated not at this time.

Mr. Lacy

reviewed the section of the development standards that addresses screening and walls.

Commissioner Buchanan

motioned to approve the recommendation of Neighborhood Commercial. Seconded by Commissioner Clark.

Mr. Osborne

reviewed his staff report staff recommendation is for approval.

Commissioner Clark

stated he is concerned for the location of the property, this is a day car correct.

Mr. Osborne

stated no, this is a bar. Barry Tassler, applicant, stated this is an existing business and he will be adding additional parking on the lot next door.

Commissioner Oscarson

motioned to approve ZC-2016-000010. Seconded by Commissioner Buchanan.

Commissioner Hafen

clarified the motion stating that they are only making a recommendation to the BOCC.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification that the continuation was for the CUP and the waiver.

Commissioner Hafen

opened the public hearing for WV-2016-000024 b. For possible action – WV-2016-000024: Public hearing, discussion, deliberation and possible decision on a waiver request for an exemption from NCC 17.04.700.A.10.a. a requirement for a paved circular driveway, located a minimum of 30-feet from the entrance of the facility. Property is located at 91 E. Fairway Street, further described as Calvada Valley, Unit 7, Block 49, Lot 36. Brandon Bietar – Property Owner, Jackie Lawson – Applicant. AP# 039-681-10. (This item is Final Action by the Pahrump Regional Planning Commission unless appealed to the Board of County Commissioners, or otherwise announced.)

Commissioner Hafen

asked if the property owner or applicant are present.

Ms. Beeman

reviewed the waiver staff report. Staff is recommending approval, against Public Works objections to the waiver. They are hoping to have up to 12 children but the applicant wasn’t able to have her meeting with the state to obtain more information on having the daycare at her home.

Commissioner Hafen

opened public comment at 6:37 pm. Patty Grubbs, lives within 300 feet of the home. She spoke in opposition to the daycare center, it isn’t a good location for a daycare.

Commissioner Clark

asked when the continuation was till.

Ms. Beeman

stated 60 days.

Commissioner Clark

motioned to continue to the December 14, 2016 meeting. Seconded by

Mr. Lacy

stated Beazer Homes has requested they adopt a new DA. There are a few small changes, the Final Subdivision Maps have already been adopted for the development, utilities and infrastructure have been resolved with the local utilities.

Commissioner Buchanan

asked for clarification on the removal of street lights.

Mr. Lacy

stated that was a request from Public Works. None of the other communities in the area have street lights.

Commissioner Buchanan

asked how long we were extending the agreement for.

Mr. Lacy

stated 10 years.

Commissioner Clark

asked if there has been any changes since 2005 on impact fees.

Commissioner Clark

asked if any part of the development is within a flood zone.

Ms. Beeman

stated she doesn’t have that information.

Mr. Lacy

stated he cannot answer that at this time.

Commissioner Buchanan

stated he recommends they approve the redevelopment agreement between Nye County and Burson Ranch under Nye County Bill 2016-11.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification that he motioned to recommend to the BOCC for approval.

Commissioner Buchanan

stated yes. Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 3, No = 1, Abstain = 2). Yes: John Buchanan, Paul Carr, Vincent Clark. No: Leah-Ann DeAnda. Abstain: Gregory T. Hafen II, Joel Oscarson.

Mr. Lacy

stated at the last meeting they spoke about MU and MF. There have been discussions with the community on the MF. After discussions with the Chairman and staff they have decided to postpone Page 6 of 8 the discussion on the MF use and staff will meet with stakeholders and staff to make sure we have their input before bringing the bill forward to this group.

Ms. Beeman

stated she added the preamble to the MU district which is 17.04.400, it puts the MU district into context and reviewed all the changes she made to the document from the previous meeting discussion.

Commissioner Hafen

stated for clarification the BO overlay only applies to property designated MU under the Masterplan not the Zoning.

Commissioner Hafen

stated this is something that needs to be looked at because BO can’t exist as currently written because we have gone away from the Masterplan designation of MU. Either by merging them together or clarifying the BO overlay that can be applied as needed. Minimum lot size per the notes were requested as gross not net.

Ms. Beeman

stated for clarification the larger acreage zoning districts are specifically labeled as gross, the VR’s in the preamble #13 gives lot size calculations and states all lot size calculations will be measured as net lot area.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if that was for the VR districts. The RE categories contradict that.

Ms. Beeman

stated that is for all residential zoning districts. It should read all lot size calculations shall be measured as net lot area unless otherwise.

Commissioner Hafen

stated there are many areas that need to be amended to conform to one another.

Commissioner Oscarson

asked for clarification that in our Masterplan we don’t have MU.

Commissioner Buchanan

asked how many properties we have zoned MU.

Ms. Beeman

stated there is a map in the back up showing MU zoning.

Commissioner Oscarson

asked for clarification on the uses that were pulled for the permissive uses.

Ms. Beeman

stated recreational uses, skating rinks, bowling alleys, theaters were recommended for deletion. Institutional uses were also recommended for deletion because we don’t have a definition for it. The BO zone has far more flexibility and usability when it comes to permissive uses.

Commissioner Clark

stated he is confused about the two different types of zoning we are discussing. Is it possible to combine these two into one zoning that can accomplish what they are trying to do with two.

Mr. Lacy

asked for clarification if he is talking about MU and BO.

Ms. Beeman

stated they have applied the BO on Homestead Rd.

Mr. Lacy

stated the BO zone was brought in after original zoning to address some issues we have in the valley.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if it is easier to eliminate the MU district and just have the BO zone, however the BO zone might have its own issues as well.

Commissioner Clark

stated looking at the comparison of the two BO zone makes more sense.

Mr. Lacy

stated there are similarities between MU and BO, staff can come back to the next meeting with a better analysis of that. Page 7 of 8

Commissioner Oscarson

and Commissioner Hafen agree that they want that comparison of the two for the next meeting.

Commissioner Hafen

asked the board if they are all in agreement to the proposed revision of the language for MU.

Commissioner Hafen

directed staff to place the MU zoning district on the next agenda for additional conversation in regards to BO and MU and separately the MU zoning recommendations.

Commissioner Hafen

stated the next meeting will be November 9th at 6:00 pm. He directed staff to look at the area between Red Rock Drive and River Plate, in the China Street area.

Commissioner Hafen

would also like staff to start working on at least bringing forward to the RPC the actual language from the GWMP referenced in Chapters 5B and 5L so that it can be placed on an agenda.

Commissioner Hafen

would like the link to the Masterplan sent to all the Commissioners.

Commissioner Oscarson

asked staff if there can be a water workshop.

Mr. Lacy

stated we can put an agenda item on to give the board some basics in Water Law and how it applies to land division. There can also be training with the DA’s office on explaining land division issues and entitlement process.

Commissioner Hafen

stated that would be very helpful.

Mr. Sutton

stated the Commissioners can email him to place certain items they might not understand and would like additional information on and it would be placed on the agenda for training.