December 14, 2016

Commissioner Oscarson

motion to approve. Seconded by Commissioner DeAnda.

Commissioner Hafen

state there is a request to pull item 8a & b and a request from staff to pull item 14 due to a minor correction needed on noticing and an update to the master plan.

Commissioner Oscarson

motioned to remove the items from the agenda. Seconded by Commissioner Clark.

Commissioner Hafen

stated Item # 8 and #14 have been pulled from the agenda.

Ms. Beeman

stated for clarification on item #8 the applicant has requested it be withdrawn.

Mr. Lacy

stated thing are starting to pick up and the department is getting busier. d. Chairman’s Comments None.

Commissioner Hafen

stated on item #15 he has family members that rent billboard space to Mt. Falls and doesn’t cloud his judgement and will participate in the item. 8. a. For possible action – CU-2016-000021 (Continued from the October 12, 2016 Meeting): Public hearing, discussion, deliberation and possible decision on a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow a Child Care Facility with up to 12 children in a Single Family Residence on property located within the Village Residential (VR-8) zoning district and 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.) (CB) b. For possible action – WV-2016-000024 (Continued from the October 12, 2016 meeting): 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 Page 2 of 18 Commission unless appealed to the Board of County Commissioners, or otherwise announced.) (CB) Item was withdrawn by the applicant.

Commissioner Oscarson

asked for clarification that the applicant has submitted the drawing without the roads to be widened, and to coordinate with UICN.

Mr. Osborne

stated they had a meeting with the applicant and UICN. UICN hasn’t submitted a formal comment on the item. They did state they couldn’t without knowing fixture counts, and stated they couldn’t commit to supporting this at this time. Dave Richards, Civilwise Services, agent for the applicant. Mr. Richards stated he wanted to address the issues with the Utility Company and what he has been working that out with them. Brett Wagner, Great Basin Water, Co. Mr. Wagner stated they have not provided a formal letter of intent to serve, there is more research to be done. There is a discrepancy if the whole 70 acres of property is annexed in or if it is just a 10 acre parcel annexed into their service territory. The property itself is located within the boundaries. They are at a point where they could provide an intent to serve but there would definitely be conditions that would have to be cleared up throughout the process.

Commissioner Oscarson

stated the staff report states they don’t have anything from UICN and asked if

Mr. Lacy

knew that Mr. Wagner would be at the meeting.

Mr. Lacy

stated UICN would typically provide a letter of intent or some other written information to show what parcel is within their territory if they intended to serve or not. Staff has had verbal discussions with them but they haven’t provided staff with any written documentation.

Commissioner Oscarson

stated the first thing that needs to be done is address the intent to serve and that they will have utilities out there.

Mr. Richards

stated he does have a utility service inquiry response letter that was submitted originally that specifies what they will need to have done. It states they are capable of serving the property with their conditions. They have stated they will be able to produce a letter of some sort after approval at the RPC, and it could turn into will serves as the development comes along. Page 3 of 18 Mason Harvey, manager of Pahrump Lands, LLC. They do own about 290 acre feet of water rights and have banked 25 with the utilities. He went down to UICN and tried to get the intent to serve letter and he was told to fill out paperwork and come back when construction plans are approved.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification that a majority of the property isn’t in the Great Basin Service Territory.

Mr. Richards

stated approximately 1/3 of the property is in the utility territory per the map. He stated there is some confusion there and the owner does agree that any portion that is not currently a legal part of the service area will go through the annexation process.

Mr. Wagner

stated entering into an annexation with the utility company would be a condition of the intent to serve. As far of the water rights there would be research and validation that would need to be done on those.

Mr. Richards

asked for explanation on finding #1 that this is inconsistent with the Master Plan update. This is zoned NC and marked as CDA. It is consistent with the Master Plan the NC was a hold zone that was put on the property with the stated stipulation they could get the rezoning done on the property as they needed.

Mr. Lacy

stated from a Master Plan prospective GC type activities is allowable in the Master Plan, the Master Plan also looked at those as being connected to central utilities, areas with adequate infrastructure to support this type of development and zoning that goes with this property is NC and its intent is for small or medium scale development. Many pieces of the conceptual development is speculative in nature. Some parts of this development they could support but this large of a development staff suggested at the beginning was to enter into a DA and annex them into the utility district and they have chosen not to do so. Staff doesn’t believe this is the appropriate development for the area.

Mr. Harvey

stated they had a portion before the last Master Plan update that it was zoned MU and GC. They were asked to create a conceptual plan and they have provided that. They agreed with staff that CDA would be appropriate for this area, with a possible SUP or variance requested to be in conformance with the Master Plan. He doesn’t understand why this all must be done at the Tentative Map stage.

Commissioner Hafen

stated there was no change to zoning with the Master Plan update. The Master Plan is completely different than the zoning. Staff states 75,000 Sq. Ft buildings on the plans you submitted to staff don’t meet our zoning code requirements. If the applicant wants to come before the board and request a zone change to help move the Tentative Map along they can do that, but the RPC can’t approve something that will go against the code.

Commissioner Hafen

asked staff for clarification that prior to zoning everything was open use and highway frontage.

Mr. Osborne

stated yes. The comprehensive rezoning was done in 2007 and that is when the property was zoned from OU to NC.

Mr. Richards

stated the property was pulled out because the owner objected to the proposed zoning and stated he was part of the review committee. They have agreed that when the property develops and has been stated as a condition of development the infrastructure would be brought to serve the project. It is being discussed now it needs to be done before the TM is approved.

Commissioner Adams

stated staff had requested previously to have a Development Agreement created. This seems like you want to do a Master Plan separate from Planning. Page 4 of 18

Mr. Richards

stated not at all. A DA isn’t completely off the table, they submitted what they thought Planning asked for from the last meeting and apparently it wasn’t correct.

Mr. Harvey

stated the DA process can be very lengthily, it isn’t off the table and stated he doesn’t believe it to be necessary.

Commissioner Buchanan

asked for clarification on the advantages of a DA.

Commissioner Hafen

stated he would like to stay focused on the application at hand.

Mr. Lacy

stated a DA lets staff look at the project as a whole and not on a piece meal basis. Once the TM is approved the commercial subdivision is allowed to moved forward and sell off parcels without talking to Planning or any other County entity until they come forward with a development plan for one of those parcels. It could be brought forward one parcel at a time and we could end up arguing about roads, utilities and everything else instead of looking at this as a total development.

Mr. Harvey

stated as a condition of approval there are requirements to improve roads, infrastructure etcetera.

Commissioner Clark

stated his concern is the piece meal nature that could develop, that is a concern.

Mr. Harvey

stated they would have to bond for those improvements in question or pay for them themselves. They are just asking for a TM approval, they had no idea they would need to conceptualize what they planned on doing on the land. They just need approval of the engineering part of the map. They will come back for the FM and it will have changes with more information.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification from Mr. Lacy that the RPC doesn’t see Final Maps that is why they are asking for so much now, they only see the TM stages.

Mr. Lacy

stated under NRS you are being asked to review under the TM stage. He has not seen any of these requirements on a TM stage.

Mr. Richards

stated under NRS Final Maps get submitted to the RPC for recommendation to the BOCC.

Commissioner Clark

motioned deny TM-2016-000003 based on the need for the package to reflect applicable zoning requirements. Seconded by Commissioner Carr.

Commissioner Oscarson

asked for clarification on the number of children allowed in 1800 Sq. Ft. it sounds like it is 40 through the state.

Ms. Beeman

stated that is a question for the applicant.

Commissioner Clark

stated the staff report states 20 – 40 children that is a little vague. Shouldn’t it be a set number?

Ms. Beeman

stated that is an answer the applicant can answer, she has been in contact with the state. Jacqueline Lawson stated the state has a requirement of 35 sq. ft. per child. The home is 1606 Sq. Ft. that would give a maximum allowable of 44 children.

Commissioner Oscarson

asked if the applicant lives in the home.

Ms. Lawson

stated no, it is vacant.

Commissioner Oscarson

stated this is now no longer a SFR at this point and will become a full commercial development. Does this change things now?

Ms. Beeman

stated she doesn’t have her code in front of her.

Commissioner Clark

asked Commissioner Oscarson if his concern is a possible zoning problem.

Commissioner Oscarson

stated yes, they are in residential area, it isn’t MU. 40 kids in 1600 sq. ft. is awfully small. If you have 40 children lined up it seems it is a potential opportunity for growth of your business. There are three facilities sitting empty now that is a proper place to do something like this.

Ms. Lawson

stated it was her understanding that there wasn’t any limit of requirements of children.

Ms. Beeman

stated our code doesn’t set limits based on square footage, we defer to the state requirements.

Commissioner Carr

asked the applicant if the parking can accommodate a stack up of several cars at one time.

Ms. Lawson

stated yes, with peoples schedules they will have some children that are only dropped off after schools. There is a circular driveway and an area next to the driveway as well.

Commissioner Buchanan

asked if this was a 24 hour facility.

Ms. Lawson

stated no, their proposed hours are 6:00 am to 6:30 pm.

Commissioner Oscarson

asked the ratio of staff to child.

Ms. Lawson

stated it depends on the ages of the children.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification on age restrictions. Page 6 of 18

Ms. Lawson

stated 6 weeks to 12 years old providing part time and full time care. Their plan is to have different rooms for different age groups with the main area.

Commissioner Clark

asked about ADA compliance with the structure.

Mr. Lacy

stated ADA is compliance at the time specific building plans are submitted, it is part of the Development standards that would be required to be done as the project moves forward.

Commissioner Clark

asked if the applicant is potentially looking at taking care of disabled children and if you are, are you licensed to do that, and does the state come in and inspect you for that.

Ms. Lawson

stated yes they have to come in and inspect, there are different requirements for different disabilities when it comes to child care licensing. Depending on that they would be limited to what disabilities they could accommodate.

Commissioner Adams

stated based on figures at www.childcareresourcesinc.org he has figured you could have 4 to 13 employees at one time, there is no parking area.

Commissioner Hafen

asked Ms. Lawson if she would be amendable to the board adding a special condition that they would have to come back for renewal in 5 years.

Ms. Lawson

stated she’d be willing to do that.

Commissioner Hafen

asked Ms. Lawson if she has read and understood all the conditions of approval.

Commissioner Adams

stated this business could have 60 trips a day on the road, you are operating a commercial business in a residential neighborhood.

Ms. Lawson

stated 4 to 5 of the employees are family and will be coming in one vehicle, which will minimize the parking issues for employees.

Ms. Lawson

stated she understands the traffic concerns of her neighbors, she wants to do this for the children and the community. She can’t financially do it at this time but in the future possibly purchase the property next door to address the parking.

Commissioner Clark

asked if she had considered a smaller number of 25 or 30.

Ms. Lawson

stated the State sets her limits and she might not have 40 kids there at one time. Some will be part time and some only on certain days of the week. Page 7 of 18

Commissioner Oscarson

motion to deny CU-2016-000024 based on findings #2 the conditional use will change the essential character of the area and the proposed use is not appropriate and not compatible with the character of the property and the general vicinity, #3 the conditional use will be hazardous or disturbing to existing and future neighboring uses by noise, #5 it will not be adequately serviced by public facilities, and #7 the use will produce excessive traffic and noise. Seconded by Commissioner DeAnda.

Mr. Osborne

reviewed his staff report, last month the BOCC approved a waiver of Dust Control regulations. The BOCC waived the paving of the individual parking spaces, but requiring any ADA parking spaces be paved, and the main access road and the main drive aisle serving the parking lot would also need to be paved. Staff recommends approval of the application.

Mr. Richards

, agent for the applicant.

Commissioner Clark

motioned to approve WV-2016-000030 subject to the special conditions of approval. Seconded by Commissioner Oscarson.

Mr. Osborne

reviewed the staff report and staff recommends approval of the application.

Commissioner Buchanan

asked if the applicant stated what they are using the building for.

Mr. Osborne

stated it is an RV garage. Page 8 of 18

Commissioner Adams

stated special condition #1 could be written differently stating it could be an accessory building for use with a residential structure.

Mr. Osborne

stated he agrees, it could state a Residential Accessory Building.

Commissioner Oscarson

asked if the two lots could be combined.

Mr. Osborne

stated that is possible they could do a Merger Parcel map to combine the two lots.

Commissioner Oscarson

asked if that would be something that staff could look forward to.

Mr. Lacy

stated yes, staff would support that as a condition of approval Thomas Purcio applicant.

Commissioner Oscarson

asked the applicant if they would be amenable to combining the properties.

Mr. Purcio

stated yes it could be done.

Commissioner Hafen

asked the applicant if they were amendable to modifying condition #1 that it is a residential accessory use only.

Commissioner Oscarson

motioned to approve WV-2016-000032 based on findings. Seconded by

Commissioner Clark

asked if that includes the addition of the word accessory.

Commissioner Oscarson

amended his motion to include the verbiage Commissioner Adams added.

Commissioner DeAnda

amended her second.

Mr. Osborne

reviewed his staff report and staff is recommending denial of the application. The RE-1 zone doesn’t allow a recreational vehicle as a primary residence. The RV regulations and RV regulations in relation to seasonal use of RV’s are in the processes of being reviewed and reevaluation the codes.

Mr. Lacy

stated they do allow under a TUP application for 1 year at a time.

Mr. Osborne

stated 6 months seasonal with out and up to 1 year with a TUP.

Mr. Sutton

asked for clarification if this property was truly a grandfathered use at any point.

Mr. Osborne

stated we looked at some documentation that there could have been an RV there at one time, we didn’t clearly establish there was an RV there prior to the code.

Commissioner Clark

asked for clarification that staff couldn’t establish that there was ever an RV there to begin with.

Commissioner Clark

asked what the time period from when the RV was removed until now.

Mr. Osborne

stated we don’t have the exact amount of time. It has been more than 6 months.

Commissioner Hafen

asked when the aerial photography was last taken. Tim Dahl stated it is shown on the website as to when the last aerials were taken.

Mr. Osborne

stated he doesn’t know the answer to that question.

Commissioner Buchanan

asked if there is already a TUP and he already has 6 months left to put on a manufactured home or permanent residence before he has to abandon the RV, correct.

Mr. Osborne

stated correct. Edward Schuler this property was occupied with a trailer home and a wooden porch. He wants to reinstate his grandfather rights so he can put a trailer on and live there. He can’t afford a full size manufactured home so he wants to put something smaller on there. He hasn’t purchased anything yet his neighbor has a 35 foot trailer with tip outs he will sell him. The realtor he spoke with told him the pedestal was still there and that the grandfathering should still be there.

Commissioner Adams

asked the applicant if depending on the size of the trailer it could be something he could move every 6 months.

Mr. Schuler

stated it won’t be movable and the porch won’t be attached.

Commissioner Clark

asked if there is a septic tank on the property.

Mr. Schuler

stated yes, the original one is there.

Commissioner Oscarson

asked if he has a residence on the property.

Mr. Schuler

stated he has a motorhome there that they gave him a temporary permit for so he can seek a manufactured home, but there isn’t anything he can afford. The motorhome won’t be used as a residence. He will put a trailer in the exact spot the lady had. Page 10 of 18

Commissioner Oscarson

asked for clarification if this is to place a manufactured home on the property.

Mr. Schuler

stated no, it is to put a trailer there.

Mr. Osborne

stated he won’t use the RV if he can get approval of a different, park model type RV.

Mr. Schuler

stated they told him he can’t have tip outs of slide outs, he isn’t sure what a park model is.

Commissioner Oscarson

asked if the applicant intends to place a manufactured home or another trailer that is meant to be towed on the road like a recreational vehicle.

Mr. Schuler

stated yes, but if he purchases the neighbors trailer it is not really towable on the road. It isn’t something you take into a RV park because it has tip outs and too wide, they maybe movable.

Commissioner Hafen

stated for clarification we are here tonight to allow a Recreational Vehicle as a permanent residence or not.

Commissioner Adams

stated the Master Plan was created to address the situation that was mentioned. As the uses are abandoned we place the new requirements. It seems we are piece by piece taking apart the master plan.

Mr. Schuler

asked if the Master Plan was in 2007.

Commissioner Adams

stated it was approved in 2014, and those that were there before it are grandfathered. Would you be amenable to a time restriction on the CUP?

Mr. Schuler

stated the CUP allows him to have a trailer and he has to have one within 6 months to a year.

Commissioner Adams

asked if he would be agreeable to a 5 year renewal of the CUP.

Mr. Schuler

asked for clarification on a 5 year renewal.

Commissioner Adams

stated it would expire in 5 years and maybe you could place a manufactured home in its place.

Mr. Schuler

stated he would rather have something more permanent if he is going to invest money in it.

Mr. Lacy

stated he is allowed by code to add a manufactured home, we wouldn’t be here for a waiver if he was trying to put a manufactured home on the site.

Commissioner Adams

stated in 5 years he would be putting a manufactured home there.

Mr. Schuler

stated no, they are larger then he needs. He can’t afford a manufactured home but he can afford a trailer.

Commissioner Clark

asked if Mr. Schuler intended to use this as his permanent residence.

Commissioner Clark

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

Mr. Schuler

stated yes. Page 11 of 18

Commissioner Clark

asked if he is amenable to adding condition #6 that the CUP automatically expires at the change of ownership.

Commissioner Oscarson

stated as we do these things and we go more and more outside of the Master Plan. We are trying to clean this up and make sure we are consistent with the Master Plan, if we allow this continually then we should just get rid of the Master Plan.

Commissioner Clark

stated he has been out to this property and noted the neighborhood it is already Hodge podge and doing this one property at a time probably isn’t an efficient way to do it.

Commissioner Oscarson

stated we don’t have a verified grandfathered use on this property.

Commissioner Clark

stated there is some evidence that there was such a use previously, we can’t establish how long ago the grandfathered use expired.

Commissioner Clark

motioned to approve CU-2016-000023 subject to the special conditions of approval adding #6 that the CUP will expires upon any ownership change.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for Commissioner Clark’s findings if he is going against staffs recommendations.

Commissioner Clark

stated his justification is that we can’t establish specifically when the grandfathered use began or ended. Second upon his visit to the property he noticed the neighborhood is already nonconforming and this property with a trailer would not be offensive to the neighborhood.

Mr. Sutton

asked if they are wanting to approve the CUP or deny it.

Commissioner Clark

stated to approve it.

Commissioner Adams

stated with an additional special condition. Seconded by Commissioner Adams.

Commissioner Hafen

stated the motion as stated doesn’t fully address all the findings 1 - 8 on page 2 of the staff report.

Commissioner Clark

stated he is correct, staff has identified all the problems with the CUP, and he can’t refute all of them.

Commissioner Hafen

stated if he can’t refute all the findings and address all 8, we can’t approve this.

Commissioner Clark

stated for finding #1he believes this would be harmonious to the neighborhood.

Commissioner Hafen

stated the motion adequately addressed that.

Commissioner Clark

stated with #2, it is already there in the neighborhood, #3 he stated it won’t be hazardous or disturbing, for # 4 an RV is not a substantial improvement to the community or the vicinity, however it is in the neighborhood it is consistent. #6 it won’t incur additional costs, # 7 it will be used as a residence, #8 he isn’t quite sure how that works.

Commissioner Oscarson

motioned to deny based upon the findings. Seconded by Commissioner DeAnda.

Ms. Beeman

reviewed her staff report stating there is also a waiver of design standards that will be addressed.

Ms. Beeman

reviewed the changes to some of the standard conditions of approval that will be reflected on the Final Action Memorandum. Condition #35 is moved to condition #37 and that isn’t in the staff report and will be a waiver from Design Standards. The TM is in conformance of NCC and the Development agreement, with the exception of the waiver request.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if the applicant has had a chance to review all the changes proposed.

Ms. Beeman

stated yes, she worked with them to make these revisions.

Commissioner Adams

asked for clarification under 16 E – off track improvements, what we are giving up.

Ms. Beeman

stated they have an approved DA, whatever off track improvements that were required as a condition, they have already participated in and done.

Ms. Beeman

reviewed the changes to the Special Conditions of Approval. Special Condition #30 shall be adjusted to state all utilities boxes and vaults must be installed within a utility easement and not within a County ROW and Mr. Carlo would like it to state “otherwise the HOA must maintain the sidewalks.”

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification on special condition #30. Does this mean water, sewer and power lines need to be out of the road?

Ms. Beeman

referred to Tim Dahl with PW. Page 13 of 18

Mr. Dahl

stated sewer and water would still remain within the ROW in the streets.

Commissioner Hafen

stated main holes would still be in the street, it is referring to meter boxes, junction boxes etcetera.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification on adding in #37 which is the approval of the waiver of design standards for the design of the subdivision entry streets.

Mr. Sutton

stated he has a concern that this isn’t the appropriate body to make the determination on granting the waiver. The letter states the standards were put forth in the DA which was sent to the BOCC. We could do a conditional approval, but if not we would have to go through an amendment of the DA.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification on the condition to waive the standards of the DA.

Ms. Beeman

stated the DA has provided several different street standard designs. They have one specifically spells out a residential subdivision entry street standard design. They now are presenting a different street standard design for this subdivision that is different from the DA approval.

Commissioner Hafen

stated he believes the BOCC is the only one that can waive a standard in a DA.

Mr. Sutton

agrees, he will research the DA to see if there is anything that can allow staff to approve administratively.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification on the water right issues, it states Great Basin Water Co will be providing water for this subdivision, and they will be required to meet the tariffs of Great Basin Water Co.

Ms. Beeman

stated that is correct.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if all the external comments by Public Works has been addressed in either in the TM or Conditions of Approval. Cody McKee stated they were addressed in a revision to the TM that was submitted to Planning.

Commissioner Hafen

stated in the external comments Emergency Management asked for the fire hydrants to be set every 300 feet instead of 500 feet that has not been addressed.

Commissioner Oscarson

asked if this changes the need for another waste water treatment facility.

Commissioner Oscarson

asked if the Fire Departments comments have been addressed.

Ms. Beeman

stated this particular planning area has the 37 foot drive isles. These comments are meant for on street parking, they have sufficient width like the rest of the neighborhoods.

Commissioner Clark

asked if any of the project within the newly drawn FEMA maps.

Ms. Beeman

stated no. Page 14 of 18

Ms. Beeman

stated she is will also have to defer to William Lyon Homes and Taney Engineering on the street design standards. She doesn’t know if the street design standards are the same as what they have built in the rest of their subdivisions. Brad Nelson, Scott Swapp, William Lyon Homes. Robert Cunningham, Taney

Mr. Nelson

stated they are requesting the waiver because they would like to have a detached sidewalk for a better golf course experience. A better way to go about this could be to use the 29 foot version that they can use within the DA, then administratively later they could ask to detach the sidewalk

Mr. Lacy

stated he would need to look at the DA to be certain, but he might have the authority to move the location of the sidewalk. He will work with Mr. Sutton to see if he has that authority.

Mr. Sutton

stated just to move forward with the 29 foot that is already compliant with the standards that you put forth within the DA.

Mr. Nelson

stated yes, then they can move forward with an administrative waiver if applicable.

Mr. Sutton

stated if this is the case we can remove condition #37 altogether and then at the time you request that waiver from Mr. Lacy then we can tackle that at that point.

Mr. Swapp

stated for the ability design change to happen now, it doesn’t follow the development agreement to start with. He has offered solutions, the main issue with Nye County he believes is a maintenance issue, rather than location.

Mr. Dahl

stated this might not be the time to address utility boxes in the ROW, at the TM stage. They will submitting plans to PW and they will have the same comments. It needs to be worked through, but it is up to the Chairman if he wants to add this as a condition of approval at this stage or not. The existing subdivision has several different styles of utility boxes within a couple different areas, some within the sidewalk, and some outside the sidewalk area but encased in concrete and some by themselves with no concrete around them. Many of those that are in the sidewalk are cracked and many will be our or the publics responsibility to maintain once the repair and maintenance period has ended.

Mr. Swapp

stated they do pay the tariffs and the homeowners pay their water fees to the utility company for that maintenance and the maintenance isn’t being performed. The TM isn’t the place for a condition.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if Public Works was amendable to removing condition #30 at the TM process and dealing with it later.

Mr. Dahl

stated yes, it is something that will have to be worked out as an end result.

Commissioner Clark

asked Mr. Sutton for clarification that we may need to delete item #37.

Mr. Sutton

stated yes, the developer stipulated to that and we came up with a different resolution.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification, the water quantity issue it was confirmed William Lyon Homes will be providing water rights of sufficient quantity and quality to Great Basin Water Co. for this project.

Mr. Nelson

stated yes, they will transfer the water rights at the time of the Final Map. Page 15 of 18 Public comment opened at 9:11 pm Dave Stevens discussed his issues with the builders in town and the quality of the homes they are building.

Commissioner Oscarson

motioned to approve TM-2016-000006 based upon findings with the adjustments made by Ms. Beeman, and the removal of numbers 30 and 37. Seconded by Commissioner Clark.

Ms. Beeman

reviewed her staff report and staff is recommending rejection of the street names at this time and for them to be resubmitted at the time of the Final Map. There are only 8 Street names available for use, and there are 10 street names that are needed for this subdivision. We need to evaluate the suffix, and that hasn’t been reviewed by the mapping supervisor in the Assessor’s office nor the Planning Department. Staff also needs 6 additional street names to cover the requirement.

Commissioner Oscarson

asked for clarification that these were the Planning Departments perspective on street names.

Ms. Beeman

stated there are guidelines they need to follow, we need to evaluate if they sound like existing roads, or are in use already.

Commissioner Buchanan

stated it would be a problem with emergencies if the street name isn’t pronounced properly. Robert Cunningham, Taney engineering asked for clarification on the additional street names needed. Will they be an administrative process or will then need to come back to the RPC?

Ms. Beeman

stated street names are approved by the Planning Commission.

Mr. Lacy

stated it can be done at the time of the final map so it won’t require a special meeting.

Mr. Cunningham

stated they have no objection to that and will work with staff before the meeting to come up with names that are acceptable.

Commissioner Clark

motioned to approve SN-2016-000007. Seconded by Commissioner Carr.

Commissioner Hafen

asked Commissioner Clark for clarification that he wants to approve this, there aren’t really any names that aren’t already in use.

Commissioner Clark

stated yes, they will be working on it.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification on what is to be approved. Page 16 of 18

Commissioner Clark

stated he is trying to approve those that are available now.

Commissioner Hafen

stated he is asking for approval of the approved names and come back with the additional names.

Commissioner Hafen

stated direction has been given to staff to bring something back to the RPC. Nothing has been provided for this meeting, and he would like ordinances written and provided to the WD prior to June so they can take action in June. The first section would pertain to new or future construction they would be subject to the restrictions outlined in the Groundwater Management Plan.

Commissioner Hafen

stated we have discussed the water item that will be on the agenda for the next meeting.

Mr. Lacy

stated William Lyon Homes submitted 3 tentative maps to planning. Two of the maps are for a gated subdivision with slightly different design standards. One question they have asked of us is to have a special meeting to approve those additional two maps.

Commissioner Hafen

asked what the noticing requirements are and what dates they are requesting.

Ms. Beeman

stated there is no noticing requirements but we have to post the agenda 3 days before the meeting.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if the board was available between the 1st and the 11th.

Commissioner Buchanan

asked if staff will gain any ground by meeting a second time before the 11 th and stated if they won’t gain any ground, why have the meeting.

Mr. Sutton

asked if they are going to have the same issues for those maps that were brought up about the standards in the development agreement. If that is the case there is no point in meeting.

Mr. Lacy

stated if Mr. Sutton thinks those street standards need to be approved by the BOCC then they aren’t gaining any time by having a special meeting.

Commissioner Hafen

stated we don’t have enough board members available to hold a special meeting.

Commissioner Buchanan

left the meeting at 9:36 pm. John Koenig stated citizen that is the last time he will get to say that for 4 years.