September 20, 2017

Commissioner Lee

stated she has provided staff with typographical changes she found.

Commissioner Lee

motioned to approve with corrections. Seconded by Commissioner Blundo.

Commissioner Hafen

stated the RPC meeting is a week later than usual due to upgrades. This will be Mr. Suttons last meeting and he will be moving over to County Manager October 1st.

Commissioner Fowler

stated BLM is doing a clean up at the Big Dune on September 30th and are in need of volunteers. Contact Deb McNeil at the Southern Nevada BLM office.

Commissioner Blundo

stated October 7th from 6 pm to 11 pm there will be a Reagan Day dinner.

Mr. Lacy

introduced a new Planner in the Planning Department, Joe Ehrheart.

Commissioner Hafen

is abstaining from items #11 the property owner is a stand by customer of Pahrump Utility Company and in the process of annexing additional property and his family owns Pahrump Utility Company, # 12 the property owner is a stand by customer neither item #11 or #12 are in his utility area but feels he should be abstaining from those items. Item #15 he and his family have used Karen Spalding from Nevada Realty, but that doesn’t affect his judgment and will be participating in item #15.

Commissioner Lee

disclosed that as a Planner for the Planning Department she believes she worked on the original CUP application and did the review and approval of the Site Development Plan. She hasn’t received any gifts, loans, has no personal interest and no business relationship outside of her tenure as a planning staff member.

Commissioner Bennett

stated Mr. Guin is an acquaintance of his. He has done business with him and directs a fundraiser that he donates to. He would like to participate on the item.

Commissioner Fowler

stated for item #12 is company Aspen Insulation is currently bidding a job for the next phase of Mountain Falls and will be abstaining from the item.

Commissioner Adams

stated he knows Karen Spalding and that won’t change his judgement. SITTING AS THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Commissioner Hafen

stated for Mr. Skalicky to make those adjustments and bring it back to the board and tell us what have been removed.

Mr. Skalicky

stated the only one they may want to remove from the list is Bell Vista from Linda to SR 160.

Commissioner Koenig

stated the RTC will never have enough money to do that road. The RTC is looking at a grant and assistance from Death Valley. They would like it removed from the list.

Commissioner Lee

motioned to direct staff to update the matrix priority ranking list by removing Bell Vista from Linda to SR 160 and to bring back the list at a later date. Seconded by

Commissioner Hafen

stated there is no action needed to be taken on this item.

Mr. Osborne

stated staff provided a proposal from 2015 by Hanford. They didn’t provide an updated proposal with a few changes and the proposed amount is $55,000.

Commissioner Hafen

asked is the scope remained the same.

Mr. Osborne

stated yes the dollar amount increased and added a few additional hours to tasks.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification on the drainage and flood control. Is this something RPC has jurisdiction over?

Mr. Sutton

stated this isn’t something the board will be acting on. The contract will go before the BOCC with recommendation by the RPC. There are additional requirements that will be triggered now that the amount is estimated close to the $50,000 range.

Commissioner Fowler

asked how quickly Mr. Osborne can obtain 2 additional bids.

Mr. Osborne

stated he sent the request out to 5 different companies and this is the only one he received back.

Commissioner Koenig

asked if there was anything from Tisler.

Mr. Osborne

stated they called and stated they would provide something in writing, but they haven’t gotten anything to staff yet. Page 3 of 16

Commissioner Fowler

asked for clarification on the procedure.

Mr. Sutton

stated the first proposal came in at $40,000 but when you estimate a project will go over $50,000 there are additional procedures and requirements we must follow. Before we move forward with recommendations he would like to confirm that first.

Commissioner Adams

stated $55,000 to manage the $760,000 seems steep. Are they expecting increases in the funds?

Mr. Sutton

stated it isn’t for management it is for updating the justifications for the impact fees we charge for new development. A firm will come out and do traffic studies, drainage and the calculations to justify per unit and per square footage basis. The costs of this can be incorporated into the overall cost that can be distributed over the 10 or 15 year plan that the BOCC adopts. SITTING AS THE PAHRUMP REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION

Commissioner Hafen

turned the meeting over to Commissioner Adams.

Mr. Osborne

stated the original CUP was originally approved in 2013 with a three year approval. In 2016 they applicant asked for an extension. The RPC granted a 1 year extension. The applicant is now asking for another year extension. The property is now master planned as RDR and now a RV park doesn’t fit under the new master plan and the zoning ordinance has been amended to require a 10 acre minimum for RV parks. But those changes had been put in place after 2013 when the original CUP was approved. Staff is recommending approval for 1 year, with all conditions that include with requires a site development plan to be approved within 6 months from today’s date and obtain all other permits required.

Commissioner Adams

refers to the applicant. Debbie Beatty representing Dr. Gunter. He is requesting an extension so he can comply, he has had delays and his second request is that he can continue to move forward with the project.

Commissioner Lee

stated all the applications have expired and asked the applicant if they are prepared to submit of those as soon as possible if this is approved.

Commissioner Lee

asked if one year will be enough time, because so far 4 years hasn’t been.

Ms. Beatty

stated yes it is.

Commissioner Lee

asked for clarification if the septic permit with NDEP has been submitted,

Ms. Beatty

stated she is unsure, she believes that was one of the delays.

Commissioner Lee

asked she has read, understood and agree to all the conditions of approval in the staff report. Page 4 of 16

Ms. Beatty

stated she believes he would say yes.

Commissioner Adams

stated they are mainly looking for agreement to the understanding that it is for one year.

Ms. Beatty

stated he agrees to that.

Commissioner Fowler

asked for Ms. Beatty to elaborate on the nature of the delays.

Ms. Beatty

stated it is due to the civil engineer developing the plan for the property and it has been on the state level that there has been issues. She is unclear what those issues are.

Commissioner Lee

asked Mr. Osborne how many undeveloped RV parks we have approved right now.

Mr. Osborne

stated he believes there are 7, approved and not constructed.

Commissioner Blundo

stated there has to be a limit to extend projects, Mr. Pappa the original representative is no longer representing them and he wants to see responsible growth happening. Site Development expired in 2016 this RV park doesn’t conform to current code, approving this would go outside our boundaries.

Commissioner Adams

stated they are required to obtain a new site development plan under condition #3 and are to be done in 1 year. We don’t want these going on forever.

Commissioner Koenig

stated a year ago Commissioner Borasky asked staff to clarify that if this isn’t completed in 1 year the CUP goes away and staff stated yes. Current code says they need 10 acres, they don’t have 10 acres. A year ago they were told they have 1 year and they haven’t put a shovel in the ground.

Commissioner Lee

asked for clarification from Mr. Sutton that if the ET was granted and the original SD has expired, if they submit a new SD would they be required to be reviewed under the laws in affect at the time of the original application or would they have to adhere to current code and lot size.

Mr. Sutton

stated referred to Mr. Lacy, and asked how Site Development affected by zoning laws.

Mr. Lacy

stated in situations like this if they were approved under the old code they would process under the rules under the original submission as long as the extension of time was granted. If it is denied any new applications must adhere to the new codes.

Mr. Sutton

stated everything would have carried through with the original application but he hadn’t taken into account that there will be new documents needing to be filed and it sounds like there will be issues either way.

Commissioner Fowler

asked Mr. Lacy what NDEP requirement didn’t work for the applicant.

Mr. Lacy

stated he doesn’t like to speak for other people but comments were made about the additional sizing that NDEP required made it difficult to do on a 5 acre lot.

Commissioner Adams

stated we are waiving a lot size but the plot plan will be based on current size. We aren’t approving to put the original 52.

Mr. Lacy

stated the current submittal is for 56. Page 5 of 16

Commissioner Adams

asked for clarification that they have downsized to meet current RVs per acre.

Mr. Osborne

stated it meets the number of RV spaces allowed but not the park size.

Commissioner Adams

asked for clarification that they are waiving the park size but not the square footage for RV spots.

Commissioner Blundo

would like to know the application fees etcetera that they have paid.

Mr. Osborne

stated he doesn’t have that here. Estimated probably around $2,000.

Commissioner Blundo

stated he is just trying to see what was engineering fees and what were County fees.

Commissioner Blundo

motioned to deny ET-2017-000028 based on findings established by the RPC as follows: Finding #1 – The conditional use was, at the time of original approval in 2013, harmonious with and in accordance with the general objectives or with specific objectives of the currently adopted Master Plan, the Zoning Reference Map and this Title but today a new application would not be. Finding # 2 – The conditional use was designed, constructed, operated, and maintained so as to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and such conditional use may or may not change the essential character of the area. A Site Development Plan had been previously approved by Nye County for the proposed RV Park, and was valid until October 1st, 2016 and todays date is September 20, 2017. Finding # 4 - The conditional use could have been viewed as a substantial improvement to property in the immediate vicinity and to the community as a whole. However the construction of an RV Park at this site would not be in conformance with the new Master Plan Update which designates the property as RDR and the NC zone doesn’t conform to this Master Plan. However this change occurred after the CUP was approved in 2013. An approved site development has been approved for the proposed park and was valid until October 1st, 2016 and that has expired. The applicant has applied for a commercial septic to NDEP and it is their understanding that hasn’t been approved yet. Finding #5 - The conditional use will be adequately served by essential public facilities and services (highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, schools). The subject property is not served by central water and sewer; the applicant is proposing an on-site commercial well and commercial septic system; the applicant has stated they aren’t sure where they are with NDEP. Finding # 8 - The conditional use, when originally approved, was consistent with the intent and purposes of this Chapter. At this time the conditional use is not consistent with the code with the purposes of this chapter.

Commissioner Bennett

asked for clarification that aye vote would be to deny the application. Page 6 of 16

Commissioner Blundo

stated to the applicant that they would like to see a new plan under current code come forward for approval.

Commissioner Fowler

and Commissioner Hafen abstained from this item and had left the room.

Ms. Beeman

stated she is changing her recommendation from the staff report. There are two street names that are being denied and her recommendation stated approval of all street names.

Commissioner Lee

asked for clarification if the remaining names approved are sufficient to cover the streets in the subdivision.

Ms. Beeman

stated yes. Mark Dunford stated this is a previously approved subdivision, they would like to change the names of the streets to go along with the theme of the Mt. Falls development and to make them easier to spell. It was also discussed with Ms. Beeman and they would like to add Twin Falls as a street name.

Commissioner Blundo

would like to clarify that they applicant would like to add Twin Falls.

Commissioner Blundo

asked Mr. Sutton if they are allowed to consider a new name since it isn’t in the back up.

Mr. Sutton

stated yes, if it is a concern they could always bring it back.

Commissioner Lee

asked staff if Twin Falls adheres to street naming code requirements.

Ms. Beeman

stated it does, but hasn’t been vetted through our system to check for redundancies.

Commissioner Lee

motioned to approve SN-2017-000102 based on staff findings, approving the list of names in the back up and adding Twin Falls. Seconded by Commissioner Bennett.

Commissioner Fowler

and Commissioner Hafen returned to the meeting. Page 7 of 16

Commissioner Adams

turned the meeting back over to Commissioner Hafen.

Mr. Osborne

stated the applicant would like to continue the application to the October meeting.

Commissioner Lee

motioned to continue the applications to the October 11, 2017 RPC meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Fowler.

Mr. Osborne

reviewed his staff report. The applicant is proposing to build a mini storage facility on the property. CM was requested because that is the zoning to the East and North of the property. Staff agrees with the request and mini storage facilities are also allowable in NC and the RPC has approved the least intense zoning.

Commissioner Hafen

stated he agrees with staff on the analysis that CM would be appropriate however the zoning code for CM it states they are required to connect into public water or sewer and the report states there is a well and septic on site. Neighborhood Commercial zoning doesn’t require those conditions.

Mr. Osborne

stated correct, that isn’t required in NC.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification if they went with CM they would be required to connect in to public utilities and if they went with NC they would be able to proceed with well and septic under code without a waiver.

Commissioner Lee

stated under Master Plan Amendment finding #10 and # 12 are conflicting.

Mr. Osborne

stated item #10 is a typo and it should say it is consistent with goals and policies.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if a Master Plan Amendment would be necessary if they change to NC.

Mr. Osborne

stated yes, it would be necessary. The current master plan is RDR and NC is not allowable. Steven Khoury, applicant and Dave Richards, Civilwise Services, representing the applicant.

Mr. Richards

stated it is a small mini storage facility that would require a master plan amendment. The CM zoning states it requires a public sewer system or an approved engineered system and commercial water are required.

Commissioner Hafen

stated subsection B requires connection to public water and sewer, subsection C requires connection or an engineered waste water system. There is a septic on site and he assumes it isn’t engineered and assumes it doesn’t meet the commercial septic regulations.

Mr. Richards

stated as proposed they aren’t putting any facilities on site, no restrooms etcetera so they won’t tap into the septic. At the time the owner decides install bathrooms or expand they will then make the determination to install the commercial system that they would have to design.

Commissioner Lee

asked Mr. Richards if they don’t plan on using the septic system are there plans to abandon it? Page 9 of 16

Mr. Richards

stated in an expansion they may choose to improve it to a commercial system so there are no intentions to abandon it at this time, but leave it unused at this time.

Commissioner Lee

asked if there are plans for the west half of the property.

Mr. Khoury

stated not at this time.

Commissioner Lee

asked if there will be outdoor storage.

Commissioner Koenig

asked what the objection to neighborhood commercial is. It is a simpler way to go.

Mr. Richards

stated he doesn’t believe there would be an objection but just trying to conform to the existing adjacent zoning.

Commissioner Koenig

stated it would make the septic discussion go away.

Mr. Richards

stated there would be no objections.

Commissioner Blundo

asked staff if we are now considering NC versus going to CM. Is that what is being brought before them at this time.

Mr. Lacy

stated historically the boards have looked at the applications and tried to decide what the least intensive zoning would be that allows the projects they are trying to accomplish.

Commissioner Blundo

stated we would like them to conform to their original business intent.

Commissioner Blundo

asked the applicant if NC conforms to what their objective is for this business.

Commissioner Koenig

stated what you are approving is a zone change and Master Plan Amendment you aren’t approving a mini storage facility. Whatever you approve you approve what goes along with it. That is why go with the least restrictive.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if the applicant is in agreement with the special condition of approval that the ZC will expire 3 years after the date of approval unless development of the property has commenced.

Commissioner Blundo

motioned to recommend approval of ZC-2017-000005 and MP-2017- 000017 based on findings to the BOCC for Neighborhood Commercial zoning and subject to the conditions of approval. Seconded by Commissioner Fowler.

Commissioner Adams

stated he would like specific findings as why Commissioner Blundo is recommending NC and not CM. Page 10 of 16

Commissioner Blundo

amended his motion to include the findings that changing from CM to NC are due to the septic, well and public water.

Commissioner Hafen

stated which can be found under finding #5.

Commissioner Fowler

amended his second.

Ms. Beeman

reviewed her staff report and stated they are asking for a waiver to eliminate the landscaping and postpone the pavement for the expansion of their office. Staff recommends approval and PW doesn’t support a permanent waiver of the onsite pavement requirements and would like to see a condition that requires the applicant to complete the paving within one year of the C of O.

Commissioner Lee

asked Mr. McKee if they will be required to do a drainage study based on the requirement to pave the drive aisle off of Chyne Street.

Mr. McKee

stated no. Dave Richards, Civilwise Services. They aren’t asking for a permanent wavier, just for a period of time before they add another addition which would require the entire parking area and driveway to be reconfigured at that time. The applicant would like 3 years if possible.

Commissioner Hafen

stated the proposed 3 foot chain link fence is prohibited in GC. The site development submitted to staff has already removed that.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification from Mr. Richards that they are requesting a 3 year waiver from landscaping and paving.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if they would be amenable to paving the ingress and egress at the time of this expansion and with the time frame the board approves paving the parking and rest of drive aisle.

Mr. Richards

stated they aren’t sure how the expansion is going to go because the entrance might need to be moved later on based on the future expansion.

Mr. McKee

stated they reason they want the encroachment is based on traffic purposes and the volume of traffic that business can see. Currently they are utilizing the private property next to them and encroaching on the property to access their lot. There is current physical access to their property off of Chyne and they would need to bring it to development standards to access the lot at a minimum. Page 11 of 16

Commissioner Adams

asked if they will be required to install curbing and driveway off of Chyne Street.

Mr. McKee

said a drive way yes, but it doesn’t require curbing.

Commissioner Adams

stated all the properties around them have been required to pave and he can’t see to justify a 3 year waiver.

Mr. McKee

stated this is also part of the Development Design Corridor.

Mr. Richards

stated the front of the property is paved so there is no room for landscaping. They will be landscaping in the back and the waiver is for the back addition for the landscaping and paving temporarily for 3 years.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification on the waiver.

Mr. Richards

stated the waiver would be permanent for the front since it is existing pavement.

Commissioner Hafen

stated the GC zoning district states landscaping is required except for areas that are occupied by buildings, parking areas, walkways etcetera. There is no need for a permanent wavier in the front. Just a temporary in the back.

Commissioner Blundo

stated he would like a temporary waiver for the landscaping and a temporary waiver on parking for 3 years. Does something need to be in place now to maintain the county roads?

Mr. McKee

stated the encroachment permit that will bring it up to a standard that will provide adequate service for the property and protect the integrity of the road.

Mr. Lacy

stated he recommends adding a 4th Condition of Approval that access off Chyne Street be brought to PW standards.

Ms. Beeman

stated improved to county standards under an encroachment permit.

Mr. McKee

stated that is sufficient.

Commissioner Hafen

asked the applicant if they have read the conditions of approval in the back up.

Mr. Guin

, Sr. stated yes.

Commissioner Hafen

asked if they are amenable to condition #4 that an encroachment permit will need to be filed with Public Works.

Mr. Guin

, Sr. stated yes. Page 12 of 16

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification on condition #3. Discussion has been to temporarily waive the landscape and parking requirement for a period of 3 years. Staff report states 2 years. Does #3 address that or do we need a fifth condition to clarify.

Ms. Beeman

stated condition #3 addresses if nothing has been done within the 2 years we can bring it back for an automatic review or if there are any violations of the dust code it can immediately be brought back.

Commissioner Hafen

stated they would need a special condition #5 if the board was to do 3 year waiver time limit for the landscaping.

Ms. Beeman

stated she doesn’t believe so, she believes #3 addresses that.

Commissioner Adams

motioned to approve WV-2017-000052 based on findings and adding that the applicant obtains an encroachment permit with public works and temporarily waived for 2 years as stated in the findings. Seconded by Commissioner DeAnda.

Commissioner Blundo

asked for clarification was it for 2 years or 3 years.

Commissioner Adams

stated 2 years. Compromising with PW that he encroachment be done within 2 years.

Commissioner Lee

asked for clarification that Commissioner Adams placed a two year time limit on the motion.

Commissioner Adams

stated the motion would be just as staff presented that they are looking at two years before this comes back. This will come back in two years if it hasn’t already been paved. Within those two years they have to do the encroachment to PW standards.

Commissioner Lee

asked staff for clarification on the two year time limit. Does NCC allow for 3 years unless the RPC gives a different time limit?

Ms. Beeman

stated the review in the conditions is a review if anything hasn’t been addressed. If they build the addition and we received a complaint we can review it if we need to.

Commissioner Adams

stated the applicant is amenable to paving the parking lot. He doesn’t know when the building will be expanded. They are giving him a waiver to pave the parking lot and if in two years the parking lot isn’t paved he comes before the board to ask for an additional waiver.

Commissioner Hafen

stated for clarification the motion is to pull an encroachment permit at the time of construction, before the C of O can be released and to waiver the parking and landscaping requirements for 2 years.

Mr. Sutton

stated for clarification to Commissioner Lee’s question NCC 17.04.910.L.2 specifies a time limit of 2 years.

Commissioner Hafen

asked Commissioner DeAnda if that was the intent of her second.

Commissioner Hafen

stated there have been many discussions as to where this 40 acre minimum came from and he recommends removing the 40 acre minimum.

Commissioner Fowler

stated this is a technicality and is unnecessary.

Commissioner Adams

is concerned that it will cause confusion in the future, there could be a block of SE surrounded by residential that allows horses.

Commissioner Hafen

stated if they do remove the 40 acre minimum they can look at them in the future as a case by case basis.

Commissioner Blundo

asked staff where that 40 acre requirement came from

Ms. Beeman

stated they intended to stop spot zoning. Maybe 40 acres isn’t appropriate but there should be some minimum. It isn’t appropriate on a one by one case.

Commissioner Adams

stated we are opening a door to confusion, it should define a square block.

Commissioner Lee

asked if we have any SE properties that meet this requirement.

Ms. Beeman

stated the one neighborhood that is using SE is Floyd Farms. It looks like 65 lots.

Commissioner Lee

stated those are 1 acre lots.

Commissioner Blundo

stated 20 to 25 acres might be a happy medium to set.

Mr. Lacy

stated we can add this in as an intent, if someone comes in with an acre short then they would have to do a waiver again.

Commissioner Fowler

stated he agrees that they should make this on a case by case basis, entrust the board to do their job in reviewing appropriateness of the requests.

Commissioner Blundo

motioned to direct staff to remove the 40 acre minimum and bring the minutes from the original meeting making the 40 acre minimum. Seconded by Commissioner Fowler.

Commissioner Hafen

stated his intention for this item was for the VR-8, VR-10 and VR-20 lots. There are a lot of code violations that are trying to be addressed within the Planning Department. Staff has brought to his attention that in the Development Agreements, it requires a HOA is VR-8 and VR-10. Should this be encouraged, required or left out in the VR-20 lots and to let staff address in the future?

Mr. Sutton

stated he is unsure if the paragraph in the formed DA is just a paragraph that is placed in the DA or if it is based on existing code. He doesn’t believe we have code that requires that, if it isn’t required by statue that can be stricken from the DA.

Commissioner Hafen

asked the board if they agree that this should be a case by case basis and leave the decision up to staff.

Mr. Lacy

stated if there are restrictions under CC & R’s there should be an HOA to enforce those CC & R’s. The Planning department doesn’t enforce CC & R’s.

Commissioner Bennett

asked Mr. Lacy if they are encouraging HOA’s.

Mr. Lacy

stated if there is a master planned subdivision with CC & R’s, they need a HOA to enforce the CC & R’s.

Commissioner Hafen

asked Mr. Sutton if they can recommend a resolution to be brought to the BOCC based on Mr. Lacy’s statement.

Mr. Sutton

stated they can recommend anything in the realm of planning. He would like to look into that more before he has them move forward with the requirement to have an HOA if there are CC & R’s of sufficient magnitude.

Commissioner Hafen

stated businesses have come into town that the properties were previously used as Residential with a domestic well and it is now zoned commercial. Using the domestic well is against state law. In the future whether it be a ZR or a development he would like the applicants to provide proper documentation that they are either connecting into a utility company or that they have applied to DWR for applicable water rights.

Commissioner Adams

stated in all staff reports we need to have the source of water or water right availability for what the applicant wants to do.

Commissioner Hafen

stated he agrees. They can’t be served unless they have water rights, they have to acquire them and bring them to the utility companies.

Commissioner Blundo

asked if these items should be going before the WDGB before coming to the RPC.

Mr. Lacy

stated the WDGB have told staff that they don’t want to see anything under 50 acre feet. Anything above will be sent to the WDGB for review.

Commissioner Blundo

recommends to the board to direct staff to add water right information.

Commissioner Hafen

stated to staff to ask for water rights for all applications. Page 15 of 16

Commissioner Lee

stated she is unable to attend the October 11th meeting.

Commissioner Fowler

would like to discuss what the definition of “start of construction” is. There needs to be a standard set for applications.

Commissioner Hafen

asked for clarification that Commissioner Fowler would like a discussion on what constitutes starting development. Whether it be site plan review, breaking ground, or going vertical.

Commissioner Hafen

asked Mr. Lacy if there is a current standard.

Mr. Lacy

stated probably not.

Commissioner Adams

stated a bigger part of that is to have all permits in place.

Mr. Lacy

stated an issue that has come up in our code enforcement process is property owners coming in wanting to add storage sheds, fences and other things without a primary dwelling in residential neighborhoods and we would like direction on what the board thinks. Current code is silent to what you can build first. In many cases the primary dwelling never shows up.

Commissioner Hafen

stated that would be a good discussion to have.