NYE COUNTY AGENDA INFORMATION FORM Action 0 Presentation 0 Presentation & Action Agenda Number Department: Planning Category: Appeal of PRPC Action 11 Contact: Ron Williams Phone: 775-75 1-4033 Continued from meetmg of: I I I Return to: Ron Williams 1 Location: Pahrump Planning Phone: 775-75 1-4033 Action requested: (Include what, with whom, when, where, why, how much ($) and terms) 1:30 PM Public Hearing Item A. Appeal of the Pahrump Regional Planning Commission's decision to disapprove Conditional Use Permit Application No. CU-P-04-0006 for an off-premise sign (billboard) along the westerly right-of-way of Nevada State Route 160 on property planned as general commercial; 420 S. Highway 160, Lot 3, Block 58 of the Calvada Valley Unit II subdivision; AP #38-213-52; William & Susan Lantow - QwnerJApplicant; Case file No. AP-P-04-0006
Complete description of requested action: (Include, if applicable, background, impact, long-term commitment, existing county policy, future goals, obtained by competitive bid, accountability measures) Conduct the Public Hearing and determine whether or not to affirm, modify or reverse the decision of the RPC.
Any information provided after the agenda is published or during the meeting of the Commissioners will require you to provide 10 copies: one for each Commissioner, one for the Clerk, one for the District Attorney, one for the Public and two for the County Manager. Contracts or documents requiring signature must be submitted with three original copies.
No financial impact Routingi & Annroval (Sign & Date) w 11 \ Q 1. Dept Date 6. Date
Cl Approved C1 Disapproved 1 Ll Amended as follows: NYE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY CORiIMISSIONERS STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: August 17, 2003 Case File No: AP-P-04-0006 Application Type: Appeal Staff Recommendation: Affirm the Decision to Deny Made by the Pahrump Regional Planning Commission (WC) Prepared By: Ron Williams, Director
- -- GENERAL INFORMATION SUMMARY
Agenda Item: A. Appeal of the Pahrump Regional Planning Commission's decision to disapprove Conditional Use Permit Application No. CU-P-04-0006 for an off-premise sign (billboard) along the westerly right-of-way of Nevada State Route 160 on property planned as general commercial; 420 S. Highway 160, Lot 3, Block 58 of the Calvada Valley Unit 11 subdivision; AP #38-213-52; William & Susan Lantow - OwneriApplicant; Case file No. AP-P-04-0006
Property Owners: William & Susan Lantow
Applicant: Same
Agent: None
Requested Action: Reverse the WC's decision and approve the CUP
WCOMMENDATIONIFINDINGS
RECOMMENDATION AND RECOMMENDED MOTION Based upon staff analysis, comments received and action of the RPG, staff recommends that the Board affirm the decision of the RPC on this Appeal. MOTION: I move to affirm the decision of the Pahrump Regional Planning Commission.
Should the Board elect to reverse the decision of the RPC, the Conditions of Approval section of the original staff report (attached) to the RPC will apply, and findings must be made. MOTION: I move to reverse the decision of the Pahrump Regional Planning Commission and approve the Conditional Use Permit application making the following findings, subject to the conditions listed on pages 7 and 8 of the backup mater~als(state the reasons, or findings, whereby the decision is being reversed): I 1 APPLICABLE WGULATIONS
Nye County Code (NCC) 17.04.16O (Conditional Use Permit Procedures) and NCC 16.36.080.2 (Appeals Related to Variances, Conditional Use Permits, Special Exceptions) I I APPEAL Any person who is aggrieved by a final decision of the Board may appeal that decision to the District Court by filing a petition for judicial review within twenty-five (25)days after the date of filing of notice of the decision with the Clerk of the Board i LIST OF ATTACmNTS
PAGE 1: Formal Appeal document dated 6/17/04 PAGE 2: Memorandum - Final Action dated 5/25/04 PAGE 4: Staff Report to the Pahmmp Regional Planning Commission (RPC) dated 5/21/04 PAGE 16: Minutes of the WC's Public Hearing dated 5/21/04 PAGE 22: Original CUP Application PAGE : Materials received after close of agenda or distributed at RPC meeting cc: Applicant Nye County Planning Department
250 N. Hwy 160, Suite 1 Pahrump, NV 89060 775 751-4033 Tel 775 751-4032 Fax
Case: CU-P-04-0006 Re: Parcel #38-213-52
To Whom it may concern: Enclosed please find our check #6807 in the amount of $150, the required fee for the appeal to the Board of County Commissioners.
We disagree with the decision of May 21,2004 and list the reasons for the appeal below:
1. Consistencv - Billboards are allowed in this area and have been approved in the past in this type of area.
2, Im~rovements- If this billboard was approved the income could support the construction of a building which would contribute adequate utilities.
3. Site Suitability - The site is absolutely suitability for an off premise sign and is suitable and complies with current Nye County ordinances.
4. A~wrovalNot Detrimental - Shepco Outdoor 's Company policy does not allow adult entertainment advertisement. The function of our billboards in the cornmunit). is to promote a positive image of the community and the business within.
If you should have any questions please contact me at 702 375-5404. r ?
Susan C. Lantow
Shepco * 3375 S. Aldebaran Ave. Suite B Las Vegas, NV 89102 (702) 362-0000 Tel * (702) 889-1717 Fax e 1 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNiNQ PREPARED AT: PAHRUMP OFFICE 04-0 102CBIM)Lantow CUP RPC Action
TO: William and Susrqn Lantow
FROM: ~ssistan&annin~Director
SUBJECT: Pahnunp Regional Planning Commission Action Regarding Conditional Use Permit Application
CASE NO(s): CU-P-04-0006
DATE: May 25,2004 *
The purpose of this memorandum is to advise you that the PhmpRegional Planning Commission (PWC) at its May 2 1,2004 meeting held a public hearing to decide the matter of an off-premise sign along the westerly right-of-way of State Route 160, on property planned as General Commercial, 420 S. Nevada State Hwy 160, Calvada Valley Unit 1 1, Block 58, Lot 3, AP# 38-2 13-52, and disapproved the application subject to the following fmdings:
1. Consistencv. That the request is not consistent with the action programs, policies, standards and maps of the Master Plan Update with regard to community design goals, objectives and policies that have been adopted to improve the community character and quality of life. 2. Imorovements. That the development of off-premise signs does not contribute towards the provision of adequate utilities, roadway improvements, sanitation, water supply, drainage, and other necessw public infrastructure. 3. Site Suitability. That the site is not physically suitable for the development of off-premise signs due to the General Commercial location. 4. Approval Not Detrimental. That approval of the Conditional Use Permit may be deemed detrimental in that off-premise signs can create negative impacts to views. That such signs may create and contribute to visual clutter and promote a negative aesthetic impact on the community.
The decision of the Planning Commission is considered final action unless appealed. Any applicant or other person aggrieved by a decision of the Planning Commission may appeal to the Board of County Commissioners within thirty (30) days of the decision, The appeal must be in writing and acccrmp required $150.00 fee and clearly specify what part of the decision is being appealed.
TONOPAH OFFICE . PO BOX 1531 1114 GLOBEMALLOW LANE . TONOPAH, NEVADA 89049 PHONE: [775) 482-8181 FAX: (775) 482-7302
PAHRUMP OFFICE * 250 NORTH HIGHWAY 160 - #f - PAHRUMP, NEVADA 89060 PHONE: (775) 751-4033 . FAX: 1775) 751-4032 William and Susan Lantow May 25,2004 Page 2
cc: Pahrump Regional Planning Comission Division of Code Compliance Pahrump Building and Safety Nye County Public Works District Attorney's Office Pahrump Town Manager Pahrump Town Board Tonopah Planning File AGENDA ITEM #11
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: May 21,2004 Prepared By: Ch
GENERAL LNFOWnON S-Y
Case File #: CU-P-04-0006
Property Owners: William and Susan Lantow
Applicant: same
Agent: Dave Richards, Civilwise Services
Property Location: West of Highway 160, on property situated between Yellowhand Court and Wilson Road, Section 14 T20S, R53E, 420 S. Nevada Hwy 160. * Requested Action: Conditional Use Permit for the placement of an off-premise sign.
Property Size: .49 acres approximate
Staff Recommendation: Disapproval
RECOWENDED MOTIONEWINGS
Should the Planning Commission elect to disapprove this application based upon the analysis provided by staff: comments received, and the site inspection, the following motions and required findings are provided for your consideration:
Recommended Motion for the Conditional Use Permit: I move to disapprove Conditional Use Permit application CU-P-04-0006. This motion is based on the following findings in accordance with Nye County Code Section 17.04.160: 1. . That the request is not consistent with the action programs, policies, standards and maps of the Master Plan Update with regard to community design goals, objectives and policies that have been adopted to improve the community character and quality of life. 2. Improvements. That the development of off-premise signs does not contribute towards the provision of adequate utilities, roadway improvements, sanitation, water supply, drainage, and other necessary public infrastructure. 3. Site Suitabi1it.i. That the site is not p'nysicaiiy suitable for the development of off-premise signs due to the Town Center location. 4. Approval Not Detrimental. That approval of the Conditional Use Permit may be deemed detrimental in that off-premise signs can create negative impacts to views. That such signs may create and contribute to visual clutter and promote a negative aesthetic impact on the community.
Should the Planning Commission elect to approve the Conditional Use Permit application, findings to support that motion will be required.
The decision ofthe Planning Commission is final action unless appealed. Page I of 5 - SITE PLAN/ PROJECT ANALYSIS This application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow the development of an 14' x 48' (672 sq.fi.) off- premise sign in the Open Use-Protective Covenant Overlay District.
A Conditional Use Permit is a specific approval for a use that has been determined to have a potentially greater impact on the surrounding area than a use that is allowed by right. The Planning Commission may place special limitations, conditions and safeguards or requirements on any such use in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare.
The justification letter indicates that there are no structures within 500-foot radius of any of the*proposedsigns and that the application is in conformance with all of the conditions and safeguards outlined within NCC.
I LAND USE SUMMARY I
Current Zoning: The subject property is zoned Open Use-Protective Covenant Overlay, permitted uses within the OU District include one single family residence or manufactured/mobile home with one detached guest building, adorany other legai use; subject to properly permitted water well(s) or community water, and individual sewage disposal system(s) or community sewage. All uses'listed under Section 17.04.180 require a Conditional Use Permit in the OU zoning district,
Master Plan Desi~nation:General Commercial, this designation provides for activities involving the sale of goods and services, including liquor sales, automobile sales and repair, large-scale retailers, hotels, malls etc.
Utilities: Not applicable
Transportation: The subject property does not have access onto Nevada State Hwy 160. Access is by way of a frontage road that was the subject of an approved, but not yet recorded Vacation and Abandonment application and map of reversion. See Exhibit 1.
Surrounding Develomnent: The subject site is primarily surrounded by undeveloped properties and developed commercial uses. '
GENERAL STANDARDS FOR USE IN THE CONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS
1. Will be hamonious with and in accordance with the general objectives or with any specific objectives of the Master Plan of current adoption; 2. Will be 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 that such a use will not change the essential character ofthe same area; 3. WiI1 not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or hture neighboring uses; 4. Will be a substantial improvement to property in the immediate vicinity and to the community as a whole; 5. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, such as hi&ways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, or schools; or that the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use shal1 be able to provide adequately any such service; 6. Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and wiIl not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community;
Page 2 of 5 7. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials and equipment, and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glares or odors; 8. WilI be consistent with the intent and purposes of this Chapter.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS L Nye County Code (NCC) Section 17.04.160 (Conditional Use Permit Procedures) Section 17.04.180 (Conditions and Safeguards for Conditional Use Applications) and Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter 278.3 15.
The following conditions and safeguards shall be used in deciding upon applications for this use:
d. Must comply with Federal, State and County regulations. e. No use of a mechanical electrical power generator shalt be allowed to establish electrical service to any off-premise advertisement. f. Approval shall be for a 10-year period unless the Planning Commission determines a lesser period of time is appropriate. d. Off-premise advertising signs shall be located a minimum distance of five hundred (500) feet from any residential use; five hundred (500) feet liom any other off-premise advertising sign on the same side of the street or highway; two hundred (200) feet fiom another off- premise advertising sign on the opposite side of the street, and two hundred (200) feet liom any point of intersection of roadways. Unless otherwise specified, all disdnces shall be measured in a radius fashion from the center of the sign face. e. The minimum height of an off-premise sign shall be fourteen (14) feet from grade to the lowest point of the sign and the maximum height shall be thirty-five (35) feet from the grade to the highest point of the sign. Embellishments not to exceed five (5) feet may be added above and to one side only. f. Embellishments shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the sign face width.
The Planning Commission, in approving any zone change, variance, exception or conditional use permit, may require conditions and safeguards, under which the property may be used or the buildings constructed, which in the Commission's opinion will prevent material damage or prejudice to adjacent properties. Any required conditions must be complied with and violation of those conditions shall result in revocation of the permission granted by the variance, exception or conditional use permit.
When granted, a zohe change, variance or conditional use, together with any conditions or safeguards attached thereto, shall apply to the land, structures, or use for which it was issued, and shall not apply to a particular person. The use shall be allowed to continue should the property transfer into different ownership.
AGENCY COWENTS PUBLIC COIMiMENT AND/OR PROTEST
Notification of this application was sent to neighboring property owners within 300 feet of the subject property, and protest has been received. This application was distributed to the Public Works Department for comment & review. Comments are as fallows:
I. Proponent will be required to participate in vacation and abandoment of Frontage Road. 2. Proponent will be required to participate into a cross access agreement for all adjoining properties. 3. Proponent will be required to participate in a proportionate share based upon frontage for the Highway 160 access improvements. The access point to be agreed upon by NDOT and Public Works. 1 ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE
Pursuant to NCC 17.04.145, this application is subject to review by an Architectural Control Committee. As of May 12,2004 no comments have been provided.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CONIMITTEE
The Development Review Committee reviewed the application on April 29, 2004 and forwarded the application to the RPC for review.
EXPIRATION
In granting any ConditionaI Use Permit, the Planning Commission may, as a condition, specify a reasonable limitation of time within which action under such Conditional Use Permit shall be begun or completed, or both. Failure to meet such time limitation shall result in cancellation of the Conditional Use Permit unless, upon application to the Planning Commission and on due cause shown, the Planning Commission shall extend the time limitations originally set. Application of such extension shalI be filed not less than thirty calendar days prior to the date of expiration. .
APPEAL
Any applicant or other person aggrieved by a decision of the Planning Commission may appeal to the Board of County Commissioners within thirty (30) days of the decision. The appeal must be in writing and be accompanied by the required $150.00 fee and cIearly specify what part of the decision is being appealed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS If Approved
Standard Conditions Of Approval
Unless otherwise specified, all conditions must be met or financial assurances must be provided to sat is^ the conditions prior to submittal for any required building permits. The Nye County Planning Department andor Nye County Engineering Department is responsible for determining compliance with a specific condition shall determine whether the condition must be fully completed or whether the applicant shall be offered the option of providing financial assurances. All agreements, easements, or other documentation required by these conditions shall have a copy filed with the county engineer and the Planning Department. Compliance with the conditions of this approval is the responsibility of the applicant, its successor in interest, and all owners, assi ees, and occupants of the property and their successors in interest. Failure to comply with any conditions imposed may result in the implementation of revocation procedures. Development of the property must conform to the plans approved as part of this application. The Nye County Planning Department shall determine compliance with this condition. Nye County reserves the right to review and revise the conditions of this approval should it determine that a subsequent license or permit issued by Nye County violates the intent of this approval. For the purposes of conditions imposed by Nye County, "may" is permissive and "shall" or "must" is mandatory. A zone change will expire in three (3) years unless you commence the use or conshruction and complete constnzction within the above-described timeframe, unless the Pakrump Regional Planning Commission grants a different time period. Any extension of time must be applied for prior to the date of exp~ratron. Page 4 of 5 A variance application is subject to the following; commencement within six months and completion within one year and may be subject to review in (2) years, if determined necessary by the Planning Commission. Approval of this application does not constitute approval of a liquor or gaming license or any other County issued permit, license, or approval. The Conditional Use Permit will expire in one year unless commenced within six (6) months and it must be completed within three (3) years. The applicant and any successors shall direct any potential purchaserloperator of the conditional use permit to meet with the Nye County Planning Department to review conditions of approval prior to the final sale of the conditional use permit. The subsequent purchaserloperator of the conditional use permit shall notify the Nye County Planning Department of the name, address, telephone number, and contact person of the new purchaserloperator within 30 days of the final sale. Developer(s) shall, at their own cost, perform and complete all work and improvements required by state and county statutes, codes, regulations, etc. No construction of public improvements shall occur until any required construction plans are submitted and approved in accordance with the Document Submittal Requirements along with the caiculations of the construction valuation, and plans check and inspection fees shall be borne by the Developer(s). Developer(s) shall, at their own cost, perform and complete all work and improvements required by state and county statutes, codes, regulations, etc. If required, drainage study, construction plans andfor traffic studies must be submitted and approved and all improvements must comply with the approved plans.
Special Conditions of ~~~&val
Commencement within six months and completion of the construction of the off-premise signs within one year. Must comply with Federal, State and County regulations. No use of a mechanical electrical power generator shall be allowed to establish electrical service to any off-premise advertisement. Approval shall be for a 10-year period unless the Planning Commission determines a lesser period of time is appropriate. At the time of any development on the subject property which requires the issuance of a permit from Nye County the billboard shall be removed from the property. Signs height and size shall conform to the plan submieted any hture embellishments to the sign shall be subject to review by the Planning Commission. The sign and all structural supports shall be maintained and kept free from graffiti, upon notification by the Code Compliance officer of any such maintenance problems, the sign owner shall within ten (1 0) days mitigate any such problems identified. Night lighting of the sign shall be directed downward, and shielded in order to prevent glare into the night-skies or onto adjacent properties and roadways. Provide a paved improved NDOT approved access in order to access the site for placement and maintenance of the sign. Applicant shall participate in the recordation of the vacation and abandonment of Frontage Road. Applicant shall participate in a cross-access agreement for all properties adjoining the subject. Applicant shall contribute a proportionate share, based upon frontage on Highway 160, for Highway I60 access improvements. The location of the access point to be agreed upon by NDOT and Nye County Public Works Department. xc: Applicant: William & Susan Lantow xc: Ron Williams, Planning Director; Ron Kent, District Attorney's Office; Barbara Taylor, Division of Code Compliance; Johanna Cody, Assistant Sherife Pakrump Town Board
Page 5 of 5
T.20S., R.53E. PORT. OF SEC.14
\ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION (CU-P-04-0006) FOR PLACEMENT OF AN OFF-PREMISE SIGN, 420 S. HIGHWAY 160, CALVADA VALLEY UNIT 11, BLOCK 58, LOT 3, OWNEWAPPLICANT- WILLIAM & SUSAN LANTOW, AP# 38-27 3-52 ... 9 NORMPROPERN LINE -- 1
i I I s 1 OWNER INFORMATION APN 38-213-52 1 a WILLIAM s g SUSAN c MNTOW REPRESENTEDBY i 1 'i 10616 PATRINGTON COURT LAS CONSULTING ' LAS VEGAS NV89123 2754 S HIGHLAND AVE / L4S VEGAS, NEVADA 891 09 I I i -
(775) 209-3760 NYE COUNTY (775) 727-7899 e-mail: [email protected] PUBLIC WORKS Pahrump Office Samson Yao, Director PO Box 2236, Pahrurnp NV 89014 File No.
To: Cheryl Beeman, Assistant Planning Director From: Craig Stowell Date: May 11,2004 Re: Conditional Use Pennit (CU-P-04-0006) Lantow ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUESTED: 1. None.
COMMENTS :
1. Proponent wiIl be required to participate into vacation and abandonment of Frontage Road. 2. Proponent will be required to participate into a cross access agreement for all adjoining properties. 3. Proponent will be required to participate a proportionate share based upon frontage for the Highway 160 Access improvements. The access paint to be agreed upon by NDOT and Public Works Nye County Planning Department 250 N. Hwy 160, Suite 1 Pahnrmp, W 89Ct6O 775 751-4033 Td 775 751-4032 Fax
Re: Parcel jit3fS-213-52 To Whom it may concern:
Endosed please find our Land Use Application and chew m the amount of $150, the required fee for the Conditional Use Permit, Our intention is to construct and maintain an off premises sign on said property. The property fits the billboard or&ance of Nye Cormty.
IS you should have any questions please contact me at 702 375-5404. EXCERPT OF APPROVED MAY 21,2004 PRPC MINUTES
CU-P-04-0006
9:30 p.m.-Adjourn Regular Meeting and Convene Public Hearing
11 Conditional Use Permit A~plication(CU-P-04-0006): for an off-premise sign along the westerly right-of-way of Nevada State Highway 160 on property planned as General CommerciaI, 420 S. Nevada Highway 160, Lot 3, Block 58, Unit 11, Caivada Valley, William & Susan Lantow4wner/Applicant; AP# 38-213-52
A. Call to Order and Determination of Quorum
A quorum was present.
B. Presentation by Staff
Ms. Beeman advised that staff has recommended disapprova! of this application and should the Board elect to approve, findings would be required to substantiate an approval. Ms. Beeman pointed out an error in the recommended motion under #3. Site Suitability.. .Town Center location should be replaced with general commercial designation. The decision of the QCis considered final unless appealed. The application is for the development of a 14 x 48, 672 sq.ft. off-premise sign. The property is currently zoned open useiprotective covenant overlay and input was requested from the ARC pursuant to NCC. ARC responded today that due to present County/Town sign ordinace we the ARC have no comment. The Master Plan designation is general commercial providing for activities involving the sale of good and services, etc. The subject does not have access onto Nevada State Route 160; access is by way of the frontage road, which was subject to an approved but not yet recorded vacation and abandonment application. Subject to that vacation the WC required a map of reversion to take that po&on of the ROW and accrue it into the lots. At that time PEC also owned that strip in between the highway and the ROW for Frontage Road and that was also to accrue to these properties. That vacation and abandonment and map have not yet been recorded so access to the site is provided by Frontage Road, which is a Nye County maintained ROW.
Ms. Elefant-That Frontage Road was abandoned.
Ms. Beeman-It was abandoned but not recorded. That document has not recorded. Nye County still owns that ROW and these people are not taxed on it so it is still a public roadway.
Ms. Elefante-They never recorded it?
Ms. Beeman---&orrect. Because of the conditions of the map.. .property ownership changed on those lots that were subject to that map and they have just not come in with the map signed to have it recorded.
Ms. Elefant-There is no accessibility to that property because of the cement berm there. That Frontage Road has been totally blocked off.
Mr. Stowell-No, that is not true. The problem is there is like a ten foot, what we call a dog bone, in front of these parcels between Highway 160 and there were a few proponents that were doing the vacation and abandonment and they had to secure that piece which belonged to PEC and that has now been under the ownership of one of the proponents so that the record of survey and the abandonment and cross access agreement can a1 be done now. However, this gentleman has just bought this parcel fiom one of the owners that was on that record of suney. Therefore at this point it is stilt not a completed record of
F.'PRPC Pahrump Network!R?inutzs\2004 RPC Minutes\,040521 Lantow CU040006 Excerpt doc Page 1 of 7 survey that has been recorded and the vacation and abandonment has not been recorded and the cross access agreement has not been recorded.
Ms. Elefante-Then I question whether or not.. .because everything that was PEC property is now tied up in bankruptcy court and if they never recorded taking possession of that property then how is it that we can even deal with this?
Mr. Stowell-She, Mary Zell, in my understanding has clear title deed to that dog bone piece. So she owns it. She owns Lots 4 &. 5, Mr. Lantow owns Lot 3 and Lots 6 & 7 are owxed by, I believe, Mr. Kahn. Ms. Zell and Mr. Kahn were trying to acquire the dog bone piece and the previous owner of Lot 3 sold to Mr. Lantow and they have been at an impasse on recording those documents.
Ms. Beemeso, the bottom line is that these properties continue to have access off of the Frontage Road and there are several good diagrams in your backup for you to review that. And just real quickly, if I may finish? The notification was sent to all property owners within 300' and protests were received. Any appeal of the decision must be made within 30 days in writing with the required fee. Standard and special conditions are outlined in the staff report.
Mr. Basc(;-Mr. Chairman, I want to make it a matter of record that at some time in the recent past I was introduced to Mr. Lantow, an unplanned meeting, it was specifically the day that he was in the DRC meeting. He was told that I was a member of the RPC and he started to tell me about things that occurred at the RPC and I told him that I could not discuss those and that he needed to go back to the Planning Department or wait until he came in front of this Board. I have no interest in this property and I have never met the man before nor have spoken to him since but I want to make that a matter of public record.
ony of Agencies
There was none.
D. Testimony by Applicant
Mr. William Lantow-We bought this property for a billboard and investment and our first project is the billboard and we are not filing a variance we're filing a use permit and it is legal under the laws in Nye County currently. We are not within 500' of residence.. .whatever the laws are, I forget. But like I say the issue with this closure of the road and abandoning the road and opening the 160 access is a uh.. .I have a hard time understanding it and I'm just kind of comprehending it. I wanted to get the billboard approved first and I have access to the road as you guys said clearly on the Frontage Road currently. On the conditions I have a couple of issues as far as paving it, you know there is a chemical that you can put down for dust that we could do; we could do that on a yearly thing or however you want to do it or every time we maintain the board we could hose it down. I mean I would be wilting to do something like that. As far as the lighting, 99 out of 100 billboards are lighted from the bottom. The lights are specially designed from a manufacturer that are designed to light a wall or a billboard and they are aimed strategically at the face of the sign. Granted some light spills over but it is not directly in your eyes. If it was above the sign shining down it would be in your eyes. In my opinion it would be more obtrusive on the top shining down. That is pretty much it.
Mr. Bass4 have a question for staff. I believe I know the answer, 1 just want to clarify it for the record and I'm trying to remember a11 the mess that went on with this a year and a half or two years ago. I take it from Mr. Lantow's remark that he is the one party that is not signing the documents, which apparently is his option being as he recently purchased and all the other parties have signed? Have they signed cross access agreements, which is recommended and vacation and abandonment of the Frontage Road documents, have they all signed that? Ms. Beem~ommissionerBass, I do not know because we are not in possession of those documents.
F:?PRPC Pahrump Network;MinutesU004 RPC Minutes\040521 Lantow CU040006 Excerpt.doc Page 2 of 7 Mr. Stowell--Our understanding is they are ready to sign those at any time and they would actually liked to have signed them two months ago. Mr. Lantow just came into it and they hit him right away with it and it is not an easy thing to understand what all is transpiring on that thing. We did sit down, Ms. Beeman and I, and explained to Mr. Lantow everything that we could and were open to any questions he had. As you know, we have vacated Frontage Road in several areas and that was an approved motion by this Board on these properties and we were working to resolution of that and you know what our problem is when we come out on Wilson it is very close. And they are of such size and nature that the access that would be granted by NDOT would preferably be one and only one; in fact I doubt they would provide another one. Only one at a specific location and they would also require a cross access agreement because of the size of the lots. Now, in the motion we did state that if they came in.. .if the road was vacated.. .and I'm summarizing minutes here that I read.. .that the proponents could actually come in with an access off Wilson if it was designed right, in other words towards the back of the lots. Public Works discussed this at length with the other proponents and we are not necessarily in agreement that there be anything that would allow us to say, yeah, we will give you access off Wilson Road, once the NDOT access was.. .we personally don't even like the NDOT access. We would like to see some sort of cross access agreement from Yellowhand through this property and you've got the school district property behind it and who knows how that is gonna transpire out in the future. So, those are all considerations in the future for access to these parcels but right now their access is from the Frontage Road, which we would prefer the NDOT.
Mr. Bass-If I recall when we did this there were five separate owners of the properties and it took a long time to get all of the paperwork together, one was out of country or something and they all agreed that if the County abandoned the Frontage Road that they would al1,execute a cross access agreement so that nobody was landlocked.
Ms. Elefante-4 remember that.
Mr. Bass-Therefore, I'll tell you quite frankly sir, you come up here and you say you give me my ok to build my billboard and I might sign the one paper that is holding up this agreement that bas been going on for two years with a whole bunch of people that were in there iong before you came into the picture, which you have every right to be in the picture; but that's blackmail and you won't hold me up to it. It's that simple. A whole bunch of people spent a very long time doing an awful lot of very messy legal work to get this to where it is done and as I understand what is being said, you are the one party that refuses to sign the document to let all of it come together for everybody. Everybody, not just you. And that's because you think that you have some type of leverage or something and 1 don't understand it.
Mr. Lantow-I don't think its leverage at all. I don't. Like I said earlier, I am learning about it, I put the application in a month ago. I purchase the property, I think it closed on January isth and the first time 1 was notified from Mary Zell, which was about this cross easement thing.. .she sent a letter on February 19'" and I received it some days after that and of course I did not act on it right away. I did not even know what it was about so I would say honestly that I have known about this from maybe March IS', so March and April and this is May; so maybe 75 days, ok? I mean I have a lot of other work going on too. It is not like a 100% 1 study this.
Mr. Bass-If I may, let me interrupt with a question. Didn't all of this come out in your preliminaq title report when you bought the property?
Ms. Beemadommissioner Bass, if I may? Because these are unrecorded documents they would not be picked up in a preliminary title report.
Mr. Bass-To understand it real clear.. .none of what we did almost two years ago was recorded?
Ms. Beeman-None of it has been recorded because we do not all the signatures.
F iPRPC Pahrump Net~vork'Minutes\2004RPG Minutesi0.10521 Lantow CUO40006 Excerpt.doc Page 3 of 7 Ms. Elefantemich properties are we missing signatures on?
Ms. Beeman--I do not know because I do not have the paperwork.
Mr. Stowelk-The paperwork is probably not all filled out but the proponent here is the one that has not decided whether he is going to sign it or not. We did, Public Works, make those conditions under your special conditions so you can ask him right now if he agrees with those special conditions as part of your decision.
Michael Augustin-I would like to comment directly to Mr. Bass as far as leverage.. .the purchase of this property took over a year and a half to close.. .
Mr. Bass-Excuse me Mr. Augustine, this is not public comment time.
Mr. Masterson-Are you a representative of the.. .
Mr. Lantow-Yes, he is.
Mr. Bass-He is your representative?
Mr. Lantow-Yes, he is working with me on this, whatever that means.
Mr. AugustineAnd I also worked on it for the year and a hiilf that it took to acquire the property and I would like to point out that the dog bone issue really shouldn't come up because that didn't even record until 2004. But Jerome Palaz, who was the actual owner of that property I have dealt with for the last two and a half years in order to get an acquisition done on the property never agreed to any of these conditions. Not once and nobody up there can show me his signature no more than Civilwise can show a signature from Jerome Palaz who was the owner when, I believe Mary and the other gentleman Mr. Kahn began trying to do this. They were doing it on their own accord. But Mr. Palaz never agreed to this he never came to.. .
Ms. Beemadr. Chairman, actually we do have signatures from Mr. Palaz, he was party to the original application.
Mr. Masterson--So, we do have his signature on it.
Mr. AugustineIs there any copies of that available?
Mr. Masterson--Yes.
Mr. Bass-I promise you if Ms. Beeman says she has signatures, she's got them.
Mr. AugustineMr. Bass, just to comment on that.. .anybody would sign this off. It offers 7,000 sq.ft. more to the property; it works with planning. If there was any type of leverage being done here it was being done by Craig right there who wrote a response to Mr. Lantow. which kcludes his recommendation denying the application. But he puts on there, if accepted, requirements that he has to sign this. The reason somebody backs up, you push him into a wall and you tell him you gotta do something.. .we& legally he doesn't.
Mr. Masterso~No.
Mr. AugustineLegally he doesn't have to sign that.
F \PRPC Pahrump Network'Minutes\;Z004 RPC Minutes\040521 Lantow CU040006 Excerpt.doc Page 4 of 7 Mr. Bass-You are absolutely correct Mr. Augustine and your point is well taken. It is your associate that laid it down on the counter and said I'm not going to sign unless I get my conditional use permit.
Mr. Augustin-Nobody ever said that Sheldon.
Mr. Bass-He just said it.
Mr. Augustin-He said that because the map that was drawn by Civilwise actually, if it was looked at and also backed up by what Mr. Stowell land locks all five of these lots. The Civilwise map which there is a perforation around here and without having somebody to say that the approval for the back access from Wilson Road to the back of these lots is there or at least drawing in an NDOT ingesslegress off of 160, this literally land locks all five of these lots. The completed map based on what Mr. Lantow was given to sign shows nothing but a block of property with no access anywhere, not 160, not Wilson, definitely not off Yellowhand because you cannot get to it from Yellowhand anymore. Now maybe some of that has been misconstrued when Walmart was done and you took the other three lots that were at the end that they made other parcels out of now of different size that went with these properties. But it wasn't originally. It was not originally like that. That Frontage Road actually wasn't so bad; it came through to Yellowhand and allowed cross access at the frontage of the properties. It was real simple. But because Walmart came in, decisions were made to go ahead and give up the frontage, abandon 225' of that Frontage Road or however, much it was that came into Yellowhand, changed Yellowhand's.. .
Mr. Bas-Excuse me, let me ask Mr. Stowell something. This map that I've got indicates that Lot 7 abuts Wilson Road. Is that correct or is it just my map? *
Mr. Stowell-That is correct.
Mr. Bass-Therefore, if the cross access agreement is executed by all parties nobody is land locked, period.
Mr. Stowell-They also abut Highway 160.
Mr. Augustine-The dog bone is in front of it and it covers all five lots.
Mr. Stowell-The dog bone is actually part of the record of survey. Each part of the dog bone gets turned into part of the lots just like Frontage Road ROW, so they all will end up having Highway 160 frontage.
Mr. AugustineYou said yourself, Maybe or may not. Presently the map that is being required for Mr. Lantow to sign which would ease a lot of this trying to leverage something, that map.. .Dave do you have a copy of it? This shouldn't even be in here. This isn't even what you're telling us.. .
Mr. Stowell-They have this map in the backup.
Mr. Masterson--If I remember right, when we did this didn't we get that they would have access off of Yellowhand through the Walmart property?
Ms. Beemadonect Commissioner Masterson. When we went through the Red Rock Commercial/Wal-mart subdivision process one of the conditions of approval was an access from these properties into. ..
Mr. Masterso-So they have access right into Wal-Mart's parking lot there then.
Mr. Augustine--It is blocked off. You would have to trespass to get to Yellowhand.
F 'PRPG Pahrump Net\r,ork~MinutesQ004RPC Minutes:040521 Lantow CU030006 Eucerpt.doc Page 5 of 7 Ms. Beeman-Because those lots are a part of the subdivision map it is probably not the best way it was ever worded by Nye County. But that was one of the conditions of approval of recording that map.
Mr. Lantow-Has it ever been drawn up?
Mr. Masterson-Yes.
Ms. Beeman-It was just wording, it was not drawn up.
Mr. Masterson-So we would have to have that access before we could draw the whole thing? I remember that, it was put in there that they had to give access to this property.
Mr. Stowel~heryl,are you saying that Redrock had a commercial subdivision with a cross access agreement that included these two lots in between Mr. Lantow' lot and Yellowhand Ct.? Is that a correct statement?
Ms. Beeman-Yes. However, I must clarify. There was not cross access easement agreement on the map and there has been no separate document but it was a condition of approval and it will get triggered when building permits are pulled for those lots to the north.
Mr. Augustinewich is really unique because we are here for a conditional use permit for a billboard on a lot that legally has a right to put one on it, legally. The whole issue every time that Mr. Lantow has come in front of a Board he has been confronted, maybe out of aggression, out of hard work, understandably, I can understand that; they have done hard work. This is some good stuff if it could work. But in essence by signing and agreeing to this as you can see by now without having any approved NBOT from 160 or anything other than a maybe from Mr. Stoweil these are land locked if he signs that Mylar .
Mr. Masterson-No, they are not land locked.
Mr. Augustine-Well, you show me how you get in and out to these properties.
Mr. Masterso-We can, if you give the Mylar back to Mr. Richards he will show it to you.
Mr. Augustin+Well, he has tried and it doesn't work.
Ms. Beemare-The conditional use is a discretionary approval, it is not by right.
Mr. Augustine-Now you can talk about something good. That location is so perfect for a billboard. If you drive down 160.. .you know coming into Pahrump Wulfenstein's 12 signs are on the right side, but a key location like that, if the Town was to want to place billboard advertisements on it I'm sure an arrangement could be made but the marketability of that location and the need for.. .I mean even if you were put something on there about using caution turning out on Wilson to cross 160 it is a wonderful location for a billboard.
E. Testimony from each person whose name and signature appears on the sign-in sheet.
Rick Thompsowepresenting Nary Zell, the property next to Mr. Lantow. We have decided through many discussions with Ms. Zell that if that billboard is in fact placed there it would devalue her property even further than the non-action on the abandonment. It has been going on for over a year and a half. So we are therefore against a billboard. ary ZelI-Just like Rick Thompson said I do oppose it because it would further devalue the property and I woufd like to get this resolved also. We are just waiting for him to resolve it
F:\PRPC Pahrump NetworkWinutesi2004 RPC MinutesW40521 Lmtow CU040006 Excevt.doc Page 6 of 7 F. Concluding Comments of the Applicant
None.
10:OO p.m.4.Adjourn Public Hearing and Reconvene Regular Meeting
H. Commission Deliberation
I. Commission iMotion and Action
Mr. Warner motioned to disapprove CU-P-04-0006 subject to the findings of staff; item 1 through 4 as correctedfrom Town Center to General Commercial in #3. Seconded by Ms. Elefante.
The PRPC voted unanimously to approve the motion. (6-0)
Mr. Lantow-Mat was the reason for denial?
Mr. Warner-ubject to the recommendations and also.. ..
Ms. Howard-We don't feel it complies with the Master Plan.
Mr. Masterson-€onditions 1 through 4. 1
J. Discussion and announcement of the date, time and place of a continuance of the Hearing, if any; and announcement sf the requirements for an appeal, and the last date to file an appeal (if required).
F:?PRPC Pahrump NetuctrkMinutesi2004 G Minutesi04052 1 Lantow CU040006 Excerpr.doc Page 7 of 7 LAND USE APPLICATION PAHRUMP REGIONAL PLANNING DISTRICT
AREA BETWEEN DOUBLE UNES FOR STAFF USE ONLY FOR SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS, PLEASE SEE RNERSE
NPLICATION TYPE DATE FILED: y/g/o APPLICATION NUMBER: eu-p- 04cw L - PROCESSED BY: ~y.c ZONECHMGE BOCC: El CONDmONAL USE I- / FEE: O ADVERTISE DATE: PERMU - El TEXT AMENDMENT I RECEIPT #: 3 ( / PROPERTY OWNERS NOTiFlED: I33 VARIANCE / SECTION ITOWNSHIP I RANGE: 5 1 _r / ~53s la WAmR I RELATED CASE NOS: El VACATION and FINAL ACTION MEMORANDUM ISSUED: DOES THIS USE CONFORM TO THE MASTER PLAN? ABANDONMENT la STREET NAME CHANGE
(CLEARLY PRINTALL INFORMTION USING INK OR NPE)
PROPERTY OWNER:
4PPLICANT:
TELEPHONE: 76 53.3 7 / 995- FANCELL: 702 37'LSr..~'~r3#
\SSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER(S): 39 ' 2/3
.EGAL DESCRIPTION:
'ROQERTY ADDRESS
2ROSSlNET ACREAGE:
IESIRED ZONE CUISSIFICATION: CURRENT LAND USE: t 1ESCRlBE THE SOURCE OF WATERlSEWER: kf/bm#% /MK . DO YOU HAVE A WILL SERVE LETTER?#= #-&D I, We), the undersgned swear and say that (I am, We are) the awner(sfof read on the tax rolls of the property involved in this application, or (am, are) otherwise qualified to initiate this ipplication under Nye County Code; that the information on the plans and drawings attached hereto, and all of the statements and answers contained herein are in all respects true and orrect to the best of my knowledge and belief, and the undersigned understands that this application must be complete and accurate before a hearing can be conducted. (I, We) ah uthorize the Nye County enter the premises of he property subject to this applica dvising the public of the
'roperty Clwner (Signatur Property Owner (Print): 'roperty Mer(Signature): Property Owner (Print): &SN C . la~ka
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:
C \Documents and Setttngsirvasallo\Local Settings!Tempa:ary Internet Fiies\OLK3\Land Use Appiicar~onEffective July 2003 doc Page 22