ELKO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
MEETING DATE: APRIL 17, 2008
Members Present...... David Hough, Chairman Dave Galyen, Vice Chairman Milt Grisham Mike Judd Dena Hartley
Absent...... Kristian Forland Jack D. Larason
Others Present...... Randy Brown, Director Planning and Zoning Kristin McQueary, District Attorney’s Office John Kingwell, Planning Coordinator Mary Chapman Ken Plewe Melissa McJunkin Paul Bottari Travis Gerber Mike Shanks
The regular meeting of the Elko County Planning Commission was called to order at 5:15 P.M. by Chairman Hough on April 17, 2008 in room 105 of the Elko County Courthouse, Elko, Nevada.
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Allegiance Pledged.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Chairman Hough asked for comments and or a motion concerning the minutes of March 20, 2008.
Commissioner Galyen reported corrections to be made on page 12.
MOTION: Commissioner Galyen made a motion to approve the minutes of March 20, 2008
ELKO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 2008
with corrections to page 12. Commissioner Judd made a second to the motion. The motion carried.
VOTE: AYE:...... David Hough, Chairman Dave Galyen, Vice Chairman Milt Grisham Mike Judd Dena Hartley
NAY:...... None
ABSENT:...... Kristian Forland Jack Larason
ABSTENTIONS:.....None
III. COMMENTS BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC: None
IV. CONSENT AGENDA: None
V. PRELIMINARY HEARINGS:
#08-2000-0008, Vatos, LLC - A preliminary hearing regarding an application for a change in zoning from Open Space to Special Lands on a portion of the following described property for one 10 acre residential parcel:
A 239.242 acre parcel of land located in a portion of the NE 1/4 of Section 22, T.33 N., R.57 E., M.D.B.& M., Elko County, Nevada.
Applicant is Vatos, LLC.
Owner is Dan Steninger.
Mr. Brown stated that the application is complete, and the application fee has been received. He stated this property is designated as A/R CRD-2 which is a 5 acre minimum in the Spring Creek Lamoille Master Plan. The 10 acre parcel requested is considered to be in conformance due to its larger size. Staff recommends that this be forwarded to the public hearing on May 15, 2008. Chairman Hough asked for Questions from the commissioners and/or a motion.
ELKO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 2008
MOTION: Commissioner Hartley moved to remand Application #08-2000-0008, Vatos, LLC to the public hearing on May 15, 2008. Commissioner Judd made a second to the motion. The motion carried.
VOTE: AYE:...... David Hough, Chairman Dave Galyen, Vice Chairman Milt Grisham Mike Judd Dena Hartley
NAY:...... None
ABSENT:...... Kristian Forland Jack Larson
ABSTENTIONS:...... None
#08-2000-0007, Pacific Western Systems - A preliminary hearing regarding an application for a change in zoning from General Industrial to Special Lands for the development of residential parcels.
A 73.246 acre parcel of land described as Lot 15 as shown on the Division of Land for Area West, Inc., File No. 120411. Located in Section 15, T.33N., R.56E., M.D.B.& M.
Applicant is Pacific Western Systems, Inc..
Owner is Brett Worsham.
Mr. Brown stated the application is in order, the application fee has been received, and the property is located within Phase 1 of the Spring Creek Lamoille Master Plan. The area has no future designation provided for it. However, it is General Industrial providing for 10,000 square foot minimum parcel sizes and the classification is considered a down zone back to residential with 10 acre minimum parcel sizes. Staff recommends this item be remanded to the public hearing date of May 15, 2008.
Chairman Hough asked for questions from the commissioners and/or a motion.
MOTION: Commissioner Judd moved to remand Application #08-2000-0007,
ELKO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 2008
Pacific Western Systems, Inc. to the public hearing on May 15, 2008. Commissioner Grisham made a second to the motion. The motion carried.
VOTE: AYE:...... David Hough, Chairman Dave Galyen, Vice Chairman Milt Grisham Mike Judd Dena Hartley
NAY:...... None
ABSENT:...... Kristian Forland Jack Larson
ABSTENTIONS:...... None
#08-2000-0006, Ronald W. Brown & Kristin Jamie Brown - A preliminary hearing regarding an application for a change in zoning from Open Space to Special Lands on the following described property for residential parcels:
A 41.143 acre parcel of land located in the S1/2 of Section 29, T.34 N., R.56 E., M.D.B.& M., Parcel No. 6 as shown on that map with File No. 537482, Elko County, Nevada.
Applicant is Ronald W. Brown & Kristin Jamie Brown.
Owner is Ronald W. Brown ET AL.
Mr. Brown stated the application is in order and the application fee has been received. This portion of land is located within the Spring Creek Lamoille Master Plan under the KRL Division of Land into Large Parcels. This property was included on the Maridek amendment to the Spring Creek Lamoille Master Plan and is designated as Special Lands with a 10 acre minimum parcel size. The application is in order, the filing fee has been received, and staff recommends this to be remanded to the public hearing date of May 15, 2008.
Chairman Hough asked for questions from the commissioners and/or a motion.
MOTION: Commissioner Galyen moved to remand Application
ELKO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 2008
#08-2000-0006, Ronald W. Brown & Kristin Jamie Brown to the public hearing on May 15, 2008. Commissioner Hartley made a second to the motion. The motion carried.
VOTE: AYE:...... David Hough, Chairman Dave Galyen, Vice Chairman Milt Grisham Mike Judd Dena Hartley
NAY:...... None
ABSENT:...... Kristian Forland Jack Larson
ABSTENTIONS:...... None
#08-2000-0005 Kirk Hooper - Hooper/Cooper, LLC - A preliminary hearing regarding an application for a change in zoning from Agricultural / Residential to General Industrial (M-1) on the following described property:
A 4.953 acre Parcel of land located in the SW1/4 of Section 20, T.35 N., R.56 E., M.D.B.&M., Parcel 2 as shown on that map with File No. 142321, Elko County, Nevada.
Applicant and Owner is Kirk Hooper - Hooper/Cooper, LLC.
Mr. Brown stated this property is located on old Hwy 40 and is the concrete structure that belonged at one time to AAA Drilling. We discovered that the structure was build across the center line of two properties one of which is zoned Agricultural / Residential and the other zoned M-I. The development tendencies in this area are more towards Industrial uses. The application is in conformance to the development patterns of the area and staff recommends this to be remanded to the public hearing date of May 15, 2008.
Chairman Hough asked for comments from the commissioners and/or a motion.
MOTION: Commissioner Hartley moved to remand Application #08-2000-0005, Kirk Hooper - Hooper/Cooper, LLC to the public hearing on May 15, 2008. Commissioner Judd made a second to the motion. The motion carried.
ELKO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 2008
VOTE: AYE:...... David Hough, Chairman Dave Galyen, Vice Chairman Milt Grisham Mike Judd Dena Hartley
NAY:...... None
ABSENT:...... Kristian Forland Jack Larson
ABSTENTIONS:...... None
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Chairman Hough stated he would have to abstain on the following hearing as he is involved with this project professionally. He passed the gavel to Vice Chairman Galyen.
#08-2000-0004, Maridek LLC - A public hearing for a change of zoning from Open Space to Residential-1, 0.5 acres on a 14.31 acre portion of Lot 16 as shown on Map with File No. 537482. Applicant wishes to develop 16 single family residential dwellings. Located in portions of Sections 32 and 33, T.34 N., R.56 E., M.D.B.& M.
Mr. Brown read the following staff report into the record:
STAFF REPORT #08-2000-0004 ZONE CHANGE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: April 17th, 2008
1. APPLICATION:. For a change of zoning submitted by Maridek LLC from non- conforming Open Space to Residential -1 0.5acres. The proposed use is for subdivision into 16 single family residential lots.
2. LOCATION: A portion of lot 16 as shown on file No. 537482, located in a portion of Section 32, T. 34N., R.56 E., M.D.B.& M.
3. SUMMARY INFORMATION:
ASSESSOR S PARCEL NO.: 006-31E-019 ¾ ’
ELKO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 2008
¾ OWNER(S) OF RECORD: Maridek LLC
¾ PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS ON PROPERTY: None
SIZE OF PROPERTY: 13.02
ACCESS: Proposed Spring Valley Court
MASTER PLAN: Spring Creek / Lamoille Master Plan
COMMENTS: As attached.
4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND IMPACTS:
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed is to subdivide and develop 16 single family dwelling parcels on the proposed 13.02 acres. The parcels will range in size from 0.54 acres to 1.21 acres in area. The average size parcel is .75 acres. The proposed densities will require the development of a 26' wide asphalt road surface on Spring Valley Court. Curb, gutter and side walk are also required by the Elko County Code, however, due to previous construction patterns the applicant may not be required to develop. This issue is to be determined when and if the applicant applies for subdivision. The applicant will be required to negociate and finalize an agreement with the Spring Creek Association concerning maintenance dues and impacts on existing county roads maintained by Spring Creek. The agreement is as per prior requirements of the Elko County Planning Commission and Elko County Board of Commissioners approvals to the Spring Creek Master Plan and Division of Land into large Parcels.
B. EFFECT UPON THE EXISTING LAND USE PATTERN IN THE AREA: The adjacent areas are primarily residential to the north and commercial to the south. The proposed will have limited significant impacts, primarily due to increased traffic on Spring Valley Court. The proposed 16 parcels will potentially generate 80 to 110 vehicle trips per day. The proposed is to be supplied domestic water by the Spring Creek Utilities. Each individual lot will be required to develop an individual septic system on site. The13.02 acres is currently un-developed and lies within an area between residential and commercial uses. The existing residential parcels and commercial parcels average in size from 1.0 acres to 2 or more acres. The proposed is to be bordered on the north by an Open Space area the same as found in the Spring Creek Subdivision and encompasses annual flow drainage. The Open Space area is planned to be developed as a walking trail with other ancillary uses as well as maintaining the drainage. The proposed will provide 16 additional residential dwelling lots for development.
ELKO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 2008
The proposed will supplement a much needed residential market in the Spring Creek area with minimal impacts to existing infrastructure.
5. CONSISTENCY WITH EXISTING ZONING AND MASTER PLAN:
A. COMPATIBILITY OF PROPOSED ZONING WITH EXISTING ZONING AND DEVELOPED USAGE IN THE AREA: The proposed single family dwelling parcels are considered to be compatible with the existing Agriculture-Residential zoning as well as the community service based commercial developments. The proposed R-1 0.5 parcels although smaller will accommodate and maintain the residential uses established in the area.
B. CONFORMS WITH THE EXISTING MASTER PLAN OF THE AREA: The proposed is located within Phase I of the Spring Creek / Lamoille Master Plan. The Spring Creek / Lamoille Master Plan was amended in the fall of 2007 to incorporate the Maridek LLC Planned Unit Development. The proposed is Phase I of the PUD and is in conformance with the Spring Creek / Lamoille Master Plan.
6. STAFF COMMENTS:
A. The proposed is to subdivide and develop 16 single family dwelling parcels on the proposed 13.02 acres. The parcels will range in size from 0.54 acres to 1.21 acres in area. The average size parcel is .75 acres.
B. The proposed densities will require the development of a 26' wide asphalt road surface on Spring Valley Court. Curb, gutter and side walk are also required by the Elko County Code, however, due to previous construction patterns the applicant may not be required to develop. This issue is to be determined when and if the applicant applies for subdivision. C. The applicant will be required to negociate and finalize an agreement with the Spring Creek Association concerning maintenance dues and impacts on existing county roads maintained by Spring Creek. The agreement is as per prior requirements of the Elko County Planning Commission and Elko County Board of Commissioners approvals to the Spring Creek Master Plan and Division of Land into large Parcels.
D. The adjacent areas are primarily residential to the north and commercial to the south. The proposed will have limited significant impacts, primarily due to increased traffic on Spring Valley Court. The proposed 16 parcels will potentially generate 80 to 110 vehicle trips per day.
E. The proposed is to be supplied domestic water by the Spring Creek Utilities.
ELKO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 2008
Each individual lot will generate an individual septic system on site. The13.02 acres is currently un-developed and lies within an area between residential and commercial uses.
F. The proposed single family dwelling parcels are considered to be compatible with the existing Agriculture-Residential zoning as well as the community service based commercial developments.
G. The proposed is located within Phase I of the Spring Creek / Lamoille Master Plan. The Spring Creek / Lamoille Master Plan was amended in the fall of 2007 to incorporate the Maridek LLC Planned Unit Development. The proposed is Phase I of the PUD and is in conformance with the Spring Creek / Lamoille Master Plan.
H. The proposed will provide 16 additional residential dwelling lots for development. The proposed will supplement a much needed residential market in the Spring Creek area with minimal impacts to existing infrastructure.
I. Prior to the completion of this report comments may or may not have been received from the following:
1) Nevada Division Forestry (no comment) 2) Nevada Division of Health (no comment) 3) Nevada Department of Transportation (no comment) 4) Nevada Division of State Lands (no comment) 5) Nevada Division of Water Resources (no comment) 6) Elko County Building & Safety (no comment) 7) Elko County Highway Department (no comment) 8) Elko County Manager Office (no comment) 9) Elko County Public Works (no comment) 10) Elko County School District (no comment) 11) Elko County Sheriff’s Office (no comment) 12) Spring Creek Association (attached)
7. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS:
Based upon the above stated analysis and findings staff recommends Approval with the following conditions and restrictions.
¾ A. At time of any development, the developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Nevada Revise Statutes, Federal laws, local building and development requirements.
ELKO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 2008
¾ B. At time of any development, the owner / developer agrees to comply with all Federal, State and Local statutes, ordinances and Elko County development criteria and building requirements concerning the development at that time. C ¾ . If said property is sold in whole or otherwise conveyed to a new owner or owners, the deed of conveyance shall contain verbiage that identifies and adopts the recommendations, findings, conditions and requirements of approval of this specific zone change or property, pertaining to any proposed development, either commercial or residential.
¾ D. At time of development the developer shall comply with all development criteria and provisions of this staff report as well as any other standard and requirement set forth by Elko County concerning the Subdivision Development.
Basis for recommendation:
1) The proposed single family dwelling parcels are considered to be compatible with the existing Agriculture-Residential zoning as well as the community service based commercial developments.
2) The proposed is to be supplied domestic water by the Spring Creek Utilities.
3) The proposed is Phase I of the PUD and is in conformance with the Spring Creek / Lamoille Master Plan.
Note: Should testimony or comment from the public arise before or during the public hearing opposed to the proposed or providing adverse or contradictory information staff “may” change or withdraw its recommendations.
Report Prepared by: Scott R. Brown, P.L.S. Director Planning & Zoning
Mr. Brown read the following letter into the record:
Dear Elko County Commissioners, I have no objection to the sixteen single family homes proposed behind my property so long as the 13.35 acre open area, walk path, remains intact and unchanged.
Thank You for notifying us,
John D. Naungayan.
ELKO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 2008
Mr. Brown stated Mr. Naungayan’s request is a condition of the staff report.
Vice Chairman Galyen asked for comments from the commissioners.
Commissioner Hartley stated she would have to abstain as she is a member of the Spring Creek association and has been involved with this applicant. Mrs. McQueary (D/A) stated with 2 members abstaining, there are 3 left to vote. The majority of the remaining members will be the quorum.
Vice Chairman Galyen asked for comments from the public with a time limited to 5 minutes per speaker. There were no comments.
Vice Chairman Galyen asked for comments from the commissioners and/or a motion.
MOTION: Commissioner Judd moved to approve Application #08-2000-0004, Maridek LLC with staff’s recommendations and findings. Commissioner Grisham made a second to the motion. The motion carried.
VOTE: AYE:...... Dave Galyen, Vice Chairman Milt Grisham Mike Judd
NAY:...... None
ABSENT:...... Kristian Forland Jack Larson
ABSTENTIONS:...... David Hough, Chairman Dena Hartley
The gavel was passed back to Chairman Hough.
#08-7100-0002, Monjaras - A public hearing for a Tentative Map of Division of Land into Large Parcels.
Tentative Map of Division of Land into Large Parcels for Julio C. Monjaras is located in the North ½ and a Portion of the Southeast
ELKO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 2008
1/4 of Section 24, T.36 N., R. 56 E., M.D.B.& M. and is approximately 2.25 miles north of the Ryndon I-80 Interchange in Elko County, Nevada.
The applicant and owner of said property is Julio C. Monjaras.
Mr. Brown read the following staff report into the record:
STAFF REPORT #08-7100-0002 TENTATIVE MAP DIVISION OF LAND INTO LARGE PARCELS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: April 17th, 2008
1. APPLICATION:. Tentative Map of Division of Land Into Large Parcels. The application is submitted by Julio Monjaras for the purpose of Division of Land into Large Parcels as per N.R.S. 278.471 through 278.4725 inclusive and Elko County Code 5-2-17 for the creation of 9 parcels of 40 acres or more in Section 24, T. 36 N., R. 56 E., M.D.B.& M..
2. LOCATION: The proposed parcel is approximately 400 acres in size and is located in the N ½ and a portion of the SE 1/4 of Section 24, T. 36 N., R. 56 E., M.D.B.& M.
3. SUMMARY INFORMATION
¾ ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO. : 006-33E-001 OWNER(S) OF RECORD: ¾ Julio Monjaras
¾ Previous Applications On Property: None
SIZE OF PROPERTY: 400.00 acres ACCESS: ¾ Coal Mine Canyon Road (ECR 742) MASTER PLAN: Elko County General Plan COMMENTS & INFORMATION: Attached if applicable ¾
ELKO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 2008
4. PROPOSED TENTATIVE DIVISION OF LAND INTO LARGE PARCELS
A. The current zoning of this property is Open Space. The 400 acres is currently undeveloped and being utilized for agricultural grazing and transient recreation. The proposed is to divide the 400 acres into 9 parcels with a minimum parcel size of 40.00 acres. Access is to be provided by Coal Mine Canyon Road, (Elko County Road 742) and an access to be developed from existing public right of ways.
B. The proposed 9 parcels as shown on the attached map will have a potential increased traffic flow impact of approximately 45 vehicle trips per day. The proposed 9 parcels will utilize individual septic systems and domestic wells. NRS 278.4725 (6) states that the Planning Commission may require the development criteria of subsection 5. The existing subdivisions located adjacent to all sides provides a 30' wide right of way on all sides. The applicant proposes to offer an continuous 40' wide right of way to provide a full 70' wide right of way along the proposed roads. Staff recommends that Johnson Avenue along the east boundary of Section 24 be improved to the 26' wide rural standard, 21st Street along the north boundary be improved to a 26' wide rural gravel standard and Navajo Avenue along the west boundary from the northwest corner section corner to the west 1/4 corner be improved to the 26' wide rural gravel standard. Staff also recommends that the applicant is to provide primary access to the project by developing Quartzite Drive from the southeast corner of Section 24 east to its intersection with Coal Mine Canyon Road, approximately 0.8 of a mile, to the 26' wide rural gravel standard. Development of this portion of road will require an application to the BLM for an additional 30' of right of way along the south side of the Section Line.
C. Further subdivision of land utilizing the proposed 21st Street access road, may require further development to a higher standard. D. The proposed Division of Land into Large Parcels will have limited significant impacts or effects on the general health, safety welfare of the area. Other areas of concern are the potential for the creation of 9 new individual septic systems and domestic water wells. The impacts of the septic systems on potential points of source water are not known. This is an issue that at the time of permitting, the State Health Division and NDEP would be required to review. The impacts of domestic water wells is an issue that should be reviewed by the State Engineer, however, at this time legislation requiring water rights dedication for a Division of Land into Large Parcels is not required. The potential for impacts to water sources at total build-out is 2 acre feet per parcel or 18 acre feet per year for all 9 proposed parcels. This is according to the State Engineers policy
ELKO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 2008
for domestic wells.
E. A Home Owners Association should be developed for the maintenance of roads. The creation of the Home Owners Association should be encouraged at the sale and conveyance of 70% or 6 parcels of the total 9 newly created parcels. Declarations of Reservations (DOR) or Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&R) should be developed by the Developer that requires the creation of the Home Owners Association and outlines the specific duties of the Association.. F. Fencing of the boundary of the proposed Division of Land into Large Parcels is to be required. The boundary of the proposed shall be fenced as per the approved fence outlined in NRS. Cattle guards a minimum of 26' wide are to be placed strategic points on the proposed roads. 5. CONSISTENCY WITH EXISTING LAND USE PATTERNS OF THE AREA:
A . The proposed Division of Land into Large Parcels is considered compatible with adjacent properties and developed usage of the area. The primary uses of the area is agriculture and moderate density residential. The proposed is surrounded by moderate density 2 to 2.5 acre parcels in Twin River Ranchos Unit No. 2 to the north and west, Twin River Ranchos Unit No. 3 to the East and Humboldt River Ranches Unit No. 1 to the South.
B. The area is designated as Open Space by the 1971 General Plan. Lands within the proposed are lands that are not considered conducive to crop production due to topography, limiting the agricultural use to grazing. Prior uses include agricultural grazing by previous owners and other lease holders as well as by other property owners in the area. 6. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONDITIONS:
A) The current zoning of this area is Open Space. The 400 acres of the proposed are currently undeveloped and being utilized for agricultural grazing. The proposed is to subdivide the 400 acres into 9 parcels with a minimum parcel size of 40.00 acres.
B) NRS 278.4725 (6) states that the Planning Commission may require the development criteria of subsection 5. Staff recommends that North Fifth Street be improved to the minimum rural standard of 26' wide gravel surface for the full frontage of the proposed and that a 40' wide right of way be offered for dedication for public uses.
C) The applicant should be encouraged to adopt a minimum parcel size “Deed Restriction” restricting the parcel size to existing 40 acres or more with no further
ELKO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 2008
subdivision to be permitted. However, any further subdivision of land utilizing the proposed access road, may require a further road development to a higher standard.
D) The applicant should be encouraged to create a Home Owners Association at the sale and conveyance of 70% or 6 parcels of the total 9 newly created parcels.
E) Declarations of Reservations (DOR) or Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&R) should be developed by the Developer that requires the creation of the Home Owners Association and outlines the specific duties of the Association.
F) Fencing of the boundary of the proposed Division of Land into Large Parcels is to be required. The boundary of the proposed shall be fenced as per the approved fence outlined in NRS.
G) All adjacent roads are to be improved to the minimum rural standard of 26' wide gravel surface for the full frontage of the proposed and that a 40' wide right of way be offered for dedication for public uses. Cattle guards a minimum of 26' wide are to be placed at strategic points on the proposed roads
H) The proposed Division of Land into Large Parcels with development could have limited significant impacts or effects on the general health, safety and general welfare of the area.
1) Additional vehicular traffic on Coal Mine Canyon Road (ECR 742). 2) Water impacts and availability / Septic system impact 3) Possible adverse effect to current water users quantity and quality 4) Fugitive or transient dust created from the gravel surface roads I) Elko County has submitted copies of this Tentative Map to governing entities as an agency courtesy, not required by NRS or County Code . Prior to the completion of this report comments have been received from the following:
1) Elko County School District (no comment) 2) Elko County Sheriff’s Office (no comment) 3) Elko County Public Works (no comment) 4) Elko County Highway Department (no comment) 5) Elko County Manager (no comment) 6) Elko County Building & Safety (no comment) 7) Nevada Department of Transportation (no comment)
ELKO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 2008
8) Nevada Division of State Health (no comment) 9) Nevada Division Forestry (no comment) 10) Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (no comment) 11) Nevada Division of Water Resources (no comment)
J) Review of the Tentative Map has shown that the map is technically correct and that it complies with the provisions N.R.S. 278.4713. The Tentative Map is in full compliance with Elko County Code 5-2-17. All local filing fees have been paid and recorded. If approved Staff Recommends the following:
1) Johnson Avenue along the east boundary of Section 24 is to be improved to the 26' wide rural standard, 21st Street along the north boundary is to be improved to a 26' wide rural gravel standard and Navajo Avenue along the west boundary from the northwest corner section corner to the west 1/4 corner is to be improved to the 26' wide rural gravel standard. The applicant is to provide primary access to the project by developing Quartzite Drive from the southeast corner of Section 24 east to its intersection with Coal Mine Canyon Road, approximately 0.8 of a mile, to the 26' wide rural gravel standard or a commensurate alternative. 3) Fencing of the boundary of the proposed Division of Land into Large Parcels is to be required. The boundary of the proposed shall be fenced as per the approved fence outlined in NRS.
4) Cattle guards a minimum of 26' wide are to be placed at strategic points on the proposed roads. 5) Declarations of Reservations (DOR) or Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&R) should be developed by the Developer that requires the creation of the Home Owners Association and outlines the specific duties of the Association. The Home Owners Association is to be created at the sale and conveyance of 70% or 6 parcels of the total 9 proposed parcels. 6 ) The applicant should be encouraged to adopt a minimum parcel size “Deed Restriction” restricting the parcel size to existing 40 acres or more with no further subdivision to be permitted.
Note: The recommendations and conditions of this report are based on information and comment received through the application process. Should testimony or data from the public or entity arise before or during the public hearing opposed to the proposed or providing adverse or
ELKO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 2008 contradictory information staff “may” append, withdraw or change recommendations and/or conditions.
Report prepared by: Scott R. Brown, P.L.S. Director Planning & Zoning
Mr. Brown stated he wanted to strike Item #4, the requirement of cattle gaurds. I don’t think we can put cattle guards out there that can be strategically placed. To build a road all the way around this and require no interior fencing....there is absolutely no reason for cattle guards out there because Coal Mine Canyon Road is not fenced.
Chairman Hough asked for comments from the commissioners to staff. Commissioner Grisham asked for clarification on the access roads. Mr. Brown explained the position of the proposed map and the access roads used.
Chairman Hough asked for comments from the public.
Ken Plewe working for Civil Wise Services, stated his company is representing the applicants interests. He stated he was the survey manager on this project and the one that drafted the map. There is a potential for 9 residences on this property. It could be used with an application to the Department of Water Resources for raising grapes, agriculture on hills, fruit trees, or whatever a purchaser of the property wanted to do. After reading the staff report I was rather flabbergasted to find a requirement by staff for roads beyond simple dedication of access. They are asking for full width roads around the perimeter which is approximately 1 and 1/4 miles. NRS requires a suitable emergency access. Asking for continued roads off site is beyond the bounds of NRS 278. I have not found a requirement for a fence or the establishment of a homeowners association in NRS 278 as it pertains to DLLP’s. Fencing the boundary would create a large burden for the applicant. I hope we can reduce some of these requirements. Further subdivision would require an application before this board for a zone change. Commissioner Grisham reminded Mr. Plewe that this is a fence out state. We also want the buyers of these properties to have all weather roads. Mr. Plewe stated he agreed with Commissioner Grisham but the applicant should only have to improve his half of the road and not those portions of previously accepted county roads. NRS278.220 states that the property owner is liable if the cattle come onto the property and they don’t have it fenced, but it doesn’t mandate fencing. Thank you for your time.
Paul Bottari stated the intent of the DLLP law was to divide land into large parcels. It is not subdivision. DLLP has it’s own section in the law. Elko County supported this when it was passed as well as many of the other counties. The problem of access was addressed as “legal
ELKO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 2008
access” without defining it. A disclosure is required to be signed by the buyer of the property. It states that the buyer knows and understands that there will not be county roads for services like ambulances, specifically stressing fire protection and other services you would normally expect in a subdivision. That disclosure is signed prior to a binding agreement of purchase. There are no requirements for fencing the property that I am aware of. I would discourage it because cattle can keep the fire danger down by grazing. I would like to know if this is a requirement and where it came from. In section 5 or 6 it states that if deemed necessary, the County can require roads for emergency services. The Division of Forestry allows 20' wide with 8 inches of gravel. Elko county requires 26 feet wide with 6 inches of gravel. I believe the 26 foot road is a subdivision requirement in a lot of the states. I support the gentleman’s questions that he has and I believe the County is being overly strict in their requirements of DLLP. I think you need to consider those points and how you would defend them should they be challenged. It was the intent of the DLLP law to be separated from subdivision map rules. Thank you.
The public comment period was closed as there were no further comments.
Commissioner Hough asked for comments from the commissioners. Commissioner Judd stated that this commission is responsible for trying to head off problems and trying to plan something that isn’t piece - mealed together by each individual that comes in here wanting to break up a large parcel of land into smaller parcels. I live on a road without a homeowners association and I can understand everybody wanting to make a dollar with out a large expenditure to make that dollar. In the long run, without a homeowners association you are looking for an absolute nightmare trying to maintain roads because the County doesn’t maintain them. Without a maintained road you can’t obtain financing for a home. Cattle are going to be attracted to green vegetation. Our staff has given it’s recommendations and conditions for a reason and those are long standing. We are trying to head off problems. The problem of not fencing taxes our County resources. The sheriff’s Office has to respond to the complaints. I live on a 20 foot road and it is a nightmare. It is crazy to put up a 20 foot road. It isn’t in the middle of a forest. This proposed DLLP is for houses, supposed houses. I can’t recommend to go along with this if the applicant can’t comply with staff’s recommendations. Commissioner Grisham stated our job is to promote the health, safety and welfare of the public. That includes that of the potential buyers. A small road to the 9 proposed parcels will not work. We have staff’s recommendations before us that are for the health, safety and welfare of the public. If we don’t place those out as requirements at this time, we will never get it done after the project is done. So I concur with Commissioner Judd. Commissioner Galyen asked if these 9 proposed parcels are surrounded by private properties? Mr. Brown stated they are surrounded by 3 subdivisions. Why then does this gentleman have to put in the whole 26' wide road instead of the 13 foot width? Mr. Brown stated that these surrounding subdivision were created in the early 1960's pre subdivision law and criteria. I cannot go back and make anyone retroactively do anything. At this point, there is no development in this area. Not adjacent to his property. The closest
ELKO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 2008 development is approximately ½ mile to the northeast. There is one house. We have been through 7 of these applications in the last 18 months. Nobody likes to say they are a developer, but they are. RLF is a development company out of Salt Lake City. North 5th LLC is also a development company. Developers are utilizing this law because it allows development at the minimum standard. Elko County has set forth policy as to our requirements. It makes no sense for us to require an all weather road if you can’t get to it. We would be land locking another portion of land which we spent the last 20 years trying not to. If we don’t make the requirement for that road to connect to the area that is being developed than we have not done our job. These are our policies and procedures and we have run into these problems before. The applicant believes this is an implied right of division whether it’s called a subdivision or a DLLP it is still subdivision of land for sale. There is an implied right to protect the person that is going to buy that property by providing what we classify as physical and legal access. We run into this every single month. We did not do that in the past and because of it we have 3 subdivisions with no legal and physical access. We can’t go back retroactively and we have to live with today’s standard and codes. Chairman Hough stated he believed that NRS 278 allows the counties to supplement portions of it with their own ordinances. Mr. Brown stated we don’t do everything by ordinance but by policy and procedure. We set the precedent. Mr. Bottari developed the DLLP Woodhills and the requirements were for a 26 foot wide gravel standard road. The State of Nevada can tell you whatever they want to tell you but our minimum standard in Elko County is a 26 foot wide graveled surfaced road. It is in a public right-of-way which requires by code that it will be developed to the minimum standard.
Mrs. McQueary (D/A) stated in NRS 278.472, the final map on DLLP subsection 4,a & b, states; a. All subdivision lots by the number and actual acreage of each lot. b. Any roads or easements of access which exist and which the owner intends to offer for dedication, any roads or easements of access which are shown on the applicable master plan and any roads or easements of access which are specially required by the planning commission or the governing body or it’s authorized representative.
NRS 278.4715 subsection 2 & 3 state;
2. If the tentative map is filed with the planning commission or with the governing body or its authorized representative, the planning commission or the governing body or its authorized representative may within 60 days of the filing of the tentative map designate the location and width of any easements for roads and public utilities as shown on the master plan if there is one applicable to the area to be divided, or designate the location and width of any easements for roads and public utilities which may be reasonably necessary to serve the area to be divided if there is no master plan.
ELKO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 2008
3. The planning commission or the governing body or its authorized representative shall not designate an easement after the expiration of 60 days from the filing of the tentative map.
When you consider also under chapter 244 which is the statute setting forth the powers of the county commission and chapters 403 and 405 which deal with county roads, the county commission has the authority to set the requirements for county roads. Although NDF has a minimum standard for their vehicles, the county has set forth its minimum standard in Elko County Code which was passed by the Elko County Commission pursuant to the chapter 244.403 and 405. As far as the fencing, we have a policy that the county commission likes to see in place because of the complaints that have come out of that neighborhood the past 4 or 5 years. Several years ago a ranchers cattle got into a neighborhood and we received a flurry of telephone calls which very nearly resulted in a change in the open range law in the State of Nevada. Certainly they could have placed a designation on the map as far as fencing. The buyer needs to be made aware by admission on the map. A buyer needs to look at the map when they buy property because there should be a designation on the map. As Commissioner Grisham stated earlier, people who don’t read the fine print create an enormous amount of work on staff people throughout the county.
Commissioner Hartley stated she is definitely for the 26 foot minimum standard. Have we required fencing on all the prior DLLP Maps? Mr. Brown stated we have. Commissioner Hartley stated she is not particularly for that restriction because there is a disclosure form that as a realtor I am supposed to provide to the buyer that explains the Nevada Open Range Law. We are required to have buyers sign that disclaimer and we certainly explain the Nevada Open Range Law to them. If a property owner sells a parcel without a realtor, there are disclosure forms they are probably not going to be aware of. I would like to see something like that on the map. I think it is quite an expense for someone to go and fence off 400 acres when it is actually the individual property owners responsibility. Mr. Brown stated that the problem I have is as Mrs. McQueary referred to, the reverse range war about 3or 4 years ago. We had several ranchers concerned about creating subdivisions and DLLP’s. They received the telephone calls as well and wanted to know why we didn’t make a requirement to fence the cattle out. When the rancher moves his cattle they go wherever they want to go and if they find an area that is open to them and there are fresh flowers there, they are going to go for it. We are allowing a subdivision to be created and putting it back on the potential buyer to know the laws when the developer is the person who is making the money. Commissioner Hartley stated she understands that if we don’t do it now it kind of sets a precedence. Regarding financing, you don’t necessarily have to have CC&R’s in place. You can have a recorded road maintenance agreement in place. Mr. Brown stated we can’t enforce them, I can’t make anybody create a homeowners association or anything. All we can do is strongly suggest that they do so. There is no NRS that gives that authority and we won’t do it by policy because in my opinion we don’t have that authority to do so. The other issues create health and safety issues, the fencing and the
ELKO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 2008
roads. Again our determination is a 26 foot wide graveled road. The then acting Engineer Mike Murphy and myself in 1994 approached the State of Nevada with the following question. What is an all weather road. They replied, it was 20 feet wide with 9 inches of gravel. 9 inches of gravel in this country doesn’t get you any where. Your gravel is going to sink 3 more inches into the ground. So we went to the wider standard road with a minimal Type 2 gravel and this is preferential to any other standard road. So we hold the standard of 26 feet wide with 6 inches of Type 2 Class B material or equivalent. The state fire marshal by their standard does not call for a specific gravel, it could be pit run. That is what he told us. We prefer our standard because it is a much better road and is also much more maintainable. That is what the staff report is based on. Mrs. McQueary stated that in these subdivisions that were created prior to subdivision law, there are parcels sold over the internet through the Elko County Treasurer Trustee lot sales. The buyers have no clue what they are buying, what the roads are like, they are not looking at any disclosure forms, they are not going through a real estate agent, and they are not getting a title report. Then they sell the parcel to somebody who lives here and the buyer starts screaming. The fencing the property would save me a lot of heartache. Commissioner Judd stated you can’t rely on the seller or the real estate agent so we are here to safe guard all of the parties. Commission Galyen asked, if we are requiring the developer to improve the road to his parcel to a 26 foot wide gravel standard, can the other parcels owners on that road be assessed for a portion of the improvement? Mr. Brown stated we could if the road was under a maintenance plan. If it was adjacent to ECR 742, yes, we could. But, this is a rural area that is underdeveloped. Looking at the county verses a metropolitan area, you have a road maintenance program in the county which encompasses over a 1,000 miles of dirt road and 40,000 miles of designated roads. The right-of-ways are there but the maps were created on paper. There may or may not have been an actual road developed. It may have been pioneered. But at some point in time it has to come to some standard. If the subdivisions were created today the roads would be there. They would be required to develop a 26 foot wide paved road. As far as easements, we will have 40 feet on the property side and 30 feet on the section side which is on the east side, north side and the west sides. He is offering 40 feet which he necessarily doesn’t have to do. It could be 30 feet. We will need to acquire one portion on Quartzite Drive, on the south side of the section line for 30 feet which is owned by BLM at this point. We can assist the developer with that. The development of these roads will improve the value of other parcels. Now, the development criteria of the 1960's is not that of today. I can’t change what has already happened, I can only go forward with the building criteria in place today. The builder stated he should have to build only ½ of the road. The problem with that is the builder is the one who is creating all of the impact in the area. The requirement for the improvement of the entire width of the roads would make no sense if there isn’t a requirement to provide the improvement of the access to the property. Commissioner Galyen asked who owned the .8 mile access to the developers property. Mr. Brown stated it is a public right-of-way attached to Twin River Ranchos Unit 3 and the southerly portion we would have to apply for belongs to BLM. Chairman Hough stated that ultimately that the buyers of the
ELKO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 2008 proposed parcels will absorb those costs. Mr. Brown stated that our decision here can be appealed to the Elko County Commission. Commissioner Grisham stated that what we are doing today is not meant to be punitive on the developer. It helps the developer because it will head off a lot of problems in the future in reference to parcel owners disrupting potential buyers telling them of problems with the division. This is conducted for general good of the public.
Chairman Hough asked for additional comments and/or a motion.
MOTION: Commissioner Galyen moved to approve Application #08-7100-0002, Tentative map of DLLP for Monjaras with staff’s recommendations excluding the cattle guard requirements at strategic points . Commissioner Grisham made a second to the motion. The motion carried.
VOTE: AYE:...... David Hough, Chairman Dave Galyen, Vice Chairman Milt Grisham Mike Judd Dena Hartley
NAY:...... None
ABSENT:...... Kristian Forland Jack Larson
ABSTENTIONS:...... None
The appeal process was read to the public by Chairman Hough.
#07-4000-0004, T.G. Power LLC, - A public hearing concerning a request for an extension of six months to begin construction and development in reference to the conditional use for a geothermal power plant in a General Industrial zoning district on the following described property as per Elko County Code 4-2-1, B4;
NE 1/4 NW 1/4 SE 1/4 and SE 1/4 NE 1/4 NE 1/4 of Section 8, T. 41 N., R. 52 E. M.D.B.& M. The owner is Ellison Ranching Co.
ELKO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 2008
The applicant is T.G. Power LLC.
Chairman Hough abstained as he was involved with this project and handed the gavel to Vice Chairman Galyen.
Randy stated that this was a six month extension request and read the following letter into the record regarding conditional use permit PCR07-20, T.G. Power LLC:
Mr. John Kingwell Elko County Community Development Planning & Zoning Department 155 So. 9th, Street Elko, Nevada 89801
RE: Conditional Use Permit No. PCR 07-20 T G Power LLC Hot Sulphur Springs Geothermal Power Plant
Dear Mr. Kingwell:
On behalf of I G Power LLC, JBR Environmental Consultants, Inc. requests a six-month extension of Conditional Use Permit PCR 07-20. This Conditional Use Permit is for ten acres located in the NE 1/4 NW 1/4 SE1/4 and SE1/4 SW 1/4 NE1/4 of Section 8, Township 41 North, Range 52 East, which is known as the Spanish Ranch.
The commencement of construction of the approved property for a “Geothermal Electricity Generation Plant” has been temporarily delayed from the second quarter of 2008.
Should you have any questions or require additional data, please contact the undersigned at (775) 738-8766.
Sincerely,
JBR Environmental Consultants, Inc.
Terri Tharp, P.G., C.E.M. Project Manager
Cc: Dennis Corn I G Power LLC Martin A. Buckley T G Power LLC
ELKO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 2008
Vice Chairman Galyen asked for questions to staff. There were none. Are there any in the audience that wish to speak. There were none. Vice Chairman Galyen asked for questions from the commissioners and/or a motion.
MOTION: Commissioner Grisham moved to approve a 6 monthfor extensionT.G. Pow oner theLL Cconditional. use Application #07-4000-0004, Commissioner Hartley made a second to the motion. The motion carried.
VOTE: AYE:...... Dave Galyen, Vice Chairman Milt Grisham Mike Judd Dena Hartley
NAY:...... None
ABSENT:...... Kristian Forland Jack Larson
ABSTENTIONS:...... David Hough, Chairman
Vice Chairman Galyen handed the gavel to Chairman Hough.
#07-4000-0006, Spirit Minerals, LP - (A hearing continued from Jan 17th, February 21st, March 20, 2008) A public hearing concerning a request for a conditional use for RV parking and camping in an Open Space zoning district on the following described property as per Elko County Code 4-2-1, B7;
A Portion of Section 15, Township 42 North, Range 62 East, M.D.B.& M.
The owner is Steven Boies.
ELKO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 2008
The applicant is Spirit Minerals, LP.
Chairman Hough stated he would abstain as he is involved with this applicant and parcel. He handed the gavel to Vice Chairman Galyen.
Mr. Brown stated we still have not received a response from NDEP and the NV Health Dept. I would like to see this application tabled until further notice from the applicant and we will re-notice everyone that was previously noticed. It has been a long time and I feel we need to re notice this hearing.
Vice Chairman Galyen asked for comments from the commissioners. There were none.
Vice Chairman Galyen asked for a motion.
MOTION: Commissioner Judd moved to table Application #07-4000-0006 for Spirit Minerals until further notice. Commissioner Hartley made a second to the motion. The motion carried. VOTE: AYE:...... Dave Galyen, Vice Chairman Milt Grisham Mike Judd Dena Hartley
NAY:...... None
ABSENT:...... Kristian Forland Jack Larson
ABSTENTIONS:...... David Hough, Chairman
#08-2000-0003, Andrew C. & Shannon D. Knudsen, - (Continued from March 20, 2008 with a change in use application) A public hearing regarding an application for a change in zoning from Agricultural Residential to Light Industrial for mini storage units, and a residence on the following described property:
ELKO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 2008
A 12.987 acre Parcel of land located in Section 8, T.34 N., R.55 E., M.D.B.& M., Elko County, Nevada. Located on Mountain City Highway at Sundance Road in Elko County.
Applicant and Owner is Andrew C. Knudsen & Shannon D. Knudsen.
Mr. Brown stated the applicant is not sure what he wants to do with the property and has asked for this to be tabled until the May 15, 2008 public hearing.
Chairman Hough asked for comments from the commissioners.
Chairman Hough asked for a motion. MOTION: Commissioner Judd moved to table Application #08-2000-0003 for Andrew C. Knudsen & Shannon D. Knudsen until May 15. 2008 public hearing. Commissioner Galyen made a second to the motion. The motion carried.
VOTE: AYE:...... David Hough, Chairman Dave Galyen, Vice Chairman Milt Grisham Mike Judd Dena Hartley
NAY:...... None ABSENT:...... Kristian Forland Jack Larson
ABSTENTIONS:...... None
#08-7200-0001, RLF Nevada Properties, LLC, - (Continued from March 20, 2008) A public hearing for the proposed Final Map of Division into Large Parcels, RLF Nevada Properties, LLC.
Final Map of Division into Large Parcels, RLF Nevada Properties, LLC is located in Section 19, T.35 N., R. 55 E., M.D.B.& M. and is approximately 3 miles northwest of Elko, Nevada, along North 5th
ELKO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 2008
Street.
The applicant and owner of said property is RLF Nevada Properties
LLC
Mr. Brown stated that the applicant wants to improve the road and bring it up out of the riparian area onto the higher ground. The area is still under snow and the applicant needs to postpone till next months meeting.
Chairman Hough asked for comments and/or a motion from the commissioners.
MOTION: Commissioner Galyen moved to table Application #08-7200-0001 for RLF Nevada Properties, LLC to the May 15, 2008 public hearing. Commissioner Judd made a second to the motion. The motion carried.
VOTE: AYE:...... David Hough, Chairman Dave Galyen, Vice Chairman Milt Grisham Mike Judd Dena Hartley
NAY:...... None
ABSENT:...... Kristian Forland Jack Larson
ABSTENTIONS:...... None
#08-7100-0003, Woodhills LLC, - A public hearing for the proposed Tentative Map of Division into Large Parcels, Woodhills, LLC.
Tentative Map of Division into Large Parcels for Woodhills, LLC is located in a portion of Section 32, T.32 N., R. 56 E., M.D.B.& M. and is located near the intersection of State Route 228 and County Road 713 in Elko County, Nevada.
The applicant and owner of said property is Woodhills, LLC.
Randy brown stated he has been in touch with the applicant Paul Bottari and has informed him of
ELKO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 2008
the ownership problem of ECR 713 and his proposed access. ECR 713 is not correct. It is a road that was provided for by a parcel map that we had done 3 years ago. The right-of-way is there but the problem we have is that it is the primary access to the Temoke Tribe in the South Fork Area. We are trying to find the status of that road in reference to whether or not the prior owners of the property had made an agreement, an unfiled agreement. We can’t find a filed easement. We want to prevent problems with the tribe concerning maintenance issues on this road. That is the only issue on this map.
Chairman Hough asked for comments and/or a motion from the commissioners.
MOTION: Commissioner Galyen moved to table Application #08-7100-0003 for Woodhills LLC until the May 15, 2008 public hearing. Commissioner Judd made a second to the motion. The motion carried. VOTE: AYE:...... David Hough, Chairman Dave Galyen, Vice Chairman Milt Grisham Mike Judd Dena Hartley
NAY:...... None
ABSENT:...... Kristian Forland Jack Larson
ABSTENTIONS:...... None
(5 minute recess)
VII. OTHER BUSINESS:
JACKPOT MASTER PLAN:
Chairman Hough stated, if this is to be ratified, it will need a super majority vote which requires 5 yes votes from this board. Mr. Brown stated the Jackpot Master Plan, Jackpot Division of the Elko County Master Plan, was reviewed by the Jackpot Town Advisory Board last week on the 10th of April and the board unanimously approved the amendments to the Jackpot Master Plan. The master plan has not changed since you were provided with a copy in February and the reviews we went through. Basically there were 12 pages of review that we went through where all were adopted into Volume 1 of the master plan. The change that was added was, “ Any
ELKO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 2008 change has to be approved by the Jackpot Advisory Board as well as the jackpot Division of Public Works, the Elko County Planning Commission, and the Elko County Commissioners.” This allows them to have input into the master plan.
Commissioner Hartley asked if there was a law suite pending at this time. Mrs. McQueary stated that there is current litigation on the prior zone changes on Triad properties. It is conjunct through the master plan issues. We have counsel for that other law suit. In consultation with counsel, we were advised to go ahead with the master planning process. Anything that comes out of the law suite can become an amendment to the master plan in the future. There is litigation but it is conjunct to the master plan. Mr. Brown stated that there were some non substantial Grammar and spelling errors that were corrected as well as corrections to the demographic area of the master plan.
Mr. Brown stated that there was a request that we read the following 3 letters into the record:
(Letter No.1)
April 16, 2008
Elko County Planning Commission c/o Elko County Department of Community Development 155 South 9th Street Elko, Nevada 89801
I am writing on behalf of Barton’s Club 93, Jackpot, Nevada, to comment on the Jackpot Master Plan Amendments which are on the Agenda for your April 17, 2008 meeting.
First, the amendments that are proposed for the Master Plan are the result of a lengthy process involving a lot of hard work by staff— particularly Randy Brown. The proposed amendments are well thought out and well drafted and Barton’s Club 93 supports them.
Second, Barton’s Club 93 hereby requests the Commission to add to the amendments - or in a staff report supporting the amendments - an analysis of the known elements of the Spanish Bit $100 Million destination resort proposed for the Town of Jackpot. It is undeniable that a comprehensive Master Plan is required by Nevada law to serve as a basis for the development of the Town of Jackpot. NRS 278.150 and 278.160.
How can the County plan for the development of the Town of Jackpot without taking into consideration the known elements of the Spanish Bit $100 Million destination resort proposed for the Town?
ELKO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 2008
At the very least, the Spanish Bit project may be expected to impact the following plans which NRS 278. 1 60 requires to be included in the Jackpot Master Plan:
conservation plan; economic plan; housing plan; population plan; public services and facilities plans; and solid waste disposal plan.
The desirability - if not necessity - of addressing the impact of the Spanish Bit project is supported by the November 3, 2007 and January 3, 2008 letters to the Commission by Reno zoning and planning lawyer, Stephen C. Mollath, which I have asked Randy Brown to read into the record at your meeting, together with this comment letter.
RICHARD G. BARROWS
(Letter No. 2)
November 13, 2007
ELKO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION c/o Elko County Department of Community Development 155 S. 9th Street Elko, NV 89801
RE: Triad Resorts, LLC and East Pac Four Corporation Zone Change Applications 05-2000-0007 06-2000-0004 01-2000-0012 07-2000-0010 Jackpot Division, Elko County Master Plan Proposed Amendment and Update
Members of the Commission and Planning Staff:
This office, along with Richard G. Barrows, Esq. of WILSON BARROWS & SALYER,
ELKO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 2008 represents Club 93 in relation to the above pending applications and proposed Master Plan Update.
In connection with the above, I have reviewed the following documents and information:
¾ Zone Change Applications, Triad Resorts, LLC and East Pac Four Corporation (05-2000-0007, 06-2000-0004, 01-2000-0012 and 07-2000-0010), Spanish Bit Hotel Casino and filed documents related thereto
¾ Letter dated October 9, 2007 from Travis W. Gerber to Kristin McQueary, Esq.
¾ Elko County Master Plan, Jackpot Division
¾ General Plan, Elko County
¾ General Open Space Plan, Elko, Nevada
¾ Recreation and Tourism Master Plan, Jackpot, Nevada
¾ Final Airport Master Plan, Jackpot Airport, Hayden Field
¾ Water System Master Plan for the Community of Jackpot
¾ Final Facility Plan for Improvements to the Town of Jackpot Wastewater Reclamation Facility
¾ Wellhead Protection Program, Jackpot Water System
¾ Elko County Zoning Ordinance (to include 4-9-7)
¾ NRS Chapter 278.160, et seq. (Master Plans)
¾ NRS Chapter 278.250, et seq. (Zoning Districts and Regulations)
¾ Nevada Supreme Court cases related to zoning and planning
¾ Jackpot Master Plan Update (November 8, 2007)
¾ Order Citizens for Cold Springs v. City of Reno, Case No. CVO6-00760, Department 9, Second Judicial District Court1 (copy enclosed)
ELKO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 2008
I understand that the Planning Commission will start a series of workshop sessions on the Jackpot Master Plan Review and Revision at a meeting to be held November 15, 2007. I will not be able to attend said meeting due to prior commitments, however Richard Barrows, Esq. will attend and represent the interests of Club 93.
The purpose of my letter is to outline for the Planning Commission and Planning Staff Club 93’s position relative to the above-referenced matters so as to make sure the process of review is properly followed.
1. 1998 Annexation of Triad Resorts, LLC and East Pac Four Corporation Properties into the Unincorporated Town of Jackpot. As you know, the initial problem with the processing of the zone change applications was the fact that the properties, although annexed in 1998 were not incorporated by amendment into the
I am counsel of record for Wallach IX, LLC, developer, real party in interest in said case, thus familiar with the issues presented. Reference to this case is not made to argue precedent since it is a District Court decision, but only illustrate the similar issues presented.
Jackpot Division, Elko County Master Plan as required by EIko ordinance and NRS 278.220. As such, the zone change applications can not be acted upon until those properties are included in the Master Plan by appropriate hearings and action by the Board of County Commissioners.2
2. Jackpot Division, Master Plan Review and Update. The inclusion of Triad and East Pac Four properties into the Jackpot Division Master Plan is not just a simple matter of including their legal descriptions in an updated plan. As you know, along with the Triad and East Pac Four properties comes a large project (Spanish Bit Hotel Casino) which will have significant impacts on the infrastructure of Jackpot. I have enclosed a copy of NRS 278.160 for your review. As can be seen from that section, the action requires consideration of significant subject matter and applies both to the adoption of the initial plan and any amendments thereto. As such, the Planning Commission and Planning Department is required to conduct an analysis of the entire Jackpot Division Master Plan and assess the impact of the inclusion of the Triad and East Pac Four properties and the Spanish Bit Casino project into the Master Plan.
This assessment and study must also consider what changes, if any, are then required to the Master Plan to accommodate the property and project (reference the Facility Plan, Water System Plan, Airport Plan, etc.). Once the above process is fully completed and the update and amendments adopted by the County Commission, the pending zone change applications may proceed forward.
3. Zone Change Applications. The Nevada Supreme Court, in American West Dev. v.
ELKO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 2008
City of Henderson, 111 Nev. 804 (1995)3, and other similar cases stated as follows:
Without overruling the above authority on the vesting of a developer’s rights in a proposed project, this court held, pursuant to NRS 278.250(2),1 that “municipal entities must adopt zoning regulations that are in substantial agreement with the master plan.” Nova Horizon v. City Council, Reno, 105 Nev. 92, 96, 769 P.2d 721, 723 (1989). In effect, then, although AWD’s rights under the 1989 master plan had not vested, and were still subject to discretionary impositions by Henderson, the latter governmental entity was required to give substantial deference to the 1989 master plan.
1 NRS 278.250 (2) provides, in pertinent part:
2 This was the same problem that existed in the Citizens for Cold Springs v. City of Reno case.
3 The undersigned was counsel for American West Development and handled the successful appeal to the Supreme Court.
The zoning regulations shall be adopted in accordance with the master plan for land use.
(emphasis added)
NRS 278.250 is also enclosed for your reference. As indicated by the above, the logical conclusion is that a master plan must be in place and effective before an application for a zone change is reviewed, considered and acted upon. In essence, before a finding required by NRS 278.250(2) can be made, the reviewing body must be able to compare the application for zone change to the existing master plan; not master plan that may be adopted concurrently with or subsequent to the zone change application. This is required regardless if any such anticipated master plan will be consistent with the zone change application.
4. Conclusion. Based upon the above, Club 93 urges the Planning Staff and Commission to:
A. Consider the requirements of NRS 278.160 in its processing of the update to the Jackpot Division Master Plan, together with the significant impacts of the Spanish Bit Casino project and how its impact should be reflected in the infrastructure sub-parts to the Jackpot Division Master Plan; and
B. Process the requests for zone changes only after the updates to the Jackpot Division Master Plan have been fully studied, modified and adopted by the County Commission.
ELKO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 2008
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
PREZANT & MOLLATH
(Letter No. 3)
January3, 2008
ELKO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION. c/o Elko County Department of Community Development 155 So. 9th Street Elko, NV 89801
RE: Triad Resorts, LLC and East Pac Four Corporation. Zone Change Applications 05-2000-0007 06-2000-0004 01-2000-0012S 07-2000-0010 Jackpot Division, Elko County Master Plan Proposed Amendment and update
Members of the Commission and Planning Staff:
This office, along with Richard G. Barrows, Esq. of WILSON BARROWS & SALYER, represents Club 93 in relation to the above pending applications and proposed Master Plan update.
In connection with the above, I have reviewed the draft of the Jackpot Master Plan (JMP) which contemplates an amendment to incorporate the above-referenced properties into the JMP. I have not seen a staff report on the proposed JMP amendment and I am given to understand that one will not be prepared.
As you know, NRS 278 160 sets forth the subject matter of master plans and proposed amendments thereto. We fully understand that the specific details of the proposed Spanish Bit Project are not yet available for review in connection with the master plan update.
ELKO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 2008
On the other hand, staff certainly is aware of the scope and nature of the project sufficiently enough to address its impacts as they relate to the subject mater of NRS 278 160.
There needs to be, in connection with the JMP update and amendment, a staff review and analysis of the known elements of the Spanish Bit Project in relation to NRS 278.160 (1)(a)-®) and (2). This is the only way the Planning Commission and Board,0, of Commissioners can appropriately make the findings that are required update and amend the JMP.
As such, we request that the Staff analyze and study the JMP update, as the ‘Spanish Bit Project may effect it in the areas proscribed by NRS 278 160.
Thank you for your assistance and if you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
PREZANT & MOLLATH
Mr. Brown stated our policy and procedures on any type of development such as this are specific to the site and the project. The master plans that we prepare are general land use master plans and general land use element master plans basically stating this is a designation and what we believe is a good location for this type of use. That is one of the elements within the Jackpot Master Plan. We do require the items that are requested in the letter but at a more specific point. We don’t get into specifics in a master plan because the specifics are not fully available at that time. We know what is proposed at this time. If we do the impact study on something we don’t fully understand we would be doing ourselves and injustice. After the zone change is provided and the project has been proposed in a complete manner, we will require a comprehensive master plan be prepared by the developer that informs us of the developers exact intentions. Once we know that information, we can analyze the impacts to the community and each specific item listed in the letter;
conservation plan; economic plan; housing plan; population plan; public services and facilities plans; and solid waste disposal plan.
These issues are laid out in general in the master plan itself. If you go into the master plan itself
ELKO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 2008 they are not specified. In the master plan you will not find any specific projects that have been planned or have been analyzed. Chairman Hough stated he believes the letter implies that the master plan was redone to accommodate that project. That’s the impression I am getting. Mr. Brown stated in a manner of speaking, yes it was but what I am trying to get across is that the master plan is a general plan. It states that this is how we feel the Town of Jackpot along with the Town of Jackpot Advisory Board and the people in that area feel that Jackpot should expand and the different elements listed above are going to go. The letter is asking us to specify in the master plan, a comprehensive portion. What we normally would do on something of this size and sort is to wait for the zone change. Speculative zoning is not illegal, we permit it all the time. At the time of development, when Triad says they are going to develop and this is what we are going to do, we would ask how many rooms are you going to have, how many pools, how many parking spaces, what ancillary uses will you have. That allows planning and zoning along with public works and the Jackpot Advisory Board to figure out what the impacts will be. 3,000 hotel rooms will impact our sewer and water systems, roads, etc... What is asked in the letter cannot be done at this point. I have to do this planning at the development stage when the building permits are being requested. At this point I don’t know what the impacts are going to be. Today the developer may want 1,000 rooms and tomorrow change that to 3,000 rooms. So, when the developer is ready to develop the property, we will do the impact study. Jackpot Public Works agrees with what I am saying because they don’t want to analyze a speculative development verses something a permit has been applied for.
Commissioner Hartley asked, when someone comes in for a zone change aren’t they at the point where they know they have plans for the property? Mr. Brown stated that after the zone change we will have a very good idea what the applicant wants. In the staff report you will notice that the top recommendation states the applicant will have to comply with all federal, state, and local requirements pertaining to that development. Commissioner Hartley asked, is that the requirement at the time of the zoning change? Mr. Brown replied, no. That would be at the time of development, when the permits are applied for. Commissioner Hartley, but they have the zoning change in place without really knowing the impacts on the community. Mr. Brown stated the zone change does nothing more than change the zoning on a parcel. It is the actual development that impacts the community, not the zone change. When the developer comes up to Mr. Forsberg and states he is ready to develop and asks for a will serve letter, it will depend on the impacts the development will have. We don’t issue will serves on a whim, we want to know exactly what we are looking at. If the developer is going to impact our water system to the degree whereas we don’t have enough water rights to supply his needs, he will need to supply those water rights. If there isn’t sufficient capacity in the sewer lines, the developer will have to improve the systems capacity and/or upgrading on service lines for the development. We can’t say that at the zone change because the proposed project is speculative. If a developer wants a zone change for a hotel, we would base the staff report in a general manner for that use, this is what is anticipated. If tomorrow he changes to a casino which is a permitted use also in the district, the requirements
ELKO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 2008
would be different. Our codes allow for flexibility to accommodate the developer. It would be different for a zone change made for one specific use only. Commissioner Hartley asked, with the different allowed uses in a zoning district, can a developer be turned down when they already have the zone change? Mr. Brown stated yes, if the developer is not willing to comply with the building procedures and the impact mitigation as set forth in our code and the master plan. The master plan actually states that if you impact our infrastructure you will pay for the upgrades. Mrs. McQueary stated it is not an issue of turning down the applicant for a building permit or a will serve letter, it is about control. Mr, Brown stated that is correct. If we can’t serve the proposed development and the developer won’t upgrade the infrastructure, how can we issue a will serve letter? We would be in violation of State Statute. Commissioner Grisham asked if the pending law suite will impact what we are doing here tonight. Mrs. McQueary stated that factual underpinnings of that case are different from the factual underpinnings of the Triad zone change. I don’t find it quite as persuasive as Mr. Mollath does. Mr. Brown stated they are different, we are talking about an incorporated city and an unincorporated area. Commissioner Galyen asked if we needed to allow for public comment in this hearing. Mrs. McQueary stated that this board need to determine if this will be approved by an affirmative super majority vote which means all 5 of you would need to vote to approve it and send it on to the Elko County Commission for final approval. The letters read into the record are in the nature of public comment, so if anyone is inclined to comment to this board I don’t see any problem with it. We have had two public hearings in Jackpot and this is our third one here. Mr. Brown stated there is not a huge amount of change from the original master plan. The only major change was the conservation plan that was inserted into volume No. 1. As stated before, some verbiage, updates and upgrades. Commissioner Galyen stated we did not take public comment at this stage on the Spring Creek Lamoille Master Plan. Mr. Brown stated that is right. The Jackpot Advisory Board approved it, they unanimously approved this master plan. Commissioner Grisham asked if we are opening the door to a law suite. Mr. Brown, we don’t know. Mrs. McQueary stated that Club 93 has sued us on the zone changes which were approved previously on Triads parcel. They will do whatever they are going to do to protect their interests.
Chairman Hough asked for a motion.
MOTION: Commissioner Galyen moved to approve the Jackpot Master Plan as amended and to forward it to the Elko County Commissioners for approval. Commissioner Judd made a second to the motion. The motion carried. VOTE: AYE:...... David Hough, Chairman
Dave Galyen, Vice Chairman Milt Grisham Mike Judd Dena Hartley
ELKO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 2008
NAY:...... None
ABSENT:...... Kristian Forland Jack Larson
ABSTENTIONS:...... None
VIII. STAFF AND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS: None
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
Chairman Hough asked for a motion to adjourn as there was no further business.
MOTION: Commissioner Judd moved to adjourn. Commissioner Galyen made a second to the motion. The motion carried.
VOTE: AYE:...... David Hough, Chairman Dave Galyen, Vice Chairman Milt Grisham Mike Judd Dena Hartley
NAY:...... None
ABSENT:...... Kristian Forland Jack Larson
ABSTENTIONS:...... None
Minutes Clerk______
Date Approved______
ELKO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 17, 2008
K:\P&Z - Planning Commission Records\DOCS, MINUTES\2008 YEAR\APRIL 041708 ECPC Minutes.wpd