LYON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR AGENDA COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM LYON COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEX 27 SOUTH MAIN STREET YERINGTON, NEVADA

Transcription

1 LYON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR AGENDA COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM LYON COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLEX 27 SOUTH MAIN STREET YERINGTON, NEVADA July 8, 2008 Due to mechanical failure, these minutes were typed from the secretary s notes. The Lyon County Planning Commission met this day with a quorum present. The following members were present: Chuck Davies, Ray Johnson, Ervin Hill, Virgil Arellano, Ray Fierro and Chuck Roberts. Paul Lanning was absent. Attending staff were Rob Loveberg, Planning Director, Paul Esswein, Planner, and Tammy Estill, Planning Administrative Clerk II. Phyllis Hunewill, representing the Lyon County Commissioner s and Keith Trout of the Mason Valley News were also present. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE REVIEW AND ADOPTION OF AGENDA Virgil Arellano made the motion to accept the agenda and the erratum to the agenda as presented. Ray Johnson seconded and the motion passed unanimously; 6 Ayes, 0 Nays, and 0 Abstentions. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Ervin Hill made the motion to accept the minutes from the June 10, 2008 Planning Commission meeting as presented. Virgil Arellano seconded and the motion passed unanimously; 6 Ayes, 0 Nays, and 0 Abstentions. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE There was no miscellaneous correspondence. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION There was no public participation at this time. REGULAR AGENDA Ervin Hill made the motion to hear items #1 (The Highlands Group Master Plan Text Amendment), #2 (The Highlands Group Zoning Text Amendment) and #3 (The Highlands Group Master Plan Amendment) together and to take action on them separately. Ray Fierro seconded and the motion passed unanimously; 6 Ayes, 0 Nays, and 0 Abstentions. 1. THE HIGHLANDS GROUP/NEVADA RENO INDUSTRIAL, LLC MASTER PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT (continued from the January 8 and May 13, 2008 Planning Commission meetings) Request to change the Master Plan text to include and define a specific plan land use designation, to insert language regarding community plans and to insert language regarding The Highlands as a community in the 1990 Lyon County Master Plan, PLZ Staff Comments: Rob Loveberg summarized the requests. These three items have been heard twice previously and continued for different reasons. The last time these items were continued so that the applicant and staff could work on revised language. For the Master Plan Text Amendment, the applicant requested that their original request be modified by deleting the insertion of the Community Plan concept and the identification of the Highlands as a Community Plan. They also suggested revised language for the definition of the proposed Specific Plan Land Use Designation. For the Zoning Text Amendment, the applicant requested that their original request be modified reflecting changes in the Lyon County Code paragraph (A)(2) and paragraph (A)(4). The applicant also requested that their Master Plan Amendment be modified by deleting the Community Plan and just have the specific plan land use designation. Mr. Loveberg went over the amended staff report and the revision of language. 1

2 Chuck Davies asked if they were looking at the applicant s version or the staff s version. Rob Loveberg stated that they took the language proposed by the applicant and amended it. Virgil Arellano asked if the specific plan language being inserted into the current master plan and that proposed for the new master plan would overlap one another. Rob Loveberg stated the new master plan already envisions a specific plan land use designation and what is added to the current master plan will carry forward in some form. Correspondence: There was no correspondence for this item. Applicant's Comments: Mark Amodei, representing The Highlands Group, stated he agreed pretty much with everything that Mr. Loveberg had presented. The staff revisions are acceptable with The Highlands Group. He stated that the county still retains full review and approval process for the specific plan land use designation. The approval would allow the applicant to present a specific plan for their property in the future. Mr. Amodei gave a short presentation and touched on the topic of USA Parkway/State Route 805. Virgil Arellano asked if NDOT had completed a feasibility report for USA Parkway. Mark Amodei stated that NDOT would not be building USA Parkway. Chuck Roberts asked about the language being used to describe State Route 805 and stated, at best, USA Parkway would be considered a boulevard. It would make more sense to design a highway then a boulevard. A boulevard would just result in more congestion. Chuck Davies referred to a large industrial base with more employees; more people would be living in the area and driving USA Parkway. Ray Fierro referred to an upscale community and services from the industrial park; and they are not envisioning roads, accesses and traffic and the political boundary. Mark Amodei stated that the applicant s are asking for the ability to present a more detailed plan. Roads will not be built if there is no development. Ervin Hill stated he had lost track of the master plan amendment and they were not discussing roads and houses. Rob Loveberg stated they were talking about land use designation and county code changes. Chuck Roberts stated it was not a bad concept but concurred with staff and they should wait for the new master plan. Public Comments: Pat Snyder, owner of property within the project, stated he was concerned if the specific plan designation would be compatible with industry and mining. He wants to be able to pursue his own interests on his own property. He stated he was confused how it would impact his property. Virgil Arellano asked for the specific location of Mr. Snyder s property. Pat Snyder stated it was adjacent to the Ramsey Mine and also stated that The Highlands Group has been very supportive. 2

3 Rob Loveberg wanted to make sure that the Planning Commission was clear that the first element, the master plan text amendment, and the second element of the revision of the county code is not reliant on the third element of the applications, the master plan map amendment. The Planning Commission would not be bound to approve the master plan amendment. These changes for #1 and # 2 are global in scope to Lyon County. Chuck Roberts stated they should go through the master plan process and was not opposed to the concept. Ervin Hill stated they were trying to put the specific plan land use designation on The Highlands Group property but the land use would be applied to the entire county. Virgil Arellano stated he concurred with Mr. Hill and that they need to be consistent. Chuck Davies stated the master plan text amendment would be in the current master plan and would also be in the new master plan and it would affect the whole county. Ervin Hill made the motion to approve the Master Plan Text Amendment for The Highlands Group (PLZ ) as set forth in the master plan text amendment application and supporting documents, received by the Planning Department October 4, 2007, as revised by the requested changes to the application dated June 12, 2008, and supporting documents, specifically omitting from the approval the insertion of the community plan concept and the identification of the Highlands as a community based on the following findings: (a) the proposed text amendment is an appropriate addition to land uses of the current Master Plan and (b) the proposed text amendment has demonstrated and responds to changed conditions or further studies that have occurred since the Master Plan was adopted by the Board, and the requested text amendment represents a desirable land use designation. Ray Johnson seconded the motion. Discussion: Rob Loveberg asked for clarification of the motion as that the language for the specific plan land use designation be as specified on the revised staff language as presented on page 4: The Specific Plan land use designation is appropriate for areas where additional planning is necessary due to common ownership, topography, infrastructure and other factors before future development may occur, and where it is desirable to establish a planning framework under which such future development will be subject to on-going review, evaluation and modification. The specific plan land use designation may encompass a range of land uses in combination and encourages design creativity, sensitivity, flexibility and efficient use of land. The intent of the specific plan land use designation is to: 1) establish a link between implementing policies of the Lyon County Master Plan and the individual development proposals in a defined area; 2) provide for well planned development based on a set of goals and policies that compliment and focus the more general goals and policies of the Lyon County Master Plan by addressing planning issues and objectives specific to the area identified as Specific plan; and 3) promote a mix of complementary and compatible residential, public facilities, commercial and industrial uses that will provide employment opportunities and address adequate public infrastructure while ensuring that open spaces, the surrounding natural environment, and adjacent land uses and properties are respected. Proposed projects with this land use designation must follow the specific plan process as defined in the Lyon County, County Code. Ervin Hill amended his motion to include the language and Ray Johnson stated his second still stands. The motion passed unanimously; 6 Ayes, 0 Nays, and 0 Abstentions. 2. THE HIGHLANDS GROUP/NEVADA RENO INDUSTRIAL, LLC ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT (continued from the January 8 and May 13, 2008 Planning Commission meetings) Request to amend Zoning text, Title 10 of the Lyon County Code, to add provisions requiring the approval of a specific plan to implement development within a Specific Plan Land Use Designation, PLZ Staff's Comments: Rob Loveberg presented to the Planning Commission a new handout of the proposed revised language for the revision of County Code regarding specific plan land use designation dated July 7, Mr. Loveberg stated they had worked 3

4 with the applicant to revise the zone text amendment language and then went over the handout. Chuck Davies asked who makes the call if there will just be one specific plan or multiple specific plans. Rob Loveberg stated it would depend on the size of the specific plan; there could be one overall specific plan and to implement that specific plan there could be multiple specific plans. He further stated that the revision of language was not in an ordinance form. The revision of language would have to go before the Board of Commissioners in an ordinance and they would have to hear it twice. The language would not be in effect today and until the ordinance is accepted, the county code would not change. Chuck Davies asked if the specific plan did not exist, how would it affect the master plan amendment. Correspondence: There was no correspondence for this item. Applicant's Comments: Mark Amodei, representing The Highland Group, stated they agreed with the staff s report and also stated that the zoning text amendment was an administrative tool. Public Comments: There were no public comments on this item. Virgil Arellano made the motion to approve the Zoning Text Amendment for The Highlands Group (PLZ ) as set forth in the zoning text amendment application and supporting documents, as revised by the requested changes to the application dated June 12, 2008, and the Planning Commission further recommends that the Board of Commissioners adopt an ordinance revising Title (A) and (B) of the Lyon County Code; based on the findings that the proposed zoning text amendment appropriately responds to changes in the Lyon County Master Plan and provides the implementation measures necessary for the successful use of the Specific Plan land use designation. Ray Fierro seconded and the motion passed unanimously; 6 Ayes, 0 Nays, and 0 Abstentions. 3. THE HIGHLANDS GROUP/NEVADA RENO INDUSTRIAL, LLC MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT (continued from the January 8 and May 13, 2008 Planning Commission meetings) Request to change the Master Plan from Open Space to Specific Plan on approximately 20,250 acres; located north of Wild Flower Road and West of Turo Road, Silver Springs/Stagecoach/Fernley (APN , , , , , , ) PLZ Staff's Comments: Rob Loveberg presented the staff report. He stated the applicant had requested to modify the application by not having the originally proposed community plan considered at this time. The Planning Commission can make a motion to approve the master plan amendment and everything would go into affect in due time. Ervin Hill asked if a continuance would be better since the ordinance has not been approved by the Board of Commissioners and there is no guarantee that the ordinance would be approved. Rob Loveberg stated that the applicant is on notice that is a possibility. Probably no specific plan will be submitted between the time of the master plan amendment and when the ordinance goes through. During the process, this should not be a problem. Correspondence: There was no correspondence for this item. Applicant's Comments: Mark Amodei, representing The Highland Group, stated the timing was not in danger with the Board of Commissioners having to approve the ordinance. The applicant is concerned about the order of the issues. The timing of the specific plan is not an issue. They still have to have more community meetings and the amount of information to share is pretty significant. 4

5 Ray Fierro stated the applicant had presented a conceptual idea and he had some idea of what they want to do. The open space is unbuildable and asked why the master plan amendment was requested for the whole parcel and not just for the buildable areas. He felt that they needed to preserve some of the open space. Mark Amodei stated the overall picture was to prevent cherry picking and they wanted to control or restrict the development. They have been up front with what will be open space. The numbers are for economic purposes. Chuck Davies asked if the applicant had any idea when they might come forward with the overall specific plan. Mark Amodei stated in the spring of The issues have been identified and now they need to coordinate with staff and have public meetings Public Comments: There were no public comments for this item. Ervin Hill made the motion to approve the Master Plan Amendment for the adoption of the Specific Plan land use designation for The Highlands Group (APN , 03 & 04; & 12; and & 04) (PLZ ) as set forth in the master plan amendment application received by the Planning Department October 4, 2007, as revised by the requested changes to the application dated June 12, 2008, and supporting documents, specifically omitting from the approval The Highlands Community Plan, dated 3 October 2007; based on the finding that the proposed amendment has demonstrated and responds to changed conditions or further studies that have occurred since the Master Plan was adopted by the Board, and the requested amendment represents a more desirable utilization of land. Virgil Arellano seconded the motion and it passed with the vote of: 5 Ayes, 1 Nay (Chuck Roberts), and 0 Abstentions. 4. CANYON VIEW APARTMENTS / STANTON PARK DEVELOPMENT, INC MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT Request to change the Master Plan Land Use Designation from Commercial to High Density Residential on approximately 6.89 acres; located Six Mile Canyon Road and Branstetter Way, Dayton (Mark Twain) (APN , ) PLZ Staff's Comments: Paul Esswein presented the staff report. He stated the High Density Residential designation establishes a recommendation between 8-20 units per acre. The property is adjacent to Six Mile Canyon Road and borders the fire station and Branstetter Avenue. Ray Johnson stated on the map there were two lots, one 5.6 acres and the other 1.92 acres and asked if the two lots were coming together. Paul Esswein stated the applicants have applied for a boundary line adjustment. Ray Fierro asked about the desirability of commercial. Paul Esswein stated that higher density would be a benefit to commercial because it would provide more customers. Ray Fierro stated they are trying to prevent commercial strips along the highway and it seemed as though the commercial areas are being pushed to the highway. Ray Johnson referred to the C-2 zoning adjacent to the property and stated he was not seeing where the C-2 properties could be utilized as commercial. He also asked about the access. Rob Loveberg stated the C-2 properties to the north of Branstetter and V&T are transitioning back to residential. 5

6 Correspondence: Tammy Estill read into the record the following correspondence: Dayton Regional Advisory Council recommendation (motion to approve 3 ayes and 2 Nays) and comments from their July 2, 2008 meeting; and a note of opposition from Arnold & Kathleen McLean dated June 30, Applicant's Comments: Dwight Millard, owner, stated he has been a developer for a long time. He went over the map and explained what was owned by his company and what was available for commercial. Mr. Millard described the area and stated they want to build affordable housing for Dayton. Ray Fierro asked Mr. Millard why he did not go to the Dayton Regional Advisory Council meeting. Dwight Millard stated he did have meetings with county staff and was not notified of the meeting. Dwight Millard handed out to the Planning Commission an apartment fee cost comparison per door between Dayton and Carson City. He stated it was not cost effective to build the apartments and he would not build the apartments but he still wanted the master plan amendment and zone change. Rob Loveberg stated the fee structure is outside the purview of the master plan amendment. ways. Public Comments: There were no public comments for this item. Ray Johnson asked what the minimum square footage was for the zoning NR-2 Rob Loveberg stated 8,000 square feet minimum excluding the roads and right of Chuck Roberts made the motion to approve the Master Plan Amendment from Commercial to High Density Residential for Stanton Park Development Inc. (APN and ) (PLZ ) based on the following findings: (a) the proposed amendment is in substantial compliance with, and promotes the Master Plan goals, objectives and actions in that it is in keeping with the goals and objective contained in the 1990 Lyon County Master Plan and West Central Lyon County Land Use Plan; (b) the proposed amendment would result in land uses which are compatible with the actual and planned adjacent land uses, and reflects a logical change in land uses; (c) the proposed amendment identifies and responds to changed conditions or further studies that have occurred since the Master Plan was adopted by the Board, and the requested amendment represents a more desirable utilization of land; (d) the proposed amendment will not adversely affect the implementation of the Master Plan goals, objectives and actions, and would not adversely impact the public health, safety or welfare in that it places high density residential and commercial development near critical public services and facilities inside the existing service area of the community infrastructure, thereby reducing the cost of services and favorably effecting the efficient and cost effective development of infrastructure; and (e) The proposed amendment promotes the desired pattern for the orderly physical growth of the County. The proposed amendment allows infrastructure to be extended in efficient increments and patterns, maintains relatively compact development patterns, and guides development of the County based on the least amount of natural resource impairment and the efficient expenditure of funds for public services. Ray Fierro seconded and the motion passed unanimously; 6 Ayes, 0 Nays, and 0 Abstentions. 5. CANYON VIEW APARTMENTS / STANTON PARK DEVELOPMENT, INC ZONE CHANGE Request to change the zoning from C-2,Commercial to NR-2, Multiple Residence Non-Rural Residential, on approximately 6.89 acres, located at Six Mile Canyon Road and Branstetter Way, Dayton (Mark Twain) (APN , ) PLZ Staff's Comments: Paul Esswein presented the staff report. He stated the zoning would accommodate 120 dwelling units. It was recommended that the right of way on Branstetter be increased to 60 feet. 6

7 Correspondence: Tammy Estill read into the record the Dayton Regional Advisory Council recommendation (motion to approve 4 ayes and 1 Nays) and comments from their July 2, 2008 meeting. Applicant's Comments: Dwight Millard stated the zone change would accommodate 137 dwelling units but the conceptual plan included only 120 units. Ray Fierro stated that it had an ability to be a wonderful project and hoped that the developer would build the apartments with a plan that is aesthetically pleasing. Public Comments: There were no public comments for this item. Chuck Roberts made the motion to approve the Zone Change request from C-2, General Commercial to NR-2, Non-Rural Multi-Family Residential District (PLZ ) (APN and ) for Stanton Park Development Inc. based on the following findings: (a) the proposed zoning is in substantial compliance with the adopted Master Plan land use map; (b) the proposed zoning is in substantial compliance with, and promotes the Master Plan goals, objectives and actions; (c) the proposed zoning will promote development that is commensurate with the character and current use of the surrounding residential land; (d) the proposed zone change does promote the desired pattern for the orderly physical growth of the County. Ray Fierro seconded and the motion passed unanimously; 6 Ayes, 0 Nays, and 0 Abstentions. 6. DOLL, JAMES & TERI / MUSGRAVE, THOMAS MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT Request to change the Master Plan Land Use Designation from Low Density Residential to Commercial on an approximately 5.39 acre parcel (APN ) and an approximately 5.19 acre parcel (APN ) for a total of approximately acres, located at 30 & 40 River Road, Dayton (APN & ) PLZ Staff's Comments: Paul Esswein presented the staff report. The properties are between Highway 50 and River Road. There is commercial zoning adjacent to Doll s parcel. Both lots are outside of the 100-year flood plain in zone X. The access would be River Road and not Highway 50. The lots are serviced by domestic wells and septic systems. Correspondence: Tammy Estill read into the record the following correspondence: Dayton Regional Advisory Council recommendation (motion to approve 5 ayes) and comments from their July 2, 2008 meeting, a letter from Peter Leonard dated July 7, 2008 and a letter from Gerald & Cleta Wood dated June 24, Rob Loveberg stated the Dayton Village Parkway alignment has been changed. The CC& R s are a civil matter with the land owners but the CC&R s would have to be changed to develop commercial. CC&R s are not enforced by Lyon County and it could be a complication for the land owner. Chuck Roberts stated that area insisted on CC&R s to better manage the project. Rob Loveberg stated they needed to look at the least impact to the public and there are limited access points. The proposed signals for Hwy 50 are at Pine Cone and Fortune. Chuck Davies asked about the signals and the accesses. Ray Johnson asked if the CC&R s were recorded with the deed. Rob Loveberg stated he could not say how the deeds read. Rob Loveberg stated the CC&R s encumber the property and it is up to the owner to take care of it. 7

8 Applicant's Comments: Jim Feser, representing the Doll s and Mr. Musgrave, stated the CC&R s do recognize that there is to be no commercial in the area. They have met with all the home owners and a majority of the home owners have stated that they will vote to change the CC&R s. They believe that area is in a commercial core with the existing zoning across the street and they are keeping with the desired pattern of growth in that area. Ray Johnson stated he was not convinced that commercial was the best use of the land due to the accesses and traffic problems. River Road is not a good access road. Jim Feser stated they proposed Fortune being the primary access with River Road being the secondary access. Chuck Davies asked what would happen to the residences on the property. Jim Feser stated the applicant would move it. James Doll, applicant, stated when they purchased their property, they were told the property next to them was not commercial. It was sold to IBI Properties as commercial. No matter what happens next door, it will affect them and they are trying to make the best of a bad situation. He further stated that they need 8 out of 13 home owners to dissolve the CC&R s and they have 10 votes. They will be voting in August on the CC&R s. Public Comments: George Eitel has four parcels across River Road and stated he was concerned about what will happen next between River Road and Highway 50. Chuck Davies stated the commercial development could use Fortune as an access. Ray Fierro stated he has been in Dayton a long time and they could not stop progress but they need to put a stopping point so there is no more development down River Road. Jane Purkey, neighbor, asked where would the line be drawn and stated that this was not good for the county, it was premature. She stated the thirteen lot capsule has custom homes built on them and the CC&R s are in place to protect them. She further stated they had not been notified of any meeting for the CC&R s. Virginia Bremson, neighbor, stated they were at the Planning Commission last month for the IBI Properties matter and felt that this application would greatly impact the area and River Road. She then read her statement to the Planning Commission. Ray Shaffer, neighbor, stated they had bought two lots in that area, built one house, sold it and then built another house for their retirement. He stated they can t stop progress and it was a matter of money. He was in favor of dissolving the CC&R s but the whole situation would not just stop at the Doll s and Musgrave s properties. Ray Johnson asked out of the 13 lots, how many were developed. Ray Shaffer stated they were all developed except for one. Barry Lease, IBI Properties, stated they supported the Doll s and Musgrave s requests and also stated that approval would help the southerly commercial corridor. Ray Johnson asked Mr. Lease if he was purchasing the properties. Barry Lease stated no. 8

9 Rob Loveberg stated they had received copies of the deeds for these properties and neither one of the deeds mention CC&R s but do mention they are part of Sutro Tunnel Phase II. Ray Fierro talked about the signals at Pine Cone, Fortune and at Traditions and stated he was concerned about the traffic down River Road. Chuck Davies stated Fortune would be a solution with an intersection there. Rob Loveberg stated Fortune is slated for a signal but it is just in the timing when it would actually go in. Chuck Roberts stated no matter what is done on the property, he would be surprised not to see a four way signal go through to River Road. He was concerned with the traffic safety and that they were suppose to protect the life style of the people but if this is approved we are telling them they don t count. This would start a domino affect. Chuck Roberts stated they do not have an obligation to approve the application but they do have an obligation to the public and they are not doing well in balancing it out. Chuck Roberts made the motion to deny Master Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Commercial for James and Teri Doll, and Thomas Musgrave (APN and ) (PLZ ) finding that the proposed amendment is not in substantial compliance with, nor does it promote the Master Plan goals, objectives and actions; and it is not consistent with the land use plan. Virgil Arellano seconded and the motion passed with a majority vote of: 4 Ayes (Chuck Roberts, Virgil Arellano, Ray Johnson, Ervin Hill), 2 Nays (Ray Fierro and Chuck Davies), and 0 Abstentions. 7. DONOHEW, PAMELA / BENNETT, ROBERT WARREN ZONE CHANGE Request to change the zoning from C-2, Commercial, to RR-1T, First Rural Residential District with Mobile Home Overlay (1 acre minimum), to enable placement of a new manufactured home, on approximately 1.51 acres, located at 7056 East Highway 50, Dayton (APN ) PLZ Staff's Comments: Rob Loveberg presented the staff report. He stated that there have been similar requests to change zoning in this area. Correspondence: Tammy Estill read into the record the Dayton Regional Advisory Council recommendation (motion to approve 5 ayes) and comments from their July 2, 2008 meeting. Applicant's Comments: Bob Griffin, Craftsman Homes, stated the applicants are removing an existing older single wide mobile home and putting in a new manufacture home with a garage. Public Comments: There were no public comments on this item. Ervin Hill made the motion to approve the Zone Change from C-2 General Commercial to RR-1T First Rural Residential District (1 acre minimum) for Pamela Donohew (APN ) (PLZ ) based on the following findings: (a) the requested zoning of RR-1T First Rural Residential District with Mobile Home Overlay (1 acre minimum), will provide for lot sizes that are desirable and appropriate given the current lot sizes, surrounding land uses and adjacent zoning; (b) it is the appropriate time for a rezoning of the subject property as requested; and (c) the development density allowed by the requested zoning will not negatively impact existing or planned public services or facilities. Ray Fierro seconded and the motion passed unanimously; 6 Ayes, 0 Nays, and 0 Abstentions. 8. IBI PROPERTIES TENTATIVE COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION MAP (continued from the June 10, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting) Request for a Tentative Commercial Subdivision Map for the proposed Pony Express Commercial Center 9

10 development on an approximately 7.4 acre portion of an approximately 44.5 total acre parcel, located at 31 River Road, Dayton (APN ) PLZ Staff's Comments: Rob Loveberg presented the staff report. The continuance was to allow the applicant to address the concerns raised about the access, traffic and turning movements. The staff report reflects the additional information and revisions made the by applicant. The applicant proposes a phasing plan. The three phases include: Phase I a portion of the retail building, Phase II - the office buildings and Phase III - would complete the build out. Staff continues to have concerns regarding the traffic impact. Ervin Hill asked if the colored drawing was a tentative scenario; was it real or conceptual. Rob Loveberg stated the renderings are proposed architectural designs and he cannot say if they are the designs they would construct. Correspondence: Tammy Estill read into the record the following correspondence: Dayton Regional Advisory Council recommendation (motion to approve 5 ayes) and comments from their July 2, 2008 meeting and the letter from Lumos & Associates dated June 30, Applicant's Comments: summarized the application. J.R. Hildebrand, TEC Reno representing the applicant, Doug Eddy, architect, stated the drawing submitted to the county was an accurate artist s interpretation. Mr. Eddy went over the architectural design of the project. Ray Fierro asked about the lighting for the area. Doug Eddy stated the lighting would be for the loading and unloading, in the back of the building. Ray Fierro asked about the delivery/semi trucks. J.R. Hildebrand stated they anticipate a large tenant and they would have large truck deliveries and they would access River Road. J.R. Hildebrand spoke about the utility issues water from the other side of the highway with a loop system and a sewer system with gravity feed and the lift station on site. He also spoke of the storm drainage and the open dry channel that runs through the site. Ray Fierro asked about left turns from the site. Chuck Roberts asked if the applicants would be addressing the concerns addressed in the Lumos & Associates letter. J.R. Hildebrand stated all the improvements would be completed during Phase I. Barry Lease, IBI Properties, stated this would benefit the county. Chuck Roberts asked if they had an approval, do they have potential tenants. Barry Lease stated they would start lining up tenants in the spring of 2009 and would work through a leasing agent. They already have some tenants interested. Chuck Roberts asked about the traffic concerns in the Lumos & Associates letter. Rob Loveberg stated staff had the same concerns and they would have to deal with traffic safety. The applicant is right; they do not need a tentative subdivision map to apply for building permits. 10

11 Paul Solaegui, Solaegui Engineers, went over the traffic engineering information presented to staff. Virgil Arellano stated he would not vote on a motion that lessened public safety. Ray Fierro made the motion to deny the request for the Tentative Map for IBI Properties, LLC, (APN (PLZ ) finding that the proposed commercial subdivision will contribute to a significant worsening of the existing near failure/failure (D and F) Level of Service at the US 50/River Road intersection. Virgil Arellano seconded the motion. Discussion: Chuck Roberts asked if a continuance would be warranted to resolve the issues. The motion passed with a vote of 5 Ayes, 1 Nay (Ervin Hill) and 0 Abstentions. 9. TRADITIONS, VILLAGE ONE PUD/ SUTRO TUNNEL CO/ CHASE DEVELOPMENT TENTATIVE MAP EXTENSION OF TIME Request for a one year time extension for Traditions, Village One Planned Unit Development, located at Traditions Pkwy and US Highway 50, Dayton (APN , , , , , , , , , , , and ) PLZ Staff's Comments: Rob Loveberg presented the staff report. The owner is requesting this extension to insure that a final map is recorded for the next phase prior to the expiration of the tentative map. Applicant's Comments: Paul Dalka, Manhard Consulting, stated the applicant is requesting a one year extension of time to allow for improvements that will be completed prior to recording the final map. Public Comments: There were no public comments on this item. Ray Fierro made the motion to approve the one year time extension for Traditions, Village One PUD / Sutro Tunnel Co./Chase Development finding that (a) the requested extension of time is consistent with the applicable provisions of Lyon County Code; (b) the requested extension of time is appropriate to permit the installation of improvements; (c) the requested extension of time will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience and welfare; and (d) the requested extension of time will not result in material damage or prejudice to other property in the vicinity. Ray Johnson seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 5 Ayes, 1 Nay (Ervin Hill) and 0 Abstentions. 10. YOUNG, JEFFREY & KAREN/KELLY, SYD TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION FEASIBILITY REPORT Review and discussion of a Tentative Subdivision Feasibility Report involving construction of 44 townhouse units to be called Palmer Court Condominiums, located off Lakes Blvd at the west end of Palmer Court, Dayton (APN ) PLZ Staff's Comments: Rob Loveberg presented the staff report and stated that this was for discussion only. Applicant's Comments: Tammy Kinsley, Western Engineering, stated they had several round table discussions with county staff and whoever wrote the Lumos & Associates letter had not attended the round tables. There were no problems with the emergency access. 11

12 Chuck Davies asked about the comments from the Lumos & Associates letter. Tammy Kinsley stated that the staff report had stated the drainage site improvements had been installed but in actuality, they have not. Ray Fierro stated Palmer Court had come before the Planning Commission before. Tammy Kinsley stated there would be no on the street parking Chuck Davies asked about the price range. Tammy Kinsley stated they would be between 1,300 1,800 square feet and the price would be from the low to mid $200,000. The condos would have a single car garage and there would be guest parking available. 11. MIKKELSON, RICHARD REVERSION TO ACREAGE Request to combine two (2) lots of Block 9 of the Amended Townsite Plat of the Town of Mason into one (1) lot through the Reversion to Acreage process, located at 350 Second Avenue, Mason (APN ) PLZ Staff's Comments: Rob Loveberg presented the staff report. Correspondence: Tammy Estill read into the record the letter from Lumos & Associates dated July 2, Applicant's Comments: Rick Christian, Denson Surveying, stated even though these are two separate lots, the applicant owns a third lot to the north. At the same time, the applicant is applying for a boundary line adjustment to adjust the parcel line. Rob Loveberg stated the boundary line adjustment is done administratively. Chuck Davies asked if the applicant had any problems with the conditions. Rick Christian stated no. Public Comments: There were no public comments on this item. Ray Fierro made the motion to approve the reversion to acreage for Richard Mikkelson finding that (a) the requested reversion to acreage is consistent with the applicable provisions of Lyon County Code and the Nevada Revised Statutes; (b) the requested reversion to acreage will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience and welfare; and (c) the requested reversion to acreage will not result in material damage or prejudice to other property in the vicinity and with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with any agreements entered into for required improvements pursuant to NRS for the original division of land. 2. The applicant shall pay the actual costs for County Engineer plan and map checking and County Inspector site improvement inspection fees, in accordance with the adopted County fee resolution in effect at the time, and provide proof of payment to the Planning Department prior to map recordation. 3. The applicant shall create a legal description for the new parcel. 4. The applicant shall comply with the map requirements as prescribed by NRS et seq. and Title 11 of the Lyon County Code. 5. The final map shall be conspicuously marked under the title the purpose of this map is to Revert to Acreage. 6. Structures placed on this newly created parcel shall adhere to the County s site and setback standards for the NR-2T Zone (see of the Lyon County Code), or the standards for the zoning district applicable to the property at the time of development. 7. The applicant shall provide the map of reversion to the Lyon County GIS Coordinator in form and format compatible with the County geographical information system (GIS) pursuant to of the Lyon County Code. The scale of the site plan, improvements, monuments and other items shall be in 12

13 model space correctly oriented to coordinate system as established by the GIS Coordinator. Cover sheet and standard details need not be included. Ray Johnson seconded and the motion passed unanimously; 6 Ayes, 0 Nays, and 0 Abstentions. 12. LACEY, WILLIAM & LINDA REVERSION TO ACREAGE Request to combine four (4) lots of Block 10 of the Amended Townsite Plat of the Town of Mason into one (1) lot through the Reversion to Acreage process, located at rd Avenue, Mason (APN and ) PLZ Staff's Comments: Rob Loveberg presented the staff report. Correspondence: Tammy Estill read into the record the letter from Lumos & Associates dated July 2, Applicant's Comments: Rick Christian, Denson Surveying, stated there is a single family dwelling on the four lots, it occupies APN and APN is an empty lot. The reversion to acreage is being asked for to alleviate the building set back. Public Comments: There were no public comments on this item. Ray Fierro made the motion to approve the reversion to acreage for William & Linda Lacey finding that (a) the requested reversion to acreage is consistent with the applicable provisions of Lyon County Code and the Nevada Revised Statutes; (b) the requested reversion to acreage will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience and welfare; and (c) the requested reversion to acreage will not result in material damage or prejudice to other property in the vicinity and with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with any agreements entered into for required improvements pursuant to NRS for the original division of land. 2. The applicant shall pay the actual costs for County Engineer plan and map checking and County Inspector site improvement inspection fees, in accordance with the adopted County fee resolution in effect at the time, and provide proof of payment to the Planning Department prior to map recordation. 3. The applicant shall create a legal description for the new parcel. 4. The applicant shall comply with the map requirements as prescribed by NRS et seq. and Title 11 of the Lyon County Code. 5. The final map shall be conspicuously marked under the title the purpose of this map is to Revert to Acreage. 6. Structures placed on this newly created parcel shall adhere to the County s site and setback standards for the NR-1 Zone (see of the Lyon County Code), or the standards for the zoning district applicable to the property at the time of development. 7. The applicant shall provide the map of reversion to the Lyon County GIS Coordinator in form and format compatible with the County geographical information system (GIS) pursuant to of the Lyon County Code. The scale of the site plan, improvements, monuments and other items shall be in model space correctly oriented to coordinate system as established by the GIS Coordinator. Cover sheet and standard details need not be included. Virgil Arellano seconded and the motion passed unanimously; 6 Ayes, 0 Nays and 0 Abstentions. 13. PIC-N-SAVE AUTO RECYCLERS INC/GREENLEE, THOMAS REVERSION TO ACREAGE Request to combine four (4) lots into one (1) lot through the Reversion to Acreage process, located at 34 Newman Lane, Mound house (APN , , and ) PLZ Staff's Comments: Rob Loveberg presented the staff report. The applicants want to combine 4 parcels of various sizes and the parcels are located in Mound House. Staff did not have the information on the status of the easements. 13

14 Correspondence: There was no correspondence for this item. Ray Johnson asked about the special use permit that was for this property and asked if they were taking away the conditions of the special use permit. Rob Loveberg stated the reversion to acreage does not affect the special use permit nor does it change the conditions set forth in the special use permit. Applicant's Comments: Carol Greenlee, owner, stated they purchased the property in December 2002 and in 2005 they became an S corporation. The request to combine all parcels is for tax purposes. Public Comments: There were no public comments for this item. Ray Fierro made the motion to approve the reversion to acreage for Pic-N-Save Auto Recyclers Inc./Thomas Greenlee finding that (a) the requested reversion to acreage is consistent with the applicable provisions of Lyon County Code and the Nevada Revised Statutes; (b) the requested reversion to acreage will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience and welfare; and (c) the requested reversion to acreage will not result in material damage or prejudice to other property in the vicinity and with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide a perpetual offer of dedication for the west 60 feet of parcels 1 & 4 to accommodate a right-of-way for Newman Lane. 2. The applicant shall pay the actual costs for County Engineer plan and map checking and County Inspector site improvement inspection fees, in accordance with the adopted County fee resolution in effect at the time, and provide proof of payment to the Planning Department prior to map recordation. 3. The applicant shall create a legal description for the new parcel. 4. The applicant shall show all pertinent easements identified in the title report dated January 29, 2008, and any public utility easements located on the subject parcels. The applicant shall eliminate, through the appropriate procedure, any unnecessary easements prior to or concurrent with the recording of the map of reversion. 5. The applicant shall comply with the map requirements as prescribed by NRS et seq. and Title 11 of the Lyon County Code 6. The final map shall be conspicuously marked under the title the purpose of this map is to Revert to Acreage. 7. Structures placed on this newly created parcel shall adhere to the County s site and setback standards for the J-W Zone (see ), or the standards for the zoning district applicable to the property at the time of development. 8. The applicant shall provide the map of reversion to the Lyon County GIS Coordinator in form and format compatible with the County geographical information system (GIS) pursuant to of the Lyon County Code. The scale of the site plan, improvements, monuments and other items shall be in model space correctly oriented to coordinate system as established by the GIS Coordinator. Cover sheet and standard details need not be included Ray Johnson seconded and the motion passed unanimously; 6 Ayes, 0 Nays, and 0 Abstentions. 14. DESERT HILLS DAIRY, LLC SPECIAL USE PERMIT Request for a special use permit to replace two (2) mobile homes, which are older than 15 years, with two (2) modular homes and add five (5) additional manufactured housing units for farm labor housing on approximately total acres, located on 260 Farrell Lane, Yerington (APN ) PLZ Staff's Comments: Rob Loveberg presented the staff report. The application allows for seasonal farm labor housing. Staff did not receive a site plan, does not know where the septic system would be located, does not know what the water service would be and did not receive any access information. Correspondence: There was no correspondence for this item. Applicant's Comments: The applicant was not present. The representative had left earlier. 14

15 Public Comments: Henry Moreda, neighbor, stated he is not protesting the application but wanted to know how the applicant would use Farrell Lane since it ends at his property and does not go onto the applicant s property. It is a private road and the legal access would be Butte Way. Mr. Moreda further stated there is no road easement and he does not want Farrell Lane to extend through his property and felt that an access needed to be worked out. Rob Loveberg stated if there is no easement, then the Planning Commission is not in the position to approve the application. Ray Johnson asked about the legal access. Rob Loveberg stated staff did not have a site plan, that the Planning Commission could approve with conditions or deny it. It had already been delayed at the staff level due to lack of information. Rob Loveberg stated most applicants provide site plans and adequate information and that the existing special use permit is for the dairy facility which is on different property. Virgil Arellano made the motion to deny the special use permit for Desert Hills Dairy, LLC finding that (a) there are too many deficiencies in the application; (b) the address, as presented in the application, is wrong; (c) the applicant did not provide a site plan; and (d) there is a conflict with the access to the property. Chuck Roberts seconded and the motion passed unanimously; 6 Ayes, 0 Nays, and 0 Abstentions. 15. ESTE-WALLIS DEVELOPMENT INC./DMR DEVELOPMENT LLC. SPECIAL USE PERMIT Request for a special use permit for continued use of a commercial coach as an office due to a change of ownership; located at 80 N. Julius Lane, Mound House (APN ) PLZ Staff's Comments: Rob Loveberg presented the staff report. The application is for the continued use of the commercial coach for office space with the new owners. Special use permits are given to the individual do not go with the land. Correspondence: There was no correspondence for this item. Applicant's Comments: Sandra Wallis, owner, stated they would comply with the 2007 special use permit conditions and they were ok with the conditions as presented in the staff report. Public Comments: There were no public comments on this item. Chuck Roberts asked what kind of business they were. Sandra Wallis stated they are a steel fabrication for structural steel in Mound House. Ray Fierro made the motion to approve the special use permit for Este-Wallis Development Inc./DMR Development, LLC finding that (a) the proposed use at the specified location is consistent with the general purpose and intent of the applicable zoning district regulations; (b) the proposed use will not be detrimental to the use, peaceful enjoyment, economic value, or development of surrounding properties or the general neighborhood; and is compatible with and preserves the character and integrity of adjacent development and neighborhoods or includes improvements or modifications either on-site or within the public right-of-way to mitigate development related to adverse impacts such as noise, vibrations, fumes, odors, dust, glare or physical activity; (c) the proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, convenience and welfare; and (d) the proposed use will not result in material damage or prejudice to other property in the vicinity and with the following conditions: 15