ELKO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

Transcription

1 ELKO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MEETING DATE: October 16, 2008 Members Present...David Hough, Chairman Dave Galyen, Vice Chairman Jack D. Larason Absent... Dena Hartley-Excused Kristian Forland-Unexcused Others Present...Randy Brown, Director Planning and Zoning John Kingwell, Planner/ Code Enforcement Thaysha Groves, Planning & Zoning Administrator Kristin McQueary, DA s Office Jim Cooney, Elko Summit Estates Homeowners Association Gary Di. Grazia, Elko Summit Estates Homeowners Association The regular meeting of the Elko County Planning Commission was called to order at 5:15 P.M. by Chairman Hough on October 16, 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 September 18, Corrections from Commissioners Galyen and Judd were given to staff. MOTION: Commissioner Galyen moved to accept the minutes of September 18, 2008 with corrections to grammar as submitted to staff. Commissioner Grisham made a second to the motion. The motion carried. VOTE: AYE: David Hough, Chairman

2 Dave Galyen, Vice Chairman Jack Larason NAY: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Dena Hartley Kristian Forland III. COMMENTS BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC: No Comments IV. CONSENT AGENDA: V. PRELIMINARY HEARINGS: # , SFG, LLC a preliminary hearing for a change of zoning from Open Space to M-1 General Industrial. A acre parcel of land located in a portion of NE1/4 & E1/2SE1/4 of Sec 25, T.32 N., R.55 E., M.D.B. & M., Elko County, Nevada. Applicant and Owner is SFG, LLC Mr. Kingwell stated that the application is in order and all fees have been paid. Staff recommends that this application moves forward to the next public hearing on November 20, MOTION: Commissioner Galyen moved to set the public hearing for application # SFG, LLC on November 20, Commissioner Judd made a second to the motion. The motion carried. VOTE: AYE: David Hough, Chairman Page 2 of 14

3 Dave Galyen, Vice Chairman Jack Larason NAY: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Dena Hartley Kristian Forland VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Chairman Hough passed the gavel to Commissioner Galyen because of affiliation with the project. # Great Basin Resource Development, LLC a public hearing for a change of zoning from Open Space to Special Lands. A acre parcel of land located in lots 1-4 and that portion of E1/2 W1/2 West of S.R. 228, Sec 19, T.32 N., R.56 E., M.D.B.&M., Elko County, Nevada. Applicant and Owner is Great Basin Resource Development, LLC Mr. Kingwell read a letter from the applicant requesting to table this application. There is a conflict with the Southfork Master Plan concerning a minimum of forty acres and he does not have water rights. The letter reads as follows: John: I just left you a voice message requesting to table our agenda item for October 16 th 2008 Elko County Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Donald A. Pattalock Vice President Nevada Land & Resource Company, LLC Vidler Water Company, Inc. Commissioner Galyen asked Ms. Kristin McQueary if the Commission could table this indefinitely, month to month, or for one year. Ms. McQueary commented that it was her understanding that more information for the water plan will be available within a year. If this is tabled for a year, the applicant won t have to reapply until December or January. Commissioner Galyen stated the Commission could make a motion to table this up to one year but they could bring it back anytime sooner if they want to. Commissioner Galyen asked if any of the commissioners had that motion. Page 3 of 14

4 MOTION: Commissioner Larason moved to table # Great Basin Resource Development LLC up to one year. Commissioner Judd seconded the motion. The motion carried. VOTE: AYE: Dave Galyen, Vice Chairman Jack Larason NAY: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Dena Hartley Kristian Forland David Hough, Chairman The gavel was passed back to Chairman Hough. # , Elko County a public hearing for a change of zoning from Open Space to M-1 General Industrial: A acre parcel of land located in the NW1/4NE1/4SW1/4 of Sec 10, T.35 N., R.56 E., M.D.B.&M., Elko County, Nevada. Applicant and Owner is Elko County Mr. Kingwell read the following staff report into record: STAFF REPORT # ZONE CHANGE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: October 16 th, APPLICATION: A change of zoning from Open Space (OS), Commercial-2 (C2) and Light Industrial (LI) to General Industrial (M1) for master planned uses within the Northeastern Nevada Regional Railport facility. The application is submitted by Elko County. 2. LOCATION:. A acre portion of land located in the NW1/4; NE1/4; SW1/4 of Section 10, T. 35 N., R. 56 E., M.D.B. & M.. 3. SUMMARY INFORMATION: Page 4 of 14

5 ASSESSOR S PARCEL NO.: A Portion of OWNER(S) OF RECORD: Elko County, Nevada Previous applications on property: Size of Property: acres ACCESS: SFR 54 MASTER PLAN: Northeastern Nevada Regional Railport Industrial Area Master Plan COMMENTS: Comments Attached if applicable 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION and IMPACTS: A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The use has not yet been identified but will comply with master planned uses as allowed in Zone 1 of the Northeastern Nevada Regional Railport Master Plan. When the use is identified, final design will be determined by final design of the Northeastern Nevada Regional Railport transloading facility. B. EFFECT UPON THE EXISTING LAND USE PATTERN IN THE AREA: This land has been historically used for grazing/ranching. This specific area has been master planned with the designation of Industrial and Light industrial uses. Adjacent lands are currently zoned General Industrial, Light Industrial, Commercial-2 and Open Space. This specific area is not immediately adjacent to any residential uses. The nearest residential use is located north of the I-80 corridor which borders both the Northeastern Nevada Regional Railport Transloading Facility and the Meadow Valley Ranches Unit #3 residential subdivision. C. EFFECT UPON THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE AREA: There are limited implied impacts to the health, safety and welfare of the area. The potential impacts of General Industrial (M1) and Light Industrial (LI) uses as allowed within Zone 1 of the master plan are limited in scope and are more restrictive than those uses in Zones 2 through 4 of the master plan. The uses and impacts proposed by the Northeastern Nevada Regional Railport Industrial Area Master Plan have been carefully reviewed and approved by the Elko County Planning Commission and approved and ratified by the Elko County Commission. 1) Noise and Vibration: Uses in Zone 1 of the master plan have been limited to those uses that favor the interests of health, safety and welfare of the general public. 2) Storage of potential hazardous materials: Storage of any hazardous materials for a period greater than 5 consecutive days requires a conditional use Page 5 of 14

6 permit as per the Master Plan. 3) Increased Vehicular Traffic: The General Industrial or Light Industrial uses have not yet been identified. General Industrial and Light Industrial uses by nature will have more frequent / heavier traffic than that in the Open Space zoning district. State Frontage Road 54 is a 26' wide asphalt surface. It is currently under the maintenance and ownership of the NDOT. Elko County is currently in negotiations with NDOT to accept SFR 54 as a county road for maintenance and ownership. When ownership is transferred to Elko County an improvement agreement from NDOT will be included. 4) Aesthetics: The General Industrial and Light Industrial districts mandate security and privacy fencing for the perimeter of the uses. All structures and facilities will be completely contained within. 5) Water transmission and availability, septic disposal, and other services will be addressed in the design and development stage of the industrial use when submitted. Water rights if required will be conveyed to the industrial user. 5. CONSISTENCY WITH EXISTING ZONING AND MASTER PLAN: A. COMPATIBILITY OF PROPOSED ZONING WITH EXISTING ZONING AND DEVELOPED USAGE IN THE AREA: This specific area has adopted existing industrial uses along the SFR 54 frontage as well as 800 plus acres currently master planned for general industrial uses. Properties directly adjacent are Industrial, Light Industrial, Commercial-2 and Open Space zoned. All of the existing zoning districts within the master planned area are designated General Industrial (M1) and Light Industrial (LI). B. CONFORMS WITH THE EXISTING MASTER PLAN OF THE AREA: The 2006 Northeastern Nevada Regional Railport specifically identifies the designation of this property as a General Industrial (M1) and/or Light Industrial (LI) designation. 6. STAFF COMMENTS: A) The proposed is to allow for General Industrial and Light Industrial uses with limitations as spelled out in Zone 1 of the 2006 Northeastern Nevada Regional Railport Master Plan. The use has not yet been determined but will fall within the guideline of the master plan. Any conditional uses that may be required will be submitted at a later date and will require review by the Elko County Planning Commission. All uses within the General Industrial and Light Industrial zoning districts must be secured by perimeter fencing of the site. Final use and design is pending and will be determined by final Page 6 of 14

7 design of the Northeastern Nevada Regional Railport transloading facility. B) This specific area has been master planned with the designation of General Industrial and Light Industrial uses. Adjacent lands are currently General Industrial, Light Industrial, Commercial-2 and Open Space Zoned. The nearest residential use is located to the north, adjacent to the I-80 corridor. C) The general impacts of the General Industrial and Light Industrial districts have been reviewed and specific uses have been disallowed. Only allowable uses will be considered and any conditional uses requested by a future applicant will be brought before the Elko County Planning Commission for their review and approval or disapproval. As stated, the proposed is not located in or near proximity to residential uses. D) The proposed zoning change will increase local traffic flows. State Frontage Road 54 is currently under the maintenance and ownership of the NDOT. Elko County is currently in negotiations with NDOT to accept SFR 54 as a county road for maintenance and ownership. E) Storage of hazardous materials is not allowed in Zone 1 for more than 5 consecutive days without an approved conditional use as per the Master Plan. F) 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) 7. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS: Based upon the above stated analysis and findings, staff recommends: Approval with the following restrictions. A. At time of any development, the developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of N.R.S., State of Nevada and Elko County Code for development criteria that pertains to the proposed General Industrial development. This is to include security Page 7 of 14

8 perimeter fencing. B. At time of any development, the developer shall comply with all applicable development criteria and requirements of the Northeastern Nevada Regional Railport Master Plan. C. At time of any development, the developer shall comply with all applicable development criteria and requirements of the Nevada Department of Transportation that pertains to the proposed Industrial development. D. If said property is sold in whole or in part 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 development. E. At time of any development, developer shall comply with all Federal, State, and Local building and development requirements. Basis for recommendation: 1) There is other General Industrial (M1) a Light Industrial (LI) zones located within the area. 2) The subject area is separated by the I-80 corridor which carries heavy traffic. 3) The allowed uses in the General Industrial district will be no more objectionable than surrounding uses both present and past. This specific area has adopted existing industrial uses along the SFR 54 frontage as well as 800 plus acres currently master planned for General Industrial and Light Industrial uses. Properties directly adjacent are Industrial, Light Industrial, Commercial-2 and Open Space zoned. All of the property within the master planned area is designated as General Industrial and/or Light Industrial zoning. 4) The 2006 Northeastern Nevada Regional Railport Master Plan, Zone 1, specifically identifies allowed uses as General Industrial (M1) and Light Industrial (LI) designations. Report prepared by: John W. Kingwell Elko County Planner, Code Enforcement Elko County Planning & Zoning Chairman Hough asked the Commissioners if there were any questions. Commissioner Galyen asked for Mr. Kingwell to confirm that the summary in the Staff report was a typo and the corrected acreage size was He commented that he thought he had heard that Elko County Page 8 of 14

9 had sold the railport and staff confirmed that is has not sold. Commissioner Galyen asked if the secured perimeter fencing that was mentioned in staff recommendations would be 8 tall like that in a storage facility. Mr. Randy Brown stated that he was at the meeting to represent Elko County. Mr. Brown mentioned that the fence would be an 8 tall fence and he commented that the Railport has not been sold. He stated there were three offers pending and this is the reasoning behind the zone change. The offers are from SAS Global, Spirit Minerals and Ormaza Group. Chairman Hough asked what the advantage would be for S.R. 54 to be transferred to the County. Mr. Brown stated that there are restrictions set by state statue and policy that restricts access to that portion of the road. The advantage is that we as the County can establish the maintenance district and maintain the road under the County. This relieves a lot of restrictions that are made by the NDOT. Another advantage is that the State will pay the County to take the road for an upgrade of some sorts. This could be an amount of around $500, Chairman Hough asked for public comment. There were none. Chairman Hough asked for Commissioner comments. There were none. MOTION: Commissioner Judd moved to approve the zone change from Open Space to M-1 General Industrial for Elko County, Application # with staff s recommendations, conditions and findings. Commissioner Grisham made a second to the motion. The motion carried. VOTE: AYE: David Hough, Chairman Dave Galyen, Vice Chairman Jack Larason NAY: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Dena Hartley Kristian Forland (Item continued from September 16, 2008 Meeting.) # Verizon Wireless a public hearing concerning a request for a conditional use for wireless communication facility co-location including a prefabricated 12 x 20 Page 9 of 14

10 equipment shelter and 5 x 10 concrete pad and standby generator: A 5.56 acre parcel located in S1/ 2 Section 17, Township 33 North, Range 57 East, M.D.B. & M. The physical address is 65 Spring Creek Lane, Spring Creek, Nevada. Applicant is Verizon Wireless. Owner is Beth Ellen Carpel. Mr. Kingwell stated that the applicant asked to table this item and he read from the following letter. Dear Mr. Kingwell, This letter is written to inform the Elko County Planning Commission that Verizon Wireless requests to have application # continued until further notice. The issues raised at the hearing on September 16, 2008 have not yet been resolved. Rebekah Anderson, CWC Inc Verizon Wireless MOTION: Commissioner Galyen moved to table application # Verizon Wireless to the November 20, 2008 meeting. Commissioner Judd made a second to the motion. The motion carried. Commissioner Grisham asked why the commissioners were putting this to November meeting when the applicant requested to table until further notice. Mr. Kingwell stated that continuing this item each month would cut down on expense of renoticing and so forth. VOTE: AYE: David Hough, Chairman Dave Galyen, Vice Chairman Jack Larason VII. OTHER BUSINESS NAY: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Dena Hartley Kristian Forland (A) Elko Summit Estates Preliminary Plan for Establishing a Gated Community A presentation by Gary E. Di Grazia on behalf of Elko Summit Estates for an interpretation/review of future vacations of all roadways within Elko Summit Estates and making Page 10 of 14

11 it a gated community accessible only to residents within Elko Summit Estates and emergency vehicles. Mr. Brown stated that he asked Mr. Di Grazia to bring this forward. Since there are several matters to this proposal, we thought it would be in the best interest to bring this forward on a preliminary basis to the Commission before an application is put in for road way abandonment. We request comments and ideas on this proposal at this time. We are looking at the abandonment process outlined in State Statue 278A. That will require us to create an ordinance for this proposal to take place. (Found by Kristin) Mr. Brown asked if the Commissioners had questions from staff at this time. Commissioner Galyen asked where the location of the road in question was located. Mr. Brown stated it was a road on the right hand side heading west off of State Route 227. Gary E. Di Grazia stated that he represents Elko Summit Estates and mentioned that they wanted to get the Commissioners ideas for this proposal. He mentioned that in the letter to the Commission, 63 property owners were mentioned and there are 71 parcels at this time. He stated that the land is accessed by the public roads that have been dedicated to the County. The Elko Summit Estates Home Owners Association maintains the roads at this time. The idea of this proposal is to have a gated community that will only be accessed by the property owners and emergency vehicles. He stated that utility companies would also be allowed to enter. The emergency vehicles and utility companies will have some type of access code. Mr. Di Grazia mentioned that the reason for bringing this forth to the Planning Commission and then the County Commissioners is because we are proposing to vacate the county road. Mr. Di Grazia stated that there were private land owners adjacent to the Elko Summit Estates area. For example, the Blackmans are south of the estates and the plan would be to grant them irrevocable and reciprocal easements. Mr. Di Grazia summarized the main issues, being abandonment of public streets, entrance for utility companies and emergency vehicles, adjoin property owners outside of the Elko Summit Estates and the concern for secondary access for emergency vehicles. Mr. Di Grazia introduced Mr. Jim Cooney as the president of the Elko Summit Estates Home Owners Association and stated that he could answer any technical questions. Mr. Di Grazia mentioned the reasoning behind this presentation was to get ideas and major concerns with the proposal and then address the concerns prior to filing the application. Mrs. Kristin McQueary asked if this proposal was being looked at in statutory authority (NRS 278) outlining regular vacation procedures. She asked if NDF has been contacted regarding this proposal. Jim Cooney stated that the Association has met with NDF, the Sheriff s Department, and with the adjoining property owners. The Association has also met with the City Fire Department which we are told would respond to the area. According to information provided by NDF and the Sheriff s Department, there is a SOS system that can be attached to the gate that is noise activated and opens when their vehicles pull up. They feel very comfortable with the system. Commissioner Grisham asked if there is a plan to create a secondary form of access. Mr. Cooney stated that he knew of two potential legal accesses. One is currently owned by himself and is located on the edge of the Estates to the north. The second potential location is on another property owner s parcel but at this time there has been no agreement with the particular property owner about that. Commissioner Grisham stated he would like to see that there is an agreement Page 11 of 14

12 prior to the hearing of this proposed vacation of the road. Mr. Di Grazia commented that they are dealing with all the property owners in the homeowners association for this proposal. Commissioner Galyen asked if a person had to live there now to be part of the association. Mr. Di Grazia stated that it is part of the CC& R s. Commissioner Galyen asked if all 71 parcel owners written permission were needed to do this gated community. Mr. Di Grazia stated that they were going to get the consent of the property owners and they will need to get the total consent to get the irrevocable and reciprocal easement. Commissioner Judd asked if this gated community will be fenced. Mr. Cooney stated that there is currently some fencing around the subdivision. Commissioner Judd asked how the issues would be resolved by a gated community without fencing around the Estates. Mr. Cooney stated that the main issues that the home owners have been facing is the access from the highway and the consensus is that the home owners would like to pursue this. Commissioner Judd asked if there would be a problem with traffic up the summit at the 5 o clock P.M. hour with people lining up to enter the gated area. Mr. Cooney stated that the placement of the gate inside the property allows for less traffic to be held up at a busy time of the day. Commissioner Grisham commented that NDOT might want to know about this proposal. Mr. Cooney stated that since the gate is located inside the property NDOT has not been contacted. Mr. Brown stated that there has been configuration on the major access road and commented that the gate could be moved down the road to accommodate the traffic flow. He stated that as of now there is a right hand turn lane. From the right hand turn lane to the distance where the cattle guard is located, there is about a five car distance at this time. Commissioner Grisham said that it may be good to get NDOT s approval. Mr. Brown stated that the right of way is in the name of the county and NDOT would contact the county and then in return we would discuss NDOT s issues. He stated that he thought there was enough room to accommodate the traffic but commented that it could be an issue. Commissioner Galyen asked, when the Master Plan discussion in 2005 took place, if Hamilton stage road or something along the top of the mountain was an alternate route to Elko. Mr. Brown commented that it was not, but a portion of the old Hamilton Route does run through it. Commissioner Hough asked if there were any other comments on this proposal. Commissioner Grisham asked what should be required in the motion. Mr. Brown stated that this was a pre-application discussion and no motion was required at this time. Mr. Di Grazia commented that there were a few issues that the association would like to address before filing the application. Commissioner Judd asked how the gate would be powered. Mr. Cooney stated it would typically run on a conventional 120 volt power service. The gate they we are looking at would have a backup in case the power went out. (B) Discussion and Possible action to establish an attendance policy for the Elko County Planning Commission. (Continued from September 18, 2008 meeting) Ms. McQueary stated that Mr. Rob Stokes asked that she prepare an ordinance along the lines what was discussed last month. Commissioner Galyen asked if the motion made last month about the attendance policy was still in process with the County Commissioners. Ms. McQueary Page 12 of 14

13 stated that it was still in limbo but she was asked to create an ordinance. Commissioner Grisham asked when the ordinance would be created. Ms. McQueary stated that it should be on the December meeting for the County Commissioners Meeting. She stated that you as the Planning Commission could make it a policy tonight. Commissioner Galyen stated that they had already made a motion to send to the governing body and asked if another motion was required of the commission on this matter. Ms. McQueary stated that this item was not specifically listed as a non action item and if the commission wanted to approve this as an internal policy until the ordinance is completed, she didn t have a problem with it. Commissioner Hough asked if we as the commission could entertain a motion to hold this until the County Commissioners hearing. Ms. McQueary stated that was also an option. Commissioner Judd asked what the ordinance would be. Ms. McQueary stated that they were looking at the policy that was sent to Mr. Stokes from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Judd asked if in the motion we needed to state who exactly we contact on staff to be excused. Ms. McQueary stated that as long as a member of staff was aware of an absence it wouldn t really matter who is contacted. Mr. Brown stated that another thing he wanted to do from this point on is to place unexcused and excused absences in the minutes. This way, members of this board, along with staff can keep track of absences. Commissioner Judd asked if this could be put on the minutes where it shows who was present and absent. Mr. Brown stated that he would like to see that this is put into internal policy. Commissioner Hough commented that a motion could be made. Commissioner Galyen asked if the applicable ordinance would be Ms. McQueary stated that she was going to create a new ordinance that will apply to all Commission Boards. Commissioner Galyen asked where the policy would be put so if a new member comes on the board, they will know the policy. Ms. McQueary stated that all new members receive a packet from staff with policies and other needed information. Commissioner Grisham asked, if a person does not attend and shows no interest, are they fired or asked to be removed? Ms. McQueary stated that the County Commissioners do the firing and removal. Commissioner Grisham asked if the planning commission board members would recommend that the firing or removal be done. Mr. Kingwell stated that staff would send a letter to notify what the policy was. MOTION: Commissioner Galyen moved that the Planning Commission adopt the attendance policy as discussed last month for this commission and make it effective 10/16/08. Commissioner Larason seconded the motion. The motion carried. VOTE: AYE: David Hough, Chairman Dave Galyen, Vice Chairman Jack Larason NAY: Page 13 of 14

14 Meeting Minutes October VOTE: AYE: David Hough, Chairman Dave Galyen, Vice Chairman Jack Larason NAY: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Dena Hartley Kristian Forland VIII. STAFF AND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS: IX. ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Hough adjourned the meeting as there was no further business. Date Approved Nbv.em~y 1D,2Mf K:IP&Z - Planning Commission RecordslDOCS, MINUTES\2008 YEARI\01608 ECPC Minutes.doc Page 14 of 14