PAHRUMP REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT

Transcription

1 AGENDA ITEM #17 a & b PAHRUMP REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 4~5 Meeting Date: March 14,2007 Prepared By: Steve Osborn G- GENERAL INFORMATION SUMMARY I Agenda items: Master Plan Amendment and Related Zone Change Applications: MP : (Minor) Master Plan Amendment application to change approximately 25.0 acres of property from Low Density Residential (approximately acres) and Mixed Use (approximately 2.58 acres) Land Use Categories to the General Commercial Land Use Category, located at 78 1 & 871 N. Leslie Street, described as File Map #511749, Section 8, Township 20 South, Range 53 East. AP#s ,41 & 42. ZC : (Non-confoming) Zone Change application for approximately 25.0 acres of property fram the Open Use (OU) District to the General Commercial (GC) District for property Master Planned as Low Density Residential and Mixed Use, located at 781 & 871 N. Leslie Street, described as File Map # , Section 8, Township 20 South, Range 53 East. If approved, would allow for the development of a variety of general commercial uses. AP#s ,41 & 42. Property Owner(s): Bruce J. & Mary L. Jabbour, Amrat & Manorama Patel, Sabin Partnership Applicant: Bruce J. & Mary L. Jabbour, Amrat & Manorama Patel, Sabin Partnership Agent: None. Project Description: No proposed plan of development indicated, properties contain one single-family residence (APN ) and either are undeveloped or contain minor improvements according to Assessor records. Action ~akeh: The RPC shall forward a recommendation to the BOCC regarding this application. The BOCC is scheduled to hear and may take final action at the April 18,2007 meeting. Case History: These items were heard by the RPC on October 1 1,2006 and January 10,2007. RPC Mnutes from October : Cheryl Beeman reviewed the staff report and the Project Description, no proposed plan of development indicated, properties contain one single-family residence (APN ) and either are undeveloped or contain minor improvements according to Assessor records. Staff is recommending a continuance of both applications to the January 10, 2007 regular meeting of the RPC, in order to allow the proponent to submit a Specific Plan of development indicating the intended uses of the land, the density and intensity of its use, and maximum height and size of proposed buildings, along with the submittal of a Development Agreement application. Commissioner Cox asked if staff has contacted the applicant to see if a continuance to January 10, 2007 was enough time to complete what is requested of them outlined in the staff report? Ms. Beeman stated no. Page 1 of 8

2 Rakesh Pate1 & Mary Jabbour (Applicant) present. Commissioner Masterson asked if the Applicant understood what the staff report was asking for? The request is for a Development Agreement, what is being put on the property. When will the development begin, etc. Mr. Pate1 stated right now they have no plan. The goal is to get the commercial zoning approved first. Mr. Pate1 stated they are trying to purchase the 4.76 acres located next door, the property is in escrow right now. Ms. Jabbour stated she was unaware that a plan of development was required. Commissioner Kimball stated that Ms. Jabbour is not doing anything wrong; she has just run into a board that has had hundreds of requests to change a Master Plan that was very carefully thought out. So the board tends to drag their feet and not want to make changes to a plan unless they know why. Mr. Pate1 stated he understands but before he goes out and spends more money he wants to make sure the area is commercial. Commissioner Dupre' stated before they can approve or make a proper recommendation to the BOCC they need more information. A development agreement needs to be submitted. It might be wise to combine the couple of applications they have submitted into one and submit them together. Commissioner Kimball asked when will the escrow close on the neighboring property? Mr. Pate1 answered 30 days..commissioner Borasky suggested the Applicant get with staff to be sure the Development Agreement is developed properly. Commissioner Cox stated staff has a sample to go by. Commissioner Skinner asked if the Applicant would be ready by January? Mr. Pate1 stated he would have to be. Commissioner Cox stated if in January they are not ready they could continue again at that time. Public Comment - 11:M a.m. Joe Opatik states he opposes this application as well as the next two applications. He would just like to know what is going to be on the properties. Brian Zink opposes the application because of the flow of traffic to the property. He moved to the area because of the rural environment. He would like to see some sort of plan to know whether this is going to be a large or small project. Public Comment Closed - 11:18 p.m. Commissioner Warner motioned to continue MP and ZC to the January IO, 2007 RPC, as recommended by staff and with the permission of the applicant. Mark Kimball seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Masterson, yes; Warner, yes; Kimball, yes; Dupre ', yes; Murray, yes; Skinner, yes; Borasky, yes. Motion passes 7-0. Page 2 of 8

3 RPC Minutes from January : Commissioner Kimball motioned to continue MP & ZC to the March 14th RPC meeting at the request of the applicant. Commissioner Murray seconded. Roll call vote: Warner, yes; Murray, yes; Kirnball, yes; Dupre', yes; Opatik, yes. Motion to continue passes 5-0. (Commissioner Masterson was absent during this vote.) Property Size: Approximately 25 acres Staff Recommendation: Disapprove both applications; proponents have not submitted a Specific Plan of development indicating the intended uses of the land, the density and intensity of its use, maximum height and size of proposed buildings, along with the submittal of a Development Agreement application, as requested by the RPC on October 11,2006. Alternative Recommendation: Continue both applications to the May 9, 2007 WC pubhc hearing to allow the proponents to submit a Specific Plan of development indicating the intended uses of the land, the.density and intensity of its use, maximum height and size of proposed buildings, along with the submittal of a Development Agreement application. Required Vote to Pass: Master Plan Amendments require a 2l3 "super-majority" vote (minimum of 5) of the total membership of the RPC to approve/adopt. Any vote that is less than 213 is considered a failure to pass. The BOCC may affirm a Master Plan Amendment approved or denied by the RPC with a simple majority vote of the total membership of the Board. The BOCC may reverse a Master Plan Amendment denied by the RPC with a 213 (minimum of 4) vote of the total membership of the Board. The BOCC may change or add to a Master Plan Amendment adopted by the RPC, but any proposed change or addition must be referred to the RPC for a report thereon. The RPC then has 40 days to file an attested copy of the report with the BOCC. Failure of the RPC so to report within 40 days shall be deemed approval. The BOCC may also designate a longer time period for the report. (see NRS ) Zone Changes require a simple majority vote of the RPC members present to approve or deny. RECOMMENDED MOTION/FINDINGS Master Plan Amendment Required Considerations (NCC ). The Planning Commission shall approve, modify and approve, or deny a Master Plan Amendment Application based on the following considerations: Whether or not the proposed Master Plan amendment promotes the adopted policies related to housing, safety, streets & highways, and adequate public facilities; and not adversely affects the policies and action programs of the Master Plan. Staff Findings: The proposed amendment may or may not com~lv with the following adopted aolicv of the Master Plan: (1) Master Plan amendments should be made to correct obvious errors in the original plan, uudated demoeraahic information. or other comaelline reasons to justify the amendment. Whether or not the proposed Master Plan amendment addresses oversights, inconsistencies, scrivener's errors or land use related inequities in the plan without adversely impacting the public health, safety or welfare. Staff Findings: The requested Master Plan amendment does not amear to address an obvious oversight, inconsistency or scrivener's error. Whether or not the proposed Master Plan amendment addresses significant changes that have occurred in a particular area since the adoption of the Master Plan, and represents a more desirable utilization of Iand. Page 3 of 8

4 Whether or not the proposed Master Plan amendment adversely impacts the natural environment or scenic quality of the area in contradiction to the Master Plan. Staff Findings: 1 plan of development has been proposed. Staff Findings: The proposed Master Plan Amendment would be the significant change to the land use map in this particular area, however there are a substantial number of commercial establishments located within this area. The Planning Commission may consider that the amendment does represent a more desirable utilization of land. thus compelling the proposed amendment. Whether or not the proposed Master Plan amendment provides for land uses compatible with Bxisting and planned adjacent land uses and promotes the desired pattern of orderly physical growth of the Planning District based on projected population growth with the least amount of impairment to the natural resources, and provides for the efficient expenditure of funds for public services. Staff Findings: requested Master Plan amendment would alter the established pattern of development along this segment of two ma.ior transportation corridors. However. the Commission mav deem that due to the adjacency of the planned GC parcels and the parcel configuration. it may be more suitable to provide general commercial retail services. Whether or not the proposed Master Plan amendment constitutes an overall improvement to the Master Pian not solely for the good or benefit of a particular landowner or owners at a particular point in time. Staff ~indinis: The requested amendment may be considered to be solel; for thembenefit of a particular landowner. Whether or not the proposed Master Plan amendment adversely impacts all or a portion of the planning area by: altering acceptable land use patterns to the detriment of the Master Plan; or requiring public expenditures for larger and more expensive infrastructure, such as street improvements, sewer, or water systems than are needed to support the proposed land uses. Staff Findings: The requested Master Plan designation should not result in an adverse impact on the existing land uses. Whether or not the proposed Master Plan amendment adversely impacts planned uses because of increased traffic. Staff Findings: Chanein~ the desimation from Low Densifv Residential to General Commercial will result in an increase in the amount of traffic in the area. Whether or not the proposed Master Plan amendment affects the livability of the area or the health or safety of present and future residents. Staff Findings: Unable to evaluate as no specific plan of development has been proposed. Whether-or not the proposed Master Plan amendment will be consistent with the specific goals and policies contained within the Master Plan. Staff Findings: Unable to evaluate as no s~ecific plan of development has been proposed within a specified timeframe of development. Whether or not the proposed Master Plan amendment would be better addressed through an amendment of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff Findings: Unable to evaluate as no specific plan of development has been proposed. Whether or not the proposed Master Plan amendment would cause potential conflicts with any other policies or action programs of the Master Plan. Staff Findings: Unable to evaluate as no specific ~ lan of development has been proposed. Whether or not the proposed Master Plan amendment would require amendment of the Zoning Ordinance or other planning, zoning or building related ordinance (if so, approval shall be conditioned upon the applicant's submittal of an application for a Master Plan or ordinance Text Amendment, providing how the new language of the Master Plan or ordinance should read, and noting other places in the Master Plan or ordinance that may require amendment or different cross-referencing as a result of the amendment). Staff Findings: Unable to evaluate as no seecific plan of development has been proposed. Page 4 of 8

5 Recommended Motion to Continue (NCC ): I move to continue this Master Plan Amendment application to the March 14, 2007 regular meeting of the RPC, based on the findings as outlined in the staff report, in order to aliow the proponent to submit a Specific PIan indicating the intended uses of the land, the density and intensity of its use, and maximum height and size of proposed buildings, along with the submittal of a Development Agreement application. Recommended Motion to Deny (NCC J): I move to deny this Master Plan Amendment application based on the findings as outlined in the staff report. Recommended Motion to Approve (NCC ): I move to approve this Master Plan Amendment application based on the findings, and subject to the conditions of approval, as outlined in the staff report. (NOTE: If additionalfindings or conditions are made to support the motion, or stafffindings or if conditions are modified, the RPC must clearly state the modifications for the record using considerations I through 13 outlined above). Zone Change Required Considerations (NCC ). In determining whether to approve, conditionally approve, or deny an application for a Zone Change, the Planning Commission shall consider: Whether or not the proposed zone change conforms to the Master Plan, the Zoning Reference Map and this Chapter (Chapter 17.04, the Zoning Ordinance). Staff Findings: The requested zonin~ district does not conform to the Master Plan, however it will uaon aaaroval of the corresponding; Master Plan amendment application. Whether or not the uses, which would be allowed on the subject property by approving the zone change, will be compatible with the surrounding land uses and zoning districts. Staff Findings: Unable to evaluate as no specific plan of development has been proposed. The GC Zone allows for a wide-range of uses; some of these allowed uses mav or mav not be compatible with existing surrounding land uses. Whether or not growth and development factors in the community indicate the need for or appropriateness of the zone change. Staff Findings: Growth factors in the communitv mav or may not indicate the need for the zone change at this earticular location. Whether or not street or highway facilities providing access to the property are, or will be, adequate in size to meet the requirements of the proposed zone change. Staff Findings: Access to the subject eropert~ is via Leslie Street, a paved Countv-maintained road with an 80-foot right-of-wav width. Leslie Street has not been developed to full width status. Whether-or not public facilities are adequate to meet the requirements of the proposed zone change. Staff Findings: Proaertv owner/developer shall be required to provide andlor participate in the provision of adequate public facilities for anv future developmenthe-deveioament of the site. Recommended Motion to Continue (NCC J): I move to continue this Zone Change application to the March 14,2007 regular meeting of the RPC, based on the findings as outlined in the staff report, in order to allow the proponent to submit a Specific Plan indicating the intended uses of the land, the density and intensity of its use, and maximum height and size of proposed buildings, aiong with the submittal of a Development Agreement application. Recommended Motion to Deny (NCC ): I move to deny this Zone Change application based on the findings provided by the Planning Commission. Recommended Motion to Approve (NCC ): I move to approve this Zone Change application to the General Commercial (GC) Zone based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval as outlined in the staff report. Page 5 of 8

6 (NOTE: If additional findings or conditions are made to support the motion, or staffindings or if conditions are modified, the RPC must clearly state the modifications for the record using considerations 1 through 5 outlined above). SITE PLAN/PROJECT/ZONING ANALYSIS There is no site plan of development submitted for review. Pursuant to NCC , an application for a Development Agreement may be filed for a commercial, industrial andlor institutional development, a PUD, or a residential development with more than 4 lots or dwelling units. Commercial subdivisions may or may not be subject to a Development Agreement. Application for a devetopment agreement may be processed concurrently with, but not prior to, an application for specific plan review or a request for approval of a land use application. Development or re-development of the property will be subject to the Site Development Plan Review Procedures, requiring review of certain elements of the development such as parking, driveway locatioddesign, traffic flow, screens and buffers, refuse collection areas, among other items outlined within NCC Section In 2005 and 2006 there have been approximately 15 Master Plan Amendment application submitted requesting to re-plan properties from LDR or MDR to Mixed Use or General Commercial. Of those 15 applications 9 have been approved. Extreme topographic features such as slope or drainage channels do not impact this site. The subject property is located within flood zone X (shaded). Zone X (shaded) is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to areas outside the 100-year flood zone as indicated by the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). I AGENCY/PUBLIC COMMENTS I Adjacent Property Owners: Comments have been made by surrounding property owners; see RPC minutes above. Public Works Department: General Comments: Zone Changes, Master Plan Amendments, etc., for commercial and multipk-unit developments. It is understood that RPC's review and approval of planning applications that are unrelated to site development (i.e., no site plan and buildings being proposed at the time) will ensure the right of County is reserved for the determination in the future days any requirements of owner for public road improvements. Such determinations will be given by the Depariment of Public Works when actual site development application has been submitted by the developer to this Department. Parcel Maps, Conditional Use Permits, Wavers and all land subdivisions applications: It is also understood that RPC's approval of these application may include requirement of road dedications and improvements as recommended by Public Works under applicable County rules. As deemed appropriate under applicable rules, the Director of Public Works may determine that certain public improvements are required as condition of approval, but may be deferred upon technical review of owner's submissions. The owner of the property shall agree to pay for his share of the deferred public improvements and that such agreement shall be recorded by the owner on the title of the lands. Not withstanding the forgoing and under applicable County rules, as impact mitigation measures, the Department also reserves its right, and based on existing road conditions and/or pavement condition index, to require the proponent to be responsible and/or pay for its share of improvement, repairs, striping, Page 6 of 8

7 re-striping, signage, reconstruction, rehabilitation or resurfacing of roads. Determination of this requirement is the sole responsibility of the Department of Public Works. It is further understood that should the decision of the RPC go against the recommendation of Public Works and unless otherwise subsequently advised by Public Works in writing, the Planning Department shall automatically appeal such decision through the County Board of Commissioners. Developer shall dedicate to County up to the full width of half the right of way of any streets ahd highway on their side of the property if such right of way is required by the Master Plan and/or County Capital Improvement Plan. Sewage Treatment Facilities With respect to the location, design and operation of any proposed wastewater treatment facility, the proponent shall ensure full compliance with applicable Nevada State laws and regulations, and in particular, the implementation of NAC 445A Locating a Treatment Works and Nevada Division of Environmental Protection WTS-21, in which they state: Under NAC 445A.285 " 1. In locating the site for a treatment works, the designer shall attempt to select a site that is not: (a) Within feet (300 meters) of an occupied dwelling or other building. (b) Within the limits of a 100-year floodplain unless protected from the flood to the satisfaction of the Department. 2. No site may be approved by the Department without having first been approved by local government." Under NDEP WTS-21 "c) The structures may be located within 200 feet but not less than 25 feet away from a major highway, dwelling, or other building whose use is not compatible with wastewater treatment provided that: I) The air from all structures which are designed to contain sewage, screening, grit, sludge or chemicals at the wastewater facility is captured and treated as approved by DEP." I APPEAL I Actions by the Regional Planning Commission are delivered to the Board of County Commissioners (Board) in the form of recommendations only. The Board takes final action on the applications; therefore, there is no formal appeal process for actions of the Planning Commission. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS (If Approved) Zone Change Standard Conditions of Approval Unless otherwise specified, all conditions must be met or financial assurances must be provided to satisfy the conditions prior to submittal for a building permit. The Nye County Planning Department andor Public Works Department is responsible for determining compliance with a specific condition, and shall determine whether the condition must be fully completed or whether the applicant shall be offered the option of providing financial assurances. All agreements, easements, or other documentation required by these conditions shall have a copy filed with the Public Works- and the Planning- Departments. Compliance with the conditions of this approval is the responsibility of the applicant, its successor(s) in interest, and all owners, assignees, and occupants of the property and their successors in interest. Failure to comply with any conditions imposed in the approval of this application may result in the implementation of revocation procedures. Nye County reserves the right to review and revise the conditions of this approval should it determine that a subsequent license or permit issued by Nye County violates the intent of this approval. For the purposes of conditions imposed by Nye County, "may" is permissive and "shall" or "must" is mandatory. Page 7 of 8

8 5. Approval of this application does not constitute approval of a liquor, gaming, sexually oriented business, brothel or fireworks license or any other County issued permit, license, or approval. 6. If required, any drainage study, construction plans and/or traffic studies must be submitted and approved prior to construction and a11 improvements must comply with the approved plans. 7. Unless expressly authorized through a waiver or another approved method, development of the property shall comply with all applicable codes and ordinances. 8. Developer(s) shall participate and perform and complete all work (at their own expense related to on-site and off-tract improvements) required by federal, state and county statutes, codes, and regulations that are in effect at the time of development. 9. Approval of a Site Development Plan shall be required prior to application for building or other construction permits. 10. No construction of public improvements shall occur until any required construction plans are submitted and approved in accordance with the Guidelines for Desinn & Review of Development En~ineerinx Submissions along with the calculations of the construction valuation, and plans check and inspection fees shall be borne by the Developer(s). Zone Change Special Conditions of Approval 11. Proponent shall dedicate and construct to Nye County Standards the required ROW for Leslie Street adjacent to APN Page 8 of 8

9 ) BRUCE & MARY JABBOUR, AMRAT, MA. _ ri -3 1 I- PARTNERSHIP MASTER P ~ AMENDMENT N (MP ) - APPLICATION TO CHANGE APPROXIMATELY 25 ACRES FROM I THE LOW DENSIN RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED USE LAND USE CATEGORIES TO THE GENERAL COMMERCtAL LAND USE Twg-f~. :... CATEOORY AND ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION (ZGQ6-8120) - FROM THE OPEN USE (OU) DISTRICT TO THE GENERAL I COMMERCIAL (GC) DISTRICT FOR PROPERW MASTER PLANNED AS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, 781 & 871 N. LESLIE STREET, AP#S ,41 & 42 1

10 SEC. 8 BRUCE & MARY JABBOUR, AMRAT & MANORAMA PATEL, SABIN PARTNERSHIP MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT (MP ) APPLICATION TO CHANGE APPROXIMATELY 25 ACRES FROM THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND MXED USE LAND USE CATEGORIES TO THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL LAND USE CATEGORY, AND ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION (ZC ) FROM THE OPEN USE (OU) DISTRICT TO THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL (GC) DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY MASTER PLANNED AS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL & MIXED USE, 781 & 871 N. LESLIE STREET, AP#S ,4 1 & 42 L 1 SUBJECT PROPERTY AND PROPERTY SUBJECT TO NOTIFICATION OF MASTER I

11

12