ELKO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

Transcription

1 ELKO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MEETING DATE: February 21, 2008 Members Present...David Hough, Chairman Dave Galyen, Vice Chairman Milt Grisham Mike Judd Dena Hartley Jack D. Larson Absent...Kristian Forland Others Present...Randy Brown, Director Planning and Zoning Jennifer Spencer, District Attorney s Office John Kingwell, Planning Coordinator The regular meeting of the Elko County Planning Commission was called to order at 5:15 P.M. by Chairman Hough on February 21, 2008 in room 105 of the Elko County Courthouse, Elko, Nevada. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Allegiance Pledged. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Hough asked for comments and or a motion concerning the minutes of January 17, 2008 & February 11, Mr. Kingwell stated the minutes were not yet completed and would be on next months agenda. COMMENTS BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC: Charles Chester spoke in reference to the Elko County Snow bowl and updated the commission on it s activities. He further stated that the road portion that is in the riparian area of the creek needs to be moved. With additional uses in this area, the road will need to be moved. CONSENT AGENDA:

2 None PRELIMINARY HEARINGS: # , Andrew C. Knudsen & Shannon D. Knudsen: A preliminary hearing regarding an application for a change in zoning from Agricultural Residential to Light Industrial for a parking lot, mini storage units, and a residence. Mr. Brown stated the application is complete, the filing fee is paid and recommends this be remanded to the next public hearing date of March 20, 2008 Chairman Hough asked for comments and or a motion. MOTION: Commissioner Galyen made a motion to move item # to a public hearing on March 20, Commissioner Judd made a second to the motion. The motion carried. VOTE: AYE:...David Hough, Chairman Dave Galyen, Vice Chairman Milt Grisham Mike Judd Dena Hartley Jack Larson NAY:...None ABSENT:...Kristian Forland ABSTENTIONS:...None PUBLIC HEARINGS: # , Spirit Minerals, LP: (A hearing continued from Jan 17 th, 2008) A public hearing concerning a request for a conditional use for RV parking and camping in an Open Space zoning district as per Elko County Code 4-2-1, B7; Mr. Brown stated that staff recommends to table this item as again we do not have the all the information from NDEP and the health department we need.

3 ASPANO.:SESOR SRCELElko County Planning Commission Chairman Hough asked for comments and or a motion. MOTION: Commissioner Hartley made a motion to table item # and to hear it on the public hearing of March 20, Commissioner Judd made a second to the motion. The motion carried. VOTE: AYE:...David Hough, Chairman Dave Galyen, Vice Chairman Milt Grisham Mike Judd Dena Hartley Jack Larson NAY:...None ABSENT:...Kristian Forland ABSTENTIONS:...None # , Jack A. Skivington: A public hearing for a change in zoning from Open Space to C-1 General Commercial. Mr. Brown read the following staff report into the record: STAFF REPORT # ZONE CHANGE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: February 21 st, APPLICATION:. For a change of zoning submitted by Jack A. Skivington from Special Lands to Commercial C-1 General Commercial.ECC LOCATION:. Located in a portion of the NE1/4, Sec. 10, T.33 N., R.56 E., M.D.B.&M, Area West Division of Land. Being Parcel No. 3 as shown on the Parcel Map for Jack A. Skivington, filed in the Office of the Elko County Recorder as file No SUMMARY INFORMATION:

4 06-30C-039Elko County Planning Commission 0OWNER(S) OF RECORD: PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS ON PROPERTY: SIZE OF PROPERTY: Jack A. Skivington Zone Change Open Space to Special Lands, Granted November, 2007 ACCESS: Corral Lane / SR 227 MASTER PLAN: COMMENTS: Spring Creek Lamoille Master Plan Phase I As attached. 4. PROJECT IMPACTS: A. EFFECT UPON THE EXISTING LAND USE PATTERN IN THE AREA: The proposed is a speculative zone change request. The primary land use pattern of this area is Agriculture- Residential uses. The Area West Development is primarily a Division of Land of 40 acre or better parcels. During hearings and workshops on the Spring Creek / Lamoille Master Plan the parcel and area was identified as and area to provide support commercial area for the direct community. The application has been made for C-1 General Commercial. At this time no specific use is made by the applicant. Therefore the proposed must incorporate all the permitted uses of C-1 Groups 1 and 2 as follows: The primary purpose of and application of this District shall be to provide suitable lands and locations of various retail, service and commercial activities, including gaming (Group I) and for the location of offices for professional services and for business activities which involve a relatively low volume of direct consumer contact; and to regulate such development (Group II). Development criteria will be instituted as uses are established. The development criteria may include the development of water and sanitary sewer facilities as well as road, utility and fire protection requirements. Commercial developments will also require the review of access from SR 227 as well as review and requirements of the Nevada Division of Water Resources, State Division of Health Nevada Department of Environmental Protection, Nevada State Fire Marshall and other state entities. B. EFFECT UPON THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE AREA: As stated above, impacts to the specific area could be severe in nature, primarily the introduction of traffic counts that staff cannot provide due to the lack of specific uses.

5 However, the type of uses imply an increase of traffic exceeding 200 vehicle trips per day. Noise, fumes and vibration could also be presented to the specific area, again without a specific use, staff can only speculate as to the level of impacts. As stated the DWR and Division of State health will govern water and sewer issues, however, the impacts may include an impact on the area water quantity and quality. A sanitary sewer system may be require, again depending on specific types and magnitudes of uses. 5. CONSISTENCY WITH EXISTING ZONING AND MASTER PLAN: A. COMPATIBILITY OF PROPOSED ZONING WITH EXISTING ZONING AND DEVELOPED USAGE IN THE AREA: The compatibility with existing zoning of the are will depend again on the specific types and magnitudes of uses. The intent of the Master Plan designation was to provide a specific area for community service commercial. B. CONFORMS WITH THE EXISTING MASTER PLAN OF THE AREA: The proposed C-1 General Commercial Zone will be in conformance with the Spring Creek Lamoille Master Plan Phase I.. 6. STAFF COMMENTS: A. The proposed is a speculative zone change request. The primary land use pattern of this area is Agriculture- Residential uses. The Area West Development is primarily a Division of Land of 40 acre or better parcels. B. Development criteria will be instituted as uses are established. The development criteria may include the development of water and sanitary sewer facilities as well as road, utility and fire protection requirements. C. As stated above impacts to the specific area could be severe in nature, primarily the introduction of traffic counts that staff cannot provide due to the lack of specific uses. However, the type of uses imply an increase of traffic exceeding 200 vehicle trips per day. D. The compatibility with existing zoning of the area will depend again on the specific types and magnitudes of uses. The intent of the Master Plan designation was to provide a specific area for community service commercial. The proposed C-1 General Commercial Zone will be in conformance with the Spring Creek Lamoille Master Plan Phase I. E. The speculative zoning will require the creation of a development agreement that fulfills the requirements of Elko County Code when the Commercial uses are established

6 by the developer. The agreement will simply require that all Federal, State and Local statutes, ordinances, development criteria and building requirements concerning the development at that time will be complied with by the owner / developer. The agreement is to run with the land and applies to all uses, either commercial or residential. 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 (attached) 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 conditions and restrictions. A. At time of any development, the developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Nevada Revise Statutes, Federal laws, local building and development requirements. B. At time of any development, the owner / developer agrees to comply with all Federal, State and Local statutes, ordinances, Elko County development criteria and building requirements concerning the development at that time. The agreement is to run with the Commercial Zone and land and applies to all uses, either C.commercial or residential. If said property is sold in whole or otherwise conveyed to a new owner or owners, the deed of conveyance shall contain verbiage that identifies and adopts the recommendations, findings, conditions and requirements of approval of this specific zone change or property, pertaining to any proposed development, either commercial or residential.

7 Basis for recommendation: 1) The proposed C-1 General Commercial Zone will be in conformance with the Spring Creek Lamoille Master Plan Phase I.. 2) The intent of the Master Plan designation was to provide a specific area for community service commercial. Note: Should testimony or comment from the public arise before or during the public hearing opposed to the proposed or providing adverse or contradictory information staff may withdraw its recommendations. Report Prepared by: Scott R. Brown, P.L.S. Director Planning & Zoning K:\P&Z - Planning Commission Records\DOCS, MINUTES\2008 YEAR\ ECPC Minutes.wpd Chairman Hough asked for questions to staff. Mr. Brown identified the property on Corral Lane in Area West for the board and the audience. Chairman Hough opened the floor to public comment. Robert Morley stated that the property is located at the very north boundary Area West Division was appropriately designated commercial by the planning commission due to the fact that it is on the boundary and it does not affect the interior residential uses. Even though Mr. Skivington does not have a specific commercial use for the proposed zoning at this time, that it would not be annoying or obnoxious giving the fact that he is the closest neighbor as he lives on the adjoining property. The commercial will be used to service the surrounding community. The land directly to the east is zoned commercial and the land to the northwest and Mr. Skivington s request is designated commercial on the Spring Creek Lamoille Master Plan which was approved by this commission. The public hearing portion of this application hearing was closed as there were no further comments. Chairman Hough asked for comments from the commissioners. Commissioner Galyen asked if we know the use on the adjoining parcels that are designated commercial. Mr. Brown stated this is an area that is conducive to commercial uses but the specific uses are not known. The specifics will be dealt with through the application for the specific use and the building permit processes. Chairman Hough asked for a motion.

8 MOTION: Commissioner Judd made a motion to approve application # with staff s recommendation, findings and conditions. Commissioner Larason made a second to the motion. The motion carried. VOTE: AYE:...David Hough, Chairman Dave Galyen, Vice Chairman Milt Grisham Mike Judd Dena Hartley Jack Larson NAY:...None ABSENT:...Kristian Forland ABSTENTIONS:...None # , William Kolbe: A public hearing for a change in zoning from Open Space to AR-CRD 1 for the creation of two residential parcels: A correction to the agenda on the application number should read # Mr. Brown read the following staff report into the record: STAFF REPORT # ZONE CHANGE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: February 21 st, APPLICATION:.To allow for the change of zoning from Open Space (OS) to Agriculture Residential- Conservation Reserve District 1 (AR-CRD 1) for subdivision into two (2) equal three (3) plus acre parcels. The application is submitted by William Kolbe for the purpose of subdivision. 2. LOCATION: Parcel Map No The parcel is acres in size and is located in a portion of the W ½ of the NE 1/4 Section 24, T. 33 N., R. 57 E., M.D.B. & M.. 3. SUMMARY INFORMATION

9 ASSESSOR S PARCEL NO.: OWNER(S) OF RECORD: PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS ON PROPERTY: SIZE OF PROPERTY: ACCESS: MASTER PLAN: COMMENTS & INFORMATION: B-008 William Kolbe None acres Hog Tommy Road & Sunset Lane Spring Creek / Lamoille Phase II Attached if applicable 4. PROJECT IMPACTS: A. EFFECT UPON THE EXISTING LAND USE PATTERN IN THE AREA: The proposed will have minimal effects upon the land use pattern due to the well established existing residential uses of the area. Primarily, the current use of this area is a mix of light agricultural uses and low to moderate density residential. The acre parcel is currently un-developed. The proposed is to subdivide the acre parcel into two equal parcels sizes of 3 plus acres. The proposed one new three (3) plus acre parcel will have a potential increased impact of approximately five (5) vehicle trips per day if developed for residential uses. B. EFFECT UPON THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE AREA: The proposed zone change and subsequent subdivision could have limited significant impacts or effects on the general health, safety and general welfare of the area. Primarily due to the slight five (5 ) vehicle per day increased traffic on Hog Tommy Road and Sunset Lane. At this time due to the proposed subdivision method by Parcel Map, the proposed development will not require the conveyance of water rights to the State of Nevada for 2.0 acre feet for each lot / parcel that is created. During the public comment period of a proposed Parcel Map, the State Division of Water Resources may provide comment and/or requirements for the development of the proposed. The one new parcel will be required to develop an Individual Domestic Well and Individual Septic System if developed for residential uses. 5. CONSISTENCY WITH EXISTING ZONING AND MASTER PLAN: A. COMPATIBILITY OF PROPOSED ZONING WITH EXISTING ZONING AND DEVELOPED USAGE IN THE AREA: The current zoning on this property is

10 non-conforming Open Space. The Master Plan designation on this property is AR-CRD 1 (2.50 acre minimum). Developed usage in the area is primarily light agricultural with moderate to low density residential use. The proposed is in conformance with the existing land use patterns of the area. B. CONFORMS WITH THE EXISTING MASTER PLAN OF THE AREA: The proposed is located within Phase 2 of the Spring Creek / Lamoille Master Plan,. The proposed is in conformance with the Master Plan. 6. STAFF COMMENTS: A) Primarily the current use of this area is a mix of light agricultural uses and moderate density residential. The acre parcel is currently un-developed. The proposed is to subdivide the acres into 2 parcels with a minimum parcel of 2.5 acres or more. B) Access is proposed to be provided by Hog Tommy Road and Sunset Lane existing roads that meets minimum rural standards. C) The proposed zone change and subsequent subdivision could have limited significant impacts or effects on the general health, safety and general welfare of the area. Primarily due to the slight five (5) vehicle per day increased traffic on Hog Tommy Road and Sunset Lane. D) Due to the proposed subdivision method by Parcel Map, the proposed development will not require the conveyance of water rights to the State of Nevada for 2.0 acre feet for each lot / parcel that is created. However, during the public comment period of a proposed Parcel Map the State Division of Water Resources may provide comment and/or requirements for the development of the proposed. The new parcel will be required to develop an Individual Domestic Well and Individual Septic System when and if developed for residential uses.. E) Prior to the completion of this report comments 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)

11 STAFFRECOMENDATIONS,FINDINGSANDCONDITIONS:Elko County Planning Commission 11) Elko County Sheriff s Office (no comment) 7.9) Elko County Public Works (attached) 10) Elko County School District (no comment) Based upon the above stated analysis and findings staff recommends: Approval - with the following conditions and restrictions. A. The minimum Parcel Size shall be restricted to 2.50 acres, no further subdivision is to be permitted. B. At time of any development for residential uses, the owners shall comply with all applicable provisions of N.R.S. and Elko County Code development criteria that pertains to the proposed residential development. C. If said property is sold in whole or otherwise conveyed to a new owner or owners, the deed of conveyance shall contain verbiage that identifies and adopts the recommendations, findings, conditions and requirements of approval of this specific zone change or property, pertaining to residential development. E. At time of any residential development, owner shall comply with all Federal, State, and Local building and development requirements. Basis for recommendation: 1) The proposed zone change and subsequent subdivision could have limited significant impacts or effects on the general health, safety and general welfare of the area. 2) Developed usage in the area is primarily light agricultural with moderate to low density residential use. The proposed is in conformance with the existing land use patterns of the area. 3) The proposed is located within Phase 2 of the Spring Creek / Lamoille Master Plan. The proposed is in conformance with the Master Plan. Report prepared by: Scott R. Brown, P.L.S. Director Planning & Zoning, K:\P&Z - Planning Commission Records\DOCS, MINUTES\2008 YEAR\ ECPC Minutes.wpd Chairman Hough asked for questions to staff.

12 Commissioner Judd asked if the DWR could in the future ask for 2.0 acre feet for the additional parcel. Mr. Brown stated he has not received a response from the State Engineer on the directive to enforce the provision of the new water law. They could not demand the water rights retroactively. They have not sent us a letter of intent telling us to enforce this code. This is the first A/R CRD - 1 application we have had. There are several parcels in that area that are A/R zoned and are mostly 2.5 to 5.0 acre parcels. That is why the development pattern is said to be consistent. Commissioner Hartley stated she used to own this parcel but has no beneficial interest in it whatsoever. Mr. Brown explained the properties location on the map. Chairman Hough opened the floor for public comments. Tony Bwttner stated this property is surrounded by larger parcels and the applicant wants to subdivide this parcel into 3.5 acre parcels. A gentle man in the near vicinity was denied a division of 10.0 acres into two 5.0 acre parcels in the past. Why was he denied. Mr. Brown stated that the division line between A/R and Special Lands is the section line. During the Master plan hearings, the people south of this particular section did not want anything subdivided. There is only one 5.0 acre parcel in there and it was created before the Master Plan was done. Mr. Brown showed the division line on the map. Mr. Morley is representing Mr. Kolbe. He stated, across the street are 6 parcels of 4.6 to 4.8 acres in size. There are also other parcels in the are that range from 3.6 to 5.0 acres. Some 9.0 and 10 acres and different sizes. There are parcels in the area that are the same as this request. This does conform to the Master Plan. Chairman Hough closed the Public hearing portion and asked for comments and or a motion. MOTION: Commissioner Galyen moved to approve application # for a change of zoning from Open Space to A/R CRD with staff s recommendations. Commissioner Judd made a second to the motion. The motion carried. VOTE: AYE:...David Hough, Chairman Dave Galyen, Vice Chairman Milt Grisham Mike Judd Dena Hartley Jack Larson NAY:...None ABSENT:...Kristian Forland ABSTENTIONS:...None

13 PANO.:SESSOR SRCELElko County Planning Commission # , Manhatten Development, LLC: A public hearing regarding an application for a change in zoning from Open Space to Special Lands for the creation of residential parcels on the following described property: Mr. Brown read the following staff report into the record: STAFF REPORT # ZONE CHANGE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: February 21 st, APPLICATION:. For a change of zoning submitted by Manhatten Development, LLC with permission toalowgranted forsuby bdiowner visionmr. oftjames heexik. ststonier ing340from.84aopen crepspace arcelto ispecial nto32lands, tenplusacreparcels.2. LOCATION:. Portions of Sections 9, 16 & 17 T. 33 N., R. 56 E., M.D.B.& M. 3. SUMMARY INFORMATION: AA portion of OWNER(S) OF RECORD: PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS ON PROPERTY: SIZE OF PROPERTY: ACCESS: MASTER PLAN: COMMENTS: James K. Stonier None State Route 228 / Manhatten Avenue Spring Creek Lamoille Master Plan, Phase I As attached. 4. PROJECT IMPACTS: A. EFFECT UPON THE EXISTING LAND USE PATTERN IN THE AREA: The proposed is to subdivide the acre parcel into 10 or mor acre parcels. The proposed is to subdivide using the parcel map method or subdivision method. The subdivision of this property will require the minimum standards as prescribed in Elko County Code Title 5. The development of a secondary access will be required at the time that the sixteenth

14 parcel is created. The proposed future division of this specific parcel into 10 acre or greater parcels under the Special Lands zoning designation would conform with the current development patterns of the area. Each newly created parcel would require a private well and an individual septic system. Traffic flows at total build out would be 224 vehicle trips per day. This would require that the minimum standard road would be a 32' wide gravel rural collector to be developed as primary access. As stated above a secondary access will be required as per Elko County Code (B) 1. d). B. EFFECT UPON THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE AREA: Newly created parcels in the future will create a potential 224 vehicle trips per day onto State Route 228 at two specific points of ingress/egress. The Nevada Department of Transportation will require and mandate all improvements at the specific points of access necessary to accommodate the proposed. If Special Lands zoning approval is granted, and subsequent parcel maps are created, access roads must meet the applicable minimum ECC road standards and will be required to be offered for dedication per ECC 5-2-3B. Potential water use impacts for each parcel created will be 2.0 acre feet annually for each parcel, a total of 64 acre feet annually at total build out. SB 275 has been created that requires the relinquishment of 2.0 acre feet of certificated water rights to the Division of Water Resources for each parcel created by parcel map or subdivision. However, the DWR has not issued a letter of intent or list of designated basins to Elko County for enforcement. Therefore, at this time the requirement will not be made. The development of the proposed 32 parcels will require the construction of individual septic systems. The Division of State Health will mandate and make all requirements for the proposed development. The location and proximity to irrigation water has limited the specific use of the area to agriculture grazing lands. The development of the acres represents a potential loss of private agricultural grazing lands. However, the potential for large areas to remain as grazing land exists until the parcels are specifically fenced. The area is not known for wildlife usage other than rodents and other small to medium size wildlife. The proposed development should not have significant impacts on the wildlife of the area. 5. CONSISTENCY WITH EXISTING ZONING AND MASTER PLAN: A. COMPATIBILITY OF PROPOSED ZONING WITH EXISTING ZONING AND DEVELOPED USAGE IN THE AREA: The proposed is directly adjacent to the westerly boundary of the Area West Division of land. Several parcels within the Area West Division of land are Special Lands Zoning. The Area West as well as the proposed is

15 primarily designated Special Lands on the Official Master Plan for Spring Creek / Lamoille. B. CONFORMS WITH THE EXISTING MASTER PLAN OF THE AREA: This parcel is within the boundaries of the Spring Creek Lamoille Master Plan, Phase I. The parcel is designated as Special Lands zoning. The change of zoning requested conforms to the master plan. 6. STAFF COMMENTS: A. The effects upon the land would be minimal. The lands adjacent to and west of this parcel are zoned Special Lands. The subdivision of the applicants acre parcel into 10 acre or greater parcels under the Special Lands zoning designation would conform with the current development patterns of the area. B. Each newly created parcel in the future will create a potential of seven (7) vehicle trips per day onto State Route 228. Depending upon future division of this parcel, there may be the potential total increase of 224 vehicle trips per day utilizing two specific points of ingress / egress. With a vehicle trip count of 224 vehicle trip per day the development will require a 32' wide gravel rural collector standard road. The development of a secondary access will be required at the time that the sixteenth parcel is created as per ECC (B) 1. d). Aboveground electricity and telephone service will be required to each parcel as per ECC (B) 1. e). C. Each newly created parcel would require a private well with a total build-out annual requirement of 64 acre feet of water and 32 individual septic systems. D. The proposed is directly adjacent to the westerly boundary of the Area West Division of land. Several parcels within the Area West Division of land are Special Lands Zoning. E. This parcel is within the boundaries of the Spring Creek Lamoille Master Plan, Phase I. The parcel is designated Special Lands zoning. 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)

16 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 conditions and restrictions. A. At time of any development, the developer shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Nevada Revise Statutes, Federal laws, local building and development requirements. B. Developer shall comply with Elko County Code ECC 4-2-2C development criteria that pertains to minimum average lot width of 500' and a minimum area of 10 acres per proposed parcel. C.If said property is sold in whole or otherwise conveyed to a new owner or owners, the deed of conveyance shall contain verbiage that identifies and adopts the recommendations, findings, conditions and requirements of approval of this specific zone change or property, pertaining to the proposed development. D. At time of any development, developer shall comply with all Federal, State, and Local building and development requirements. Basis for recommendation: 1) The zone change requested conforms to the Special Lands designation of the Spring Creek Lamoille Master Plan, Phase I. 2) The proposed is directly adjacent to the westerly boundary of the Area West Division of land. Several parcels within the Area West Division of land are Special Lands Zoning. Note: The recommendations of this report are based on the fact that prior to the completion of this report staff had not received any negative or adverse comments to the proposed. Should testimony from the public arise before or during the public hearing opposed to the proposed or providing adverse or contradictory information staff may withdraw its recommendations. Scott R. Brown, P.L.S. Director Planning & Zoning K:\P&Z - Planning Commission Records\DOCS, MINUTES\2008 YEAR\ ECPC Minutes.wpd

17 Chairman Hough asked for question to staff. Mr. Brown stated that this property has been advertised for sale. The owner and the sales person on the sign as the agent, are now notified that if the sign is not removed within 10 days this application will be appealed. The sign needs to be removed. It is offering the properties for sale as a planned unit development and shows 10 acre parcels which is prior to the zone change. Again, if the sign is not removed within 10 days this application will be appealed. Commissioner Hartley asked how vehicle trip numbers are figured in the staff reports. Mr. Brown stated the information is derived from a book named the 6 th edition - Traffic Generation Handbook. Commissioner Hartley asked where the primary access will be. Mr. Brown stated it will be on the south end of this property, approximately one mile past the ranch. The road will follow the top of the ridge and the lower area will be left for grazing. There will be another access on the north end of the property to the highway at a certain point in the development. Hill top access is approximately two miles to the north. Chairman Hough opened the floor for public comment. Mr. Morley stated he represented Manhatten Development and James Stonier. The sign will be removed immediately. The access road across the meadow and Ten Mile Creek will be perpetuated through the road ways. The roads will be built and maintained by the developer or the ensuing homeowners association when the subdivision takes place. NDOT has signed the parcel map that created the 340 acre parcel that would be the souther access. NDOT has looked at the northern access and have tentatively agreed to that location also. After they see the final maps, we will have to comply with their development criteria. We are aware of the water rights requirements for subdivisions as I expect this to be developed. We are prepared for that. The minimum parcel size will be 10 acres and they couldn t be re-subdivided unless someone came back and asked for a different zoning classification which would probably mean that the Master Plan would have top be changed. This application does comply with the Spring Creek Lamoille Master Plan. Mr. Morley pointed out the northern access point on the map for Commissioner Judd. Commissioner Galyen asked about the infrastructure. Mr. Morley stated the main infrastructure is the road and showed the board the access points onto SR 228. The Power and telephone service will be located in the road right-of -ways. Manhatten development is planning to buy and develop the property themselves. Commissioner Judd asked if there were water rights coming out of Ten Mile Creek. Mr. Morley stated no. Commissioner Grisham asked about the requirement for the secondary access after the 16 th parcel is developed. Mr. Brown stated that is on paper as a file parcel. That is covered by ordinance under parcel maps and subdivisions. It does not apply to a Divisions of Land into Large Parcels map. Mr. Morley stated that the 32 lots will probably be created by subdivision map. We anticipate we will have to acquire and relinquish water rights for the domestic use of these parcels. The basin is closed to additional irrigation water rights but is opened for application for domestic and quasi - municipal

18 uses. Chairman Hough closed the floor to public comments and asked for comments from the commissioners. Commissioner Galyen asked why a road maintenance agreement was not mentioned in this hearing. Mr. Brown stated that will be addressed in the subdivision process. Chairman Hough asked for comments and or a motion. MOTION: VOTE: Commissioner Hartley moved to approve application # with staff s recommendations. Commissioner Larason made a second to the motion. The motion carried. AYE:...David Hough, Chairman Dave Galyen, Vice Chairman Milt Grisham Mike Judd Dena Hartley Jack Larson NAY:...None ABSENT:...Kristian Forland ABSTENTIONS:...None # , John A. & Ceena V. Negrych: A public hearing regarding an application for a change in zoning from Open Space to Special Lands for residential uses permitted within that zoning on the following described property: Jack Larason stated he would abstain from this hearing as this parcel owner is a neighbor and the action taken here tonight on this application may affect his property. Mr. Brown read the following staff report into the record: STAFF REPORT # ZONE CHANGE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: February 21 st, APPLICATION:. For a change of zoning submitted by John A. and Ceena V. Negrych

19 07-08A-03Elko County Planning Commission from Open Space to Special Lands for the purpose of subdivision of the acre parcel into three parcels for residential uses. 2. LOCATION:. Located in a portion of the SW 1/4 NE1/4, Sec. 6, T.33 N., R.58 E., M.D.B.&M, Parcel 3 as shown on the Record of Survey, Division of Land for R.L.C. Investment Inc., filed in the Office of the Elko County Recorder as file No SUMMARY INFORMATION: AR SPANO.:SESSORCEL OWNER(S) OF RECORD: PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS ON PROPERTY: John A. and Ceena V. Negrych None SIZE OF PROPERTY: ACCESS: MASTER PLAN: COMMENTS: 4. PROJECT IMPACTS: Lower Lamoille Road / Ridgeway Road None As attached. A. EFFECT UPON THE EXISTING LAND USE PATTERN IN THE AREA: The primary land use patterns of the vicinity is Agricultural with ancillary residential uses. The proposed is a 40 acre parcel created by a Division of Land into Large Parcels in At that time no mapping or development criteria was require to create the parcels. Currently the property is developed with a single family dwelling on the south end. There has been one subsequent subdivision of a forty acre parcel within the Division of Land Map. Parcel 1 located approximately 700 feet west of the proposed was subdivided into a 10 acre parcel and a acre parcel. The Parcel Map was prepared and approved in 1994, prior to the 1995 ordinance change that raised the minimum parcel size of Open Space to 40 acres. Therefore, these two parcels are now non-conforming Open Space Zoning. There are no other 10 acre or similar size parcels in the direct vicinity. The intention of the creation of the parcels shown on the Record of Survey were for Residential uses with ancillary agricultural uses. B. EFFECT UPON THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE AREA: The proposed will not create substantial impacts to the health, safety or welfare of the area. Primary impacts will be to the specific points of ingress / egress. The creation of two new parcels will potentially increase traffic flows on Lower Lamoille Road by 10 vehicle trips per day.

20 Other impacts are the creation of two new septic systems to the area. Each new parcel will also require 2.0 acre feet of water annually for a total of 4.0 acre feet annually for domestic purposes. These issues are under the jurisdiction of the State of Nevada Health Division and Division of Water Resources. Both entities were notified and solicited for comment concerning the proposed. If the proposed is approved, the entities will be further notified at time of subdivision. Potential water use impacts for each parcel created will be 2.0 acre feet annually for each parcel, a total of 4.0 acre feet annually. SB 275 has been created that requires the relinquishment of 2.0 acre feet of certificated water rights to the Division of Water Resources for each parcel created by parcel map or subdivision. However, the DWR has not issued a letter of intent or a list of designated basins to Elko County for enforcement. Therefore, at this time the requirement will not be made. The area is historically linked to wild life habitat associated with the Ruby Mountains. The creation of the two new 10 acre parcels should have minimal impacts to the wildlife and/or domestic animals of the area. 5. CONSISTENCY WITH EXISTING ZONING AND MASTER PLAN: A. COMPATIBILITY OF PROPOSED ZONING WITH EXISTING ZONING AND DEVELOPED USAGE IN THE AREA: As stated above, the intention of the original Division of Land was to provide residential lots with ancillary agricultural uses. The vicinity is spotted with numerous single family dwellings not specifically associated with agriculture uses. Therefore, the residential use is considered to be compatible with the developed usage of the area. B. CONFORMS WITH THE EXISTING MASTER PLAN OF THE AREA: N/A 6. STAFF COMMENTS: A. The primary land use patterns of the vicinity is Agricultural with ancillary residential uses. The proposed is a 40 acre parcel created by a Division of Land into Large Parcels in The intention of the creation of the parcels shown on the Record of Survey were for Residential uses with ancillary agricultural uses. B. The proposed will not create substantial impacts to the health, safety or welfare of the area. Primary impacts will be to the specific points of ingress / egress. C. Other impacts are the creation of two new septic systems to the area. Each new parcel

21 will also require 2.0 acre feet of water annually for a total of 4.0 acre feet annually for domestic purposes. These issues are under the jurisdiction of the State of Nevada Health Division and Division of Water Resources. D. The area is historically linked to wildlife habitat associated with the Ruby Mountains. The creation of the two new 10 acre parcels should have minimal impacts to the wildlife and/or domestic animals of the area. E. 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 conditions and restrictions. A. At time of any development, the owner / developer agrees to comply with all Federal, State and Local statutes, ordinances, development criteria and building requirements concerning the development at that time. B.If said property is sold in whole or otherwise conveyed to a new owner or owners, the deed of conveyance shall contain verbiage that identifies and adopts the recommendations, findings, conditions and requirements of approval of this specific zone change or property, pertaining to any proposed development, either commercial or residential. Basis for recommendation:

22 1) The vicinity is spotted with numerous single family dwellings not specifically associated with agriculture uses. Therefore, the residential use is considered to be compatible with the developed usage of the area. 2) The proposed will not create substantial impacts to the health, safety or welfare of the area. Note: Should testimony or comment from the public arise before or during the public hearing opposed to the proposed or providing adverse or contradictory information staff may withdraw its recommendations. Report Prepared by: Scott R. Brown, P.L.S. Director Planning & Zoning K:\P&Z - Planning Commission Records\DOCS, MINUTES\2008 YEAR\ ECPC Minutes.wpd Mr. Brown stated he had received several letters against this application. He read the following letter that was requested to be read into the record: February 21, 2008 Elko County Planning Commission Elko, Nevada Ladies and Gentlemen of The Commission: Dr. Jack 0. Walther P.0. Box Lamoille, Nevada I am writing this letter to vehemently oppose the proposed land use change requested by John A. and Ceena Negrych. I own 42 acres contiguous to the northeast boundary of the property in question. I object to this change of land use for the following reasons: 1. The current Open Space zoning was thoughtfully adopted by Elko County in 1995 to provide protection for agricultural areas from urban development of residential subdivisions. Allowing this parcel to be subdivided into 10 acre parcels would be a direct contradiction to that

23 policy. 2. With the exception of the one parcel that was rezoned in 1993, prior to the adoption of the current zoning, all properties within a two mile radius of the subject property are 40 acres or larger. All of these properties are being used for agricultural purposes. 3. The staff recommendation stating that there are numerous single family dwellings not specifically associated with agricultural uses is absolutely not true. The afore mentioned 10 acre parcel is the only dwelling in the entire area that does not have an agricultural use. I believe the nearest dwelling that is on land not being used for agriculture is in the town of Lamoille which is approx. 2 miles away. 4. History dictates that once an area is subjected to down zoning the precedent is set for the progress to continue. The area in question is a delicate and special part of our county. There is currently no master plan to control the numerous attempts to down zone which are bound to occur if this request is approved. 5. It has been indicated to me that the intent of the applicants is to use Ridgeway Road as the access to the 10 acre parcels. Ridgeway Road is owned by the contiguous property owners and has never been dedicated to the county as a public road. Although there is a right- of- way in use by the residents and utilities, I do not believe that it is available by this proposed subdivision without the approval of the current owners of the road. That approval would not be available for my section of the road. 6. Every evening I have 30 deer come into my alfalfa stack to feed. Most of these deer bed down in the sagebrush on the north end of the property in question. I contend; therefore, that the current wildlife would be affected by this subdivision. 7. In conclusion, we moved to the ranch 10 years ago from the Reno area to get away from the constant down zoning that has taken the great ranches and meadows of the Truckee Meadows and made them into subdivisions. The Lamoille area is a gem and must be protected from urban sprawl. The county, in its wisdom, realized that in 1994 and designated this land as open space. On behalf of my neighbors, those that visit our area to enjoy its beauty, and my family, we request that you please not approve this recommendation that could potentially destroy this area that we value as the most beautiful land in Nevada. Sincerely, Jack 0.Walther, DVM

24 Chairman Hough asked for questions to staff. Commissioner Grisham stated there is a chance that there could be an additional parcel created if the remainder is split. Mr. Brown stated that is correct and the application came in stating that the applicant wanted to keep the south end 22 acre parcel. Commissioner Galyen asked if we could impose a limit on the parcel split to two parcels. Mr. Brown stated we can t make it a requirement but we can request that they restrict themselves. The Special Lands code allows for minimum 10 acre parcels. Commissioner Galyen asked about the spacing needed between a mobile home and a two story house. Mr. Brown stated that would be the minimum setbacks. Commissioner Grisham asked about the road that Mr. Walther stated in his letter belongs to him. Mr. Brown stated he is correct. The road is under ownership to each individual lot but all of the parcel owners have a right to use it. The lot lines are to the center of the road way and the easement is 30' from the center of the roadway into each parcel. The road issue will be addressed in the subdivision process and if the applicant cannot comply with the requirements I would have to turn it down. Then it would probably be appealed to the Elko County Commissioners. Commissioner Grisham asked where the smaller parcel is located. Mr. Brown stated that the smaller parcel is approximately 700 feet away and what has set the precedence for this application. This was done prior to 1995 and is now a non conforming Open Space Parcel. Commissioner Judd stated that he doesn t believe a precedence was set. Commissioner Hartley asked if this parcel has a legal access. Mr. Brown stated yes, by Lower Lamoille Road. Ridgeway Road is basically private. The property owners can deny public access but not access to the parcel owners. Chairman Hough opened up the floor for public comments. Dr. Mattern stated he has lived in this community for 12 years and owns one of the parcels that is adjacent to this parcel in question. He read the following letter into the record: Family Medicine & Urgent Care Medical Center Erich V. Mattem, M.D. 885 Railroad Street Elko, Nevada Phone Fax February 20, 2008

25 Planning Commission Elko County Elko NV Dear Commission Members I am writing this in response to the change in zoning request as noted in the Staff Report # Whereas John and Ceena Negrych propose the change from Open Space to Special Lands for the purpose of subdivision of their 44 acre parcel into three parcels for residential use. As owner of the # 7 parcel as depicted on Ridgeway Drive I adamantly oppose said subdivision for the following reasons. 1.) The intent and purpose of these parcels as laid out by the 1995 re-zoning ordinance was to increase the size of these lots to a minimum of 40 acres from the 10 acre parcels as outlined in this request. This was done in order to accommodate residential uses with ancillary agricultural uses, and to protect against urban development. This therefore creates a conflict with the original master plan. 2) It is my opinion that this will impact the area in a much greater way than is stated since this change will allow for and or promote continued subdivision of a similar nature that will cascade into a much more substantial Ingress/egress than is outlined in this report These lots are part of the parcel I own that is a wildlife habitat for the Ruby Mountains Range and as such need to be protected from the expansion of this type of use so as to preserve the pastoral nature of our area, and prevent the likely deterioration into urban sprawl 3) I further disagree with the concept that the area is spotted with numerous single dwellings not specifically associated with agriculture uses. That is flatly not true Nine of the ten lots in the immediate vicinity are specifically and purposefully utilized for agricultural intent The only exception being that of the Negrych lot I personally have obtained and maintain agricultural use status of my lot for the past ten years This area has been utilized as such for decades prior and provides feed and grazing for local ranching on a large and productive scale This fact was well known to the Negrych s prior to their purchase and if it wasn t is certainly self evident from the obvious surrounding landscape. In my opinion this does not conform to the existing master plan and in fact subverts it in a meaningful and devastating way If we are to maintain our rural wetlands and wildlife preserves it is essential that we maintain the 1995 ordinance that in fact changed the 10 acre allotments to the current 40 acre parcels As you can see from the parcel map my lot marks the western border of the Lamoille Valley and all 10 of these lots are an essential and integral part of the that border. This in my estimation serves as a buffer zone to the splendor of this unspoiled and unscathed valley If we

26 do not uphold this 1995 ordinance then this marks a monumental step backward and against the original intent. I have lived in this area for the past 12 years and have personally witnessed greater than a dozen different species of wild mammals on my property and am very concerned that this will have a significant impact on this, as I look into the years to come Our need to protect this, possibly one of our last bastions of wildlife preserves and pristine rural Nevada, is of the Utmost importance to our heritage and culture I therefore implore you to vote against this and to promote the perpetuation of our jewel of the Ruby Mountain Range, its adjoining Lamoille Valley. Sincerely, Erich Von Mattern MD A copy of the letter is on file with the application. Randy clarified that the uses there are no agriculture per NRS but ancillary agricultural uses. Mr. Negrych introduced himself. I have the following comments. I plan to subdivide this 44 acre parcel into two 10 acre parcels and one 24 acre parcel. The 24 acre parcel is incapable of being further subdivided because of existing improvements and it would just be impractical. I plan to live on this parcel. The 10 acre parcels will be probably used by my children for their retirement homes. This zone change will not adversely affect my neighbors at all. There is already a 10 acre parcel in this area. One of the persons against this change has a 10 acre parcel in this area. Commissioner Galyen asked if the mobile home is on the proposed 24 acre parcel. Mr. Negrych stated yes. Sharon Web stated she is co owner of the land with Eric Mattern. Where is the access for these ten acre parcels come from? Which road? We maintain Ridgeway Road entirely. John does not live year round on that parcel. Mr. Brown explained the access issue to the board with the record of survey map. Mr. Morley stated that a record of survey was all that was required back then for a Division of Land into Large Parcels similar to Western Hills. Even though there is no mention of dedication language on the record of survey it would seem to me that you would have to go back to check the statute at the time as top wether or not those were actually public accessed. They must be some sort of reciprocal access or the parcels down the road would have no access. I think that Mr. Nygrych s property lends itself if he chooses to, to build a road to service the two properties he is trying to create. There are 10 acre parcels in Western Hills that were created by parcel maps that use the Western Hills access. He is in a similar situation. If indeed he uses Ridgeway Road to access the parcels he is trying to create county code will require him to upgrade that road to a county standard, or build a new road to those parcels not using Ridgeway Road. Mr. Brown stated Ridgeway Road is a reciprocal easement. It gives the property owners that own the 11 parcels created at that time legal access. I can t say if subsequent parceling will be allowed legal access. That determination would be a court issue. Dr. John Dinsmore stated he owned the property directly to the east of the applicants parcel. The issue is that this proposed application will set a precedence. Six owners of the eight residents out here vehemently oppose the zoning change. The two remaining owners are the applicant and the