elko county planning commission...elko county planning commission meeting minutes april 19, 2012...

$: Elko County Planning Commission...Elko County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes April 19, 2012 Page 2 of 25 K:\P&Z - Planning Commission Records\DOCS, MINUTES\2012 YEAR\ECPC April$
Elko County Planning Commission Meeting Minutes April 19, 2012 Page 1 of 25

K:\P&Z - Planning Commission Records\DOCS, MINUTES\2012 YEAR\ECPC April 19, 2012 Minutes Draft.docx

Elko County Planning Commission

540 COURT STREET, SUITE 104, ELKO, NV 89801 PH. (775)738-6816, FAX (775) 738-4581

ELKO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

THURSDAY, APRIL 19, 2012

5:15 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Judd called the meeting of the Elko County Planning Commission to order at 5:15 PM on April 19, 2012 in suite 102 of the Nannini Administration Building, Elko, Nevada. ROLL CALL:

Members Present: Mike Judd, Chairman David A. Galyen, Vice Chairman Jack D. Larason Dena Hartley David Hough

Richard Genseal Norlene Wilson Absent :

Others Present: John Kingwell, Associate Planner Eleanor O’Donnell, Planning Administrator

Jennifer M. Spenser, District Attorney’s Office PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The pledge of allegiance was made. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 16, 2012 – Regular Meeting Minutes A clerical error was found in the minutes after they were approved at the March meeting. MOTION: Commissioner Galyen moved to approve the February 16, 2012 minutes with the corrections, Commissioner Hough seconded. Motion passed.



VOTE: AYE: Mike Judd

David A. Galyen Jack D. Larason David Hough

Richard Genseal Norlene Wilson

NAY: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Dena Hartley

March 15, 2012 – Regular Meeting Minutes MOTION: Commissioner Galyen moved to approve the March 15, 2012 minutes, seconded by Commissioner Larason. Motion approved. VOTE:

AYE: Mike Judd David A. Galyen Jack D. Larason David Hough

Richard Genseal Dena Hartley

NAY: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Norlene Wilson

COMMENTS BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC: None CONSENT AGENDA: None PRELIMINARY HEARINGS: 12-2000-0001, Khoury Leasing, LLC: A change of zoning request from Open Space to Commercial 1, Group II on 14.047 acres of a 37.392 acre parcel of land for a parking lot and other permitted and conditional uses within the zoning district.



A parcel of land located in Section 33, T. 34 N., R. 56 E., M.D.B.&M., Elko County, Nevada, Being a portion of that parcel as shown on the Record of Survey For Khoury Leasing, LLC on file in the Office of the Elko County Recorder, Elko, Nevada, as File No. 640603. General location is the Southwest corner of the intersection of S.R. 227 (Lamoille Hwy.) and S. R. 228 (Jiggs Hwy.) Owner and Applicant is Khoury Leasing, LLC. Staff Comments: Mr. Kingwell- this application is in order and the fee has been paid and it is ready to be moved forward to a public hearing May 17th. Public Comments: None MOTION: Commissioner Hartley made a motion to move application 12-2000-0001, Khoury Leasing, LLC to the May 17th meeting, seconded by Commissioner Galyen. Motion passed. VOTE:

AYE: Mike Judd David A. Galyen Jack D. Larason Dena Hartley David Hough


NAY: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS:

12-2000-0002, Jack D. Taylor and Kathleen A. Taylor as Trustees of the Jack D. and Kathleen A. Taylor Family Revocable Living Trust: A change of zoning request from Open Space to Agricultural Residential to create a 5.14-acre parcel of land for development of a single-family dwelling on a parcel of Land containing 5,237.93acres. Location is that entire Portion of the W ½ of Section 25, T.38 N., R.54 E., M.D.B.&M., lying Easterly of Nevada State Route 225. Applicant and Owner are Jack D. Taylor and Kathleen A. Taylor as Trustees of the Jack D. and Kathleen A. Taylor Family Revocable Living Trust.



Staff Comments: Mr. Kingwell- this application is in order and it is ready to be moved forward to a public hearing May 17th It is down along Taylor Canyon and is to create a residential parcel out of a larger ranch. Public comments: None MOTION: Commissioner Larason made a motion to move application 12-2000-0002, Jack D. Taylor and Kathleen A. Taylor as Trustees of the Jack D. and Kathleen A. Taylor Family Revocable Living Trust to the May 17th meeting, seconded by Commissioner Hartley, motion passed. VOTE:




PUBLIC HEARINGS: 12-4000-0001, Complete Wireless Consulting for Verizon Wireless: A conditional use permit for collocation of six (6) antennas, onto an existing one hundred ninety foot (190’) monopole tower, a twelve foot (12’) by sixteen foot (16’) equipment shelter and a two hundred ten (210) gallon fuel tank and generator. Requested for future use are an additional six (6) future antennas and two (2) micro wave dishes.

Located in an Open Space zoned district within Section 5, Township 38 North, Range 69 East, M.D.B.&M., Elko County, Nevada. Physical address is 484 Pilot Valley Road.

Applicant is Complete Wireless Consulting for Verizon Wireless.

Owner is Ronald Watson, S. ETAL. Staff Report – the staff report was read by Mr. Kingwell. (a copy may be obtained at the Elko County Planning & Zoning Department.)

Commissioner Hartley- they are applying for the conditional use for those 3 things but also for future antennas and microwave dishes without having to come back before this board.



Mr. Kingwell- they can bring them to us to be reviewed, if there are modifications that need to be made to the lease or buildings that need permits that we asked that it be looked as a conditional use. Commissioner Hartley- the future use of 6 antennas and 2 microwave dishes, they won’t have to come back to us. Mr. Kingwell- in the staff report page 2 of 8 “Applicant is requesting to add six (6) additional antennas at this time with future additions of six (6) antennas and two (2) microwave dishes.” Commissioner Hough- under this conditional use permit the 6 antennas being requested, but if in the future, more antennas can be added with a conditional use. Mr. Kingwell- or a review. The application reads, at this pole location, six proposed antennas, six future antennas and two future microwave dishes. Six antennas now and six future antennas and 2 microwave dishes mounted on that pole. If we approve it this way, they will not need to come back before the board. The engineering is there for the pole to support it. At a 60 foot by 60 foot leased property size, there is plenty of room. Public Comments Andrew Lesa (Complete Wireless on behalf of Verizon Wireless)- The application reads 6 proposed antennas with 6 future antennas and 2 future microwave dishes. Verizon Wireless would like to amend it to read 9 proposed antennas with 3 additional future antennas. The purpose of the future antennas is any kind of change in technology or type of service would require an additional antenna. When looking at antenna placement on the towers they are placed in 3 sectors. Each sector is pointing in a different direction, to cover the area it is directed towards, each sector can hold up to 4 antennas and when moving forward with conditional use permits the attempt is to permit up to the maximum amount of antennas that that sector could hold for future build out or changes. In this instance, there were some minor changes recently for the request 3 antennas per section for a total of 9 antennas with the possibility of 3 future antennas at a later point. The main purpose of this tower is to provide coverage for Montello as wells as along Highway 233. Currently this area has minimal to no coverage for Verizon Wireless customers. Verizon Wireless is maintaining a strong customer base in Nevada and is expanding their coverage to insure that they provide the safety and needs for its customers, presently this are is suffering from the lack of coverage. This proposal minimal aesthetically as far as the impact it will have on the county because it is pole locating on an existing facility. Commissioner Genseal- what is the difference between asking for the 12 now vs. 9 now and 3 in the future. Mr. Lesa- the difference is proposing 9 then move forward to the building department with the construction drawings showing 9 antennas being installed on the tower , the 3 future antennas won’t be installed currently. If the application had 12 proposed antennas, there would be an implication that all 12 would be installed and that is not the case. Commissioner Genseal- why don’t just ask for the 9 now and come back in the future and ask for the additional 3.



Mr. Lesa- the review process would require an additional conditional use permit if we don’t request them concurrently. By requesting the future antennas as well so the board has the chance to review the potential build out of the site all at once under the conditional use permit and then when the need for the future antennas arise it would go before the planning staff as an administrative review. Mr. Kingwell- It would be just an administrative review. You are not planning to apply for the building permits for the additional 3 at this time, correct. Mr. Lesa- anything that is described as future would not be on the building permit. At a later time for the future antennas go back, do an additional planning review, and apply for a separate building permit. Mr. Judd- instead of 6 antennas you are requesting 9,and instead of 6 future it would only be 3. Mr. Lesa- yes, we are asking to have that changed to reflect 9 proposed and 3 future. Commissioner Hartley- how can we amend the application to add to the 3 antennas Mr. Kingwell- we can add it under the staff recommendations, item F and change the numbers. Commissioner Hartley- what is the fee for filing for the conditional use Mr. Kingwell- $450, the tower itself is structurally able to handle the intended. In this case when they come back in the future for the 3 it would be at the staff level. Commissioner Hartley- what size are the dishes and antennas? Mr. Lesa- until there is a need for that we would not know the exact size. The point of a future microwave dish in case of another tower going up in the future that doesn’t have Telco available for it, it can supplement the lack of Telco from another site. If another site is put up in the county or adjacent, county that doesn’t have the Telco lines for support a microwave dish on this site to shoot to the other facility in order to allow it to communicate properly. Until there is a need for that we wouldn’t know the size or required centerline on the tower. The range is from 2 feet to an 8 foot dish. Commissioner Hartley- how many sectors do these poles have? Mr. Lesa- there are 3 sectors, the mono pole will be one single pole, which is existing, each sector is pointed in a different direction, typically there are up to 4 antennas per sector, making the total of 12 antennas. Commissioner Larason- it is fair to say that trying to streamline the process and not having to come back here spending money again and basically wasting time for something that is going to be the same as what you have already put up. Mr. Lesa- effectively allowing the board to take a look at the entire project it’s at full capacity, and make it quicker and smoother to just allow staff to review it. Mr. Kingwell- are the microwave dishes on top of the 9 proposed and 3 future antennas? Mr. Lesa- on top of the antennas, additionally 2 future microwave dishes. 9 antennas now with 3 future antennas and 2 future microwave dishes. Commissioner Wilson- you don’t see the need for more than the 2 microwave dishes in the future? Mr. Lesa- not typically and if the need does arise that would be brought before the commission. Additional I would like to request a change of 12 months instead of 6 months to establish use or to begin construction, typically it can take a longer period to get through lease negotiations and building departments. Mr. Kingwell- there is no problem with that period, it is beneficial to give 12 months instead of having them come back before the board, there is one that the conditional use has expired on for next month.



Public comments closed. Commissioner Galyen- is staff going to give additional conditional recommendations on their report. Mr. Kingwell- have it clarified in the motion stating within in the motion that this is for 9 antennas at this time with 3 future antennas and 2 future microwave dishes and another item G- extending to a 12 month period of time to get the work started. MOTION: made by Commissioner Hough to approve 12-4000-0001, Complete Wireless Consulting for Verizon Wireless subject to staff recommendations a-e and include item F to modify staff report to include 9 antennas with the addition of 3 antennas and 2 microwave dishes in the future and item G to extend the time to complete this to 12 months. Larason seconded, motion passed. VOTE:




WORKSHOP, SPRING CREEK LAMOILLE MASTER PLAN: 11-1200-0001, Spring Creek Lamoille Master Plan Workshop, The 5th of a series of public hearings to review/amend the Spring Creek / Lamoille Master Plan, Phase I through Phase IV. The review and/or amendments of Master Plan and all public hearings are to be conducted as per N.R.S. 278.150 through 278.260 inclusive. Mr. Kingwell- RAM Enterprises Inc. would like to rezone their property located where the old Culley gravel pit is.



They are asking for a designation not a zone change. Taking the industrial zoning from the property, the gravel pit is mined out and it is an advantage to the Master Plan to take the industrial out and change it to R1 and R2 zones. Public comments Donna Moore (Remax Gold)- planning on bringing in a full apartment complex, lots in R1 planning on 16,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet. Targeting a different market. It is close to the school and the multifamily is really needed out there. Commissioner Larason- some of them are going to be multifamily dwellings. Ms. Moore- along the side it will be all multifamily, the plan is to put in the roads and water and then sell the lots to different builders to build there with stipulations and guidelines. Commissioner Larason- being the lots will be sold to future builders we will not know if they will be duplex, or 8-plexes or what will be built. Ms. Moore- in the multifamily there will be but in the R1 it will be simply single dwelling homes. Commissioner Hartley- how many acres is this parcel? Ms. Moore- 84.59 acres. Commissioner Hartley- how many acres are proposed for multifamily? Ms. Moore- they did not give me an accurate number yet until it is surveyed. It will be about 25 acres 25 – 30 % of the parcel for multifamily. Mr. Kingwell- that strip is about 400 feet wide through there. Chairman Judd- the plan is to get a zoning change, put CC&Rs on what they can do and then sell off to various builders? Ms. Moore- it will be something similar to Hamilton Stage area where various builders have to follow the same CC&Rs, but the lots won’t be as big. Chairman Judd- expressed a concern what if we pass this and the only thing built is the multi family and then later on a subdivider comes and wants to put more multifamily on the rest of the land. Mr. Kingwell- at this time we are only looking at designations and the best future use of the land. When the actually want to do the zone change that is when all of the requirements will come in, right now this is just a designation to remove the M1 from the area. Commissioner Hartley- Redstone will be proposing to do the multifamily in the first phase. How much area is in the area that is industrial or M1? That is a large parcel to take the industrial zoning out of the equation for future development down the road. How many other parcels are zoned industrial so that we are not actually taking a significant portion of the industrial away. Mr. Kingwell- actually as we get into the review of the Master Plan there are some industrial numbers. Mr. Kingwell- there are 521 acres for total industrial acres within the Spring Creek/Lamoille Master Plan and 1,135 possible units for light industrial and M1 uses. Commissioner Hartley- is this 84 acres included in the 521 acres? Mr. Kingwell- yes, but we are removing something that is no longer viable. Mr. Brown (Director of planning and zoning)- there is a need for industrial but not in this area, this is an area that we have been trying to eliminate for many years. The Ruby Mountain Industrial Park is General 1 industrial but it is also limited to light industrial uses. This area was basically spot zoned in the 1980’s, they haven’t been developed and won’t be developed because



we don’t have the infrastructure available for transportation. The types of uses fits better with the area there is a school and a fire station right there, that don’t fit well with industrial. Addressing Chairman Judd’s question this type of development happens all of the time, that is why we have the master plan to designate areas. We want to designate the one area as Residential 2 (multifamily) remainder as Residential 1, which would be larger lots. Lots will not get down to 6,000 square foot, actually not down to 16,000 square feet, it will be somewhere around ½ acre. It doesn’t matter what they want it will depend on what the regulations will allow. If they manager to get service from Spring Creek Utilities that still requires them to have a minimum of ½ acre size parcel to develop septic. They are not going to get to the densities that Brentwood did because the statutes have changed. When Brentwood was first created they got water from Spring Creek Utilities and allowed to go down to ¼ acre parcels, the regulations as it is now are ½ acre, Unless they develop a large scale septic system, such as Redstone. It was suggested to them to talk to Redstone to cooperate with them to go online with their septic system. This is something we have been trying to accomplish in this specific area for awhile, trying to get rid of the industrial right in the middle of the residential area, the best use of the area would be the R1 and R2 or possibly light commercial. The R1 and R2 fit very well and will allow the future to expand in that area in accordance with the way it is right now. Commissioner Hartley- I am not a fan of having industrial around residential properties or schools, I just wanted to know how much acreage is zoned for industrial. Mr. Brown- One of the things to look for is that it hasn’t been used. The area is growing, we have talked about moderate income housing is needed. Commissioner Larason- this comes at an opportune time the mines are calling for multi dwelling units for their employees, there are no places for their employees. Mr. Brown- Commissioner Larason is right people want to move here and work but they don’t not necessarily want to buy a house to start here, the first thing people ask about is apartments. This type of development is prime for this area, at this point in time. As more people become familiar with the area and want to live here then they start buying the houses. I like the R1 between the school and the industrial area and the R2. Commissioner Hartley- once the master plan is approved and designated the two zonings right now they would have to come back before this board to expand the R1. Commissioner Galyen- if this is changed in the master plan and a developer is not asking for a zoning change is the County assuming any liability for Licht Parkway improvements in the future. Mr. Kingwell- the zoning would remain M1 until a zoning change is applied for. We are just showing the best use for that property, we are not changing the zoning at this time. MOTION: Commissioner made a motion to change the designation from M1 –Industrial to R1 and R2 in the discussed area, seconded by Commissioner Larason. Motion passed.



VOTE: AYE: Mike Judd

David A. Galyen Jack D. Larason Dena Hartley David Hough



Mr. Kingwell went over the changes being made to the Spring Creek/Lamoille Master Plan where we left off page 47. 6:20:50 PM Judd left the meeting 6:23:15 PM Judd returned to the meeting. Reminder Strike out is to be omitted. Red is what has been added. Blue needs to be updated. Spring Creek/Lamoille Master Plan Agricultural and Residential Density Totals The density totals shown represent Open - Space, Agricultural - Residential, R-1, R-2, and Special Lands zoning designations. These densities represent A-R 1.0 min. parcel, AR-CRD 1, 2.5 acre min. parcel, and AR-CRD 2, 5.0 acre min. parcel. In addition they represent Special Lands with a 10.00 acre min. parcel size and with 20.00 acre min. parcel size. A-R Designations, 1.0 acre…………..9,785 (2012)…...9,425 (2005) AR-CRD 1 Designations, 2.5 acres….4,222 (2012)……4,030 (2005) AR-CRD 2 Designations, 5.0 acres….2,101 (2012)……2,100 (2005) SL Designations, 10.0 acres…………1,426 (2012)…....1,490 (2005) SL Designations, 20.0 acre min……...688 (2012)…......720 (2005) OS Zoned, Existing…………………..213 (2012)……...225 (2005) R-1 Designations…………………….1,720 (2012)…….1,525 (2005) R-2 Designations…………………….305 (2012)………305 (2005) Total Densities Master Plan Total Units: A-R Zoned and Designated, 1.0 acre…………..13,334 (2012)…... 12,970 (2005)



AR-CRD 1 Zoned and Designated, 2.5 acres….7,770 (2012)….… 7,575 (2005) AR-CRD 2 Zoned and Designated, 5.0 acres….5,646 (2012)….… 5,645 (2005) (b) 12,200 6,805 4,875 (a) (1) 12,970 (2) 7,575 (3) 5,645 (Revised 2012)+3 (b) 12,200 6,805 4,875+3 Total Population (a) (1) 45,395 (2) 26,513 (3) 19,758 (2005) (b) 42,700 23,818 17,063 (a) (1) 45,395 (2) 26,513 (3) 19,758 (Revised 2012) (b) 42,700 23,818 17,063

“Spring Creek” Commercial District Designations Commercial designations are represented in the Spring Creek / Lamoille Master Plan in several locations along the Lamoille Highway corridor. These areas are restricted to no more than one access to the Lamoille Highway per area with secondary collector streets required for development. This would allow for the traffic on Lamoille Highway to maintain a speed of between 45 MPH and 55 MPH. Roundabout intersections, turning lanes and/or slow down lanes may be required, by the Nevada Department of Transportation. Exceptions to the secondary access would be areas designated Commercial at existing intersections within the Spring Creek Subdivision as well as the Town of Lamoille area. (Revised 2012) The master plan does not designate C-1, C-2, or C-3, zoning. The implementation of commercial uses will be examined by the Planning Commission as to the classification and use on a "case by case" basis. At present four areas are zoned Commercial with primarily uses for the development of "Retail Sale" type of businesses. The addition of commercial zones along the corridor would allow for the expansion of more service oriented businesses and retail sales businesses to be located in the Spring Creek / Lamoille Area. Commercial Designations located in Sections 2, 3, and 10 Township 33 North, Range 56 East, (Phase I) begin and terminate utilize the shown " Zone C" flood plain as a buffer between residential uses and the Lamoille Highway. Interior commercial designations lying within the proposed Redstone Development are located Adjacent to Residential-1 and Residential-2 designations. This designation was to create a buffer zone between Commercial and Residential Uses. This also restricts the development of Commercial and Residential areas within the Flood Zone. A two hundred foot no build zone is shown between Agricultural - Residential and Commercial districts where applicable within the plan. This zone would provide a buffer zone



between commercial and residential areas. (Revised 2012) Commercial Designations shown are located at proposed or existing intersections of primary collector streets. This was done to help protect the useable traffic speed of the Lamoille Highway. 1) The (2006 Plan as Revised) depicts the re-alignment of two major collector roads. The realignment planning creates easier access to and from the commercial and residential areas. The two roads are Trescartes Ave. and Corral Lane. The relocation of Corral Lane would create an intersection with the entrance to the Spring Creek High School and Lamoille Highway. The creation of this intersection may warrant the use of Electric Traffic Control Devices as indicated by the Nevada Department of Transportation. (2005) 2) The (2012 Plan as Revised) depicts the abandonment of aligning Corral Lane with the front of the Spring Creek High School due partly to difficulties with construction within the flood plain and the ability to locate to the more favorable location of alignment with Boyd Kennedy Road which met with approvals from area residents, businesses, the Elko County School District and the Nevada Department of Transportation. An extension of the Corral Lane Roadway to the frontage of Lamoille Highway in alignment with Boyd Kennedy Road is planned for a Round-About controlled intersection. The intersection will collect traffic from business, residential areas and churches both present and future, the Spring Creek Schools and the proposed Redstone Ranch. The collection of "High", "Middle", and "Grammar School" traffic will alleviate the problems associated with merging busses and vehicle traffic across travel lanes on Lamoille Highway. A right hand turning movement for ingress and egress from the southeast travel direction is planned for the High School frontage. All other turning movements will be controlled by the Round-About intersection. The construction of Trescartes Ave. would allow for a secondary access to the Spring Creek 200 Tracts, as well as a primary access for the proposed Commercial development shown. A Traffic control for this intersection will be at the discretion of the Nevada Department of Transportation. The frontage road, Kennedy Avenue is planned along the northerly boundary of the Commercial district to provides access to Valley Vista Acres to the west and Boyd-Kennedy Road to the east. This will restrict the use of Boyd-Kennedy Road along the Sage Elementary School area owned by the Elko School District. (Revised 2012) Maximum Commercial Densities The Densities calculated are based on 10,000 s.f. per building site. The approximate area of Commercial designations is 520 acres as (Revised 2012) / 520 acres (2005). The total Commercial densities created by Commercial Designation in Phase I would be as follows: (Revised 2012) Commercial 10,000 s.f. - 1,586 possible additional sites (2005) Commercial 10,000 s.f. - 1,586 possible additional sites As stated above, this density relates to the maximum number of units represented by the use of a



100'x 100' parcel. It also excludes the development criteria and street construction requirements that may effect affect the minimum parcel size. In many cases, this the 10,000 s.f. parcel size parcel will not be sufficient to allow for required off-street parking. A minimum of 1 parking space per 400 s.f. of floor space is required as per Elko County Zoning Ordinances. This standard is a minimum for general Commercial and this increases to 1 unit per 300 s.f. for C-1 group 2, C-2, and C-3 zoning designations. Commercial Review The development of new commercial zones shall also be reviewed on a case by case basis by the Planning Commission. As development of these areas takes place, the commercial standards included in the Elko County Codes shall be adhered to with each development. These uses should be well defined as per Elko County Code and possibly the adoption of an additional Zoning Designation. These uses should also be required to conform to U.B.C. standards for commercial buildings as well as Elko County Commercial development criteria. The Commercial (restricted use) area shown as the frontage of Valley Vista Acres Subdivision. This area is restricted to allow for the use of service oriented businesses that create low vehicular and pedestrian traffic flow such as Office Space for: Income Tax Preparation, Real Estate Office, Business Office for Construction Companies, Accountants, Travel Agency, Civil Engineering / Surveying Company, Architects, etc. Currently a small one lot area at the intersection of Lamoille Highway and Spring Creek Parkway is zoned Commercial - 1, this area is restricted to the use of an existing Real-Estate Office. The 2005 Elko County Planning Commission review of the Spring Creek area designated the intersection of the Spring Creek Parkway, Light Parkway as Commercial. The intersection of Spring Creek Parkway, Palace Parkway and Lamoille Highway were also designated as Commercial. However the Plan was adopted in 2005 by the Elko County Commission without the Commercial designations on these Spring Creek properties due to overwhelming protest by Spring Creek property owners. There are currently two Commercial designated areas located on SR 228 within Sections 8 & 17 of T. 33N., R.56 E. of the Old LDS Ranch which are undeveloped. Within the proposed Redstone Ranch Development there are three Commercially designated areas located within Sec. 3 of T. 33N., R.56 E. Industrial District Designations

(Redstone ?)



The Industrial Zones shown in the Spring Creek / Lamoille Master Plan are primarily existing zoning. Additionally approximately 250 acres (Revised 2012) / (250 acres 2005) has been designated for new Industrial Zoning. The new designations are primarily for the development of Gravel mining. Approximately 20 acres (Revised 2012) / (20 acres 2005) of the new designation is for the use of M-1 type business with a dual zoning of Agricultural-Residential on the same Parcel. The existing zoning includes an Industrial Subdivision, Ruby Mountain Industrial Subdivision. The uses of the subdivision fall into the M-1 General Industrial uses. A large portion of the existing Industrial uses are for the mining of gravel. The other uses for the Industrial Zones are for the location of Construction Companies including storage of equipment and building materials, Propane Gas storage and distribution, Recycling facility, Storage for various types of equipment including automobiles and Freeport Storage Building. The development of the Industrial areas is becoming imperative to the continued development of Residential areas. The development of theses industrial zones are not always popular in the public view. Due to the location of many of the zones adjacent to existing Residential areas, the use of the zones can be controlled if reviewed by the Planning Commission during the Re-Zone or Conditional Use application process. Areas of concern expressed during the 2005 public input process were the expansion of the Rabe Trust Gravel Pit. The designation of an additional 80 acres was contingent upon the reclamation of the original gravel mining operation prior to any future development. Designations of two separate Sustacha mining operations were made along the Lamoille Highway. These designations were for the development and operation of Gravel Mining for the continued development of the Lamoille Highway as well as residential development. During the Public meeting process these designations were discussed extensively as to the need and value of the proposed operation of the Gravel Mines. The Elko County Planning Commission granted the designation on the grounds that the operation is needed for the continued growth and expansion of the Master Plan Area. The other areas in the Plan lay within the proposed Redstone Development Project along the west side of SR 227 near the Lower Lamoille Road (CR 706) Industrial Densities The Densities calculated are based on 20,000 s.f. building site. The approximate area of Industrial and Light Industrial designations is as follows: (2012) 505 acres (2005) 505 acres The total Industrial and Lt. Industrial densities created by Industrial Designation in the Master Plan area, would be as follows:



(2012) M-1 Industrial 20,000 s.f. - 1,100 possible units (2005) M-1 Industrial 20,000 s.f. - 1,100 possible units As stated above, this density relates to the maximum number of units represented by the use of a 141'x 141' parcel. It also excludes the development criteria and street construction requirements that may affect the minimum parcel size. In many cases this size parcel will not be sufficient to allow for required off-street parking that a developer must create. As outlined "per use" in the Elko County Zoning Ordinances. Public District Designations Three Public Areas exist within the Spring Creek / Lamoille Master Plan for education purposes. They are occupied by the Spring Creek High School, Spring Creek Middle School, Spring Creek Elementary and Sage Elementary Schools. Within the proposed Redstone Development, public areas have been set aside for a water treatment plant, future school, fire station, and other public facilities. These public areas are located within Sections 3 and 4, Township 33 North, Range 56 East. The Spring Creek Land Fill is one other public area in the Spring Creek / Lamoille Master Plan which is no longer active. (Revised 2012) No additional Public Area has been specifically designated within the Spring Creek / Lamoille Master Plan Area, however additional Public Areas should be provided as part of future development. This Designation should be treated as an area that may be created exclusive of any Master Plan as the need presents itself for additional Schools or Public facilities. The Elko County School District and Elko County should have the authority to add areas that may be required to develop School and Government Facilities as community development occurs. As development occurs within the Master Plan area, considerations should be given to the development of Public Parks. This development would be administered by the Elko County Planning and Zoning Department during subdivision review process. Elko County currently owns two properties within the Master Plan area. Elko County owns and maintains the property located south of and adjacent to the North Eastern Nevada Regional Hospital. The property is currently leased by two separate non-profit organizations for recreation, Summit Raceway and the Elko Archery Club. Land is available for future recreational development. The second property is located across from Valley Vista Estates and has been designated solely for recreation purposes by the Elko County Board of Commissioners. This property is available for development of recreational purposes to the Spring Creek / Lamoille communities.



Proposed New Roads, Road Re-Alignments, & Road Up-Grades

The improvements proposed within the Spring Creek / Lamoille Master Plan are an attempt to maintain the traffic speed of the Lamoille Highway at 45-55 MPH. One idea that has been presented was to limit the access directly to the Lamoille Highway from major and minor collectors. In order to achieve this, access to Lamoille Highway must be limited. A major collector that was discussed was Corral Lane. This road is currently the only access to Area West Development from the Lamoille Highway. The future plan is to re-align this road to intersect with the Lamoille Highway at the access drive to the Spring Creek High School. This would possibly create the need for a traffic light to be established. (2012) The (2012 Plan as Revised) depicts the abandonment of aligning Corral Lane with the front of the Spring Creek High School due partly to difficulties with construction within the flood plain and the ability to locate to the more favorable location of alignment with Boyd Kennedy Road which met with approvals from area residents, businesses, the Elko County School District and the Nevada Department of Transportation. An extension of the Corral Lane Roadway to the frontage of Lamoille Highway in alignment with Boyd Kennedy Road is planned for a Round-About controlled intersection. The intersection will collect traffic from business, residential areas and churches both present and future, the Spring Creek Schools and the proposed Redstone Ranch. The collection of "High", "Middle", and "Grammar School" traffic will alleviate the problems associated with merging busses and vehicle traffic across travel lanes on Lamoille Highway. A right hand turning movement for ingress and egress from the southeast travel direction is planned for the High School frontage. All other turning movements will be controlled by the Round-About intersection. (2012) Another Major Collector that was discussed in the development of the (2006 Plan) was Trescartes Avenue. This road currently accesses to Lamoille Highway by way of the frontage road. The Future plan for this road is to become the primary access for Valley Vista Estates as well as the secondary access for the Spring Creek 200 Tracts Mobile Home Section. The plan is to improve this road for access to future development of the Gustin Commercial and Lt. Industrial property, providing primary access to commercial development. The Gustin Commercial and Light Industrial properties now have primary accesses by both Kennedy Avenue and Trescartes Avenue. (2012) Trescartes Avenue would access to a frontage road directly south of Valley Vista connecting the west with Martin Avenue. Kennedy Avenue is developed and connects Trescartes and Boyd Kennedy Road. The road would also be developed to the east to connect with Boyd-Kennedy Road. The development of this new road would restrict the use of Boyd-Kennedy road to the frontage of the Sage Elementary School. The Boyd Kennedy Road accesses Lamoille Highway currently and is a proposed Round-About controlled intersection. (2012)



The Existing Martin Avenue that currently accesses Lamoille Highway at some point in time would be excluded from access to Lamoille Highway. This would be necessary to accommodate the use of an Electric Traffic Control Device at the intersection of Trescartes Avenue and Lamoille Highway. All of this development would be introduced at the time deemed necessary and contingent to development of the Gustin Commercial and Light Industrial property. Other proposed concepts were to provide a second access from the City of Elko to the Spring Creek, Lamoille area. This concept presented several problems as to the actual alignment of a second "Highway". The Planning Commission is unable to address this problem of future access to the area due to the lack of funds and the lack of a feasible alignment of any proposed highway. A second access road or highway between the City of Elko and the Spring Creek / Lamoille area must be provided in the future. This access road, while not specifically identified in the Spring Creek / Lamoille Master Plan, shall be addressed as development extends towards Elko City. “2005" Secondary access between the City of Elko and Spring Creek / Lamoille. The Regional Transportation Commission has researched and developed three specific potential roads for development of the “Secondary Access” as follows: 1) Burner Basin Road: this road is identified on the Master Plan maps. The Burner Basin Roads would provide all weather access to and through a residential area that is currently very difficult to reach. Development of this road will permit for feasible residential development of approximately 300 Agriculture - Residential Lots. The development of these roads is potentially the most viable method of secondary access due to its potential for future development to include access to the Spring Creek 100, 300, and 400 Tracts Housing Sections and the Town of Lamoille via Lower Lamoille Road and Hog Tommy Road. 2) KRL / Spring Creek Tracts 201 & 202 to the City of Elko: This road is identified on the Master Plan maps. The development of this particular road could provide an emergency access corridor to and from the 200 Tracts of the Spring Creek subdivision Mobile Home Section and Elko. Daily use of this road would be most feasible by the private property owners of the specific area due to the limited access it will have to other major collectors. 3) Hamilton Stage road from the upper SouthFork area to the City of Elko Errecart Boulevard fronting the Northern Nevada Regional Hospital: This road is identified on the Master Plan maps. The development of this particular road could provide an emergency access corridor to and from South Fork / Spring Creek and Elko. Daily use of this road would be most feasible by the private property owners of the specific area due to the limited access it will have to other major collectors.

Elko County Zoning Regulations: (Appendix VII)

Chapter 4 of the Elko County Codes, Zoning regulations are applicable to all Zoning Change,


INUTES\2012 YEAR\ECPC April 19, 2012 Minutes Draft.docx K:\P&Z - Planning Commission Records\DOCS, M

Conditional Use, and Variance applications within the Spring Creek / Lamoille Master Plan area as well as Elko County in general. The intent of this document does not waiver from applicable Elko County Code nor is it intended to change any applicable Elko County Code in effect on the day of its acceptance. This Master Plan document shall conform to any and all Zoning Code, Subdivision Code, and any other applicable Elko County Code, current or future. A copy of the Zoning Regulations and Subdivision Regulations can be acquired in detail from the Elko County Planning and Zoning Department at 540 Court Street, Suite 104, Elko Nevada. Spring Creek / Lamoille / Ruby Mountains “2012” Spring Creek / Lamoille Master Plan Review and Revisions The 2012 review of the Spring Creek / Lamoille Master Plan began in November 2011 by the Elko County Planning & Zoning Division. The Planning & Zoning Division prepared 2012 year inventories, population estimates and projections. A minimum of three public hearings were schedule before the Elko County Planning Commission. “2012” Plan Revision Proposals: 1) Master Plan Boundaries, changes to: a) Plan area 4 to include the S1/2; S1/2N1/2 Section 28, T. 34N., R. 55E. Concept discussed and reviewed ( ), 2012.

( ) made a motion to approve changes to Master Plan Boundaries, second by ( ), the vote was ( ) yes – ( ) no “Motion ( )”. 2) Jordanelle Development Concept discussed and reviewed ( ), 2012.

( ) made a motion to approve changes to Master Plan, second by ( ), the vote was ( ) yes – ( ) no “Motion ( )”. 3) Redstone Development



Concept discu

tion to approve changes to Master Plan, second by ( ), the vote was ( ) yes – ( ) otion

)”.

nd potential density increases. Reviewed ( ), 2012.

Review existing designations and impacts. Reviewed ( ), 2012.

ct.

thing like that. here.

ommissioner Hartley- I can look into that and let you know.

lready reviewed.

he numbers on page 57-66 will all be updated with the new designations decided tonight.

ublic Comments– no comments

nd unty Commissioners, seconded by

ommissioner Hartley. Motion passed unanimously.

VOTE: AYE:

n

AY:

BSENT:

ABSTENTIONS:

ssed and reviewed ( ), 2012.

( ) made a mono “M( 4) Review current inventories a 5) Mr. Kingwell- Spring Creek has named the tracts now, correCommissioner Hartley- yes but they are not formal names. Commissioner Galyen- they are not going to change the by-laws or anyMr. Kingwell- was there an interest in including those names inC The legal descriptions have been aCulley pit location will be added. T P MOTION: Commissioner Larason moved to approve the changes from page 45 to the eof the document and recommend approval to the CoC

Mike Judd David A. Galyen Jack D. LarasoDena Hartley David Hough

Richard Genseal Norlene WilsonN A

6:37:12 PM Recess 6:44:11 PM Reconvene

iscussion on the maps and the preliminary actions.

D



gnment of commercial districts to coincide with realignment of Boyd-Kennedy

er ill be controlled through the roundabout eliminating cross traffic

an at

dditional input given. Commissioner Larason seconded. The motion passed unanimously.

ith the additions added tonight to area 1 the designations of R2 and R1.

mission eeting of 2012, Commissioner Hough seconded. The motion passed unanimously.

VOTE: AYE:

n

AY:

BSENT:

ABSTENTIONS:

Area II were the Forsberg parcel, action taken was an update to show that urrent zoning.

moille Master Plan. econded by Commissioner Galyen. Motion passed unanimously.

I the Forsberg parcel, seconded by Commissioner Larason.

otion passed unanimously.

Plan Area I January 19, 2012 preliminary action taken to approve Plan Area I:

a)review and changes to Redstone development and proposed round a bout b) realiRoad c) Kennedy Ave and Trescartes connect to Boyd-Kennedy Road d) right hand turn movement restrictions proposed for Spring Creek High School all othturning movements wturning movements.

Commissioner Galyen moved to approve Phase I of the Spring Creek/Lamoille Master Plthis time with the amendments that have been made through previous meetings; with no a W MOTION: Commissioner Larason approved the Plan Area I also known as Phase I with the additions of e) with the additional change made at the April 19th Planning Comm



Plan Area II Changes to Planc Commissioner Larason made a motion to accept any changes that have been made during previous meetings up to this date for Phase II of the Spring Creek/LaS MOTION: Commissioner Hartley moved to approve Plan Area II also known as Phase Iwith changes made includingM



VOTE: AYE:

n

AY:

BSENT:

ABSTENTIONS:

lan Area III

I with no changes, seconded by Commissioner Wilson. Motion passed unanimously. VOTE:

AYE:

n

AY:

BSENT:

ABSTENTIONS:

lan Area IV

g agriculture residential zoning within the S ½ , S½ N ½

undary of Section 33

icting the boundary change of the 500 foot strip along the entire west

f agriculture residential on a

Section 33 T34N R55E ) Changes in the map to show the ARCD1 designation.



P MOTION: Commissioner Hartley made a motion to approve Plan Area III also known as Phase II



P The main changes were the changes made for the Jordenelle development. a) Changes to the boundary including the S ½ , S ½ N ½ Section 28 T34N R55E. b) Changes to the map show the existinof Section 28 Section 28 T34N R55E. c) Change to the boundary was a 500 strip of land along the entire west bohas been conveyed to the city of Elko to meet infiltration pond setbacks. d) Change to the map depboundary of Section 33. e) Change of designation to Section 33 T34N R55E, designation o88.18 acre parcel of land located within Section 33 T34N R55E. f) Designation of ARCD 1 on approximately 488 acres ing



at map as presented at this time seconded Commissioner Hough. Motion passed

nanimously.

er a strip of land to the county within the flood lan for public uses as far parks and recreation.

age 55 & 56 of the report, seconded by Commissioner . Motion passed unanimously.

VOTE: AYE:

n

AY:

BSENT:

ABSTENTIONS:

oille

ion for approval, seconded by Commissioner Hartley. Motion passed sly.

VOTE: AYE:

n

AY:

BSENT:

ABSTENTIONS:

Commissioner Larason moved based upon the information we have received tonight and the pending the change on the buffer zone and the activity of the City of Elko and related parties thwe approve theu Mr. Brown – the owner/developer is going to offp MOTION: Commissioner Hartley made a motion to approve Plan Area IV also known as Phase IV with all the changes a-g on pLarason



MOTION: Commissioner Hough made a motion to accept the Spring Creek/LamMaster Plan as written and forward it to the Elko County Commissioners with a recommendatunanimou





THER BUSINESS:

one

TAFF AND COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS:

tself has been specifically included on a successive genda and identified to be an action item.

ommissioner Galyen asked to be excused for next month’s meeting.

ommissioner Hartley wanted to say welcome to the board to Commissioner Wilson.

OMMENTS BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC:

o Comments

eeting adjourned at 7:02:21 PM

O N S This time is devoted to comments by Elko County Planning Commissioners and/or County Staff for general information or update purposes. No action may be taken upon a matter raised under this item of the agenda until the matter ia C C C N M .

inutes Clerk: Eleanor O’Donnell

M

ate Approved: May 17, 2012 D

elko county planning commission...elko county planning commission meeting minutes april 19, 2012...

Documents