September 15, 2021

Commissioner Carbone

= Assessor Parcel Number = Business Development Area = Board of County Commissioners Capital Improvement Plan = Conditional Use Permit = Federal Emergency Management Agency = General Commercial = Manufactured Home = Nye County Code = Nevada Revised Statues = Pahrump Regional Planning District = Public Works = Right-of-Way = Regional Planning Commission = Single-Family Residential = Zone Change are requested to limit comments to items not on the agenda.)

Commissioner Lee

stated she turned in a few minor technical corrections to staff. Public comment opened and closed at 6:04 pm with no comments.

Mr. Waggoner

reviewed the staff report and stated the applicant is proposing is to install a 28.6 ft tall sign with multi-tenant space. After review and based on staff's findings they are recommending denial of the application. It doesn’t meet any findings that staff are required to make to support the request.

Commissioner Meredith

asked if any residents knew that this was proposed.

Mr. Waggoner

stated yes notices were sent out and only one was received in opposition. It was received late, and he would like it accepted into the back up. Page 2 of 11

Commissioner Turner

asked if anyone could point out the transmission lines on the site map.

Commissioner Lee

stated they are at the edge of the ROW.

Ms. Black

stated they are along the green fence on the map. The sign is at the end of the driveway by the block wall.

Commissioner Turner

asked if they would have a small sign at the entrance of Clubhouse Road?

Ms. Black

stated no, it is too congested with the power lines. They originally tried to put it there but there is too much going on. Mt. Falis has a sign there, but it isn’t big, it is just a wall. She also has a letter from Scott Swapp

Commissioner Curtis

asked for clarification that the applicant stated they will have a restaurant.

Ms. Black

stated the front part of the property will have the gas station and she would like a restaurant to come in on the back half.

Commissioner Turner

asked if it would be inside the gas station.

Ms. Black

stated no, it will be free standing on the back of her property. The property goes all the way from Manse to Mt. Falls Parkway.

Mr. Waggoner

stated they are two separate parcels.

Ms. Black

stated it is one parcel, 2.5 acres.

Mr. Waggoner

stated there ts another parcel behind that one.

Ms. Black

stated there is a line there, but it isn’t a parcel, it’s all one lot.

Commissioner Lee

stated you can see on the aerial view that they are legally two separate parcels.

Commissioner Turner

asked if the restaurant will be constructed at the same time the gas station will be.

Ms. Black

stated she is working on finding a tenant.

Ms. Black

read a letter from Mr. Swapp into the record. “Mt. Falls Design Review Committee has received and approved the Coyote Corner Sign design. The height is requested in their sign height waiver submittal. The sign height is understandably required to be at the height requested due to existing power lines and poles that would obstruct the view a shorter sign. The property is also below Club House Drive grade with these two conditions we believe the height to be an effective commercial property signage. Mt. Falls and Coyote Corner worked with Valley Electric, but Valley Electric was unable to design their powerlines in the underground facility that was effective for their facility.” Tim Bohannon stated he is a resident at Mt. Falls and has been aware of the project and saw the sign as they drove by. It was fairly low and against the fence, and it worked from that standpoint, their visual caught it. If they are expecting people from 160 to come by, don’t expect that. If you expect locals to come by, that will happen. A low sign would work. A high sign is nice but not sure it would fit and based on code it would be good. The low sign was bright, and noticeable, the road does get traffic. He leans towards what the Planning department came up with on it. He asked where they turn in at, off Manse or off Club House Drive. Louis Baker stated he is concerned with the flood, and they aren’t finding out any information.

Commissioner Lee

stated he can speak at the last public comment at the end of the meeting.

Ms. Black

stated the entrance will be along the block wall and will go through to the back to Mt. Falls Parkway. Mt. Fall has agreed to cut through the median on Club House Drive to give them access. There will be an entrance on Manse, Clubhouse drive and an exit on Mt. Falls Parkway.

Mr. Waggoner

stated the reference to Hwy 160 that you might be able to see it, it was in the Justification letter as their goal.

Commissioner Curtis

asked if the 10-foot sign is illuminated as well.

Mr. Waggoner

stated yes it could be.

Commissioner Curtis

asked if there are restrictions on the illumination, hour wise.

Mr. Waggoner

stated not that he knows of, but there are restrictions on the brightness, but he doesn’t think there is anything that prohibits the hours.

Commissioner Turner

asked if there are plans across the street, if the entrance will be there.

Mr. Waggoner

stated it could be, but we don’t have anything on it.

Commissioner Turner

asked if 10 foot was the highest option in the code.

Mr. Waggoner

stated correct, and it is specific when it is located within two residential spots.

Commissioner Turner

asked what is the gap between signs?

Mr. Waggoner

stated off the top of his head he doesn’t know but they can look in the code.

Ms. Beeman

stated the conceptual site plan doesn’t show any additional dedications of ROW or alignments. PW has asked for such, and it is included in the back up on page 3 of the staff report. The property does lie adjacent to the Great Basin Water Company service area and part of staff's recommendations is to annex it into and connect into the system. Staff has found sufficient justification to recommend approval of the application.

Commissioner Lee

asked if there is a code limit to the number of OSDS systems on a commercial property.

Commissioner Lee

asked for clarification on Condition of approval #9 that horses may be allowed.

Ms. Beeman

stated horses is an item that can be specifically permitted by the RPC if that were the case. If the fairgrounds rodeo area takes place it could be beneficial, so staff added it in. Roy Mankins, representing the applicant stated that he has a letter from GBWC stating they are not within their area and won't be able to provide water to the parcel. He is working with Tim Birk and stated that this is going to be a very expensive project. He has had discussions with NDEP and they don’t have a problem with the [ISDS on the property, they want to hook up to public utilities. He is trying to talk to Great Basin to change their minds. If the state says no, they are aware they can’t do it. They don’t mind giving the easements to PW. There is one street, Smith, that doesn’t go anywhere, and they want a 30 ft easement there. The Smart Road extends all the way back so he doesn’t understand why they need to give up 30 for property that will never be used.

Commissioner Lee

stated condition of approval #1 requires them to comply with all state and county regulations. Whatever the state dictates are what you must do, they didn’t want to specify it in the meeting.

Mr. Mankins

prefers to connect into the water or sewer, but they told him no.

Mr. Waggoner

stated they have a service inquiry that says yes, it is outside their service territory and that it would have to be annexed in. It has some figures that are more reasonable than what they are proposing.

Mr. Mankins

stated that is correct and he asked them for the cost of the annexation and time frame would be. They would rather do that, but they also need a backup plan. Page Sof IL

Mr. Waggoner

stated the concerns with the county would be wellhead protection with 5 more large septic systems in the ground, the withdrawal from the well put there and the most important would-be fire protection.

Mr. Mankins

stated they have almost 900,000 gallons of water they will put aside for that.

Commissioner Lee

asked about the horses, do they want the condition that they may be able to have horses.

Mr. Mankins

stated it depends on whether they get the adjoining parcel or not.

Commissioner Lee

stated they would need to come back for approval if they obtain the adjoining parcel.

Mr. Mankins

stated they are aware of that.

Commissioner Lee

asked if they wanted to have the condition removed.

Mr. Mankins

stated it doesn’t matter or they can come back.

Commissioner Lee

stated condition #8 is required, is it cost prohibited?

Mr. Mankins

stated they did talk to the state about it and they told him as soon as he got the CUP he could forward the engineering to the state and they would figure it out. They will decide at that time.

Commissioner Lee

stated as written it is required and if you fail to do it you are in violations of the conditions of approval. She doesn’t want to approve a condition that will ultimately put you in violation.

Mr. Mankins

stated he would like an either or. It depends on plant capacity charges. Great Basin hasn’t been very forthcoming. He will probably have to pay for engineering, but the sewer plants are almost at capacity now.

Mr. Waggoner

stated they reached out to NDEP and they said it isn’t impossible but they prefer you to connect into public utilities. If they leave the condition alone and if it comes out you have to do more, you have the option to ask for a reconsideration on that condition.

Commissioner Turner

asked who provided the tourism numbers.

Mr. Mankins

stated it is straight from the Tourism board and does reflect the pandemic.

Commissioner Curtis

asked what the plans are for the retention basin areas.

Mr. Mankins

stated everything in the park will be landscaped.

Commissioner Lee

asked if they have the water rights in place for the project.

Mr. Mankins

stated they are going to buy them as soon as they get approval.

Mr. Waggoner

asked if they are amenable to limit stays to 28-day maximum stay. This is to ensure the town collects the room tax.

Mr. Mankins

stated yes that is fine.

Commissioner Turner

asked if the original intent was for short term.

Mr. Mankins

stated yes for short term. Page 6 of 11

Commissioner Lee

asked Public Works about the request to remove Smith from the ROW dedication. Is that something they can consider. Tyler Mulvey stated they can consider it, his director likes to get all the ROW they can even if there are no future plans at this time, this way they don’t have to come back and ask for it later. They would like the conditions for the ROWs added.

Mr. Mankins

stated they are fine with dedicating the other three ROWs.

Mr. Mulvey

stated they would like conditions added for the following ROWs 30 ft for E. Fridel Ave, 30 ft S. Smart Way and 40 ft for E Charleston Park Ave.

Commissioner Lee

stated Mr. Waggoner stated it can be left as is and if you can’t pursue connecting then they can come back and they can modify the condition.

Mr. Waggoner

stated with an either/or it isn’t getting what we want, it gives you an option. He would suggest leaving it as it is.

Mr. Birk

stated so that is to limit the ability to have the option.

Mr. Waggoner

stated they can explore any option they want, their preference and NDEPs preference is for them to connect to a utility. If they explore the option and it becomes cost prohibitive then they can ask the county to reconsider. Tim Bohannon stated regarding the horses, it is something they may want to look at there are things that he is planning that would help them with that. He asked if the 122 spots are the limit or will they be expandable and if they are going to have the proper fencing to the horses so they don’t get out if they plan on having them there.

Commissioner Lee

asked if the applicant has read, understood, and agrees to the conditions of approval and the ones they have discussed.

Mr. Mankins

stated he has a question that they need to get a BL within 90 days within acceptance of the site plan.

Mr. Waggoner

stated it can be amended.

Mr. Mankins

stated if it is set up to eliminate Smith Road ROW dedication with the note, they are exploring the utility option, they are okay with that.

Commissioner Lee

stated condition of approval #11 references a waiver and CUP, can they remove the mention of the waiver.

Commissioner Turner

asked Mr. Waggoner if there was any wording, they can add on #8 that may help to come back to tell us what they choose. Page 7 of H1

Mr. Waggoner

stated no they don’t want to leave it as an open-ended choice.

Commissioner Lee

asked if the amendment to #2 was to be 12 months from the approval of the CUP or 12 months as written.

Commissioner Turner

stated 12 months from the approval of an approved site plan, as written. Seconded by Commissioner DeAnda.

Commissioner Lee

asked Commissioner Turner if he would amend his motion to remove the verbiage and/or from #11 Waiver.

Commissioner Turner

amended his motion.

Commissioner DeAnda

amended her second.

Commissioner Curtis

asked for clarification that the length of stay is 28 days and if it was agreeable to the applicant.

Ms. Beeman

reviewed the maps in the back up and stated they are on the right track and wanted to show them another campus plan, so that is why the Henderson Campus Plan is in the back up so they can see what they considered it looks like. She did contact the Great Basin center to see if they stated any planning and unfortunately, they haven’t started anything and they have a “hope for completion date in the future.” She brought back the CDA/Parks and Recreation map for them to review. It shows them the concept of what they are looking for. If they want to consider it and they like it, or if they want an additional change they can. Page 8 of 11 The next item is from the adopted Master plan in relation to table 4.2 and 4.3 they are the colorized matrix and the explanation table is 4.3. since they discussed the Business Development Area (BDA) the first matrix is the adopted version and the second is the proposed revision. If it isn’t a colorized square it is a proposed revision to the matrix. If the zoning district has a strike through, it is a non-colorized square stricken, it is deleting it from the land use category. If it shows the letters, it is in addition to. She would like the RPC to consider adding NC and VC to the BDA designations. The last pages are the Land Use Purpose statements, the first one is the proposed covering the BDA and the other one is the adopted 2014 masterplan.

Commissioner Turner

asked if NC includes where there is a separate building for residential and a store up front.

Ms. Beeman

stated no that would be for Mixed Use (MU) in terms of the zoning ordinances. There are several zoning districts that allow for care takers units but the live/work where apartments are above, and store below is MU.

Commissioner Turner

asked if the caretaker’s unit must be under 1500 sq ft.

Ms. Beeman

stated that would typically be the guest homes, care takers residence is described as not the primary use of the property. What he may be referring to is the Business Opportunity overlay where it has the mix of commercial with the residential. The BO is an oddity because of where we have it mapped and it also allows for Cannabis. A lot of times if it is a residential use where it is mapped Cannabis isn’t typically an appropriate use but that is how it got codified.

Commissioner Meredith

asked for clarification on how BO relates to cannabis.

Ms. Beeman

reviewed the section of NCC.

Commissioner Turner

asked if there was a way to remove the BO from allowing cannabis.

Commissioner Lee

stated with a code amendment.

Commissioner Turner

asked for clarification that those in the area then would be grandfathered unless shut down for 6 months or more.

Commissioner Turner

asked if it is bad approach to it.

Ms. Beeman

stated she understands why he is bringing it up because of the matrix and what we state is appropriate there, it is worth considering.

Commissioner Lee

asked if the BO requires an underlying residential district.

Mr. Waggoner

stated BO isn’t specific to marijuana uses, it allows many types of business uses.

Commissioner Lee

likes the proposed BDA and the thought process behind it. Would they be able to create development standards based on the comments provided by Ms. Beeman.

Commissioner Turner

stated he recommends they take a step in the direction to keep this moving. Page 9 of 15

Commissioner Carbone

asked if they have plans to take this to the public before it goes to the BOCC.

Ms. Beeman

stated yes, they still must go through the NRS standards for notification and public hearings.

Mr. Waggoner

stated they do also intend to have public workshops for comments.

Commissioner Turner

asked if they could piece out areas and put others together like the Gateway as one, second would be for smaller areas for one project. So, we aren’t doing 6 separate workshops but maybe 2 or 3 for larger areas.

Commissioner Lee

stated yes that is the step that staff is wanting to go forward with.

Commissioner Meredith

asked if they approve 9.a.2 option 3, could they come back and rezone if they need to or is it permanent.

Ms. Beeman

stated the Masterplan would be the guideline and knowing however we structure the BDA and zoning districts may end up being the RPC to have that potential to make the recommendation for zoning districts to the BOCC. All having to go through public hearings and notices.

Commissioner Lee

stated we don’t need to take action on 9.a.1 it was just a discussion. 9.a.2 was the discussion of the land use, land use constraints and different items. Land use Designations is under 9.a.2 so they can make a motion on that. 9.b.1 is the zoning designation land use conformity table and they can make a motion on 9.b.2 for land use purpose statement to add BDA.

Commissioner Turner

asked staff for comment on adding NC and MU to BDA on either side of GC. Is that the proper placement?

Ms. Beeman

asked for clarification that in the MU area with RDA, CDA & SPD we want to add BDA to MU not into the industrial category?

Commissioner Turner

stated looking at the proposed revisions table he wants to propose adding in where the MU column is where there is BDA at the first GC to add NC before and MU after it.

Ms. Beeman

asked if he means in the MU zoning district.

Commissioner Turner

stated yes and with those changes recommend the proposed revisions.

Ms. Beeman

asked if that also included the VC zoning district potentially to the BDA?

Ms. Beeman

asked for clarification that they are adding NC, MU and VC and keep the BDA into the mix use classification of the masterplan designation and remove it from the industrial.

Commissioner Turner

asked if that was her recommendation to remove it from the industrial in the proposed.

Ms. Beeman

stated yes. Page 10 of 11 10.

Commissioner Turner

stated then yes.

Commissioner Lee

stated they need to look at the land use purpose statement which are all existing except the addition of the BDA.