January 10, 2024

Commissioner Lee

stated she turned in some minor typographical errors to staff. Page 1 of 6 Public comment opened and closed at 6:04 pm with no comments.

Mr. Osborne

stated the total Planning applications received for December were 178 which was 28 less than last month. Total applications processed was 90 which was 70 less than last month. Since July 1st there have been 1276 planning applications received and 246 new code compliance complaints received. Compared to 1046 planning applications and 171 code compliance complaints for the same time period last year. Building Department for the month of December - single family residence permits were 15 which was 42 less than last month. Multi Family permits there was 1, which was 1 more than last month. Commercial permits was 8 which was 6 less than last month. Total Permits issued for all categories was 115 which was 26 less than last month. Total inspections in all categories were 443 which was 57 more than last month. Since July 1 there have been 181 SFR permits so far compared to 135 SFR at this same point last year. New code complaints received were 24 which was 2 less than last month and closed complaints was 31, which was 4 less than last month. Update on previous items heard by the RPC was the text amendment for LI this has been continued to the March BOCC. The 711 parcels to the master plan LDR to HDR on 12/19 were all approved and WV-23-12 for a ministorage facility to waive the landscaping and pavement, was heard on the 12/19 BOCC meeting and overturned the RPC’s decision. ZCMP-23-31 will be heard at the 1/17 BOCC meeting, CU-23-22 for MF transitional housing that was denied by RPC had filed an appeal and will be heard by the BOCC on the 1/17 agenda. CU-23-29 for an 125 ft communications tower, was denied by the RPC, they filed an appeal with the BOCC and it will be heard on 1/17 agenda. WV-23-14 for a motor freight terminal to waive pavement was denied by RPC, they filed an appeal and it will be heard by the BOCC on their 1/17 agenda.

Mr. Osborne

stated this Conditional Use Permit is to expand Irenes Casino, expanding the restaurant and casino. Currently it is 6,769 sq ft building to 14,113 sq ft. The owner owns the adjacent lot and they will combine both lots with a merger application if the CUP is approved they have to go through SD process. Gaming requires a Conditional Use Permit, it is zoned GC but they do need a CUP to expand the gaming building. Staff is recommending approval subject to all the conditions.

Commissioner Lee

asked for clarification that since they are already a gaming establishment their gaming license is in good standing.

Commissioner Hayden

asked there is a required number of parking spaces for this, and will it be able to accommodate it all with such a big building.

Mr. Osborne

stated they own the adjacent lot that they will be combining with the current parcel so they will have space. It is required to have a certain number of parking spaces depending on the square footage of the building. Bill Cookston, applicant stated Irene has been there since the 2000’s at the time they established the casino there was not a CUP required the county is requesting for them to get a CUP with this big adjustment. They have already submitted a site development which will go with the standards for parking. The company has already submitted building permits, with the utility company. They understand and agree to the special conditions.

Commissioner Lee

stated if they deny the waiver they can’t possibly meet the requirements for the CUP and then it puts them in the position they can’t approve the CUP.

Commissioner Hayden

stated she concurs with the DA’s office but wants to clarify the waiver would go from 1000 ft to 100 ft setback?

Commissioner Lee

stated the code says 1000 ft to property line so does the residential use even come into play since it property line to property lines?

Mr. Waggoner

states the code represents property lines, not structures on the property.

Commissioner Turner

asked if this is a permissive use with the CUP under HI?

Mrs. Medici

stated all of those operations require a CUP. The asphalt or concrete batch plant is number 1 under uses subject to the CUP. Arturo Morales, applicant, stated the residential property that is on the lot, they will be vacating in early May. The house and garage will be converted into office space. If the waiver is approved, we will be putting in a block wall around the perimeter and as far as road traffic and dust; it won’t really be much. We have a gravel pit that’s 300 yards from the vicinity, unlike the other two batch plants they have to travel, it gets to be a lot on Mesquite Street.

Commissioner Lee

asked the applicant if they have read, and understand and agree to the conditions of approval as outlined in the staff report?

Commissioner Hayden

asked what they are going to do to stop the silica that’s airborne?

Mr. Morales

stated the concrete is weather based so if it’s really windy in the valley, we will not be running the plant. The employees will have the proper health equipment that is needed. No working in harsh weather conditions that would affect the neighbors.

Commissioner Hayden

asked what are the proper measures you take to stop the silica from being airborne?

Mr. Morales

stated proper watering of loose gravel and dust. Always clean the machinery properly.

Commissioner Carbone

stated this is close to his home and close to the test area for the Sheriff and Fire Department. It would be nice not to having anything in that direction where they are testing. He agrees with the others that have spoken this isn’t the right area for it.

Mr. Osborne

reviewed his staff report stating the applicant has two adjacent parcels that applicant wants to combine into one and build a new commercial building on the parcel. The main reason they want to change to CC is simply because of the setbacks are less then what GC requires. There are other buildings in the area that have zero setbacks, so they don’t believe it would be out of character to allow less setbacks for the new building. Staff is recommending approval from GC to CC. Bill Cookston, applicant, the owners are trying to build a commercial building for the Mexican meat store and build in office space. He stated they agree to the special conditions.

Commissioner Tuner

asked which side will they use for the front?

Mr. Cookston

stated they will use the side towards the parking area.

Commissioner Turner

asked if it is required to have the front facing the parking area in site development?

Mr. Osborne

stated yes, that is the main entrance.

Mr. Waggoner

stated going to CC there are development standards that come along with that and this will be the first building fronting those that we can actually make sure those happen.