July 10, 2024

Commissioner Lee

turned in typographical error and grammatical error. No bearing on the minutes itself.

Commissioner Lee

stated the change of order in agenda tonight to start with CIP, item 11, then item 13 – 19, back to item 12, 9 -10, and items 21- 23.

Commissioner Lee

stated item 11, 13-19 are very quick and brief. Just to get those moving, it is our right to modify the agenda as we see fit. If we don’t approve it, then we don’t change it. Karen Waldman suggested Item number 9 to be moved back up or sooner as a lot of people in the audience will have comments. Rebecca Chiriboga requested item 20 be included with 13-19 as they are the same street name applications. MaryAn Hollis asked if there are agendas available for the Public that are not in the binder. If you can print off copies for us to follow along. Tim Bohannon stated Nye County Meeting Center does have the agenda online. There is available internet for your speed, Nye-gov-internet-only.

Commissioner Koenig

stated he agrees with the public about item 9 and is okay with the rest of the agenda.

Commissioner Lee

stated its item 9, CIP, 11, 13 – 20, 10 and 12, 21 – 23

Commissioner Carbone

stated the next BOCC meeting is the 16th of July. b. Director’s Report

Mr. Osborne

stated for June total Planning applications received was 192 which was 32 less than last month. Total applications processed was 80 which was 29 less than last month. Building Permits for the month of June single family residential was 35 which was 5 more than the previous month. Multi Family was 1 which was 1 more than last month. Commercial permits was 8, which was the same as last month and total permits all categories was 194 which was 3 less than last month. Total inspections in all categories was 469 which is 94 less than last month. New Code Compliance complaints received was 46 which was 1 more than last month and closed 33 which was 8 more than last month. Previous items heard by the RPC was ZCMP-24-7 on 5/21 and was recommended for denial to the BOCC. This application was heard by this board on the 5/21 agenda and was recommended for denial to the BOCC. It was heard on June 18th BOCC agenda but was continued to July 16 due to an appeal that was filed by the applicant on the RPC’s decision that will also be heard on the July 16 agenda. CU-24-11 was heard on 5/21 and denied by the RPC. The applicant filed for an appeal of the decision to the BOCC that is scheduled for July 1. ZCMP- 24-12 and ZCMP-24-9 were both heard on June 12th by the RPC and recommended denial for to the BOCC. CU-24-9 was heard on the June 12th meeting and took no action. SITTING AS THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Commissioner Koenig

stated there is a correction on Pg 5 project identification 2nd line. V for Valley and not C for Calley. Cody McKee stated he is here to answer any questions.

Commissioner Koenig

stated there is nothing in here about Bell Vista, that’s a major high dollar project.

Mr. Mckee

stated it is not included because they are getting funding to complete that entire project.

Commissioner Lee

asked if that proposed 10-year plan keep up with the forecasted residential growth?

Mr. Mckee

stated yes, that was the main point for this update. The previous update was aggressive with the forecasted growth and had to build roads more than what we needed, this time around it’s more conservative and reduces the payment sections as well as the ROW width needs. Page 4 of 21

Commissioner Lee

asked where the funding for the CIP comes from.

Mr. Mckee

stated the CIP plan and projects are funded by impact fees. From new development in the valley, those funds are then put towards our projects. With this study, create synergy RTC streets and highways plan so we can share funding and be more flexible and get more projects done.

Commissioner Lee

asked if flood control and flood mitigation plans being worked on in conjunction with the CIP?

Mr. McKee

stated there is not a drainage aspect to this plan but at the time this study was developed there was also a Master Drainage Plan done for the Valley. At that time, no impact fees were approved for the project. However, that has recently changed. There will be an updated Master Drainage Plan that will work with the CIP plan. Those projects will come from different pots of money.

Commissioner Lee

stated on Pg 6, NDOT and Traffic Signal warrant studies, what triggers a warrant study through NDOT and how willing are they to do them?

Mr. Mckee

stated NDOT is proactive, they just did a corridor study for this area. They’re identifying the needs based on population growth and where traffic lights are needed, roundabouts, etc. to improve the level of service at the intersects that intersect the state highways. The warrant analysis is through NDOT, other times at the request of the county.

Commissioner Carbone

stated that is between the BOCC and NDOT as well. We had one a month ago That was brought up.

Commissioner Hayden

asked once the feedback from NDOT is received, how does it impact this?

Mr. Mckee

stated they take their recent studies and incorporate it into how we scope projects and what the future needs will be. It will not be amended to accommodate their study as they just did a recent one, they will work together. Any time there is a change from NDOT standpoint, the board will amend the study as needed.

Commissioner Lee

stated on pg 9, fiscal planning, are you looking into bonds, grants or improvement districts to help get the roadways fixed.

Mr. Mckee

stated the intent is to give a wide range the board can take, but that is open to discussion, and they will do anything to do after additional funding. They are heavily seeking grants now.

Commissioner Lee

stated on page 12, the second one down, south Blagg road section x (10) – the existing ADT 3667 is projected to be 6300 in the year 2050 was missing.

Commissioner Lee

stated the Masterplan was updated and adopted in 2023. The NRS requires CIP committee to review the plan every 3 years. John O’Brien, each development affects how the flood water moves through the valley. Your board has to consider each time that we take a property on, what the water is going to do with the neighboring properties. IN the past that did not happen, flood channels were put in on gamebird, Malibou and a few others. It ended at Page 5 of 21 Malibou and didn’t decide where it was going to go after that. Please take flood control into consideration in the future. Beth Borysewich stated they have NDOT coming out to suggest roundabouts. Questioned if NDOT knows the impact of roundabouts in this town, suggests traffic lights especially for the elderly. Does NDOT do anything with flood control? MaryAn Hollis stated roundabouts are an issue. She’s contacted NDOT regarding manse roundabout and the traffic studies. The study was too old, it’s probably on a floppy disc. Worries about the roundabout being placed on the highway for semi-trucks and people speeding and driving bumper to bumper. Something has to be done sooner or later; what comes first, widening the road to accommodate that or digging into other surrounding properties. Laura Larsen stated when roundabouts came in, the truck’s back end would ride on the top of the roundabout. They don’t have enough room. It doesn’t work. They cause more problems than they do for solutions, need more research and second opinion on roundabouts. Need to take flood zones into consideration. The potholes on Wilson are huge and you’re swerving around them. Angelique Dugan stated she’s been here for 8 years. There are always wrecks in the roundabout, it’s ugly and a mess. Nobody considered how they were going to take care of it. People are afraid to use them. She has a class A and doesn’t want to take that way; nobody wants to drive that way. A lot of places are taking them out. Gail Vaishvila stated she is a school bus driver and she can get through the roundabout. The problem is that there is not training with the public. They don’t know how to use signals or what yield means.

Commissioner Hayden

stated she lived in Massachusetts; roundabouts were a big issue there and nobody yielded, always in a hurry and trying to cut people off. She’s already seen 5 accidents in the Walmart parking lot or down 160. It’s really more about people being kinder, doesn’t agree with roundabouts here in town.

Commissioner Koenig

stated before roundabouts, you could have parked an ambulance in the middle lane with how many head on collisions and T-bones there were. With the roundabout, there are fewer accidents. You hurt your car you don’t hurt your body. Tyler Mulvey stated the report does not have any improvements for roundabouts.

Commissioner Koenig

questioned staff without the zone change and master plan change, that facility cannot go in that area?

Mrs. Medici

stated that is correct.

Commissioner Tyler

stated they didn’t take action because with the other 2 things, the CUP becomes no point.

Mrs. Medici

stated without taking action, it does not give the applicant the opportunity to file an appeal per the DA.

Commissioner Koenig

stated without the zone change and master plan, this cannot be approved.

Commissioner Lee

stated the CUP could be approved and if the zone change and master plan is denied, it is automatic denial of the CUP. Brett Waggoner stated it voids out the CUP.

Commissioner Hayden

asked if there is additional information supplied by the applicant?

Mrs. Medici

stated no. Tyler Mulvey would like to add Special Condition for the applicant shall dedicate 40 ft of ROW on the south side of the property, on Basin Road, as a new condition #10. Sean Villamagna, reiterated the plan was to contain no recycling from Pahrump and act like a warehouse. Bound by the EPA and NDEP, cannot use landfill, required to show what they are doing with the panels at all times. There are similar businesses in the area and fit into the master plan.

Commissioner Hayden

stated she watched the Lyon County BOCC meeting, and they were asking for a bond to be proposed. Questioned if this could require a bond for a project like this in case of a default?

Mr. Waggoner

stated yes, we can require a bond as a condition under the CUP. He watched the video as well in Lyon County and found it to be interesting that LI zoning allows for hazardous materials where our code does not.

Commissioner Hayden

questioned if the Planning Department would set the dollar amount to be put in place?

Mr. Waggoner

stated they would be required to get an engineered estimate of what it would require collecting and disposing of the panels which would then set the bond amount.

Commissioner Koenig

stated they did not have room at the facility in Northern Nevada to do the test. But now they do have approval to extend the facility. They should have room to do everything in one place and have no need for the warehouse here.

Mr. Waggoner

stated he doesn’t believe the finding is correct. They are not final action on the zoning or masterplan which the CUP is contingent upon.

Commissioner Tyler

stated they need an alternate finding.

Commissioner Koenig

stated it would create additional truck traffic for roads that aren’t sufficient. Page 7 of 21 Michelle Nelson suggests not harmonious.

Commissioner Koenig

stated he is changing his motion.

Mrs. Medici

reviewed her staff report stating this is an appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision regarding a code enforcement case. The applicant is requesting to reverse the decision of the ZA, that the property remains in violation. The initial complaint stated the business was unlicensed, noise of the dirt bikes and racing of them down Navajo. It has been addressed and they are in compliance now. The additional complaints of noise and Page 9 of 21 dust has been addressed to the Nye County Sherrif’s Office and Air Quality with the Planning Department. He uses a shared driveway on Navajo. Mark Gancarz followed through with the required inspections. A Cease and Desist was issued on April 10th and the property owner contacted Mr. Gancarz to discuss the violations. Mr. Lewis maintained his license, Jimmy Lewis Inc, since 2001. The Town of Pahrump License is listed under JR- Offroad, established in 2011 at 2721 E. Kellogg. Property in compliance. Code Compliance closed on April 16th. On May 24th, an appeal was submitted to the Planning Dept, requesting that the decision made by ZA by RPC, per Nye County Code 16.36.080. A case study summary has been provided as well as justification letters.

Commissioner Lee

asked if there were additional noise complaints with the Sheriff’s office.

Mrs. Medici

stated she does not know.

Mr. Waggoner

stated if the business has been there since 2001, it existed well before zoning. It’s not a matter of land use issue. We could not substantiate the complaints. He believes Officer Gancarz counted 7 motorcycles. It is a grandfathered use. The original complaint was a BL complaint – held his business license since 2001 at this address.

Commissioner Lee

stated he’s been properly licensed at this address since 2001, predating Zoning Code.

Commissioner Lee

stated this is looked at as a grandfathered use, they have been continually operating since 2001 without a lapse in license?

Mr. Waggoner

stated yes. Noise complaints, that are hard to substantiate, go through the Sherrif’s Office and Air Quality complaints go through the Planning Department. There has not been a Dust Complaint filed.

Commissioner Koenig

reiterated the only complaint is the Business License complaint by a neighbor?

Mr. Waggoner

stated business license and noise, yes.

Commissioner Lee

stated she went online to Jimmy Lewis’s website and drove by the property. Did not see any motorcycles out.

Commissioner Hayden

stated dirt bikes are not allowed on the road, do they require licensing?

Mr. Waggoner

stated the Sherrif’s department does not care about off road vehicles being on the road.

Commissioner Hayden

stated if they are not properly licensed, they shouldn’t be on the road.

Mr. Waggoner

stated we don’t police the streets. It’s a rural town and people enjoy the outdoors. Tyler Mulvey stated they are trying to do OHV trails around town.

Commissioner Lee

stated you have to be on the streets to get to the trails. It’s not in everyone’s backyards. Applicant not present. Jimmy Lewis, owner and operator. Former racer. He does off road motorcycle safety training. The majority of the bikes they use are street legal. He does have some bikes that are OHV registered. Very stringent they don’t have loud bikes. He is surprised these complaints arose, considering he’s been doing this a long time. OHV regulations, if you are riding from your property to an off-road riding area and it’s less than a certain distance, it is legal in Nye County. Page 10 of 21

Commissioner Hayden

stated the complainant said there were 30 motor bikes going down the street, it’s a bus route and horse trail.

Mr. Lewis

stated there is a maximum of 18 students in the class with 6-7 staff members. Not all members ride motorcycles, one is driving a truck or serving food. The speeding cars on Kellogg St is the reason for using Navajo St, which Sherrif Werley approved at the time. From Navajo to homestead they drive out to BLM land where it is permitted.

Commissioner Hayden

questioned the distance they have to drive.

Mr. Lewis

stated less than a mile.

Commissioner Koenig

stated he looked at the letter from Michael Shaw and it cuts him off from any ingress.

Mrs. Marshall

stated it is only for half road. In the exhibit, it will show you the exact dimensions of the abandonment. Tyler Mulvey clarified for 4780 W Jay Ct. they can access off of Jay Court, it’s not just Cabo. The map shows they are creating property lines around the cul-de-sac to keep the existing road there. The portion of Cabo St is not built at all, it’s just dirt.

Commissioner Lee

questioned if it had land locked any properties?

Commissioner Hayden

questioned what the benefit would be to abandon this road with Nye County?

Mr. Mulvey

stated the public couldn’t ask us to maintain it in the future.

Commissioner Hayden

asked if the responsibility would go back to the landowner?

Mr. Mulvey

stated yes. Chase Smith, representative of Nelson Surveying stated he is available for questions.

Commissioner Hayden

questioned why they want the road to be abandoned? Page 11 of 21

Mr. Smith

stated the owners noticed more ATV’s and hiking in the area. The owner wants to extend his fence. The surrounding area would not be able to be developed. Public comment opened at 7:47 pm. Michael Shaw, owns adjacent lot, stated he’s never seen any ATV go through the lot. The Monroe’s did not contact him about what they were trying to do. It affects his lot, so he is against road abandonment. Suzie Hurt, stated its unjustified and inappropriate request. She should request to get rid of her street to increase the size of her lot as well with no cost to her or her land. She hopes they review this in fairness. Beth Borysewich stated she doesn’t understand the process of abandoning the road. From her understanding, they take half of the road and give up rights to a potential road in the future, and the individual is going forward at no cost. Why does the individual not have to pay for it? The adjacent homeowner has every right to be angry. Neighbors should talk to each other. Isn’t there a law to notify anyone within 5 miles if you want to change the layout?

Commissioner Lee

asked Mr. Smith if the applicant has read, understand and agree to the conditions of approval.

Commissioner Hayden

questioned if the 22,115 sq ft land would be given to the homeowner?

Mr. Waggoner

stated it was a ROW that was dedicated at some point, technically it would be given back to the homeowner.

Commissioner Tyler

stated at one point we took that portion of the road away from them and we are just giving it back. Questioned staff if abandoning half the street doesn’t benefit the county, then the adjacent homeowner can submit a similar application and receive similar benefit.

Commissioner Koenig

stated he doesn’t understand giving the land away for free. At one point it was owned by someone, and it kept getting divided, then a road was put in. They didn’t take the land away. But now you are giving the owner back the land for free. He understands at one point the individual owned it once, but when they bought the land, they didn’t buy the road.

Mr. Waggoner

stated he doesn’t know when the property owner owned the land. If you don’t want to give it to the property owner, don’t give it to them.

Commissioner Tyler

stated as long as she’s been doing this, when we need to put in an easement, we don’t pay the property owner. They dedicate that ROW to us without benefitting from it.

Mr. Mulvey

stated it depends when and where the project is being done. PW has paid for easements and ROW.

Commissioner Tyler

stated when you put the road in the wrong spot in front of her house and she had to move her vineyard, she didn’t receive compensation, and you were not willing to pay the other property owner. You had already put the road there, she had to make a deal with Tim Dahl not to ruin her vines. You get the property owner to dedicate that portion at no cost to the county. Why should we charge the property owner when we give the dedication back?

Mr. Waggoner

agreed. If the property owner said no to dedicating, then it would have to be purchased. Page 12 of 21

Commissioner Tyler

stated when we ask for it as a condition of approval and they deny, we are not going to give them the approval.

Commissioner Hayden

questioned why you wouldn’t take it as eminent domain?

Mr. Mulvey

stated you still have to pay for it.

Commissioner Hayden

stated if you needed ROW to the power pole, it needs to be purchased?

Mr. Mulvey

stated typically there is a utility easement for that, but Public Works is not a utility.

Commissioner Hayden

stated that is a lot of land to give back to the owner for no value, who probably didn’t own it back when it was dedicated.

Mr. Waggoner

stated it doesn’t matter who owned it back when it was dedicated.

Commissioner Lee

stated the county didn’t receive any compensation for the dedication so the property owner is not going to make the county pay to give back the land.

Commissioner Koenig

stated they needed permission to subdivide the land and part of the conditions in approval, you give us this for a road. They are still getting the land for free if approved.

Mrs. Marshall

wanted to point out the applicant is responsible for all costs associated with the change.

Mrs. Medici

reviewed her staff report stating the CUP and WV are to rectify the active Code Compliance case CC-24-187 from April 18th 2024. The proposed RC track began without SD and required CUP. A Cease and Desist was placed on the property advising to contact the Planning Department. Applicant was informed he needed a CUP, WV, ZR, TUP, DC, and SD. The CUP, WV, SD and Encroachment permit has been submitted since being in violation. Property owners also submitted a BL and two ZR that were rejected due to the SD being required for commercial development. The Applicant did not provide adequate justification for the WV for paving and landscaping. Staff is recommending approval for CUP and denial for WV. Page 13 of 21 Tyler Mulvey recommended condition #10 that the property owner shall dedicate 40ft of ROW on the South side of the property known as E Basin Road.

Commissioner Hayden

stated it’s a small-scale track and dog park, and asked where is the dog park?

Commissioner Lee

stated near the entrance.

Mr. Waggoner

stated it is not a public dog park, just for the RC track. Thomas Calvart, Double M Construction, dog park is not a super important aspect to the plan. Given the circumstances, here to represent the owner and move forward with the correct process.

Commissioner Hayden

questioned why they want to waive the landscaping?

Mr. Calvart

stated the waiver is not important, majority of it being artificial grass and mimicking vegetation, easy maintenance. There are some Palms proposed.

Commissioner Lee

stated on Basin is proposed oversized parking, is that pull through parking?

Mr. Calvart

stated it is for utility trailers, 6 by 12’s, any oversized belongings.

Commissioner Lee

asked if they are proposing to pull in and pull through or backing out onto Basin.

Mr. Calvart

stated they will pull in and back into space, or however fits necessary.

Mr. Waggoner

asked if the parking spots accessible from only inside and not from Basin?

Commissioner Lee

asked the height of oversized vehicles?

Mr. Calvart

stated no height. They will comply with what is necessary.

Commissioner Lee

asked what is proposed for gravel is followed through the aisles.

Mr. Calvart

stated they will pave the driveway, 2 drive aisles and handicap, proposing type 2 compact gravel for drive aisle and parking.

Commissioner Lee

asked the applicant if they have read, understand and agree to the conditions of approval including the added condition from PW?

Mr. Calvart

asked why they can’t go through category II or III SD through this? Didn’t know they can apply for a category III in conjunction with CUP, all utilities are existing on site.

Mrs. Medici

stated it is category I because it was an vacant lot by code. Category II and III is for development that has already been there. Russ Meads, Double M Constructions, owner hired consultants previously and they just took on project a month and a half ago. Looking at conditions as they are now, CUP would be in order. The previous WV applied for, working with the owner, they reduced what was originally asked for in the previous WV, completely waiving asphalt at all. The handicap and access from Basin have to be hard surface. Would like to leave the waiver in place for the internal parking. Will have encroachment permit, paved, inspected by PW. The main corridor will be paved. It changes the findings because of that. The oversize car parking is in length not in height. The WV for landscape is still in place as it mentions live vegetation, they want to do artificial. Easy maintenance and saves water. Page 14 of 21

Commissioner Lee

stated it is just the living vegetation you are wanting to waive.

Commissioner Lee

questioned if the paved internal drive aisle was the fire lane?

Commissioner Lee

asked the square footage of parking area?

Mr. Meads

stated 31,000 sq ft impervious cover.

Mr. Meads

stated it is a recessed track with berms around and barricades around that.

Commissioner Hayden

asked where the bystanders will be.

Mr. Meads

stated it is a 2-tierd section, bystanders are below the drivers up top.

Mrs. Medici

reviewed her staff report stating this is to allow storage and distribution of smoke bombs to law enforcement, special effects companies and emergency services. The applicant provided a justification letter explaining the business operations and where they receive their shipments, they will need site development and the CUP is to rectify an existing code compliance case CC-24-125. This business has been operating for 10 years at 800 S Margaret St before they moved to 860 S Margaret St. Applicant was not aware for the CUP, SD, or Town of Pahrump Business License. They have a State License since July 1st, 2013. Kristian Pannanen, applicant, stated they have been operating for over 10 years. Had the opportunity to become a permanent resident here, which is why they purchased 860 Margaret and moved the operation over there. Page 15 of 21

Commissioner Hayden

questioned if the pyrotechnics were made on site?

Mr. Pannenen

stated they manufacture in China. This operation is strictly just distribution. No chemicals are on the property. They receive the containers into the warehouse, then sell them to 48 stated and South America. The company as a whole has many distribution points in the world.

Commissioner Hayden

questioned what special conditions they have to make sure it’s not flammable or accidents.

Mr. Pannenen

stated they are classified as a lower danger level. Worked with Scott Lewis and ATF about storage. He currently works with a company to draft laws and regulations with pyrotechnics in Eastern European countries which they adopt in North America as well.

Commissioner Koenig

questioned if they had containers.

Mr. Pannenen

stated yes, they have 12 containers.

Commissioner Koenig

stated they forced the firework companies to get rid of the containers due to fire/explosives. Between safe fireworks and explosive fireworks, where do you fit between them?

Mr. Pannenen

stated they are below what fireworks are. Most fireworks are categorized as 1.3 and they are 1.4.

Commissioner Koenig

questioned how would no containers affect the business?

Mr. Pannenen

stated it would be really difficult for them to operate. When the funding is available in the future, they plan on expanding into a warehouse. Frank Carbone questioned if they will be doing sales locally?

Mr. Pannenen

stated no, they don’t sell directly from the location or have retail. They have dealers from Las Vegas.

Mr. Carbone

questioned how many trucks are going in daily or monthly.

Mr. Pannenen

stated they have a pickup from FedEx daily in a small truck. And 1 FedEx truck for freight.

Mr. Carbone

stated he has an issue with the fireworks permit, in which all 6 are gone.

Commissioner Lee

questioned if they need a Fireworks Permit?

Mr. Waggoner

stated this is not a retail consumer firework. It’s different than the other businesses. Also wanted to reiterate there were 330 shipping containers full of fireworks along the highway, 6 years ago. That is where the container issue came from, not for a safety factor. Shipping containers are an approved vessel for storage beyond fireworks, per the fire code.

Commissioner Koenig

stated they were also next to residential properties too.

Mr. Pannenen

stated they work with ATF who approve these products. They draft the storage requirement for these products. You can refer to Michael Lena who is the Director of the Explosive Department. There is a distinction between fireworks that explode and ours which are smoke bombs.

Mr. Carbone

questioned are they safe or sane fireworks or are they smoke bombs?

Mr. Pannenen

stated smoke bombs. Page 16 of 21

Mr. Waggoner

would like to add a condition with the new occupancy to get a fire prevention permit and inspection with the building department.

Commissioner Lee

questioned applicant if he read, understand, and agree to the conditions of approval with the additional one added.

Mr. Carbone

stated this is the first time they have seen this business. Regarding security lights, when they do your CAT1 evaluation, they need to remember we have a dark sky ordinance.

Commissioner Koenig

stated there are people that don’t know what the commissioners have been through with firework companies and containers all over the place. After getting rid of them, that is why containers were brought up in the first place.

Mr. Carbone

questioned if that’s going to be part of a condition?

Commissioner Koenig

asked Mr. Pannenen if he could remove all containers within 5 years without breaking the bank?

Mr. Pannenen

stated that was the reason for the move and they intend to move everything from the containers to buildings.

Commissioner Koenig

stated that will be a condition, within 5 years move everything inside of a building.

Mr. Pannenen

stated they are on a well. No company can make a cost-effective sprinkler system for it, but they have a chemical suppression system.

Mrs. Marshall

reviewed her staff report stating the CUP is to allow for 3 single family detached homes. This application had approval last year in October but expired because no SD was submitted.

Commissioner Hayden

asked if applicant will be able to complete this in the time allocated?

Mrs. Marshall

stated the applicant is available on the phone, previous application of last month he was ready to go.

Commissioner Tyler

asked if this was a similar product they looked at last time?

Commissioner Lee

stated he didn’t make the deadline for the SD and what needed to be ironed out, would be required for these.

Mrs. Marshall

stated that’s how they referenced the 3 homes.

Commissioner Lee

stated it is detached MF housing. Instead of being attached they are building 3 units and instead of sharing a common wall, they are spacing them out.

Mr. Waggoner

stated they are 3 detached homes on one parcel.

Mrs. Marshall

reviewed her staff report and recommended approval stating the property owner gave permission to applicant to allow for a CUP for a permanent make up and body art studio.

Commissioner Lee

stated this does not need to go through SD, correct. Page 18 of 21

Commissioner Lee

asked if the parking was sufficient since it is a shared parking area?

Mrs. Marshall

stated it exists prior to code and standard, so no additional parking is needed.

Commissioner Hayden

questioned if there has to be handicapped designation for parking?

Mrs. Marshall

stated she believes there are already designated spots in the complex. Jade VanDerBeek applicant, here to answer any questions.

Commissioner Lee

questioned applicant if she has read, understand, and agree to the conditions of approval. Miss. VanDerBeek stated yes.

Commissioner Koenig

questioned when she will be in business. Miss VanDerBeek stated when she is approved and has her health license with Sue Huff.

Commissioner Lee

opened all items 16 – 20 together. Page 19 of 21

Mrs. Medici

reviewed her staff report stating all 5 applications are related to upcoming subdivision map for Mt Falls. The applicant was required to provide 2 street names. They went through review with mapping administrators, dispatch supervisor, and through USPS. Had a few duplicates throughout the 5 applications. Applicants on the phone for questions. Rebecca Chiriboga, representing the applicant, read through conditions and has no issues.

Commissioner Hayden

asked if this completes the subdivision? Miss. Chiriboga stated there is one more subdivision that has not been submitted for, then it will be completed.

Mrs. Medici

asked Miss. Chiriboga to verify how many street names she needed for each application so the RPC can approve. Miss. Chiriboga stated 3 street names on 2B. 5 street names on 8B. 7 street names on 9F. 14 street names on 9CD. 13 Street names 9HE.

Mrs. Medici

asked her to verify SN-24-2 8B, number of streets. You applied for 8 and you applied for 5. Miss. Chiriboga stated it’ll be a question to ask mapping about. There are access driveways that were applied for through staff. Not sure if they need street names.

Mr. Waggoner

wondered why they are asking these questions. Usually, you just approve street names, and they pick and choose where they want them to go.

Mrs. Medici

stated the large list of names were duplicated. Wanted to make sure they had the correct number of streets for the approval letter.

Mr. Waggoner

stated we are only approving 8 out of the 11. Typically, they send the names to use, we approve or deny, and they take the approved names.

Commissioner Hayden

item 17, 8B she needed 5 names, but there is a list of them. If someone comes in and tries to build in the subdivision, can they use any of the names listed?

Commissioner Lee

stated no. They have 8 street names, they give a list of street names, they get vetted through the 911 system, against other street names. Then approved for their use, they pick what they want then gets recorded on the map and actual street names. The rest of them just disappear. If somebody else wants to do a subdivision and they happen to pick a name that was reviewed and approved they can use it. There is not a list of approved street names.

Mr. Waggoner

stated several different planning areas, he believes. MaryAn Hollis asked if any of them were Jacksboro and the Parkway?

Mr. Waggoner

stated no, this is a new subdivision.