PAIIRUMP REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE JUNE 11,2008 MEETING

Transcription

1 PAIIRUMP REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE JUNE 11,2008 MEETING Call to Order and Roll Call The meeting was called to order in the Main Hall of the Bob Ruud Community Center in Pahrump, Nevada at 6:00 p.m. Members in Attendance: Mark D. Kimball Carrick Bat Masterson Norma J. Opatik Nevada Tolladay Jacob Skinner Dan Schinhofen Laurayne Murray Gary Hollis Members Absent: Butch Borasky Planning Staff: Jack Lohman Steve Osborne David Stallworth Beth Lee Shiloh F. Schmidt Ryanne Dudenski District Attorney s Staff: Building & Safety Staff: Public Works Staff: Ron Kent None None Acronyms Used: ADT Average Daily Traffic ARC = Architectural Review Committee BLM = Bureau of Land Management BOCC/BOC = Board of County Commissioners CAA = Charles Abbott Associates CUP Conditional Use Permit DOR = Deed of Restrictions CCO Code Compliance Officer CC&R = Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions DRC = Development Review Committee FEMA = Federal Emergency Management Agency NBHPS = Nevada Bureau of Health Protection Services NCC Nye County Code NCSD = Nye County School District NDEP = Nevada Division of Environmental Protection NDWR Nevada Division of Water Resources NDOT = Nevada Department of Transportation NRS = Nevada Revised Statues PRPD Pahrump Regional Planning District PRPC/RPC Pahrump Regional Planning Commission PTB = Pahrump Town Board PUD Planned Unit Development USFS = United States Forest Service ROW Right-of-Way SFR Single-Family Residential SOB = Sexually Oriented Business TL4 = Traffic Impact Analysis TPC = Transportation Planning Committee UBC = Uniform Building Code

2 Pledge of Allegiance Commissioner Kimball announced that Commissioner Borasky is going to be in and out of the meeting this evening. Commissioner Hollis will be filling in. Approval of Minutes Commissioner Schinhofen motioned to approve the May 14, 2008 RPC meeting minutes. commissioner Opatik seconded. Roll call vote: Murray, yes; Opatik, yes; Tolladay, yes; Masterson, yes; Kimball, yes; Skinner, yes; Schinhofen, yes; Motion to approve passes 7-0. Correspondence and Announcements None. Approval of! Modifications to the Agenda: Approval of the Agenda after Considering Requests to Rearrange, Hold or Remove Items. Jack Lohman stated the applicant of items # 7 and #8 would like to withdraw items without prejudice at applicants request. Commissioner Skinner motioned to withdraw item #7 AB and item #8 WV without prejudice.. Commissioner Schinhofen seconded. Roll call vote: Murray, yes; Opatik, yes; Tolladay, yes; Masterson, yes; Kimball, yes; Skinner, yes; Schinhofen, yes; Motion to withdraw without prejudice passes 7-0. Commission Reports a. BOCC Liaison Report - BOCC Liaison Commissioner Gary Hollis No report at this time. b. Pahrump Town Board Liaison Report - PTB Liaison Laurayne Murray No report at this time. c. PRPD Comprehensive Rezoning Task Force - Bat Masterson Commissioner Masterson stated this coming Tuesday they will go before the County Commission for further direction on the Task Force. Ex Parte Communications and Conflict of Interest Disclosure Statements None. Public Comment-5:56 p.m. Public Comment Closed 5:57 p.m. 9. a. MP : (Major) Master Plan Amendment application to change approximately 20 acres from the Low Density Residential Land Use Category to the Multi-family Residential Land Use Category, and approximately 17 acres from the Low Density Residential Land Use Category to the General Commercial Land Use Category, situated at the northwest corner of the intersection of Thousandaire PRPC June 11,2008 Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 18

3 Property Property Boulevard and Oakridge Avenue, located at 5800 S. Oakridge Ave., 2370 E. Thousandaire Blvd., and 2470 E. Thousandaire Blvd., described as Parcels 1, 2 and 3 of F#454652, Section 12, Township 21 South, Range 53 East. FMC Pahrump LLC Owner(s)/Applicant(s), Civilwise Services LLC - Agent AP# s: , , b. ZC-08-OO11: (Non-Conforming) Zone Change application to change approximately 37 acres from the Rural Homestead (RH-4.5) Zoning District to approximately 20 acres of Multifamily Residential (MF) Zoning District, approximately 12 acres to the General Commercial (GC) Zoning District and approximately 5 acres to the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Zoning district, for property Master Planned as Low Density Residential, located at Oakridge Ave., 2370 E. Thousandaire Blvd., and 2470 E. Thousandaire Blvd., described as Parcels 1, 2 and 3 of F#454652, Section 12, Township 21 South, Range 53 East. FMC Pahrump LLC Owner(s)/Applicant(s), Civilwise Services LLC Agent, AP# s: , , Jack Lohman introduced David Stallworth and advised us that he will be giving the presentation on this report. David Stallworth reviewed the staff report, case history, and project description; to develop a commercial center, mini storage facility and 160 multi-family units on the site. Staff is recommending Denial of both applications. Commissioner Schinhofen stated he doesn t understand if it is changing 17 acres to General Commercial, as it states on MP , or is it requesting to change 12 acres to General Commercial, as it states on ZC David Stallworth stated the general component of both the Master Plan and the Zone Change includes both General Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial zoning. Commissioner Masterson asked if the Multi-Family zoning falls within our 3,000 zoning per unit per acre. It looks like he is asking for heavier then what we allow in our zoning. David Stallworth stated that his current proposal would involve approximately eight units per acre, whereas the ultimate build out can be as high as 14.5 units per acre. He could reach current standards up to 90 units per acre. Commissioner Kimball asked for clarification on the case history. David Stallworth stated the original request back in 2006 also included a Single Family Residential component that was later removed and basically what you see now is almost similar to what was presented in 2006 Dave Richards, Civilwise Services, representing the client. Mr. Richards reviewed the application, and stated that they did go through this process more than one year ago. At the time the Planning Staff was directed to do a study of this surrounding area. It was recognized that the area is going through some major changes. That report was never done, they waited and waited and continued the process a few times. They went to various agencies like the Chamber of Commerce and the School District. You can see in the impact report and the report that was submitted before, the entities that we contacted to gather information about what was going on in the area and submitted our own report. At the time there were several other large projects that were proposing the same Zone Change and Master Plan Amendment surrounding this property which affected approximately 100 acres of land. Mr. Richards said he thinks that one of the major concerns of the Multi-Family part of this property is 20 acres, which is located on the back side of the property. The density on the property does not approach what is allowed in Multi-Family, we have proposed 160 units. If we went to maximum density we could put 290 units, so we have actually reduced it by 130 units. It is intended to leave a lot of open space and green areas and the buildings remaining four plexes and not big apartment buildings. Very nice quality and landscaping. There are some statements that are made in these conditions that seem very generic. We don t necessarily agree with what the Planning Staff has came up with in their scenario. Commissioner Kimball said he thinks because it is a Master Plan Amendment, that the burden is on the applicant to at least demonstrate what they are proposing is an improvement in the use of that land, since it s been, not only master planned but hard zoned, now as 4.5. It is a radical change from 4.5 down to Multi-Family, somewhere you need to address that for us. PRPC June 11, 2008 Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 18

4 Mr. Richards stated that he does not think that is appropriate at all. They should be allowed to do something a little better than that. Mr. Richards is going to go through them item by item. Mr. Richards referenced item number one on the staff report. He stated that the applicant does provide for needed commercial and low cost housing, low to middle cost housing to support the thousands of approved lots on a localized basis. Local services, retail stores and social needs would be localized. Traffic and trip generations would be reducing traffic on non-local arterials in to town or other parts of Pahrump would be lowered by allowing these services in that area. Lowered and Middle income housing is a stated objective of the Master Plan, that s what Multi-Family does. If you look at that area there is not a lot of Multi-Family. There is very little relative to the residential subdivisions and the commercial that can go along in that area. Commissioner Kimball asks if it would be his position that there is not sufficient Multi-Family in the rest of the valley for us to do first. Mr. Richards stated that is his position, but he disagrees with the fact that we should centralize Multi-Family in one part of Pahrump because that would tend to become the slum of Pahrump. He thinks Multi-Family should be spread throughout the valley. That would avoid them all being clustered together in some kind of an area that tends to deteriorate because that is all that s in there is the Multi-Family. He feels that adding Multi-Family to that area is appropriate. Multi Family tends to make a good barrier between commercial areas and what could be residential areas to the north and northwest. Mr. Richards referenced item number two on the staff report. He feels that it is contrary to what they are proposing. They are proposing affordable housing through the Multi-Family. Mr. Richards just does not agree with this statement all together. Mr. Richards referenced item number three on the staff report. He stated that it is basically the same as number one and two. Mr. Richards then referenced item number four. He stated they are not proposing any variances whatsoever in this process. They are not asking for something that is not allowed in specific zones. They do intend to go strictly by the zoning code that is put on this property. In his opinion, there is no basis for planning claims the surrounding areas are currently mixed with High Density approved. Mr. Richards states that somewhere along the line these areas are going to start developing. Every time they come before you with one a these proposals, you find that it is incompatible with the existing conditions out there. Well, that means nothing is ever going to change, and nothing is ever going to develop. Commissioner Kimball stated at the corner of Homestead and Thousandaire there is over 30 acres already dedicated commercial and the map that he is looking at within about one block of the developments you are proposing there are two sites of commercial development. It isn t as though no one has thought about that issue and he is not suggesting your plan isn t a good one, he is simply saying he thinks the concept that we need commercial out in that part of town has been addressed, except it hasn t been developed. Mr. Richards agreed with Commissioner Kimball, he agrees that Lakeside is commercial. He agrees that there is 30 some acres on the corner that is available for General Commercial development and eventually it will be, however, that is not being proposed at this point and for all the property owners around there that would like to do something with their property. Mr. Richards stated that he does not think that there is enough General Commercial or Neighborhood Commercial planned throughout that whole area. The owner of this property feels that the timing is appropriate for them to come forward with something that will serve two purposes. There is some surrounding development that is compatible to what is being proposed here. Commissioner Opatik asked if there is any indication how many stories the Multi units are going to be. Mr. Richards stated no more than two stories. They are set up in a town house situation so you wouldn t have one unit on top of the other. They will be side by side and only four units deep and four units across. Commissioner Masterson reviewed the property map and he is seeing two residents on this property at this time. Dave Richards stated that the residents were incidental and would be removed. Commissioner Schinhofen stated that Mr. Richards keeps stating something about it is developing that way. He wants to know what he is talking about, what is developing? Commissioner Schinhofen knows that, that one parcel on Thousandaire and Homestead is thirty eight acres and it is General Commercial. Also stated that further up PRPC June 11, 2008 Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 18

5 Homestead closer to Highway 160 we ve had a lot of action going on up there. There are buildings going up in that area. He thinks that the overlay there on Homestead addresses the commercial possibilities along that strip. He just doesn t see what you are saying. Dave Richards stated that as he understands it there are three hundred feet deep lots or one hundred and sixty foot deep lots that would allow for small businesses such as hair salons. This is intended to be something between big box users and small retail centers. Commissioner Schinhofen stated that they just approved a hotel I restaurant right in that area. Who do they have committed to come into this area? Dave Richards stated that there isn t anyone committed at this point. We are prepared to, if you would like, accept Neighborhood Commercial zone on those front two parcels. Which he believes will make them come back with a Conditional Use Permit for the Mini Storage. Commissioner Kimball asked staff is there was any consideration of asking them to for go the Multi-Family and doing commercial development there or Neighborhood Commercial. David Stallworth stated that there was some discussion on May 28, 2008 as to whether they would like to amend the project proposal to eliminate the General Commercial and incorporate all of the Neighborhood Commercial. He thinks at this point they didn t discuss converting the entire subject area to all Neighborhood Commercial zoning and General Commercial master plan designation. Staff is adamant that the Multi-Family component is incompatible with the surrounding area. That is as it stands currently. Jack Lohman stated that he was at that meeting also and he thought that if we get the applicant early enough to come and consult with us, maybe modify the proposal we can respond with a positive recommendation rather than a negative one. Staff did one of these with this particular application. We were looking at it and thought Neighborhood Commercial in those front two lots. At this point there has been no concurrence by the applicant to consider that, until he just said this right now. Dave Richards stated that they feel that the Multi-Family section is an important component of this development, which would help the success of the Neighborhood Commercial up front. Plus the fact that they strongly believe that there is a need for some Multi-Family in that southeast part of town and nobody is providing for that right now. They feel that, that is a very important issue, and he strongly disagrees that, it is not an appropriate area for that development. They are willing to accept the limit of one hundred and sixty units on that site, which is a very low density. Commissioner Kimball asks if on the Master Plan are there other areas in that part of town that are Multi-Family. David Stallworth stated to the best of his knowledge one to two square mile area there is no Multi-Family components or no designation for Multi-Family in that area. Public Comment 6:30 p.m. Calvin Morrison stated that he is a resident of that area. He is perfectly happy with the RH-4.5 zoning. He would like to present a letter. (Letter is attached) Commissioner Skinner motioned to accept the letter. Commissioner Tolladay seconded. Roll call vote: Murray, yes; Opatik, yes; Tolladay, yes; Masterson, yes; Kimball, yes; Skinner, yes; Schinhofen, yes; Motion to accept the letter passes 7-0. Commissioner Kimball asked if this letter supersede your previous letter or were they together. Calvin Morrison stated that it is an addition to the other letter. PRPC June 11,2008 Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 18

6 Nancy Dobrzynski stated that she is before the board because this change was requested last year and once again she in not in favor of allowing the Zone Change for following reasons. The entire area in question is currently Residential Single Family of an acre or more. Multi-Family Residents would not be appropriate at this time. General Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial would bring an increase in traffic and of course a potential for more crime. Since the term General Commercial encompasses a multitude of businesses that could change drastically the lifestyle of everyone living in the affected areas and those surrounding. As far as Neighborhood Commercials she cannot think of one store business that is so needed now or in the future that a zone change is required. She is not against business and certainly is not a NIMBY, but a zone change would be a slap in the face to those of us who live here. There is approximately thirty acres in the corner of Homestead and Thousandaire that is ideal for commercial and she is sorry that the applicant does not own that property. There is no reason to change the zoning where we all live now to accommodate one. Public Comment Closed 6:37 p.m. Dave Richards responded to the fact that there is no infrastructure in the area to support this by saying it is obvious as we go through the development plan that agreements would have to be made with the utility companies and water and sewer would be brought into the area. The streets would be improved according to the traffic studies that are required. Commissioner Tolladay stated that he doesn t think that there is anyone on this Commission who doesn t agree that we need a major commercial facility in south end of this valley. It is precisely for that reason that we have approved the thirty acres of commercial development right on the corner of Homestead and Thousandaire, it was why we approved this applicants application for a one hundred room hotel and a restaurant to go on the corner of Rocking Dock and Homestead which never happened. It is the same reason that these other pieces of General Commercial have been approved in that area. He thinks there is sufficient General Commercial property zoning in the area. What is being proposed here he views as a radical departure from the existing land use. He thinks it would exacerbate the pathetic patch work that this valley is of incompatible adjacent land uses. He also believes that to implement this Master Plan Amendment would be a premature and in his estimation in ill advised change in the character in this area. Commissioner Masterson stated that he disagrees somewhat on this because as he has been driving around the valley he looks at so much property that they have changed to General Commercial and nothing has happened, that does not mean that nothing is going to happen here. Nothing has happened on that corner, he doesn t know whether it s just because the growth is so slow right now, they are selling very few houses in any of the subdivisions around there. He does definitely like what they have done for others, the three years limit on it, he would want to put the Neighborhood Commercial on it and be definite that there is no more than one hundred and sixty units in the Multi Family. For those reasons he thinks if we did those things he does have a problem He would really want to tie the commercial in somewhere with that Multi-Family, that they both needed to be started or it wouldn t work. They have to go together. Commissioner Opatik asked what kind of storage units they plan on using. Dave Richards stated if you are asking if they are going to be those dumpster things they have sitting out there, no definitely not. They will be built nice mini storages. Commission Schinhofen stated that they have had discussion before about Thousandaire and where it is heading, is it going to be commercial? He believes if we take these we need to take them separately. Commissioner Schinhofen motioned to deny MP Commissioner Murray seconded. Roll call vote: Murray, yes; Opatik, yes; Tolladay, yes; Masterson, no; Kimball, yes; Skinner, no; Schinhofen, yes; Motion to deny passes 5-2 Commissioner Kimball asked Mr. Lohman if there was any point preceding on the Zone Change. Do we want to consider a motion on Neighborhood Commercial for the front and we would need another Master Plan Amendment motion. PRPC June 11, 2008 Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 18

7 Property Applicant, Agent. Jack Lohman stated if you wanted to extend the Mixed Use to those two lots that would be a Master Plan Amendment. Can they do that? He needed to check. Commissioners and the Staff had some discussion on whether they can go back and remand the motion to include the Zone Change. Mr. Kent was checking the information to see whether they could go back or not. Break-6:46 p.m. Reconvened-6:57 p.m. Commissioner Kimball stated that counsel has explained to him, due to the technicalities involved in the Master Plan Amendment our intent might be to try and give you the Neighborhood Commercial on the front two. But we cannot do it tonight, you will have to come back. The Zone Change discussion should have been voted on with the Master Plan. Jack Lohman stated that they have discussed this with the applicant that we think that if they want to do this that the front two lots can come back with a land use amendment which would allow Neighborhood Commercial zoning. That would make more sense. It would basically have to be a new application. Unfortunately the way the code reads is that it has been on the book since 2004 it is a code requirement that we do these at certain windows four times a year and the next window is September. So he can re-apply this upcoming September. Dave Richards asked if they can continue this application to modif it. Evidently nobody likes the Multi-Family twenty acres in the back so it was suggested that possibly Neighborhood Commercial on the entire site than just the front two. Ron Kent stated that they have the ability to go back and rescind, that is an exception certainly not to rule. What you have right now is a vote and a second and the Master Plan has been denied and the Zone Change has moved. Commissioner Kimball stated unless there is some strong feeling on a commissioners part that they want to go back we have to just go ahead and move forward now. Commissioner Schinhofen made the original motion, is he willing to make a motion to rescind and reconsider? Commissioner Schinhofen stated that he is willing to make a motion to reconsider and rescind. Commissioner Murray stated that she was not willing to second the motion to rescind MP Jack Lohman stated that this is going to go to the BOCC anyway as a recommendation whether you appeal it or not. They will go together. 11. CU : Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application to allow for a casino/hotel/resort in the General Commercial (GC) Zoning District, located at 1500 S. Red Butte St., situated 350-feet west of the intersection of Mt. Charleston Drive and Red Butte Street, known as Lot 129, Block 35 of Calvada Valley Unit 7. Willow Creek Holdings, LLC Owner, Aram Maissian 1131 Group AP# Steve Osborne reviewed the application, case history, and project description; the applicant is proposing to develop a three story hotel, a new club house and a casino. The Casino and the hotel require conditional use permits in the General Commercial zoning district, this property was rezoned from the Open Space Zone to the General Commercial zoning district in February. Staff has reviewed this request and we believe that the site plan that is submitted is appropriate for the area. We recommend approval of the request subject to all the conditions outlined in the staff report. Commissioner Masterson said when this was approved the golf course had to stay into use as a golf course till the year 2043, is that correct. Steve Osborne stated yes it required an additional 30 years on to the CC&R s to be used as a golf course. PRPC June 11,2008 Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 18

8 Commissioner Masterson stated yes but we cannot change CC&R s. The casino cannot be sold without the golf course. Steve Osborne stated that is correct. You can make a condition that the developer do that. Ron Kent stated that is was contemplated in the Final Action Memorandum, should have been filed as a notice constructive notice and a lien against the property. If it hasn t been done we can certainly do it. Commissioner Kimball asked if there was a development agreement with this project. Jack Lohman stated no. They felt that for the size and scope of this project you can get what you need with a use permit. James Veltman with Studio VVM, site planner for RBT. This is step three in a process of attempting to improve the quality of the Willow Creek Golf Course and is an attempt to bring to Willow Creek a destination resort hotel complex. The only change that we have made since the zoning case is they have moved the building a little bit so they can build around the existing clubhouse. So that during construction the existing clubhouse can stay in operation, while the rest of the facility is being built. With that he thinks they have reviewed all of the conditions and the recommendations and they have no problem with them. They would like to see you approve this project so they can get on with the next step. Anthony Maissian stated that the golf course is still open and operating. They hope that the commission goes with the recommendation from staff and they just continue on to the next step in getting this project to completion. Commissioner Kimball asked, if this is approved tonight what do they see as a timeline to get started? Anthony Maissian stated that if it is approved tonight, to get started would be anywhere from 3 to 6 months at the most. Commissioner Schinhofen referenced number 16 under the special conditions. He stated that he is not quite clear on that, every golf course that he has been on they have announced who is teeing off. Anthony Massian stated that announcing tees times to get the golfers on the tee on time is not going to be a disturbance to the surrounding neighborhood. Commissioner Tolladay stated that we need to amend special condition number sixteen when the motion is made. Ron Kent stated he doesn t even know if it is a necessity to amend item sixteen. It is pretty well common knowledge, you announce tee times. That has been going on since the golf course was created and it will continue to go on. This clearly anticipates any extraordinary noises generated from the facility above and beyond a normal operation noises. Staff is recommending that kind of activity in that highly dense residential area should be prohibited. Commissioner Kimball stated so in your judgment we do not need to do any additional wording in that motion. Jack Lohman stated that when the zone change was approved for this project, there was a very specific condition that the golf course had to go on until There was a second part of that condition that said that they have to provide us a document that a stipulation would be recorded on the CC&R s and they did provide us with a draft. We did not quite get the copy that we wanted nailed down specifically stating that. He thinks that he should restate that condition to make sure that we get it exactly the way the BOCC wanted it in the zone change. Anthony Massian stated that he is more than willing to sit down with the staff and work through any of those agreements. Ron Kent stated that you would agree that it would relate back to the date of the prior hearing. Anthony Massian stated that they all agree to the year PRPC June 11,2008 Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 18

9 Commissioner Skinner stated since the applicant is ready to go he doesn t see any reason why we should have the Conditional Use Permit expire in three years. He thinks it should be lessened to one year. Commissioner Kimball stated that what it says is that the use is commenced or construction is completed. It is quite appropriate to be three years. Commissioner Skinner stated that he read it incorrectly. Public Comment 7:21 p.m. Joe McKendrick referenced his letter. (letter attatched) Don Luttrell stated that he is in agreement with everything that Mr. McKendrick stated. If we wanted to save the golf course like he does then we would delay the conditional use permit until the gaming license was issued. (letter attatched) Commissioner Kimball stated that the gaming license is issued after the Conditional Use Permit. This is not us rushing to judgment, this was gone over very carefully in public here and then in front of the BOCC. Don Luttrell stated that he hopes that the people in Pahrump think of this when election time comes around, so they can elect the right people that make the right decisions. If the commission or planning would have done or attempted investigation of Willow Creek Holdings like myself and Mr. McKendrick did, you wouldn t issue them a temporary permit for them to chew gum. Richard Cantino stated that the project ought to go ahead and start and as soon as possible. Joyce Call stated that she is a member of Willow Creek Golf Course and that she also lives on the golf course. They have done wonders with that golf course just in that last 3 or 4 months, they have restored it and it is in great shape. Mr. Luttrell has a bone to pick because he was told that he can never come to the golf course again. His house is up for sale, so as soon as his house sales, he is going to be long gone. She said that we shouldn t listen to anything he says. Kay Hendricks stated that she is a resident of Lake View. She said the reason why there was so many people there at the February meeting is because they were all convinced that Willow Creek was going to buy Lake View Golf Course and that they had put down a $30,000 deposit with the option to get all of their money back. They are no longer interested in Lake View Golf Course. So you don t see the lake View people here, probably because they don t know what is going on. She is disappointed because she thinks that Joe and Don have done their homework, and she questions whether the Commissioners or the RPC have done their homework. She wanted to make sure that they have done their homework before they vote in favor. Commissioner Kimball stated that he thought that the purchase of Lake View was one of the conditions of the approval. Jack Lohman stated that we do not get involved in the contractual deals with one of these two parties. That was not part of the condition. Dan Simmons stated that he is a resident of Willow Creek Golf Course, and that he thinks that there is a real danger, that is without some additional funding coming into the golf course we are going to end up with just weeds. At some point a business will just cease to operate and they will have to stop watering. These people need this business and this income to continue to maintain the golf course. He would really encourage them to consider their request and approve it. Richard Taylor stated that he also lives on the golf course and his main concern would be if they do not have the golf course there, where is the utility company going to dump all of their waste. PRPC June 11,2008 Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 18

10 Commissioner Borasky stated that he apologizes that he couldn t be on time tonight and thanks Commissioner Hollis for filling in his place. He is the one that motioned to approve this at the BOCC. He had put 4 additional special conditions on this project. One was to extend the date to 2043; two was that the golf course be fully maintained until at least 2043, and would like to see that within 90 days; three that the developer get a Conditional Use permit, which is what you are taking care of now and four that the developer would have to comply with all state and federal regulations. The project is to be started within one year and completed within two years. Everett Greenwood stated that he had attended two of the Willow Creek Golf Course meetings where they had stated that they were going to buy Lake View Golf Course as part of the purchase and the development of Willow Creek. That was also stated again at the BOCC meeting. Public Comment Closed 7:45 p.m. Anthony Maissian stated that they are more than willing to work with staff on any issues. There has been a lot said about people doing their homework. I was an educator in Clark County and the homework that was done would have failed in his class. The taxes that were past due were not on our property. IBI holds and Nevada State Business License and a Clark County Business License and they are hired by them to do the work. He doesn t see them filing a fictitious firm name in Nye County when they already have it with the State. They had every intention in buying Lake View, we would like it as an overflow facility, we are going to need a place to put locals and people who don t want to play 18 holes. He said that their funding didn t come through, so they were forced to pull out their $30,000 to make payroll. If this project goes through they will take another run at Lake View. They would like both properties to be tied in together. Commissioner Tolladay asked counsel if they needed to have a Nye County business license also. Ron Kent stated that when it comes to a DBA the purpose intent of the ordinance as well as the statute is to protect consumers in retail transactions. The DBA applies to people that are coming out and giving you pest control, or selling you a car. The purpose being the people have the right to know who owns the company. They are just developing land and to his knowledge they are not dealing with consumers on any type of retail levels. They do not need a DBA. They might need to go to the Town of Pahrump under their business license ordinance. We don t require developers coming into this jurisdiction coming before board and county commission in the preambles of the development to go out and get DBA unless they are actually doing business with consumer retail services. Based on the information he has, there is no problem. Commissioner Kimball asked if we can add another special condition that would reconsider the purchase of Lake View, when finances would allow him to do so. Anthony Maissian stated that he can t say today that he can commit to it. Commissioner Kimball would like to get on the record that it is the spirit to do so whether or not it is binding. Anthony Maissian stated if it is a non-binding condition, and with funding in place he would. Commissioner Masterson motioned to approve CU adding a condition that deed on the CC&R s be completed before the Conditional Use Permit and relating back to the initial hearing, which is special condition # 18. Commissioner Skinner seconded. Roll call vote: Murray, no; Opatik, yes; Tolladay, yes; Masterson, yes; Kimball, yes; Skinner, yes; Schinhofen, yes; Motion to approve passes 6-1. Break-7:58 p.m. Reconvened-8:10 p.m 10. a. MP : (Minor) Master Plan Amendment application to change approximately acres from the BLM Disposal Area Heavy Industrial Reserve Land Use Category to the Community Facilities/Municipal/Schools Land Use Category, situated at the northeast corner of the intersection of Jeane Avenue and Eberhard Road, located at 7501 E. Chromium Blvd., Section 2, Township 21 PRPC June 11, 2008 Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 18

11 Applicant, Agent. Agent. Applicant, Property South, Range 54 East. Bureau of Land Management Department AP#: Owner; Nye County Planning b. ZC : (Non-Conforming) Zone Change application to change approximately acres from the Reserve (R) Zoning District to the Community Facilities (CF) Zoning District, situated at the northeast corner of the intersection of Jeane Avenue and Eberhard Road, located at 7501 E. Chromium Blvd., Section 2, Township 21 South, Range 54 East. Bureau of Land Management Property Owner, Nye County Planning Department AP#: Steve Osborne reviewed the applications, case history, and project description; this is a potential site for future development of a community college campus. Staff is recommending approval of this request subject to all the conditions outlined in the staff report. Commissioner Kimball stated that it is an essential item to furthering the development of a four year college. This is a tremendously important project and part of our negotiation with the federal government over this land involves this zoning. Public Comment-8:12 p.m. Public Comment Closed Commissioner Schinliofen motioned to Approve MP and ZC Commissioner Skinner seconded. Roll call vote: : Murray, yes; Opatik, yes; Tolladay, yes; Masterson, yes; Kimball, yes; Skinner, yes; Schinhofen, yes; Motion to approve passes a. TL : Tentative Large Parcels Map application to divide approximately 160 acres into two (2) parcels, one (1) parcel of approximately 120 acres and one (1) parcel of approximately 43 acres on property zoned as Community Facilities (CF), located at 2250 Mesquite Avenue, situated at the northwest corner of Powerline Road & Mesquite Avenue, and described as File Map # , Section 36, Township 19 South, Range 53 East. United Holdings Corporation Property Owner/Applicant, WLB Group AP# b. FL : Final Large Parcels Map application to divide approximately 160 acres into two (2) parcels, one (1) parcel of approximately 120 acres and one (1) parcel of approximately 43 acres on property zoned as Community Facilities (CF), located at 2250 Mesquite Avenue, situated at the northwest corner of Powerline Road & Mesquite Avenue, and described as File Map #589917, Section 36, Township 19 South, Range 53 East. United Holdings Corporation Property Owner/Applicant, WLB Group AP# Steve Osborne reviewed the applications, case history, and project descriptions; the Final map will allow the Parcel Map to be recorded and this is for the future Detention Center. There is a special condition, # 5 states all the required improvements relating to the Final map shall be deferred to the Development Agreement and Site Development Plan associated with the development of the private detention facility proposed for the 120-acre parcel. Staff is recommending approval of both applications. Donald Fleck stated that he is representing the WLB Group. Tom Driggs with Santora Driggs Walch, with him he has Mr. Buddy Johns who is with the Corrections Corporation of America and will be building the detention center. They agree with the special conditions of approval that staff is recommending. Public Comment 8:16 p.m. Public Comment Closed PRPC June 11,2008 Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 18

12 Property Commissioner Opatik stated that this is an improper use of that parcel, therefore she cannot support any of this. She does not think that it is a good thing for Pahrump. Commissioner Tolladay motioned to Approve TL and FL subject to staff recommendations and conditions. Commissioner Skinner seconded. Roll call vote: : Murray, yes; Opatik, no; Tolladay, yes; Masterson, yes; Kimball, yes; Skinner, yes; Schinhofen, yes; Motion to approve passes WV : Waiver Application to allow the 10 wide landscape buffer required adjacent to Hwy 160 to be placed adjacent to the building and allow the 30 cross-access easement to be placed adjacent to Hwy 160, and to allow a 6 landscape buffer along Cortina Street (regardless of whether it is determined to be the front or the rear of the property) where a 10 landscape buffer is required in the front and a 6 buffer at the rear of the property, per the landscaping requirements of the Site Development Plan application and per NCC , located at 3001 E. Cortina Street, known as Calvada Valley Unit 10, Block 9, Lot 41. Austin Renee Holdings, LLC Owner/Applicant, Civilwise Services, LLC - Agent. AP# Steve Osborne reviewed the application, case history, and project description; they are asking for a 6 foot landscape buffer where a 10 foot buffer is required. The 6 foot landscape buffer was already allowed by the BOCC and their conditions of approval. That is not an issue. The other issue is that the developer wants to put the cross access easement adjacent to Highway 160. They want to reverse the landscaping and the cross access easement. A couple of key issues; if this waiver is approved then the adjacent parcel owners would also be required to obtain waivers in the future when they develop their properties, in order to have the cross access easement line up. There are other options available to the developer that would not require a waiver. In summary we don t feel that the criteria is met in this case to justifi the waiver. Staff is recommending denial. Jack Lohman stated that he received word today from Public Works, by , they are also recommending denial due to the proximity of the cross access easement to Highway 160. It is a safety hazard with future development. The problem is, if you pave it all the way to the highway then what is to separate traffic from using it as a passing lane. Commissioner Kimball stated that Cortina would be neither the front nor rear, it would be the side. He assumes the front is where you would enter. They are proposing to enter the parking lot from Cortina, but they would also be able to have access from the other end if he gets his way on the easement. The front of the building is facing neither Cortina or Highway 160. Commissioner Masterson stated that one of the reasons they have required the Highway frontage and the 30 foot, when this was all zoned it was the idea that there would be no entrance off of Cortina. Cortina is a residential street. That was an agreement when they did this originally. He cannot go along with this. Commissioner Skinner asked staff if the fire department would require access off of Cortina, since you cannot get a fire truck in there. There will be an opening there, right? Steve Osborne stated that they do not require access but they would require an emergency crash gate. Commissioner Hollis stated that he had questions for the Public Works Director, since he is not here he would like to make it matter of record that no one from Public Works is present. Jack Lohman stated that he did speak to Mr. Yao today and that he was up north in Gabbs. He did also state that he plans on making it personally from now on. Dave Richards with Civilwise Services, representing the applicant. Stated that up till this point in time he didn t believe that Public Works had an issue. If they were required to do the 10 foot landscaping on the right of way and then another 30 foot access easement from that point on, it is essentially taking 40 feet of that already small lot away from development potential. All it is a driveway right next to the highway. The pavement of the highway sits about 65 feet from the right of way line. They are proposing to put the 24 feet on the far side of the 30 foot. This does not put traffic right next to each other, they are not going to drive across the 50 foot void of land to pass a car on the right hand side. There will be sidewalks and some landscaping before they get to the frontage roads. The access on Cortina was approved by the BOCC, they withdrew the condition that there was no access to Cortina, especially in this area. PRPC June 11,2008 Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 18

13 They would rather put the landscaping between the building and the cross access easement. Rather than having the cross access easement and the driveway running right along side the building frontages. Commissioner Kimball stated that they are all confused because he is using the word adjacent and he just wants to move it 10 feet to get that landscaping at the building. Dave Richards stated exactly, they are not trying to put driving lanes adjacent to other driving lanes. Commissioner Kimball asked what this would do to the future of Frontage road. Dave Richards stated all of those driveways are only built 24 feet wide. Even though there is 30 feet of cross access easement allowed. There is still another 6 foot of what could be a landscape barrier. He thinks that it is allowing for some very creative and nice looking landscaping between the highway and the actual buildings. Commissioner Schinhofen asked where the 6 feet of landscaping that Mr. Richards is talking about, is going to go. Would that be considered the side of the building, and would that be adequate? Jack Lohman stated that it would be the front of the building. If he puts that 6 foot landscaping there it reduces your cross access easement 24 feet, 30 foot is a cross access. Eventually he could wind up with a situation like we have described. Commissioner Schinhofen stated that he heard that Mr. Richards would rather do this because it would look better and he feels that it would function better. The way that he has to decide this is there is no special condition to cause you not to be able to do it. No hardship. Dave Richards stated the hardship is that by this requirement, you are removing 40 feet of usable property. Commissioner Schinhofen asked staff about the forty feet that Mr. Richards says that he is losing, is that normal. Is it what is usually required? Jack Lohman stated that the cross access easement is 30 feet. Commissioner Kimball stated if the BOCC removed the restriction on Cortina it was probably that they were trying to be helpful to these lots and by giving access from Cortina, because you were going to lose land from the other end. Are these lots posing a natural restriction to construction so that certain types of things shouldn t be built there? Jack Lohman stated that he thinks that the problem is that most people over design these lots. You can always build a vacant lot to meet the standards. Public Comment 8:39 p.m. Public Comment Closed David Richards stated the only summary that he has is that all they are trying to do is re-locate where the landscaping goes. They would rather have the landscaping between the building and the cross access easement, rather than running a driveway right along side the building. Commissioner Tolladay stated that they have miles of these lots. These lots are deceptive in that, without allowing access from the back streets we have to have the cross access easement for them to develop the property. That severely restricts the size of the structure that can be placed on those lots. They have been consistent in requiring that of others on these similar lots. His thought is that they need to remain consistent. The hardship is self-imposed due to the design. Commissioner Schinhofen motioned to Deny WV based on staff findings and recommendations.. Commissioner Tolladay secondeil Roll call vote: Murray, yes; Opatik, yes; Tolladay, yes; Masterson, yes; Kimball, yes; Skinner, yes; Schinhofen, yes; Motion to deny passes 7-0. PRPC June 11,2008 Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 18

14 Applicant/Agent. Property 14. WV : Waiver Application to waive the landscaping requirements of the Site Development Plan per NCC where it requires vegetative landscaping buffers adjacent to the side and rear property lines, located at 1541 E. Nevada Highway 372, Calvada Valley Unit 6. Shu Te Ideker Owner, Stan Popek AP# Beth Lee reviewed the application, case history and project description; The applicant is proposing to develop existing abandoned building for a used auto sales lot. This application has been before the RPC on three previous occasions. This application is to request that vegetative landscaping and ground cover be permitted only in the front along the 372 of the development. The vegetative landscaping has the potential to deteriorate the block wall, along the rear of the property it does become a retaining wall. Because it is a building that is pre-existing and pre-dates Nye County code requirement, they feel that it is a special circumstance and that he should be given the same opportunity that others have been giving in town to remodel and existing building. Staff is recommending approval. Commissioner Masterson stated that they are still requiring the landscaping just non-vegetative. Beth Lee answered correct, that he is still going to be required to maintain his landscaping buffers with nonvegetative Commissioner Kimball stated that they can put rock and other sort of things other than bushes. Stan Popek stated correct, Brent Steed met with him at the property. He said that you don t want to put irrigation and plants by the wall because of the expansive soils, it would cause the block wall to deteriorate. Public Comment-8:45 p.m. Public Comment Closed Commissioner Tolladay asked if the structural engineers report finally received. Beth Lee stated yes that it was received prior to the application. It did state what needed to be done to bring the existing building current with 2006 IBC Codes, and that it could be done. Commissioner Tolladay stated the block wall has been vandalized over the years, he was making sure that it was going to be restored all the way around. Beth Lee stated that, that it is a condition of approval that was also one of staff concerns. She referenced special condition # 12. They are also requesting as a condition of approval because the length of time that this building has sat vacant and abandoned for so long, they are concerned about the block wall. When you start parking cars on it you are going to increase the weight and the load limit that is going to be on there. They would like to request that the applicant receive an engineer s approval that the block wall has enough integrity to hold what he proposes to do. Commissioner Schinhofen asked if the soils report states that because of the expansive soil that there should not be any water there. Beth Lee stated that she cannot speak to the soils report, she has not seen the soils report and that it is out of the scope of her expertise. Because the building was built so long ago it predates both Nye County code and the development of the Building Department. Commissioner Skinner stated that in a lot of case with soils report it describes the type of vegetation that can be in proximity to the house. Without having an actual soils report for this particular lot he doesn t understand how someone from Building & Safety can go ahead and make this judgment call. PRPC June 11,2008 Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 18

15 Property Agent, Property Commissioner Masterson motioned to Approve WV subject to staffs findings and recommendations. Commissioner Opatik seconded. Roll call vote: Murray, yes; Opatik, yes; Tolladay, yes; Masterson, yes; Kimball, yes; Skinner, yes; Schinhofen, no; Motion to approve passes TM : Tentative Subdivision Map application for a commercial subdivision on approximately acres in the General Commercial (GC) Zoning District, located at 1131 and 1371 N. Nevada Highway 160, situated on Highway 160 between Irene and Adkisson Streets, known as Parcels 1 & 2 of file map , Pahrump 194, LLC Owner/Applicant, Pentacor Engineering, LLC Agent. AP# s & 68. David Stallworth reviewed the application, case history and the project description; the applicant is proposing to construct both Adkisson and Promenade to standard, widen both Irene and Highway 160, and provide automated traffic controls at Irene and Highway 160. This is to accommodate expected traffic increases. The applicant also would like to have water and sewer extensions on this site. Staff is recommending approval. Brad Jones stated that he represents the applicant, they agree with staff s conditions and they ask for a favorable vote. Public Comment-8:55 p.m. Public Comment Closed Commissioner Schinhofen motioned to Approve TM based on staff findings and recommendations.. Commissioner Masterson seconded. Roll call vote: Murray, yes; Opatik, yes; Tolladay, yes; Masterson, yes; Kimball, yes; Skinner, yes; Schinhofen, yes; Motion to approve passes PM : Condominium Parcel Map application to divide approximately 0.34 acres into four (4) residential parcels and one (1) common area parcel on property master planned as Medium Density Residential and zoned Multi-family Residential (MF), located at Teepee Rd., situated on South Teepee Road approximately 100 feet south of Ambush St, and known as Lot 14, Block 6, Calvada Valley Unit 2, File map Rising Phoenix Building & Development, LLC Owner/Applicant, Civilwise Services, LLC. AP# Steve Osborne reviewed the application, case history and project description; this is a proposal to take two existing duplexes and convert them into four separately owned dwelling units. Staff is recommending approval subject to all the conditions outlined in the staff report. Dave Richards, Civilwise Services, representing the applicant, stated that he has no problems with any of the conditions. He referenced to special condition # 25, which states that the owner is responsible to improve half of the right-of-way on Teepee Road fronting the property to paved county standard road. He would like to propose that they re-word that a little bit because he believes that in discussions with Samson Yao that they may take a cash-in-lieu of pavement so that when the county is ready to pave the whole road they have cash for that too and it is all done at once. Commissioner Kimball asked Mr. Richards what his suggestion is to re-word Special Condition # 25. Dave Richards stated that the owner is responsible to improve half right-of-way on Teepee Road fronting the property to be paved a county standard road or, if acceptable to the Public Works Director, a cash-in-lieu agreement. Public Comment-8:58 p.m. Public Comment Closed Ron Kent stated with regard to Item # 25, unless the Director of Public Works specifically agrees, in writing, to accept cash-in-lieu. PRPC June 11,2008 Meeting Minutes Page 15 of 18

16 Commissioner Tolladay motioned to Approve PM based on stafffindings and recommendations and to include Mr. Kent s wording on special condition # 25. Commissioner Opatik seconded. Roll call vote: Murray, yes; Opatik, yes; Tolladay, yes; Masterson, yes; Kimball, yes; Skinner, yes; Schinhofen, yes; Motion to approve passes Old Business None 18. Discussion and Direction Concerning Items for Future Meetings/Workshops; Set Date, Location and Time of Future Pahrump Regional Planning Commission Meetings. Commissioner Kimball stated that Jack and himself were talking about general proceedings in planning and how to make things a little more efficient and work more successfully for the entire community. It was our suggestion and Jack has agreed, that we would ask these same folks as a committee internally in the Planning Department, not as a public committee authorized by the BOCC, but as a private citizens group to meet with Jack and work out whatever they all agree to as to the way the procedures might be more effective. It is his understanding that they are going to call a meeting with those folks and they will come in and sit down with Jack. Jack Lohman stated that, that is correct. We would like to know what the problems are and these people apparently have been working on that, so it makes sense to get together and roll our sleeves up and work it out. Commissioner Kimball stated that the June 25, 2008 workshop that they were talking about on the grandfathering issue for a report from Mr. Johnson, and also the landscape report from Beth Lee, so that they can have a chance to review that aloud and see where that takes them. Jack Lohman stated that he already has that, so he can review it and give your input on June 25, 2008 on your second optional day we would like to have a workshop on those two things. He asked if they have come to the item about the Regional Flood Control District Service Plan, this is something else, this is what has to happen. There is going to be a report that you received a couple months ago about the proposed Pahrump Regional Flood Control District Service Plan. So we will cover all three items on June 25, We will cover the first two that you mentioned and this one. What has to happen with this is basically, this is a new report, the other one should be thrown away. What we have to do is the Planning Commission has to review this document and decide whether it is good for the community and whether it is affordable. Samson Yao will come here and give you a presentation on June 25, Then on July 9, 2008 a member of the Planning Commission is required to appear before the BOCC and present the findings. That is the procedure that has to be followed according to the NRS. It is very tightly controlled so we have to give you the report, we will have a workshop so you can better understand it and answers some questions at that point and then you must present it to the BOCC. Commissioner Kimball said that reason that he asked for the workshop is because if he has to go in in front of the Board of County Commissioners and make an actual recommendation. It is one thing if we say yes we like the this and we are recommending adoption. So if we are not adopting it in mass, the burden is on us to give a report. He would like the workshop to get a full chance to talk to Public Works before we have to go in and address it. Jack Lohman stated also one more item, is the fact that we are all looking at the parking standards from other communities, similar communities in Nevada, Texas and California, and to come up and measure to see if our standards are realistic or unrealistic. Commissioner Kimball asked why aren t we having a workshop and then having it on the agenda for the RPC to consider. How are we going to recommend to them other than informally. Shouldn t it had been that we read this, have our workshop, and then it comes before us at our next meeting. Jack Lohman stated no that, that is not the way it is supposed to work. Basically, the way that it will work is that you will have your workshop, then you have to have the hearing on July 9, 2008, and then you will make your comments officially. You will have to make your vote of each item, and then it will go to the BOCC on July 15, PRPC June 11, 2008 Meeting Minutes Page 16 of 18

17 Commissioner Schinhofen asked if we will be starting that meeting earlier or will they just be there later. Jack Lohman stated that they will start the workshop at six o clock, that will be a separate meeting, no other agenda items except the for the three things that we mentioned. On the 25 th we will have the workshop at six. You will have your regular meeting on the ninth, we will deal with this then. Last but not least some body will have to go to the BOCC on the fifteenth. Jack Lohman stated regarding the parking, we are still doing research, so when we get that we will do the same thing we as we did here. You will have a packet to review then we can schedule a workshop for that. Commissioner Schinhofen stated that he would like to thank that staff for all of their work on this. And that he is looking forward to the parking thing. He thinks that they are doing a great job. Jack Lohman stated that he would like to thank Beth Lee, that she did a great job on the landscaping packet. Commissioner Kimball stated that if they can have someone that we know, a landscape designer or someone comment, or come to the workshop, that it would be a great idea so that whatever they end up recommending to the BOCC isn t just coming from you guys and themselves. It would look good to get some professional creditability to what we are trying to recommend. Jack Lohman stated that he does know some, but unfortunately they want to be paid. Maybe he can get some information from them that we can utilize. 19. Adjournment This meeting was adjourned at 9:09 p.m. PRPC June 11,2008 Meeting Minutes Page 17 of 18

18 Approved Date: July 9, 2008 Attest: J1arR if 1(1mb Il, Chairper Pahrump Regional Planning Commission I No a Jean Opa1 Secretary Pahrump Regional Planning Commission PRPC June 11, 2008 Meeting Minutes Page 18 of 18

19 First, there is no recorded public comment from me because I was not sent notice of the CUP. I had to call and request it after I saw it online. This application was filed by the IBI Group. As of yesterday, the JET Group has not filed a fictitious name with the Nye County Clerk. According to NRS and Nye County Code , all persons doing business under an assumed or fictitious name must file with the county in which business is being conducted. IBI Group is conducting business with Nye county and the city of Pabrump. Whether or not any of the members are licensed professionals by the state does not matter, they are in violation. Also, law with Nye County Code paragraph M., conditional use permit applications can only be accepted by authorized agents with a designated power of attorney. Has this been filed? The topper is, JAW NRS , a person doing business in this state without complying with the requirements of this chapter or having falsely filed a certificate of termination, is guilty of a misdemeanor. The RPC and Nye County should not even be accepting applications from the IBI Group. All current applications should cease and all actions applied for and approved by the RPC and Board of County Commissioners including Master plan changes and Zone changes, should be overturned because the application was fraudulently filed with a crime being committed. This parcel has also been named in the Nye County Trustee Certificate issued on June 2, 2008 for unpaid property taxes to the county. This information has been recorded and published in the Pabrump Valley Times. Can a conditional use permit be issued for a property that is delinquent in taxes? How can you provide a privilege to a businçss that does not fulfill its financial obligations to Nye County? On June 5, 2008, a Notice of Breach and Default and of Election to Cause Sell of Real Property under Deed of Trust was filed. This was for default on a $6.5 M loan with the property used as collateral. The owners of Willow Creek have 35 days from the recording date to rectify the deficiencies or the property may be sold. That is less than a month from today. This seems like a very precarious time to grant a conditional use permit. The owners of Willow Creek had plans to buy the Lakeview golf course. Residents of Lakeview signed a petition of some kind to allow the zone change. Now that the zone change has been enacted, the offer to buy Lakeview was rescinded. I wonder how many of those people who backed the owner have changed their tune. Was that purchase a ruse to gain support from community members? The property owners surrounding that parcel who will be most affected are opposed to a casino, yet their opinions do not seem to matter. I do not agree that with the planning commission s study of the application. By looking at the site plan, one can see the 100 room hotel, casino space and numerous parking spaces. The planned casino resort is comparable to the Pahrump Nugget, with the exception that Willow Creek s golf course could be substituted for the Nugget s bowling alley. How many cars and patrons are at the Nugget every day? The proposal for Willow

20 Creek attempts to create the same business as the Nugget in the middle of residential housing including elementary and high schools. How would that number of visitors not create an impact on the local infrastructure, especially the roads? While a spa resort hotel is allowed in the CCR s, gaming is not mentioned. Would the committee members like to have a casino in their backyard or next to their children s school? Section 3 of the findings is a joke. It states that if the facility creates a nuisance for the neighboring community, operations could be restricted. Casinos are 24-hour businesses; the entire casino operation will be a nuisance for a residential neighborhood. At the February RPC meeting, numerous parcels were divided to allow the building of a planned urban development. I did not attend because I was not notified even though my property is within 300 feet of some parcels. I certainly would have been there to oppose that. Willow Creek owns all of those parcels some zoned as commercial, some open space, and some residential. Nye County code states that residential and gaming cannot occupy the same property. No application has been made for a gaming license. Can the owners of Willow Creek even qualify for a gaming license? It does not matter who operates the casino, all parties of the operation including owners are investigated. Nye County Code paragraph G. states the reasons that a gaming license can be refused. Some include committing crimes, financial insolvency, history of financial problems, or insufficient funds to back the gaming. Would not Violation of NRS and NCC, unpaid taxes and defaults on loans be sufficient cause for denial? Why should a CUP be issued for something so unknown from parties with questionable ability to obtain a gaming license? To restate, the owners have not followed the law in their applications, owe back taxes, are in default on their mortgage, and want to open a casino in a residential neighborhood. The RPC and the Nye County Commission would be remiss or even negligent in their duties and responsibilities to the citizens they represent if this application is allowed to proceed. I ask again, why should the owners be granted the privilege of a conditional use permit when there are so many major issues with the owners, their application, and the intended use of the property? Joe McKendrick, Jr. Star Rd (775)

21 My name is Don Luttrell, I agree with every thing Mr. McKendricks has said. On the $6.5 million dollar loan not only is the golf property used for collateral, but there is a separate deed of trust for the water rights that is also used for collateral. If they do not cure the default the lender will take control and operate the course till a new owner is found. This would save the golf course from further abuse in the hands of the present operators. The contact at Nevada State Gaming Board Investigations is Beverly Meyer. According to her office no one has applied for a gaming license as of June 9, She also said that the landlord of a property would be scrutinized as well as the applicant that would operate the gaming on said property. So bringing in an outside company to run the gaming does not insure a gaming license. One would think if your panel had the interest of the town of Pahrump at heart and want to save the golf course as I do, you would delay the conditional use permit until the gaming license was issued. They do not need a building for the gaming license; all they need is an address. Just look down HY 160, all Pahrump needs is another empty building. Do you think this attracts new business to the area? Now there would probably be one in a residential neighborhood, do you think this will attract new residents to the area? The operative word here is think. This panel is supposed to think. I am sure you have afready made your decision on the conditional use permit. Like the BOC meeting on this matter, it was obvious their decision was already made behind closed doors. One Commissioner said in a private conversation to me there is such a the project, we will probably have to approve it and hope the gaming board turns it down. supportf I hope the people of Pahrump THINK about this when it comes to election time. They can elect the right people to make the right decisions and appoint the right people than can think beyond their own personal benefits. If you had done one tenth of investigating of Willow Creek Holdings that Mr. McKendricks and myself have done, you would not issue them a temporary permit to chew gum.

22 matter that prevents further pursuit of the same matter in any court. When a judge makes such a and full public services and infrastructure are available. homestead residential zone is appropriate in rural areas where urban services will not be provided for an extended period of time. multifamily residential zone is appropriate where more urban characteristics are desired applications for similar Master plan and Zone Changes which were denied with prejudice A lot of factors determine the value of Real Estate. In addition to location, location, One ofthe great features of our American form of Government is in a quiet, rural setting without maintaining a large agricultural operation. The RH-4.5 rural ifyou 150 N. Highway 160,, Pahrump, NV Regular Meeting, June 11, 2008, Item 9a and 9b. Tel: Bob Rudd Community Center June 11, Oakridge Ave. Calvin and Norma Morrison Pabrump Regional Planning Commission Pahrump, Nevada Ladies and Gentlemen: laws, you have the right to try and change them, for example zoning. One of our neighbors has filed MP and ZC with the Pahrump Regional Planning Commission to rezone Commercial, and Multifamily Residential. location, a property zoned General Commercial; or Neighborhood Commercial; or Multifamily The RH-4.5 rural homestead residential zones are intended to provide low density uses The MF multifamily residential zone is intended as an area for moderate and high density and multifamily residential development, and to preclude incompatible uses. The MF don t like the their property from RH-4.5 Rural Homestead Residential to General Commercial, Neighborhood Residential will be worth more than the same property zoned Rural Homestead Residential. with a minimum lot size of 4.5 acres, where animals may be kept as well as accessory buildings residential uses in a more urban environment, the principal purpose is for single-family attached MP and ZC-08-00I 1 should be denied because this is spot zoning ; and because there is no need for more GC or NC zoning in the area; and because there are no fill public services and infrastructure to support the MF zoning. The applicant has previously submitted by the Nye County Board of Commissioners on August 23, with prejudice is defmed as: A fmal and binding decision by a judge about a legal decision, he dismisses the matter with prejudice. Sincerely, Calvin and Norma Morrison