Park Cattle proposal enters pipeline this week

Gardnerville town staff is recommending denial of Park Cattle Co.'s master plan amendment, which goes before the town board on Tuesday.

"While the overall submitted development plan has many worthy elements, the timing is not yet appropriate due to the current availability of developable land within the existing receiving area," town manager Jim Park wrote in his staff report.

The Park Ranch Specific Plan involves two large chunks of land: a 1,373-acre parcel east of Highway 395, and a 3,214-acre parcel west of Highway 395 between Mottsville and Genoa lanes.

Park Cattle's master plan amendment would turn 800 acres of the eastern parcel into receiving area for residential, commercial and light industrial development, allowing 4,900 dwelling units for the residential sites.

The majority of the west parcel would be preserved as agricultural land and open space along the East Fork of the Carson River.

Current agricultural zoning, one house per 19 acres, allows Park Cattle 236 residential units, or 600 under clustering laws.

Jim Park found the company's master plan amendment inconsistent with Douglas County code.

"Under county code, a master plan amendment is to be evaluated based on four needed findings," he said.

Finding A states, "[The applicant] has demonstrated a change in circumstances since the adoption of the plan that makes it appropriate to reconsider one or more of the goals and objectives or land use designations."

"A demonstrated 'change in circumstance' cannot be qualified as affirmative at this time," Park wrote. "The master plan was just updated in 2006."

Finding B states, "the proposed amendment is based on a demonstrated need for additional land to be used for the proposed use, and that the demand cannot be reasonably accommodated within the current boundaries of the area."

"In terms of finding B, the opinion of town staff is that there is currently significant numbers of approved and yet to be developed parcels for both commercial and residential uses within the existing urban service area," Park said.

Finding C says, "the proposed amendment would not materially affect the availability, adequacy, or level of service of any public improvement serving people outside of the applicant's property and will not be inconsistent with the adequate public facilities policies."

Park reported specific concerns about water.

"To the best of staff's knowledge, the Town of Minden and the Gardnerville Town Water Company have not yet approved serving domestic water to the proposed new receiving area," Park said. "Supporting documentation that water rights have been 'earmarked' for the proposed new receiving area has not been provided."

Parks also said flooding issues, involving a new county ordinance and FEMA maps, should be resolved before adding new receiving area to any town.

Finding D says a new development should "create a perceivable community edge as strong as the one it replaces."

"Staff's thought process requires 'making a jump' to what the current community edge would, in fact, be, as while some of that edge is now developed, the larger portion of that edge has yet to be developed," Park said. "The time to increase receiving area has frankly not arrived."

Park Cattle's proposal will go before the Minden Town Board Wednesday and before the Douglas County Planning Commission Aug. 12 and 13 in a two-day special session.