FAQs
***Updated October 31, 2019***
Q. I have questions and/or public comment regarding the proposed changes to the Douglas County Master Plan and/or the Park Development Agreement. How do I get my questions answered and/or submit my public comment to the Board for consideration?
A. Douglas County is hosting a series of public workshop on October 21st-23rd at the locations and times identified on the Master Plan Update webpage. The workshops will include an introduction by the County Manager, a brief staff presentation regarding the proposed Master Plan Amendments and Park Ranch Holdings LLC Development Agreement followed by a question and answer breakout session where citizens can also give feedback regarding the proposed Master Plan Amendments and Development Agreement. Community Development will also host open office hours on October 24, 2019 from 2:00pm until 5:00pm at the Minden Inn located at 1594 Esmeralda Avenue, Minden NV. Additional information regarding these meetings and all public hearings is available on the Master Plan Update webpage. Public comment may also be submitted in writing.
Q. How can I view the maps and get information about the proposed changes to the Master Plan?
A. County Staff broke down the proposed changes by location on a series of maps posted on the County’s Master Plan Update webpage. An online viewer showing the existing vs. proposed changes can also be found on the webpage.
Q. What is the Master Plan?
A. A Master Plan is required by State Law, Nevada Revised Statute Chapter 278.150, for the purpose of providing long-term guidance on the development of cities, counties and regions in Nevada. The current Master Plan was adopted in 1996 and last updated in 2011. A copy of the current 2011 Master Plan is available to view on the Master Plan Update webpage.
The Douglas County Master Plan is a long range planning tool that provides guidance on the future location of different types of development in order to protect public health, safety, and welfare. The most recent process to update the 2011 Master Plan was started after a joint workshop of the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners in February 2016. Draft changes to the 2016 Master Plan Update were reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission but never fully adopted by the Board of Commissioners.
At a second joint workshop of the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners on May 23, 2019, direction was given to re-vise and finalize the plan for approval by December 2019. The minutes of the workshop are available on the Master Plan Update webpage.
Q. Why is the County considering the Master Plan Amendment to change 1,044 acres of Agricultural land to Receiving Area with 2,500 homes?
A. In 2016, the County began the process to update the 2011 Master Plan. The proposed Master Plan Amendments, including the possible change of 1,044 acres of Agricultural land to Receiving Area, is a continuation of the process started in 2016 to update the 2011 Plan.
As required by the State, the Master Plan should include discussion and consideration by the County of policy, goals, and objectives related to long-term development. Growth patterns in thriving communities change over time. A county’s Master Plan ensures that the Community properly plans and establishes a framework for development to occur by directing development into the areas of that Community that are best situated to serve and offset those impacts.
“Land Use” is the principal planning element in the Douglas County Master Plan related to long-term development and growth. Land use policies, goals and objectives “protect the public health, safety, and welfare of residents and property owners by providing sufficient land for residential, commercial, mixed-use, industrial, and public uses and by locating these uses in appropriate locations” (2011 Douglas County Master Plan, Land Use Element).
As noted in the Future Land Use section of the Land Use Element of the Master Plan, Receiving area may be established by the Board of County Commissioners through the Master Plan Amendment process as an additional tool to be used by the Board to plan for long-term growth and development in the County.
Whether or not to approve the proposed Master Plan Amendments, including creation of additional Receiving Area, is a policy decision for the Board of County Commissioners. To assist the Board with their decision to amend the Master Plan a number of findings must be made to evaluate the consistency of the proposed changes with the goals and polices of the Master Plan. An analysis regarding these findings prepared by Community Development will be provided to the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners as part of the meeting packet of materials. The Community Development report will be available to the Planning Commission, Board, and the public to view no less than three business days prior to the public hearings.
Q. What is a Receiving Area?
A. Receiving Areas serve two primary purposes. They are a planning tool to assist policy makers with identifying areas of the County which are best situated to accommodate future growth and development.
Receiving Areas are also an important requirement of the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program the county has in place to incentivize the conservation of open space and agricultural lands in the community. Frequently Receiving Areas serve the added purpose of assisting the County with flood control and management by further incentivizing the TDRs from sending areas located within the floodplain.
Through the TDR program, if a landowner wants to develop in a Receiving Area he/she must purchase development rights from a landowner in a Sending Area (areas zoned Agricultural or Forest and Range). When a development right is purchased, land in a Sending Area is permanently conserved from development. By designating the new land as a Receiving Area, the county is saying, “this land is more suitable for development than the land that should be conserved in the Sending Area.”
Whether or not to approve the proposed creation of additional Receiving Area, is a policy decision for the Board of County Commissioners. To ascertain the suitability of land to become Receiving Area, the County must consider a number of findings pursuant to Douglas County Code (DCC 20.608) including the availability of resources (including utility services), impact on infrastructure, neighborhood compatibility and consistency with the overall goals and objectives of the master plan. Additional information regarding Land Use in Douglas County can be found in the Land Use Element of the Master Plan on the County’s Master Plan Update webpage.
Q. Will the Park Ranch Holdings Development Agreement approve 2,500 homes to be constructed in this area?
A. If approved, the Development Agreement would limit the maximum number of homes to 2,500 to be built on the 1,044 acres included in the agreement. The 2,500 maximum residences would be subject to the Douglas County Building Permit Allocation and Growth Management Ordinance. The Development Agreement states:
“Development of the Property is planned to include a variety of residential uses, however no “big box” commercial development of a commercial building in excess of 30,000 square feet of commercial space shall be allowed on the Property. The Property may be developed to the density and intensity permitted by existing and future development approvals. A more thorough description of future development of the Property will be set out in future maps, in improvement plans submitted for approval to the County Engineer, and applications for specific plans or planned development(s).”
Q. What is the Douglas County Building Permit Allocation and Growth Management Ordinance? How does it work?
A. The Growth Management Ordinance was adopted in 2007. Projects with pre-existing Development Agreements (approved prior to the effective date of the ordinance) and vested projects are not subject to the Building Permit Allocation and Growth Management Ordinance, DCC Chapter 20.560. Vested projects are defined as residential projects that received tentative subdivision or planned development approval, tentative serial parcel map approval with subdivision standards, or in the case of a multi-family project, final project approval, prior to the effective date of the ordinance.
Building permit allocations are broken down into two categories: individual allocations (70%) and project allocations (30%) by a Resolution (No. 2007R-053) of the Board of County Commissioners. DCC Chapter 20.560 defines a "Project" as “an approved subdivision map, planned development, specific plan or attached or semi-detached multi-family residential project.”
The County’s Growth Management Ordinance, DCC Chapter 20.560, limits the number of new homes that can be built across the County to 2% growth annually (not including projects exempt projects prior to 2007). Currently just over 200 total allocations (30% of which are project allocations) are available for use in the County each year. Any unused allocations “roll over” from year to year into a “bank” of unused allocations called “excess allocations.”
Developers/builders are required to apply for these allocations as needed. Building permits are issued against the allocation on a first come first served basis and expire if not used within one year of issuance (one single extension may be granted for six months). Unused permits go back into the excess allocation “bank” and become available for future use.
It is important to note a Project applicant may also borrow against future allocations for permits. This would require a request by an applicant to utilize additional allocations from future years and approval by the Board of County Commissioners. The cumulative number of allocations taken by all projects requesting to bank and borrow may not exceed 40% of any year’s allocations available to distribute. The procedure for banking or borrowing allocations is established in DCC Chapter 20.560.150; a link to this code is included on the Master Plan Update webpage.
Q. If the Development Agreement is approved for 2,500 homes, how quickly could they be constructed?
A. The 2,500 maximum residences would be subject to the Douglas County Building Permit Allocation and Growth Management Ordinance DCC Chapter 20.560.150; a link to this code included on the Master Plan Update webpage.
Because a developer/builder involved with the Park project would be required to compete for a limited number of building permit allocations with other projects annually, and would only be able to build so many homes in any given year before the permit expired, it is likely it would take 20+ years before the 2,500 homes could be constructed. 125 homes would need to be constructed and issued a certificate of occupancy annually for buildout in 20 years to be achieved.
Q. On average how much has Douglas County grown in the last five years?
A. Since 2014 Douglas County has seen a 1.06% growth rate, growing from 48,553 in 2014 to 49,070 in 2018. The Nevada State Demographer considers low growth at 1.0% and the county’s Growth Management Ordinance allows up to 2% growth each year (State Demographer 2018 estimate).
A link to the Population Statistics and Reports (including population projections) for Nevada Counties prepared by the State Demographer is posted on the Master Plan Update webpage.
Q. Have the impacts of 2,500 new homes to traffic on 395 and Muller Parkway been evaluated?
A. The 2017 Transportation Master Plan indicates that if Muller Parkway is not fully constructed as a 4-lane arterial road by 2025, the level of service on US-395 will drop below County and State standards. Muller Parkway is an integral part of the adopted Transportation Plan and will connect future planned urban areas within Minden and Gardnerville and would be constructed in tandem with regional drainage improvements. When completed, such improvements will directly benefit the County by providing a major transportation route around Minden and Gardnerville as well as critical emergency access for first responders. A copy of the Douglas County 2017 Transportation Plan is available for review on the Master Plan Update webpage.
If the Park Ranch Holdings Development Agreement is approved, the property owner would dedicate the right-of-way (205 feet wide, 15,295 long, approximately 3 miles, 75.7 acres total) needed to construct Muller Parkway and the necessary drainage improvements to the County. The right-of-way will accommodate a four lane road, multi-modal paths and drainage facilities.
Q. Would development adjacent to the future alignment of Muller Parkway render Muller Parkway obsolete and/or ineffective?
A. The impact of 2,000+ residential homes developed along Muller was considered in the 2017 Transportation Plan Update. Allowing 2,500 residential units to be developed within the proposed Receiving Area adjacent to Minden and Gardnerville will not undermine the functionality of the future Muller Parkway. The traffic report used for the 2017 Transportation Plan assumed a growth rate in that traffic analysis zone based on census data through 2040 which exceeds the unit cap contained in the proposed Development Agreement. See Figure 2.5 of the 2017 Douglas County Transportation Plan for additional information on household growth by traffic analysis zone (posted on the webpage). Accordingly, even if all 2,500 homes allowed under the terms of the proposed agreement are constructed, the traffic generated thereby would not exceed the capacity of Muller Parkway nor render the new major arterial road obsolete or ineffective.
Q. Is there infrastructure in place to support this type of development?
A. Yes. Through the update to the Plan for Prosperity, the Towns expressed their desire and ability to plan for and provide services to “Future Urban Reserve Areas.” This future urban reserve area was identified on page 19 of the Minden Gardnerville Plan for Prosperity, Figure 1.4 (the Plan for Prosperity is included on the Master Plan Update webpage).
If the Master Plan Map Amendment and Development Agreement are approved, Receiving Area would be created closer to the towns of Minden and Gardnerville. Any development within the newly-designated Receiving Area adjacent to Minden/Gardnerville would be required to connect to existing water and sewer utilities in accordance with the Park Ranch Holdings Development Agreement.
The Towns of Minden and Gardnerville and the Minden Gardnerville Sanitation District recommended approval of the proposed changes to the Master Plan future land use maps, including the creation of this Receiving Area adjacent to the Towns indicating their desire and ability to provide services to the Receiving Area.
On July 2, 2019 Community Development Director, Tom Dallaire, appeared before the Minden Gardnerville Sanitation District (MGSD) Board to discuss possible amendment of the Urban Service Area Boundary for the District in the context of the Master Plan Map amendments. The MGSD Board discussed the possibility of expanding the service area boundary of the District in the future to extend north and northeast to align with the Town of Minden Water service areas and the proposed Minden Community Plan boundary but declined to take formal action at that time. The Engineering representative for MGSD, Bruce Scott of Resource Concepts Inc., advised that there was sufficient capacity within the existing sewer treatment plant, indicating the ability and capacity of the District to provide services to the Receiving Area in the future if desired.
Q. Are there potential water issues in this area and can our current water systems support these homes?
A. In 2012 U.S. Geological Survey published Scientific Investigations Report 2012-5262: Assessing Potential Effects of Change in Water Use With a Numerical Groundwater- Flow Model of the Carson Valley, Douglas County, Nevada and Alpine County, California. To assess the impact of increased growth and development on the aquifer, USGS used a groundwater model to analyze four water-use scenarios against a base water scenario (total water pumped in 2005) over 55 years. “The four scenarios included: (1) total pumping rates increased by 70 percent, including an additional 1,340 domestic wells, (2A) total pumping rates more than doubled with municipal pumping increased by a factor of four, (2B) maximum pumping rates of 2A with 2,040 fewer domestic wells, and (3) maximum pumping rates of 2A with 3,700 acres removed from irrigation” (USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2012-5262, page 67). A link to this study is included on the Master Plan Update webpage.
The summary section of the report (page 67) advises the water model predicted increasing groundwater pumping to meet the maximum level of demand under the most extreme of the four different scenarios “would result in 40-60ft of water table decline on the west and east sides of the Carson Valley” and “would be offset primarily by decreased flow in the Carson River by a loss of groundwater storage.” Under the most extreme scenario input in the model in the USGS report, the total amount of municipal water pumped would increase by four times what it was in 2005 for all of Carson Valley with 3,700 acres removed from irrigation. The USGS report stated that additional monitoring of water levels was needed to verify the accuracy of the water model.
If the Development Agreement is approved, it is likely the Town of Minden would provide water service to the majority of the development associated with the agreement. The Town of Minden reviewed the USGS Scientific Report to assist the Town with the prudent management and planning related to use of Town’s water resources. Assuming, each residential unit would utilize 656 gallons of water per day (based on average Minden residential use), 2,500 homes would use approximately 1,250 gallons per minute or the equivalent of one new municipal well in the Town. The Town of Minden currently operates eight municipal wells total to serve its existing retail and wholesale water customers.
In addition to the USGS report the Town of Minden contracted with Sunrise Engineering to conduct a Water System Analysis completed in 2017. In 2018, the Town amended its water system analysis to include a future service area identified in the Town’s “Plan for Prosperity.” This future service area included all 1,044 acres of the Park Ranch Holdings and extended further to the south side of the Minden Tahoe Airport. A copy of the 2017 Minden Water System Analysis and the 2018 Water System Analysis Amendment are available for review on the webpage.
Q. Does the Town of Minden have sufficient water rights to serve new development in the receiving area?
A. Yes. Over time, the Town of Minden acquired water rights sufficient to serve the Town of Minden with the understanding that the Town would eventually grow and expand to adjacent areas of the County.
In the State of Nevada, water users, including municipalities like the Town of Minden, must demonstrate an actual beneficial use of water. This concept is also known as “use or lose it.” A water right owner cannot speculate in water rights or hold on to water rights they do not actually intend to place to a beneficial use in a timely manner. Because water resources are limited in the state, if a water right owner stops using the water, their water right is subject to revocation and possible reallocation by the State.
Through the update to the Plan for Prosperity, the Towns of Minden and Gardnerville expressed their desire and ability to plan for and provide services to “Future Urban Reserve Areas.” This future urban reserve area was identified on page 19 of the Minden Gardnerville Plan for Prosperity, Figure 1.4 (the Minden Gardnerville Plan for Prosperity is included on the County’s Master Plan Update webpage for reference).
The Plan for Prosperity paired with the Town of Minden Water System Analysis (also available to be viewed on the webpage), demonstrates to the State, Minden’s plan to put a portion of the Town’s remaining water rights to beneficial use over a reasonable period of time. As mentioned above, without a viable plan for use, the water rights may be subject to revocation by the State.
Q. Have the schools been included in the Master Plan and are they prepared for the increase this housing development might bring? If we add 2,500 homes will that affect school enrolment?
A. Douglas County schools have excess capacity now and to serve future growth. The draft Public Facilities and Services Element of the Master Plan (dated November 2017) lists student enrollment by school. Total school enrollment has fallen from 7,035 in the 2005-06 school year to 6005 in 2015-16. As of 2015-16 there was excess capacity for 1,733 students. The updated school enrollment number for 2019-20 school year is 5,798 which is a 17.5% decrease in student enrollment since 2005-2006.
Q. In summary what terms are in the Park Ranch Holdings Development Agreement?
A. The proposed amended Development Agreement includes, but is not limited to the following terms:
1) All obligations and rights under the Development Agreement are conditioned on approval of a Master Plan Land Use Map Amendment changing the receiving area land use designation on approximately 1,044 acres of Park property in the Topaz Ranch Estates Community Plan to the Minden and Gardnerville Community Plans as proposed in the 20-year Master Plan Update;
2) The property owner must deed approximately 75.7 acres (a 205 ft. in width strip of real property) to the County for construction of Muller, multi-modal paths, and drainage improvements, including a flood conveyance channel between Muller and the Virginia ditch extending from Toler Lane to Heybourne Road;
3) Detention pond(s) must be installed on Park property east of Muller at shared expense to the parties;
4) The property owner must grant a public drainage easement, approximately 84,942 sq. ft. across APN 1320-31-000-016 to the County for Highway 88 drainage culverts (once constructed this would remove approximately 100+ Minden homes from the floodplain);
5) The County will be required to construct two-lanes of Muller within six years;
6) The County, at its sole cost and expense, must construct approximately 12,691 linear feet of Muller and seven access points;
7) The County and Park will equally share construction costs for an approximately 2,604 linear feet segment of Muller through Ashland Park;
8) Park may develop a maximum of 2,500 residential dwelling units upon the approved receiving area located within the Minden and Gardnerville Community Plans;
9) All development within the receiving area will be required to connect to municipal sewer and water utility providers (septic systems and domestic wells will not be permitted);
10) Development of commercial buildings in excess of 30,000 sq. ft. is prohibited (no “big box” commercial);
11) A process was created for Park to requests other non-residential zoning uses in the receiving area which would result in a proportional reduction in single family residential development rights associated with the Receiving Area;
12) The agreement establishes parameters for denial of a zoning map amendment or tentative subdivision map associated with the receiving area;
13) Requires the first of the 2,500 residential dwelling units to be developed utilizing the transfer of development rights (TDR) from APN: 1319-25-000-020 & -021 the real property known as "Klauber Ranch", as a sending parcel. Transferring development rights from Klauber Ranch would require the property to become subject to the terms of a deed restriction or conservation easement and require the majority of the property to remain agriculture/open space in the future;
14) Restricts all water rights with either a conservation easement or deed restriction for density removed from "Klauber Ranch" pursuant to the County's TDR program by Park (water rights tied to Klauber Ranch will remain always with Klauber Ranch and could not be transferred for development other use);
15) The property owner will grant an approximately 7,330' long trail easement to the County across the "Klauber Ranch" and an additional three parcels west of Klauber concurrently with the recording of a conservation easement/deed restriction. This would open approximately 7,330 feet of trail, much of it along the Carson River, for recreation use by the public and assist the County with eventually providing trail access along the Martine Slough Trail and Muller Parkway all the way to the Nature Conservancy;
16) Precludes the County from rescinding the Receiving Area land use designation for 30 years; and
17) The amendment supercedes Ordinances 2004R-1097 and 2007-1223 (the previous agreements).
A copy of the Development Agreement can be viewed on the Master Plan Update webpage. The previous Development Agreements Ordinances 2004R-1097 and 2007-1223 are also available on the County’s webpage.
Q. I’ve heard the County will operate a commercial gravel pit in East Valley or another location in the County to fund Muller Parkway, is that true? Will the County permit a commercial gravel pit operation in East Valley for a discounted rate to help pay for Muller?
A. Douglas County will fund the construction of Muller Parkway through the contributions of developers, municipal bonds and possibly utilizing state and/or federal funding.
Douglas County Code Chapter 20.658 only permits Open and Subsurface Mining operations in General Industrial zoned areas of the County with a Special Use Permit.
If the Park Ranch Holdings Development Agreement is approved, the property owner would dedicate the right-of-way (205 feet wide, 15,295 long, approximately 3 miles, 75.7 acres total) needed to construct Muller Parkway and the necessary drainage improvements to the County. The right-of-way will accommodate a four lane road, multi-modal paths and drainage facilities. With the construction of drainage infrastructure up stream in the Pinenut and Buckeye washes, the eastern areas of the towns of Minden and Gardnerville would be removed from the current flood plain. It is likely the County will utilize fill material from these flood mitigation projects for road base on Muller. This would be the most cost effective method of obtaining the required material because other sources would require the material to be trucked in from long distances at an increased cost of the material to the County.