Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

The uh planning commission is called to order for March 10, 2026. Commissioner Lyle, would you lead us in the pledge of allegiance? I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Welcome everyone. It is now time for opening public comment. Public comment is limited to three minutes per speaker on matters over which the planning commission has either jurisdiction, supervision, or control. As a little bit of background, I'd like you to when you stand, sign in and identify yourself on the record so we know who's speaking and that will make your comments all the more relevant. The planning commission wants to encourage respectful consideration of all views by members of the public. If the content is willfully disruptive of the meeting by being irrelevant, and that's key, repetitious, slanderous, offensive, inflammatory, irrational, or amounts to a personal attack. Now, that uh I'd stop there and say the reason why that's in is because personal attacks aren't relevant to anything that's within our purview. The individual will be asked to stop speaking. In addition to the opening public comment, public comment will also be taken on the public hearing agenda. And the items today are not that many. So those that are here are likely on the one item that we're going to be discussing. So, please save your comments until that item is called if that's the reason you're here. If you plan on speaking a specific agenda item on the public hearing agenda, then please provide your public comment at that time. At this time, public comment will be

taken on items which are within the jurisdiction and control of the planning commission. Additional public comment periods may be allowed on individual agenda items and I just indicated to you I will allow and ask for comment on the individual uh agenda item today so it's at my discretion. I just exercised it. It is requested that members of the public comment on the agenda items when they are considered, which is just a much more clear way of saying what I've tried to get across that I don't want someone speaking on the same topic two or three times. At this time, we are going to ask for approval of the agenda. Sorry. Oh, public comment has not been Do we have public comment? We do, Ellie. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Ellie Waller. Um, I live in North County. That helped you a little more. Um, I recited this comment at the last board of county commissioners and find it appropriate as well as here. I attend countless meetings, fundraisers, etc. related to the county. With recent and past events that I have attended, county meetings and other related events, we should all be advocating for civility, which means listening without interrupting, respecting diverse opinions, managing conflict constructively, taking responsibility for mistakes, and showing consideration for others feelings and boundaries, even when disagreeing. It's about demonstrating respect, fairness, and dignity in all interactions from simply daily courtesies to handling different conver uh difficult conversations. Univil behaviors are characteristically rude and discourteous, displaying a lack and total disregard for others. Total disrespect and lack of decorum must cease and desist in everything we do before these boards and in our lives. From the norms and procedures for the board of commissioners, I preface the information as being uh necessary for all elected and appointed officials which are held to a higher standard. In my opinion, section four, role of a commissioner. Commissioner conduct. Commissioners shall treat everyone with courtesy and respect. Uh inappropriate behavior is derogatory and damages the perception of the county. While the board is in session, the commissioners and county staff shall preserve strict order into decorum. No commissioner shall delay or interrupt the proceedings of the board or interrupt any commissioner, staff, or member of public while they are speaking. The chair is responsible for ensuring every person

has an opportunity. Commissioners shall not debate issues with members of the public. Commissioners will listen courteously and attentively to all public comment. In closing, it was asked of the district attorney's office and is my understanding now that there is no reason to exclude job titles or names when reading a public comment into the record. I appreciate all of you are volunteers have been appointed and I'm hoping that in the future all of us that stand at this podium and you as well can understand why I'm making this comment today. Thank you. Thank you, Ellie. Uh, very cogent comments and, uh, I'll now ask if there are any further public comment. Seeing no further public comment, sorry, go ahead, sir. State your name, sign.

Hi. Uh, my name is, uh, Dan Perez. I'm a new resident about six months here and uh I received a letter about uh the property on uh 1668 Pineut Road and I just wanted to say uh look at that picture. That's a beautiful This is a beautiful area and I don't think we need more big box supermarkets or uh you know it's just overbuild. We don't want another Reno, another Vegas. And I I came here with my son and family to uh start a little farm, but now everybody wants to build and cover that property right uh next to it. pretty sad. But I hope that I I'm just here to speak that I I uh I disagree with the continuing building that destroys the the property and the city of Garderville and the county of Douglas. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Are there any further public comments? Now, uh, we will get to what I've been just waiting for, the approval of the agenda. Is there a motion? There are no comments. I move we approve the agenda. It's been moved. Is it seconded? It's moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? I now call question. All those in favor? Any opposed? Passes unanimously. The approval approval of the minutes. Are there any comments, changes, modifications?

Mr. Chair, for the approval of the minutes, I handed my corrections to the clerk and I discussed them with you ahead of time. There were two pages that had you in plural. Well, that's because I have multiple personalities on certain days. And if there are no other corrections, I'll move adoption of the minutes. It's been moved. Is it seconded? Seconded. Are there any dis is there any discussion on the minutes? Mr. Chairman, if I may, I just to note that Chairman Mall is absent. I don't know if that is in the record or not.

No, it is not yet in the in the record. You're correct. He is not going to attend today. Commissioner McCull will not be here today. No further discussion. I'm going to call the question on the minutes. All those in favor? I.

Any opposed? No opposed. passes unanimously. The next item is the only item we have on our agenda and it is a discussion to approve master plan amendment application DP25-026 requesting to amend the Douglas County master plan land use map for two parcels totaling 48.21 21 acres. Changing, if that's for me, please tell them I'm in a meeting. Changing the future land use designation of the parcels from agricultural to receiving area and to expand the urban surface area to encompass the parcels. The parcels are located along the east side of Pineut Road. One being addressed 1684 Pineut Road and one along the corner of Pineut Road and Pineut Court in the Gardenerville Community Plan area. APN's are 1 1220-11-00001-078 and 1 220-11-00002-024. The property owner and applicant is James Butch Perry. The applicant's representative is Brandon Freeman of Robeson Engineering. Before we get started on this matter, are there any disclosures? Mr. Chair, Moren Casey, for the record, I would like to disclose that I did

attend the Gardenerville Town meeting of two or three weeks ago. Commissioner Walder. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to disclose that I had a meeting several weeks ago with the applicant. Uh we discussed the project generally. He provided some with some materials all of which are in the uh public record. Uh I made no commitments. Uh but I am always willing to meet with uh any person who has uh issues before the planning commission and I do not make commitments until I've heard all the uh information and the public comment. Thank you.

Further disclosures. Commissioner Klutz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I also had a meeting uh with the applicant uh and discussed the generalities, all of which is presented here today. Uh, and I don't believe that those discussions will have any influence on my decision today.

Any further disclosures? I can say that I was contacted by the applicant but uh politely declined to meet. Uh this raises the disclosures, the fact that there is a supplemental to our agenda, which is uh the Gardnerville uh meeting minutes, and I commend everyone to get a copy of that uh because it's pertinent for what we're doing. Without further supplemental or disclosures, supplemental evidence, I will ask uh Lucille Ralph to start us off.

Thank you. For the record, Lucille Rayo, senior planner. Um Mr. Chair, did we want to discuss the super majority or we're clear on that?

That's a very good point and I appreciate it. That's my first, no, my second error of the day. I'm only allowed three. Uh, and I'd ask our, uh, district attorney to fill us in. And what this is for the public is that when there are master plan amendments under consideration, for approval, there must be a super majority. And uh because one of our members is absent today, uh we are going to uh ask our district attorney what the vote needs to be and whether we can make such a vote. Thank you, Mr. Chair. AJ Hayes from the district attorney's office for the record. uh code provides that master plan master plan amendments may be approved upon the affirmative vote of a twothirds majority of the total membership of the commission. So in every instance at least five members must vote for approval for the master plan amendment to be approved regardless of who is present at the meeting.

Thank you very much uh AJ we appreciate that very much. Now, uh, Miss Rawi, the ta the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the record, Lucille Reo, senior planner. Um, I'm just going to give you a few highlights from the staff report to point out before we have the applicant present their request. The request for a master plan amendment includes two parcels are zoned A19 and have a land use of agricultural. They're not within the urban service area, nor are they within the town boundaries. The surrounding parcels is zoned industrial, commercial, agriculture, and multif family. Some of the approved projects are a storage facility to the west and another one to the east and a manufactured home development to the northeast. July of 2023, Mr. Perry was before the town of Gardenville board requesting a master plan amendment and a zoning map amendment for the same two parcels. The request was denied. On February 3rd of this year, the town board denied 5 to 0 Mr. Curry's request for a master plan amendment. The request for receiving area does not include a plan for development at this time. It is merely just to change the land use from agricultural to receiving area. Please note that any future development will require the transfer of development rights as well as a zoning map amendment and other entitlements. On package page 75, I included a countywide map of existing receiving area showing 322 acres of developed areas and the current undeveloped areas totaling 4,196 acres. Our GIS department also included insets insets highlighting the receiving area within the towns of Minden and Gardenerville. Per the request of the board of county commissioners, our staff reports are to be written without recommendation. Staff has made responses to the findings based on master plan goals and policies. The findings begin on packet page 78. We did receive public comment and that has been uploaded to the supplemental materials along with the minutes from the February town board meeting. Now, with your permission, I'd like to introduce Butch Perry with his presentation.

Mr. Perry. Good afternoon. My name is James Perry, uh, but I go by Butch. Um, there is these two parcels. they're already surrounded by other parcels that uh have dedicated zoning and it's kind of created an island for me and um the two parcels do not have water rights. Um I sold the water rights I believe in 2016 to Bentley Ranch. Um, I know that there's been concern about sprawling and leaprogging and all that stuff, but I just don't believe that this represents sprawling or leaprogging uh, you know, of agricultural green belt land. Again, I'm surrounded by different zonings. Um I know the master plan was to protect from sprawling and leaprogging. Um common sense indicates that this is not an example of that. Um, I would think the master plan was developed back in the day to uh, you know, protect the green belt mainly west and some parts east of Highway 395, north going towards car

Carson City, also west and east of Highway 88. And you know, I just can't imagine someone buying that 20 acres to to build a custom home uh you know, out in the middle of all that hard zoning and not having any water rights for horses or pasture, whatever. So, this goes back when I sold some of my property to Barton Medical back in the day. And um we had a signed agreement with Barton Medical that I had to provide uh ingress and egress to for the property. They needed access to it. And the only way I could legally give Barton medical access to the property was to create this new southern gateway called Muller Parkway. And so when I approached the county, uh, the new NRS statutes would not allow Barton to have access to the property off of the way the old Pineet was, which by the 7-Eleven on 395 immediately it made an S turn paralleled 395 and then made another S turn and paralleled um the Native Americans property and then the Corly Ranch. So, it was brought to my attention that legally um I couldn't give Barton access. And oh, by the way, we are creating this new

Muller Parkway. So, and this all happened back in 2007208. So, I was between a rock and hard spot. I built the new Muller Parkway roundabout, Pineup Road at approximately $8 million. Put in all the infrastructure, oversize the water of the sewer for future development, gas, electric, communication, fiber optics, everything. Um, I was assured back then by Douglas County Planning Department that if I was going to be cutting up an agricultural ranch to put in these new roads that were required, that inevitably I would be able to change the zoning as I needed to to support the investment on the development. In fact, Rob Anderson and his staff at Ro Anderson um who was my engineer at the time um ensured me that it was just matter of time that the property would be zoned other than A19. And that's almost 20 years ago. and I've been paying property tax on the property since 1997 when I purchased it. And um I have a potential of selling the property. Um I'm 71 years old. Can't take it with me to my grave. I have a you know chance

to to you know potentially sell it. So, uh, that's why I'm here. Any questions? Thank you, sir. Uh, do you have a representative from the engineer that you'd like to speak? No. Miss Ralph, anything further?

I don't have anything further to add. I I don't know if Mr. Perry wants to go through the PowerPoint or if or if he's finished. Um I can take it down or if you'd like me to leave it up for reference. Uh that is the PowerPoint that's present in the materials. That it is. And you anticipated that he may want to go through the slides. I don't know if he wants to. Do you I I guess I can if if if uh why don't you do it briefly? Yes. Do you want to go through the slides or you just want me to go through here? Well, no, you can go through the slides. I mean, I can as you go through them. Yeah.

Uh, thank you. Miss Barry's up. Uh, Miss Ralph, uh, you're welcome to comment. Uh, and we're going to have a little bit of a slide presentation. Thanks. Well, no. We have we show in red my property. Uh Barton Medical is kind of to the upper left hand side and um the property that's to the left is zoned GC, general commercial and service industrial. And then the property to the right is all either light industrial or service industrial. Um to the bottom is the corly ranch which is a specific plan which is like uh a mini um master plan agreement. It's uh I don't know if that's the right term, but it's it has a specific plan. Correct. It's a development specific plan development agreement. I don't know. Um again, it it's not like I'm leapfrogging. I mean, we have the Barton Medical, we have Walmart. Um, this then enables me the opportunity to sell that property and it's not feasible. As I said, it it's 43 acres or 48 acres. 48.3 it I you could say, well, you could, you know, break it up into two parcels. Who's gonna want to build a custom home

in the middle of all that zoning? I It's just doesn't make any sense. Um, and I I really don't believe that this is what the master plan was designed for. I can understand what the drafters of the master plan were thinking. And again, I think it's mainly east and west of 395 going towards Carson City or going out 88 towards Markleyville east and west where people have bought 20 acres or 40 acres and have built a custom home and they got water rights and they got horses. That's not the situation. If anybody has ever, you know, drove out there, it's dry dirt with uh weeds. So that's, you know, doesn't make any sense because all it is is dry dirt with weeds. Yes. Again, it seems that if I invested the money I did, being told that that was going to be the southern approach, gateway to the community, a roundabout road, Mhler Parkway, that development would be going that in that direction. So, go to the next one if you want to. Um, I know there's this 85% um, and I'm sure Eric Nielson will argue that, but

in real estate, location is location is location. um and already have 30 acres that is um single family with a manufactured housing overlay and the people that are interested in the rest of the 48 acres would do the same thing. I just can't come in front of everybody and say that's exactly what it's going to be. I don't know. Um, but I, you know, believe that if I can get that into the receiving and it's adjacent to 30 acres that's already approved for single family with the, you know, uh, manufactured housing overlay that this only makes sense. That's a 55 and older um retirement community. Um those homes were originally priced out at around 350,000 a home a few years back. I would think that we can still stay under that $400,000 threshold for affordable housing. Um, and that's I'm hoping that that's what will happen. I just can't guarantee it. But, um, that is what I have in the works. I just can't come in front of this board and say I have a plan development and this is it. Um, which creates a problem. uh because basically

to amend the master plan you need to have some kind of designed dedicated development project and I don't have that right now which creates a dilemma for me and uh I just um want to be truthful that by putting that in the receiving area it gives me a a much you know, better opportunity. Um, also it would still have to, you know, go through the whole approval process for whatever, you know, proposed development. I guess would have to, you know, get a site improvement plan. It would have to go through the whole process of getting developed. So, this is just kind of like a holding place for the next step. And I think that pretty much explains all of it, you know. Okay.

Thank you very much. Uh, Mr. Perry, could I ask you a couple of questions to make sure I understood your position? Yes. Uh, just to clarify, you sold the water rights in 2016. Correct. That's why there's I have been out there and there are no fences on several sides. Yeah. And plus cutting um sir cutting the roads through there. Um I would have to go out and relevel because the roads they just meander through the property.

Let me ask about that. Uh uh one of your contentions is that you did the improvements that' be curb gutter and uh roadbase in reliance on county representations. Do you have a development agreement or uh some resolution or something that is not included in the packet? The development agreement was that I had to build out all those roads to give access to Barton Medical for what I had signed a contract for a sales contract. Yeah. Is there a uh on this parcel that's under consideration? I'm asking our director um is there a development agreement that uh pertains and is an overlay to uh consider our consideration of changing the master plan. Uh Tom Deair for the record. Um there is a development agreement. It was about the Barton property, the commercial area to the south of the Barton property and the actual road improvements in the roundabout. And um there's one item left that's remaining that has to deal with the old uh Pine Nut Road alignment uh that I don't know um Lucille if you can go back to that first image right there. Yeah. And so the old alignment for Pineet that Butch was trying to explain earlier was along the property line. Uh you see where the bulb is on the the south southerntherly side of Pine Nut Court and that road extended over to where Muller is today and then went into where uh that intersection. He had to do the improvements and abandoned that section of of road in order to do these improvements for um for Muller Parkway. And then he did install all the utilities. Uh there are

a number of stubs to the two parcels that are listed as part of that those improvements. And he did the improvement the road improvements to the county standard with a curb uh on the easterly and northerly side of the road. And that is there's no sidewalk there yet, but there is a like a collection ditch that there are a number of storm drains that collect that water and go into a storm drain system that conveys all the water from that property then into the Virginia ditch, I believe, is where all that storm drain goes based on these asbuilt plans I have here. And uh and there are water connections on the parcel that's the 024 on the further the most southerntherly one. Um there is a water connection there um and a sewer stub at that location uh along with uh three storm drain inlets. One of them appears to be an irrigation ditch. And then on the northerly portion the 078 there is a um there's two storm drains, one sewer and one water um on that. But the water line is basically where the it's just over onto the property to the north that was a reszone to multif family residential and that was reszoned to multif family residential uh under two applications and I we attached those resolutions to your packet. One of them was done in uh 17, the other one was done in 2019. The development agreement is uh an access point. There's the only thing we reason we have the development agreement today is because of the access point where the old Pine Nut Road comes in to Mhler Parkway. There is a small median curb that has been left out. Uh so there's

can be access onto Mhler from those properties and then upon completion of any improvements in there and a determination I think from a traffic engineer that says that that is hazard he's got to close off that connection at that point and we have to keep the development agreement active um until that closure of the access through the median of the road but I don't believe it it pertains to the two parcels in question uh that I that I recall.

Thank you very much. So the third aspect and if I understand correctly and for clarification is that um you don't have a plan. You have what was described as the development agreement, but you don't have a plan that you could show us that would show what would ultimately be placed there. I don't know. I I don't have the people I sold the property to that Tom's talking about for the single family uh 55 and older development community with a manufactured um housing overlay. Um they are a publicly traded REIT and they got into some financial problems. I know they were dealing with a town of and the county um just finalizing the site improvement plan. I think uh they were working with Eric at the town and working with uh Tom and his team at Douglas County. And when uh back in 20 they bought the property in uh July of 22, July 7th just shortly after the uh Russian Ukrainian war and uh oil spiked, interest rates went up and I don't know the whole story, but they got out over their skis a little bit and as a treat. They can't just make

land. As a publicly traded stock company can sometime issue more shares uh for investment. That always dilutes the other shareholders. But the bottom line is that it didn't get done and it didn't get done and he it wasn't consummated because it ran out of money.

Yes. And so I'm in a dilemma, but for full disclosure, there's somebody interested in taking them out, but they need a bigger project. It just didn't pencil with the 155 or 157 units. They need something closer to uh four 400.

Okay. Do you understand that? And I don't know for clarification that a a designation change of this sort that you're asking for into receiving area in order to make the findings a plan which you cannot tell us or guarantee anything what's going to be there leaves it very open-ended which may be to your advantage because it could be used for several things. Is that your intention? Well, again, it was never my intention to lie to anybody or come in here and, you know, I didn't imply that.

You know, I just wanted to be truthful, you know, and uh I just know that if it's in the receiving area, I have better options than it being A19. And again, it still has to go through the whole process. Let's say it was something else. It was offices, you know, med I don't know. Barton's right there. So, medical offices, I don't Doctor's offices. I just don't know, you know. So, my statement sounds like was correct. Yeah. Trying to be

come here with cander and Yes, sir. not deceive anybody and that's appreciated. Okay. Thank you. Uh anything further? No, you know, I'm just going through the process. This is the second step. I understand. Got denied at the town and this is a second step and you know, try and try again, I guess. All right. Uh thank you, Mr. Perry. I now uh open the uh discussion. Are there any questions, further questions of the applicant, the commission? No. All right, let's uh open the uh Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I believe Dan or Bryce in the

Yeah, I thought somebody else had a question. I was deferring. Um I my question was what was going on with the next door neighbor, the Stone Ridge development? I think you answered that. That's the property he was talking about that had apparently run out of money. Okay. I wasn't clear that that was Stone Ridge. Um, I did want to ask staff for just a brief description as to I forget what you call this, the u the fact that this is outside the town limits of Gardnerville and yet somehow it's in their future designated area and therefore that's why they this process is set up the way it is. I don't really fully understand that that piece.

Okay. For the record, Lucille Rayo Community Development. So, it's outside the urban service area. So, and then the town has an urban reserve area and I believe Eric Nielson from the town if Gardenville is here, he can he can explain that um when he gets up also. Um so, it's not within a town boundary. So, the town would have to expand its boundaries for this parcel to be within the town boundary. We'd have to expand the the urban service area, which is part of the master plan. Um, yeah. So, was that clear enough?

So, the map that shows the Gardnerville, oh, it says future urban reserve area, that's where these parcels lie in that future area. that area is not in their current town boundary, but the I will say arrangement between the county and the town is that that that would not develop until it was annexed into the town boundary. For the record, Lucille Rayo, that's correct.

Okay. So, my my question was why is this even a town issue if it's in the county? But you answered that. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner St. John, further question, clarification. Mr. Chairman, I I'll I I'll reserve a number of questions that I have if uh Mr. Nielsson's going to speak and then public comment and then I'll Very good. Commissioner Cludes, Commissioner Walder.

Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um I have a couple of general comments and then uh there's a few questions we weaving in uh those comments for either Lucille or Tom uh or AJ. Um, first of all, I I would like to comment uh that um this is a master plan amendment. We do this two times a year. Uh I think everybody on the planning commission knows, but I want to make uh it clear for the record that master plan amendments are important. The master plan is the Bible for the county. Uh we need to adhere that at all times. Uh it is getting a little bit older and we do try and revise that uh every five years or so. So, we're likely to consider revisions next year. And I think that's uh something that always concerns me is uh let's not jump ahead um when we're considering uh important things like receiving area. Um Lucille made a very very good point that uh uh we now have 4,196 areas uh receiving area, acres of receiving area that's undeveloped. Um the master plan in 2020 uh we had 3,75. So we really need to take uh uh stock of the entirety of what we have in Douglas County as far as receiving area. We don't want to get so far ahead of ourselves um that we designate so much receiving area. Um which kind of leads to my next point which is the uh um the buildout rate. And I think uh Eric you can address these when you make comments. Um but there is a portion of the master plan that talks about uh receiving or urban service areas and residential buildout analysis. But I think Eric, you did a very good job of trying to lay out both the concept and the actual concrete uh numbers on a buildout analysis. The

concept is important because we don't want to uh allow so much building uh that we're encouraging sprawl. We want to encourage infill, but we don't want to restrict buildings so much that we say, "Oh, we have to be 100% buildout." Now, I'm not sure 85% is the right number. Maybe it should be 70%, maybe it should be 75%. I think that debate is uh more appropriate when we do the master plan. I think Eric outlined options of how we analyze buildout u uh and that's that's an important factor for us to look at too. Um I think um if I'm wrong correct me Tom or Lucille the one conflict that is sometimes difficult for me to grasp is why is the urb urban service area different from the town boundary. Uh now in this case it's very close in that particular area. Um but that kind of presents a little bit of problem but let me let me just read from the master plan on page 193. Urban service areas. Urban service areas were established in 1996 and are located in the Carson Valley portion of Douglas County. The purpose of urban service areas is to force highdensity residential development and commercial and industrial development due to availability of infrastructure and established development patterns. Many of the urban service areas have boundaries that are nearly similar to existing GIDs and town boundaries. Urban service areas help concentrate urban scale development in areas with public services and utilities. They are intended to serve residential development as densities of one unit per one half acre or greater with and and with urban services such as pave roads and public water and wastewater services. Development outside of urban

service areas on the other hand is planned for rural residential development which equates to residential densities of one dwelling unit per one half acre or lower. So I think we really have to look at the master plan what it says. Now we can change it in a year if we think we need to change it in lots of different directions. Um but I did want to u make those points and make sure we have a full and complete record as we uh as we discuss and deliberate on this issue. So uh Lucille did I make any mistakes or analyze things wrongs or or Tom any other additional comments on the points I've made? Um I I believe it's accurate. U Commissioner Walder, I I would add that the um in 2020 when we did the master plan update, we relocated some area that was Hman's Ranch uh in Gardenerville that was part of the town which was part of all conservation easement. And we did relocate it to align with the Alderman Canal. Uh, and we relocated that that area um between the Alderman Canal and the existing town boundary, I would say, as the uh future um urban reserve, I think, is how it's said in the in the in plan for prosperity. And this property because the town boundary was on the east side of Mueller and the east side of Pineut Road was part of that. And then and then Mr. Perry uh with the Stonegate project came forward and they added um hard zoning, MFR hard zoning to that areas to the north and then they expanded the size of the project and came back in I think two years later and and got more um multif family residential zoning hard zoning again to make the project uh more viable. Um we

haven't heard back from that group um since November of 24 is the last correspondence I have in our Asella for that that particular project. But um but we the reason we chose the Alderman Canal as the future uh Gardenerville uh community plan area was because MGSD's existing service boundary is at the Alderman Canal and same um same with the the Gardenerville Water Company's uh service boundary. And so we aligned all of those because the urban service boundary is needed for both water, sewer, and the town services. And so that's that's kind of some history I think for for how we got to this point in history

and this particular configuration with this request. Thank you very much. Uh further comments, Commissioner Walder.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman, I forgot to add one other point uh or excuse me, two uh the 85% buildout uh uh requirement. Um, uh, Lucille, I think we discussed this briefly before the meeting, but I wanted to put it on the record. It's not a part of the master plan. It is a part of the plan for prosperity, but when we do adopt the master plan, we adopt the mind gardenerville plans for prosperity. So, in essence, it is a a county policy. Um, so just wanted to make sure I was clear on that. And then I I did neglect to say that I do think it's important after we talk about urban service areas and uh the receiving area that we also look to the master plan where it has on page 194 and 195 looking to the future. And uh I think uh it's a good analysis of uh the potential growth for Douglas County, but it does have a very important section that uh uh I think we need to uh uh look at in the future. uh increasing housing diversity and it talks about a number of different things where the county needs to be forwardlooking on the uh the housing issue. Um and I I think that's something that uh will factor into decision-m both now and in the future. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh Commissioner Walter, further comment, questions. Um before we get to public comment, uh I'd like to impose as a chairman's prerogative on Mr. Nelson to uh enlighten us.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for inviting me up. Um just a couple things to say. Um this is the uh community plan for the town of Garderville and Minden in the um in the master plan and the plan for prosperity. So to the far right you see the Garderville future urban reserves area in green there and those are outside of the current town limits. There's been discussion on that. So the most all that's agricultural land and the master plan circled in red there says uh Gardennerville long-term planning area town of Gardennerville development review development after a 85% Gardennerville buildout. So currently that area is not for consideration really for development. Um but there is a day when it will be um considered for development. And I absolutely agree with what uh um Commissioner Walder said is that the 85% it's um it's a concept, right? So it's not when we're 86% build out, everyone can go ahead and go get their all their property reszoned or if they're at 82% then no one can. It's it all comes back to the findings, the four findings that are listed as needed for a master plan amendment. um 85% important but doesn't really matter. Do you have water rights? Doesn't matter. Can you take it with you when you die? Doesn't matter. What matters is do you meet the four findings in the master plan? If yes, then we should do a master plan amendment. If no, then really legally you can't. Um I just want to talk about uh a couple things. They asked for a a conceptual plan kind of on development. Um, Mr. Perry did submit one and I agree it's probably what he intends to build, but master plan amendments generally don't have conceptual plans because you can't condition master plan amendments. So, you can't say we'll approve it if

you build this. They can show you whatever you want to see, get it master plan amendment and then build something completely different. Um so realistically at this point all we are considering is changing something from um you know from agricultural to receiving area which can be whatever they want. Um that's the one thing that I would say um you know hasn't been discussed at all today is the four findings and the town board thought the findings A, B and D could not be met. Um, it looks like staff concurred in their staff report, you know, but is the proposed amendment consistent with the policies embodied in the adopted master plan? The applicant has demonstrated the amendment promotes the overall goals and objectives of the master plan and has demonstrated a change in circumstance since the adoption of the master plan that makes it appropriate to reconsider one or more of the goals and objectives of land use designation. So, the master plan's 6 years old. And what has changed in Gardenerville in the last 6 years? We had 51 town homes built on Gilman. Um, two smaller phases of the ranch at Gardenerville or Hayborn Meadows built way north on Hayorn Road. And we have a new Maverick. That's all that's changed in the last six years. So, I don't know where we're short on development or need more receiving area or there's been a rush that that necessitates this. Um, I'm not going to go through all the all the um the findings because you have to meet all four. You don't meet three of four or one of four. I just don't even I don't see how that one's been met. Uh, B, the proposed amendment is based on demonstrated need for additional land to be used for the proposed use and that this demand cannot be reasonably accommodated within the current boundaries of the area. You know, like Mr. Perry said the Barton parcel across the street is receiving area that I've never seen a development plan for. Um

Jacobson Ranch to the further north is another almost 60 acres of receiving area that's never been developed. Virginia Ranch is uh 1,00 um 24 units I believe and they've been kicking the tires but they haven't broken any ground. Um there's just a lot of receiving area that's not being moved and I don't I don't see the master plan or the demand saying that we need more at this time. The big change too to the town has been the passage of Assembly Bill 241 which this commission uh I in January uh Miss Mores O'Neals gave a presentation on that which basically allows any commercial property to become um multifamily or apartments. And so that's that whole roundabout area is all commercial. So that could all be apartments in the future. And the reason for the urban reserve is so that we can hold off, see what gets built and what's already zoned. And then in the future when we're 85% built out, there's more informed decisions of what we need better in the future. So I think that's all I have to say. I will note that the the vice chairman of the town board, Barbara Smallwood, is here as well. um and she could speak or if there was additional questions, but um I don't I don't believe this this request meets the findings.

Thank you very much, sir. Uh who was the other individual from a municipality? Barbara Small, our vice chairman of the board, and she's here. She's here. Yeah. In the back. Okay. I'll invite her after you uh before public comment then. Okay. Thank you very much. No questions. All right, ma'am. Do you wish to uh Not at this time. Thank you.

Very good. Thank you. She said not at this time and I'm going to honor that. I'm now going to open the uh dis to the public. Uh is there anyone that wishes to speak to this matter? Seeing no one, uh, I'm going to return it back to the, uh, planning commission for discussion. Commissioner Klutz. All right, here we go. Several questions and I don't know exactly who will answer this, so I, M. I'll address them to you and then you can go from there. Does the changing of the urban service area add any additional responsibility or impact to the town of Gardnerville?

For the record, Lucille Rayo, I I'm not aware that there would be any responsibility. Tom, would you be able to answer that or economic impact? Um, it the urban service boundary would would ensure that all of the all the utilities get connected to the appropriate um providers. U MGSD uh Gardnerville water and then trash service for the gardenerville town of Gardennerville and then and then they would have to do an annexation into the town to actually become part of the town. Thank you Tom. That's what I thought. And then there's already will serve letters to support that. Is that correct?

Yeah, I believe those were provided in the packet. Okay. Thank you. Um there's been a lot of discussion about receiving area and that if it's changed to receiving area that they can Mr. Perry or whoever could in a sense develop whatever they want. Uh I don't believe that to be correct. Um I understand that inter any future zoning map amendment would need to come back before this body and be vetted out and whatnot. So we can't just build whatever we want just because it's receiving area. Is that correct?

For the record, Lucille Rayo, that's correct. Yes, there's many more um steps that he would have to go through. Um zoning map amendment, maybe even a plan development, um and obviously transfer of development rights. Yeah. And like Mr. Perry stated, a decide improvement permit, building permits. Yeah, it's a long road ahead.

Thank you. Um, so coming back to the development agreement, if I understood correctly, the development agreement did not make any specific representations to approving in a master plan or zoning map in the future. However, if part of that development agreement was improvements in utility stubs to the parcels that are under consideration today, wouldn't it make sense that at some point the intent would be for this to be some other zoning other than A19? Because I don't understand why we would be stubbing in utilities to a future agricultural designation. For the record, Lucio Rayo, that makes total sense. I don't know if Tom has anything to add with regards to that. But yes, I would imagine that it wouldn't stay agricultural for the long, you know, long term down the road, but yeah, I don't know if Tom wants to add anything to that.

Yeah, thank you, Lucille. That's Tom Delair for the record. Um, yeah, the improvement plans do do show the stubs going into each of those parcels that were existing and so you don't have to cut the road to actually connect to the water and sewer. The the stubs are already on site and could be connected to without damaging the road that he constructed adjacent to those properties that are in question. Thank you, Mr. HS.

Yeah, AJ HS from the DA's office. For the record, I've reviewed uh just now the development agreement again just to make sure I was up to speed. There's nothing that I see in the development agreement that required um a lot of those connections and things. The design, the owner was I think had a design at the time, but it was ultimately the owner's design that was implemented. There were certain requirements that the county had imposed like eventually building it out to include uh compliance with our standards, curb and gutter, uh the number of lanes, things like that. But as far as where the connections um were installed, that was not specifically required by the terms of the development agreement.

Thank you, Mr. HS. I think that's an important note. Um, I'll I'll save my comments until my questions are done. Um, okay. So, I'm done with my questions. So, just a couple just a couple comments here. to me, you know, although there is nothing specifically outlined within the de development agreement that at some point in the future u this would be some other zoning than A19. I think it's reasonable to assume that considering all the other zoning around this property is something other than A19 and that with Muller Parkway and the development and all the infrastructure that was put in uh that it wasn't reasonable again to assume that this would be agricultural land at some point in the future. And so I'm slightly concerned that this this almost feels like it's not a matter of if but when the zoning designation of this partic these two particular parcels changes and the potential that the applicant is being punished in terms of a timing perspective as to when this can be done. So if he's willing to hold out for say 2 years or 5 years or 10 years or 20 years eventually um we I think we can all relatively assume that this is not going to be A19 at some point in the future. It probably shouldn't even be that way in the master plan given the way the master plan is designated today and all of the zoning map amendments that have taken place over the years to designate all of the surrounding parcels to something uh other than A19. Um so that that concerns

me. I agreed with Commissioner Walder wholeheartedly that the master plan u is the Bible. Well, I don't agree it's the Bible because I believe the Bible is 100% true and accurate and should not be changed much like the Constitution. However, so I would I don't know if I was go as far as call the master plan amendment the Bible. But um we take it very seriously. Um but like with anything else, things change, times change, and it's not always u what is intended to do. And so it just concerns me that today the applicants before being forthright and honest that hey listen I don't have a plan for this. Um but I would like my potential my parcels to be marketable to some degree. Um I don't know if they're marketable at A19 or not but I'm I'm willing to go out on a limb to say they're not as marketable. Um the one question that I do have though is and I think this came up earlier in the discussion is that there was a comment made that we cannot condition a master plan amendment. Um and so I just want clarification on could we possibly condition a master plan amendment to state that this will be MF designation. Um, and if the answer is no, then we'll deal with that at the next step, assuming that this were approved. Um, so if you could just speak to that, MO,

for the record, Lucille Rayo, I don't believe you can you can tell Mr. Perry that he has to zone it multif family. You might suggest that maybe he comes back with a different master plan amendment for multif family zoning if that's more palatable.

Okay. Thank you. Sorry, just one question. Uh, Miss Ms. Ralph, so as I understood you, if Mr. Perry came back in accordance with Mr. Klutz's comments with a plan, then it would be easier to satisfy that particular finding, for example, because would know exactly what he intended to do consistent with the earlier construction under the uh potentially under the development agreement. For the record, Lucille Reo, I don't believe Mr. Perry is a developer in terms of putting forth a plan of this is what I would want on this property. I think he's more interested in having having a zoning that is sellable, right? Something that he can sell to a developer that's palatable to them because right now it's not, right? They can put one house on there. It's A19. It doesn't have water rights. You can't ranch it. So it's basically not worth anything to him unless he gets this receiving area which then what he's saying is then he can sell this property and then maybe a project will come forward. But again the next step right the further entitlements even though if you approved and the board approved receiving area does it mean that the zoning is going to get approved when that if he sold it and someone else wanted to change it? So that's the next big hurdle. So, I mean, it's sort of a catch 22 in a way.

Mr. Chairman, if I may, thank you because I think that that helps clear things up a little bit. Today, it's simply a request for receiving area. So, it stays in receiving area. There's no future development that can be done on that particular property if and until it comes back before the planning department, the planning commission, board of county commissioners, etc. for a zoning map amendment to change it from receiving area to whatever. And at that point, it's incumbent upon those bodies to determine whether they want that commercial or whether they want it um whatever residential, what have you. That decision will be made at that time. But right now, it's a piece of dirt that will never be agriculture unless, well, I don't say never because somebody could purchase it. Somebody could buy water rights and somebody could ranch it. That's a possibility. Not a viable one, but a possibility nonetheless. So, it's a piece of property that's going to sit there surrounded by all kinds of other zoning in an urban district that makes it made sense to somebody at some point because that's what it is today. Correct.

Okay. Thank you. Further questions, comments? Commissioner St. John,

I'm afraid the more we discuss it, the more confused I get. Thank you for your your penetrating comments there because it it did make me think that if we just change it to receiving area, that's a master plan amendment. That's what I'm hearing. But if it was just rece I shouldn't say just receiving area but if if that was done it would still have to come back for all of the regular zoning and so forth and it would still fail to meet the criteria that we just heard from the town of Garderville in terms of the need at this point what's changed and the 85% rule even though we know it's not a hard and fast rule it would still be fighting an uphill battle against those policies. Correct.

For the record, Lucille Rayo, that is correct. Which makes me wonder what does it really gain to change it to receiving area, but I'll ponder that a little further by myself. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Further questions or comments? Commissioner Lyle.

Um just um a question. Um, Miss Rayo, there are alternative master plan designations that the applicant could have requested it be changed to more specifically to either industrial or multif family or any of those other designations. Um, other than receiving area, receiving area is probably the most broad category that they could have requested. Is that is that correct? For the record, Lucero Reo, that is correct. Yes. As I stated earlier when I um Mr. Klutz was asking questions if if they wanted to, they could have came come forward with something more specific.

Right. Right. Okay. Um and then just another question to confirm the utility stubs that are um provided to the parcels, those were at the applicant's um design and and decision, not at the county's demand.

Tom, for the record, Luc, I believe that's what Tom stated, but go ahead Tom. Yeah, Tom Deair, for the record, um it appears that the the water stubs were required by Gardenerville Water to be installed based on the revision notices on the plan set. Um and then also to follow up on your qu prior question, uh the applicant came forward in 2017 to do the multi multif family residential zoning and also this property was included on another portion of that that had a um it was single family residential zoning and that portion of the

amendment was denied but the approval came forward with the multif family residential Thank you. Those are my questions. Further comments, questions from the uh commission.

I have quite a few comments. I think one of the key words that keeps coming up is eventually. Um we heard it in the development agreement that AJ spoke. We heard it from Mr. Perry Bryce made a comment about it and that there's no dispute that development would eventually happen on this property, but there were no guarantees of a timetable on when this would happen. And it keeps coming back to me that a master plan amendment will eventually happen and an expansion of the urban reserve boundary will happen and the town boundary will eventually happen and I think that that should happen on the town's timetable not on ours. I respect the towns and I respect the plan for prosperity. I think that's really important. The towns don't always get their way and on something as important as this. I think that it's important that they do get their way. We go back to this is about a master plan amendment expanding the town boundary and whether or not this one request meets the findings and in going through the findings and going through the requests and staff analysis this does not meet finding AB and D Kirk's analysis and reading from the title 20 and the growth management ordinance and

all the other things that he cited. I agree this does not meet finding A, B, and D. And I can't meet mean meet or not meet finding C because it's simply a master plan amendment which basically is on paper because it's too ethereal right now. So for me, I can't support this and I'll be voting no on it. Commissioner Walder. No further comments from Commissioner Ly.

Thank you. I also agree that um it's difficult at this point to meet the approval findings um with respect to finding a I believe that there's policies and goals that are provided in the staff report and also in the master plan and plan for prosperity that um cannot be overcome. um policy L.14, policy L7, goal six, policy L22. I think all those are policies that discourage this type of master plan amendment. Also think that finding B there's no evidence that additional um land is is warranted uh at this time. And also on finding D, I again cannot find that um this would relate to a or result in a relatively compact development pattern. So, for those reasons, I'm going to also have to vote no on this item.

Further comments or questions? Are we making our final comments then? Yeah. Final comments and then we're going to have a motion.

Yeah, I I agree with the comments about the eventuality. It reminds me of TRPA when they adopted the IP score and if you had a parcel and it had a high IP score, it's like, oh, you can't stop me from developing my parcel. Well, eventually 20, 30 years later, depending on your score, you were able to develop your parcel. It's a timing thing. And they had their reasons. Uh the county and the and the town of Garderville had had their reasons here for the plan for prosperity. So, I absolutely agree that sooner or later there will be multif family on that parcel would be my bet. But later now I would I would say I guess my political point is is back in 2007 when you built Muller I think we all thought things were going to be happening a little quicker in that corridor. I mean certainly Muller Parkway I think we all believed would be connected and and that area of the county would be developed a little bit more than it is today. Uh, and so it's unfortunate, but I can see that happening where, you know, you do all this stuff at goodwill thinking that things are going to proceed and they don't, and then you're caught in this larger uh planning policy. But I I I do agree sooner or later it will happen. I think it is the timing is just not right. Obviously, it doesn't meet the findings. I'm not going to repeat what has already been said about that. But there will be a day. Hopefully I'll live long enough to see it happen.

Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Uh do I have a motion? Commissioner Walder. Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, normally we don't uh uh try and do denial motions because that makes people who say they're going to vote no vote yes. But I think in this case it uh would be clear and I would move to deny the request to change the land use from agriculture to receiving area and expand the urban service area because the findings cannot be met. And in my particular case, I cite findings A, B, and D on pages 78 to 81 through of the packet. Second.

It's been moved and seconded for denial. of this application to change the master plan uh to a uh uh for the parcel to change to receiving area. I just want to make a couple of comments. Uh notwithstanding the denial um Mr. Perry uh probably it was improvident to uh sell the water rights in 2016 because now I agree that it virtually useless as agricultural property. Um but second uh the improvements that were done and in light of the development agreement uh there is an avenue that the applicant could come back with something more specific uh not receiving area which is uh extremely broad and uh would allow too much flexibility and I'm mindful of the comments from the town of Garderville and I've read u a very cogent analysis um from our speaker that made sense to me. So uh I I think that I agree with with the u question is not if but when but I also believe that uh AB and D findings could be met with uh some creativity and some further discussion with the town of Garderville uh perhaps in the short term future not not waiting for five years till we change the master plan. But those are my comments. Uh any further comments on the motion? Uh Commissioner Clutz.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, this is we run into these every now and then, these type of situations where um it's somewhat unfortunate. Um because in in my professional opinion as an and as a member of the planning commission I I don't think that there's any world where A19 belongs here surrounded by commercial industrial and multifamily uh zoning. However, um based on the application before me today and the fact that I don't believe that it can meet the findings as they exist today, um I can't support uh the approval to receiving area either. Um however, I I do think that we need to go back and take a much closer look at the master plan. I think we need to work in concert with the towns um to make sure that we're working through these things. Um as the six years that I've sat on this commission, um I have always worked uh tirelessly to support uh the conservation of open space and agg um when appropriate. And I don't think to me I could easily say that this is not an appropriate place for A19 and be perfectly content with that and stand uh before the citizens of Douglas County um without any consternation about that. But today based on this application and and where we sit uh it's unfortunate but receiving area uh and the approval of that based on the findings just doesn't work. Further comment or discussion on the motion? All right. I am uh now going to ask for and call a question on this motion which is to uh deny the application to modify

the master plan and provide a master plan amendment uh on the u stated reasons that uh findings A, B, and D cannot be met and there's insufficient uh evidence to support the master plan amendment. All those in favor of the denial. I All those opposed. Um the denial passes unanimously.

Thank you. Um Mr. Chairman.

Yes sir. Uh before we move to the next uh agenda item, I would like to thank Lucille and Tom and AJ for their excellent staff work and uh also thank the town of Garderville. So Eric or Barbara, if you could pass on um my personal I can't speak for the rest of the planning commission. Uh thanks for your hard work and your good uh efforts uh to make us understand this project in view of the town's perspective. So, we always try and I agree with Moren, we always try and uh uh look to the towns for their advice. Don't always follow it, but we always look to it. And in this case, it was excellent. So, thank you very much. I uh think that uh Commissioner Walder does speak for many of us when we say that we appreciated all the input and it made what was otherwise a very unclear, nearly opaque series of issues absolutely transparent and we appreciate that. Uh now may I call for closing public comment. Ellie.

Um Ellie Waller, um I think there's some optics problems with findings that come before you folks. And you do a good job at um analyzing a lot better than our board of commissioners sometimes. And I don't say that without a little angst because again, they read staff reports just like you do. But the recent overturning of your denial to allow an illegal addition to a home without a permit is unacceptable. And I do not know how that gets corrected um at the uh I guess maybe title 20 level. Um so we're not looking at that. the findings were met according to how it was written. Um, and in fact, um, uh, deputy, uh, whatever I should be calling Mr. Richie, his title, he tried to get the person representing the applicant to um revisit and think about a a contractor went forward without a permit. And he stated not once, but a couple times that sometimes that's common practice. And we have to figure out how to tie that to a more ironclad um code. I'm not sure. And Tom's working hard with his staff to get title 20. Um the next thing, and I wasn't going to bring it up today, but Barton came into the picture as part of just what goes on with Barton in the valley. uh you will

be challenged with very difficult questions about a bioright height change that it's not about getting a state-of-the-art hospital. Everybody would want to see that part of its location issues um related to a residential zone as well as um the meadow and the beach area next to that. I'm hoping that you understand you as a planning commission will be held responsible for the decision. TRPA, the TA regional planning agency is putting this on your shoulders where it should be on theirs. You can propose whatever you want as a project, but within reason, within the current rules. and I'm hoping you stand by title 20 as stated in the future when this comes before you. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Further public comment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the planning commission. Probably be better to keep my mouth shut, but it's difficult. I want to thank you for your careful consideration today and all of your valuable remarks. Um, the town of Gardnerville takes very seriously the thousands of dollars that Menon in Gardnerville spent on the plan for prosperity because as the entity that's tasked with providing the services as opposed to Douglas County, it's it's really important to us. But what I wanted to say and address was when the receiving area went from 2,000 plus acres to 4,000 plus 4 400 excuse me

4,100 acres and now Mr. Klutz when you talk about adding more where are you going to take it away from because those services have to be provided. So I look very much forward to the fact of when you bring the master plan forward and where you're going to change that receiving area or take it away to bring it more to to prevent the sprawl that it was intended to. But I was quite surprised when I read that we went from 2,000 acres to 4,100 acres of receiving area because that's what we as those of us in local government are tasked with taking care of. Thank you very much. Have a nice day.

Thank you, ma'am. Thanks for your cogent remarks. Is there are there any further public comments? No further public comments. Then I'm going to adjourn this meeting of the planning commission.