Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

It is 1:00. I will speak. I will speak. I will speak into the microphone and call this meeting of the Douglas County Planning Commission to order. May we have the uh pledge of allegiance. Everyone is present. Lori Lo will lead us. Let's begin. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. It is now time for opening public comment. Public comment is limited to three minutes per speaker on manners over which the planning commission has jurisdiction. The planning commission wants to encourage respectful consideration of all views by members of the public. If content is disruptive, disrespectful, irrelevant, or offensive, the individual will be asked to stop speaking. Public comment will also be taken on agenda items that are identified for possible action and we will have closing public comment. I will now open public comment. Speakers will have three minutes as was said before. Please sign the roster. Say your name for the record into the microphone. First speaker, please. Good afternoon. My name is Kirk Walder. I'm speaking today as both a planning commissioner and as an individual. On March 17th, a public records request was sent to the Douglas County manager and assistant district attorney. It requested all emails for the years 2022 and 2023 from eight past and present county

employees and myself in my capacity as a member of the planning commission. The individual making the request specified any emails that included 10 terms or names of private individuals, including myself. This request was a follow on to a similar one made by the same individual in November 2024. Let me state for the record that I support transparency and the public's right to obtain relevant public records. I have fully complied with this request, turning over numerous emails to Deputy DA AJ HS, but I find this particular request made of nine people for two years of emails that might mention any of 10 subjects and individuals to be a witch hunt and fishing expedition of epic proportions. A focused public records request is valid, but one so overly broad in terms of time and individuals seems designed to harass, burden, and place an undue restriction on freedom of speech and communication. And in my specific case where the request identified my personal email, it included a false accusation that I considered defamatory and lielist. I applaud my fellow Pan planning commissioners and the hundreds of county employees and private citizens that serve on county boards and committees. It is regrettable that public service should bring exposure to actions such as this. Thank you. Thank you, Kirk. Seeing no other speakers, I will close

public comment. It is now time for approval of the agenda for possible action. Are there any corrections to the agenda? Any changes? No comments. Do we have a motion? So move, Madam Chairman. We have a motion by Bryce. Second. Second by James McCallip. All those in favor? I. Motion passes unanimously. Now time for approval of the minutes. Are there any corrections? Seeing none, do we have a motion? So moved. Motion by Bryce. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Lori. Motion by Bryce. Second by Lori. All those in favor? I. Motion passes unanimously. Public hearings number one for possible action discussion to approve four related development applications for a parcel of land within the Clear Creek Tahoe specific plan and plan development. One master plan amendment application DP24-0264 reverting the future land use designation of a 85 acre portion of an 8.64 64 acre parcel from recreation back to receiving area. Two, zoning act amendment application DP24-0265 reszoning the same85 acre portion from PR private recreation to SFR 8000 single family residential 8,000 square foot minimum net parcel size. Three major modification application DP24-0267 revising the tenative subdivision map for Clear Creek Phase 9 subdivision unit 5 to reduce the number of parcels from 19 to six and four minor modification application

DP24-0266 updating the Clear Creek Tahoe pages specific plan for consistency with these revisions. The parcel is located along the east side of Golf Club Drive, east of the intersection of Grey Mill Court and Summit Camp Way in the Indian Hills/Jacks Valley Community Plan. The applicant's representative is Chris Wer Kimley Horn and the owner is Lisha Leisha Ellert Clear Creek Residential LLC. APN number 1419-03-00002-170. Lucille Rayo presenting. Thank you, Madam Chair. Sorry for the mouthful. For the record, Lucille Hero, senior planner. Um, the request before you includes four applications for the final phase of Clear Creek. It is important to note that the master plan amendment request is for a portion of the 8.64 64 acre parcel going from recreation to receiving area and a zoning map amendment to go from private recreation to single family residential 8,000. Both requests will bring the parcel into conformance at as it is currently splitzoned. The request is also a reduction in the number of parcels currently approved at 19 reducing to six parcels. As the final phase of the project, the applicant is required to provide proof of purchasing and recording 385 transfer development rights prior to recordation of the final map. How did this parcel become non-conforming? In August of 2024, staff processed a bound boundary line adjustment including the 85 acre portion of the neighboring golf course zoned private recreation to the 7.79 acre

portion of the existing SFR8000 parcel. thus creating the 8.64 acre parcel. Why are they asking for receiving area? With the update of the 2020 master plan, the receiving areas of Crook Clear Creek that were developed received future land use designations associated with their zoning. Therefore, the golf course parcel receiving area was removed and replaced with recreation land use. All of these changes resulted in the requirement to request a portion of the 8.64 64 acre parcel to change their land use designation from recreation to receiving area in an effort to reszone the 85 acre portion of the parcel and com commence with development of the family of the single family homes. Staff is recommending approval of the requests. Findings are on packet page 54 and the conditions of approval begin on packet page 61. Today we have Chris Wter from Him Kimley Horn with a short presentation for you. for the record, uh, thank you for your time today. Um, before you get started, I want to thank you for all the supplemental information you provided. Oh, absolutely. Yes. Um, yeah, Chris Wer, for the record, uh, with Kimley Horn and Associates, I'm the civil engineer on the project and, um, be representing, uh, Castle Hill Partners who owns the project. the um so the overall development um we came to you back in August um on this same unit five piece but as a refresher uh Clear Creek Tahoe is a 1600 acre development it's it's in the Indian Hills Jax Valley area it's got a variety of amenities a golf uh golf clubhouse um golf course and other associated you know um pool and and such it's mostly comprised of single family residential in the area um and it is approved for 384 residential

units. Uh so it's completion progress so far. Everything you see in gray has been uh constructed or not constructed but um uh recorded in a final map. Uh the construction improvements are pretty much done for all the phases except for the one in red. Um mainly that is being worked through and um uh eight of the nine phases have been recorded. Um 332 lots have been sold already of the 384. Um 109 homes are have been constructed and are occupied. Uh 44 under construction and 33 are under design. Uh so there's a slew of applications in front of you today. Uh there's four of them and uh these uh first is for a zoning map amendment and that is to change um the 0.85 85 acres on this parcel um from private recreation to SFR 8000 which the remainder of the parcel is uh a master plan amendment to change the land use um of that same 085 acres from recreation to receiving area which is similar to the rest of the land use um throughout Clear Creek. Um and a major modification to the tenative map. Um that's probably the uh one of the biggest items in front of you, changing the reduction in the number of of lots from 19 to six. Um and uh we wanted to reflect those six lots in the design configuration of the tenative map. um and then reflect that remaining density uh to not change that 384 units um as part of um other parcels to be allocated transfer of development rights as Lucille mentioned and then a minor modification to the specific plan to um update the specific plan and reflect those uh changes for unit 5.

So the first uh dives into the zoning map amendment um that is the change from private recreation uh to SFR8000. Just a quick history. Um I think Lucille covered it well, but uh you know in February of 2022, we came before uh this body um as well and in another major modification that had happened and uh at that time we had included acreage to be set aside for unit 5 which included that.85 acres. However, we did not go through the formal process of changing that zoning um of that.85 85 um and also had not completed the boundary line adjustment for that 085 acres yet um which recorded in August of 2024. So what we are doing here is we are changing that 085 acres to officially uh move into the SFR 8000. Um that was our intent then um but it is uh what we're trying to officially do now. And um uh I think that's all I have there. Thanks. Uh the master plan amendment will do uh similarly. Um it will change the 0.85 acres from recreation to receiving area um to reflect that boundary line adjustment and then the major modification for the tenative map. So that's the reduction in the 19 to6 lots. We wanted to show uh what that looked like uh back in August of 2024 and what we are proposing now. Uh so you can see um the uh homes were not loted um it was more of a common area approach um uh to be uh more densified uh on a single lot um with a shared HOA um to maintain that open space but instead we are proposing uh single family lots which is typical to the rest of Clear Creek Tahoe and uh these are a lot more spread out and

there's certainly less of them. uh we're going from 19 units to six. Uh the in addition um I just wanted to touch on the transfer of development rights. So um the uh in the specific plan and in this tenative map we wanted to reflect the areas in which are receiving that 13 units um that's remaining of unit 5. Um uh the development isn't interested in changing the amount of total units as that has been set set aside in the HOA um as well as you know other utility commitments within the um actual PUB for all of Clear Creek Tahoe. So we'd like to keep the number of units 384 the same. Um but we do plan to uh transfer those development rights to other parcels which we've indicated um on the shading uh which was provided in in your materials of where those could go and that will have to be th those transfer of development rights will have to be recorded before the unit 5 final map is recorded. Um and then diving in a little bit further, as you can see, um most of the land use for the area is receiving area. That's that area, uh shown in orange. Um and you know, as shown on the transfer of development rights application, um or or some of the text from there and says transferring of development rights to a specific parcel does not guarantee the applicant the ability to develop all available units on the receiving parcel. uh development rights may be transferred from one receiving area to another where access units have been transferred. Um so that is our our intent um of the receiving area transfer of development rights um and those 13 units. Is it on? Okay, there we go. uh the

minor modification to the specific plan is is just to update uh the remainder of um or the unit 5 configuration uh within the specific plan. So we're showing those six lots instead of the 19 units we had before. Uh so this middle and the applications in front of you will not change any of the utility agreements for clear Tahoe. um you know with it being a reduction in the number of units there will actually be um more service or you know s certainly service available for these six lots um uh we've also received uh recently uh in the last 3 days the will serve letter for water um from Douglas County as well uh to serve these six lots um and the total number of lots for the development is not changing 384 um the overall site access and lot configuration um for unit 5 as well as the remainder of the development. Um and then yeah, like I said, we have a few uh water water and sewer will serve letters um that we've already received. Um and I'm available for any questions. Thank you. I have two questions. Last time we saw you, you said this is the last time we're going to see you. This would be the official last time. Okay. Um, yeah, we we did have um a change in the type of lot to to your u point there. Um, as you can see, these are laotted and so they're a little bit more spread out and diverse. We think this would be a better product for um the home sites in the area. Uh, it's it's been the thing that we've sold the most of at Clear Creek Tahoe. So, this different product we didn't think would uh go as well. Number two, should the total number of developed units change, meaning should they be less than

384, the number of TDRs for the entire project will remain the same? Correct. Yeah. Okay, that is correct. Thank you. Are there any other questions for the applicant? Jim um first of all I had about five questions the supplemental answered I'm really good um concern more than a question and that's the hydraology looking when you stand on that land and look at that mountain you're kind of worried how that's going to result in a flash flood or hey uh some an event like that I'm not an engineer so I probably don't understand all the details but that'd be my only concern otherwise the package was complete and And I really appreciate answered all my qu other questions. So I can provide a response on the drainage if you'd like. Um so uh this is a smaller catchment than is uh or has been for the other phases. Uh it's uh even though there is a mountain side nearby actually most of that drainage is flowing away from there. Um not towards the unit 5 area. Um it's going both more southerntherly and then more west towards um the unit four phase which was already developed. Um and uh so the unit 5 area will have a much smaller uh detention basin. Uh we're still you know required to mitigate our pre versus post condition and we will certainly do that for the new roadway we're putting in. Um but there will not be a lot of off-site generated from that um or off-site that we need to take in from that existing drainage. Thank you. Don't sit down. So, I have a question about um the small detention basin that's on lot 401 that looks to be part of the private property. Is that detention basin going

to be the responsibility of that lot owner or is the maintenance and and assurance that that detention basin will function properly part of the HOA's responsibility? Whose whose detention basin is that? Yeah, so it will be the HOAs. Um it uh we have had detention basins on lots before. Um usually we will um carve them out with a slope and grading and drainage easement. Um that's what we do for all of our slopes so that we can maintain those but same with our drainage facilities. Okay. Um so that will actually be carved out of their building envelope that they can uh disturb on. Um and the HOA would be able to go in and make maintenance. um uh you know happen all year. Okay. The other question I have is on the golf cart path that goes through lot 401. Mhm. So it appears that the part of that golf cart path that's not on lot 401 is going to be removed, but the part that is is going to stay. Um is that going to be available for people to walk on or is that Yes. So So it will be available for the uh people in the HOA to walk on. It's actually part of a overall trail system as well. So, we want people to be able to access along that golf cart path. Um, it will be an encumbrance to the lot as well, which we are proposing a private access easement for that golf cart path. Um, this has been done on one other lot before. It's about a 10 foot wide um or no 20 foot wide path um or easement, excuse me. Um and uh and so it will cross through that lot and it will also impact that building envelope. But we intentionally have created actually more space from away from that uh golf cart path easement uh for someone to build a home uh further away from it. Looks like there's plenty of room for a a pad for that development. But why would you take out that component that is just kind of southeast of that or

west of that? Uh you mean the parcel the why would you take out the golf cart path? Um, it shows it's to be removed on the on the plan. Yeah. So, there's a small piece of the golf cart path that will have to be replaced as part of the new road that's going in. Um, I think that's maybe what you're talking about, but all of the other golf cart path will stay. Okay. It looked like a pretty big chunk to take out. So, yeah. No, it's just the piece that we'll have to So, basically the where the golf cart path is now in relation to Golf Club Drive, which is already existing, is it's further up on like a hillside. So, it will have to cut down, meet that road, and then come back up. So, it does look like a longer stretch, but it's really just the piece that will change in elevation. All right. So, it will just be replaced, not removed entirely. Correct. Okay. Thank you. That's all my questions. Other questions? I have one. Okay, Dan. Yeah, thank you very much for a very complete package and and obviously we're liking the fact that it's a reduction of density in that area. My question is really uh related to the overall development and it's just an opportunity to ask it here and it has to do with fire safety in the couple decades that this project has been uh conceived and now realized obviously fire fire danger in that part of the of the Carson range has seemingly increased and I'm wondering if the development has taken appropriate steps to meet that uh fire danger building materials defensible space. What can you tell us? Yeah, so I I'll do my best. Um I am not the fire, you know, manager at uh Clear Creek Tahoe, but I'm aware of what they're doing. So they do have 24hour on-site management. Um you know, certainly in

the recent fire risk that came um I think it was two years ago now. Um uh the site was evacuated and they use the northern entrance which is the the current um you know entrance that uh people go in and out of but there is a secondary emergency access road to the south uh that goes down through Jax Valley uh for the development. So there's two uh places they can go. Um and so there there wasn't a need to use that um for this fire, but um certainly it's something that they looked uh into again. Um and as far as defensible space goes, you know, certainly we in Clear Creek Tahoe, we follow more stringent standards similar to homes in Tahoe. And so we are putting more space um defensible space between houses. um that is a Clear Creek design review requirement, not necessarily a Douglas County requirement. Um but that is the extra steps that they're taking in order to do that. Thank you, Mhm. Kirk. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a couple of minor clarifications or questions for uh uh Lucille and maybe Tom, you want to join in on this one too because it's in your baywick probably. Um Lucille, we you say on the packet on page 55, you're talking about the uh reduction in lots uh for unit phase 5 from 19 to6 and then you further go on to talk about the total number of 384 units is not changed for the Clear Creek Tahoe planned development. So there is a distinction maybe or a difference between units and lots or Chris if you want to join in on this question. Um, so you're not reducing the number of units because as you said, you want to aortion for the HOA all of the fees based on units. You don't want to have a reduction in units,

but you will have a reduction actually in lots. Am I mixing things up or No, I agree with the way you said it and apologize if I did not make that clear enough. Um, yes. So you the number of units would not change. Uh so those 13 units are not those 13 additional units from unit 5 would not get built until uh in the future um potentially but the six lots are proposed to be built. Um and so yes there's a delta of the 13 uh to sum up the 384 units. Okay. And then uh Lucille and going back to page 50 when you uh talk about the evaluation and you talk about the TDRs you say um uh TDRs associated are associated with this project and some have been certified. Uh this may come up at the board of county commissioners because I'm sure they they look at the TDR question carefully. Is there a process that uh uh and Tom you can jump right in if you're a better person to answer this. Is there a process that you go for uh forward with when the uh developer acquires the TDRs and then you certify them? Um and that's just a ongoing process as they build out the development. Am I kind of getting this reasonably correct? Um yeah, we've we've modified the process on how how folks are going to be recording these and we should have had it done at each final map. Um we got a letter from them originally that said we have the 384 TDRs, but they were never applied to individual phases. So they are uh reconciling that in this next um final map and and it'll be it'll be on the record then at that point on where they have actually been recorded and which lots came from where and you know those kinds of yeah it's it's a it's

quite the detail um to provide on a final map but it is it is going to be required from now on. Thank you. We always trust you to dot all the eyes and cross all the tees. are very thorough about that. So, we appreciate that. Thank you. That's all I had to mention. Actually, it's Kate who's getting the gray hair from doing the TD. Kate, thank you, Kate. AJ and Kate, for sure. Um, also, uh, Dan, um, the the fire department adopted WOOI um the those provisions and code also for for the the defense area, defensible space area. Also, I I believe that they are doing maps now or preparing maps for each of these houses uh at the building permit phase and the fire department is responsible for reviewing those. Um I I think I even have to do it for my house out in Johnson Lane. But uh but anyway, that's it's a requirement now, just so you know. Thank you, Bryce. Seeing nothing else, I will open public comment. Seeing no one rise, I will close public comment. Any other comments from the planning commissioners? Uh thank you, Madam Chair. I did want to ask uh AJ for a clarification. Uh we do have the one agenda item with four parts on it and uh then the recommended motion is to uh approve the resolution 2025-01. But AJ, am I correct? This includes a master plan amendment and traditionally mash master plan or by definition master plan amendments require twothirds vote. So if we just do this in one motion I don't see any problem with that. But uh from a procedural standpoint and from looking forwardly on the board action would we we need and the board need twothirds for

approval of uh of this uh action that we're taking today? Thank you, AJ HS. For the record, if it's all presented in a single motion, which is how it's described in your packet, then for it to be effective, you would need the two/3s vote. You could separate it out into pieces and approve each aspect of this application or each one of the four applications individually. If uh if the larger motion were to fail for some reason, you could you could attempt it to do it that way. The motion is found on page 44 of our packets. Do we have someone willing to make a motion? Kirk. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, I uh uh move that the planning commission adopt resolution 2025-01 and recommend that the board of county commissioners approve the requested master plan amendment, zoning map amendment, tenative subdivision map modifications, and specific plan revisions as presented because the required findings have been met. Do we have a second? I'll second that. Okay. Motion by Kirk Walder, seconded by James McCallip. All those in favor? I. Motion passes unanimously. I want to thank you Lucille and thank you Chris. It's now time for closing public comment. Seeing no one rise, have a closed Oh, you want to make closing public comment? Very quickly, I just wanted to thank every uh commissioner up here as well as the public, many of whom are not here, that sent me uh wonderful

uh emails and messages uh while I was undergoing the medical procedure for the last 3 weeks. And I appreciated it very very much because it gets pretty lonely in a in a hospital room. Thanks. It just shows what good people are in Douglas County. Now it just shows that we were bored. I'll close public comment and Paul is glad and we're really glad to have you back. Thank you all. I will adjourn this meeting of the planning commission.