Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

It is Tuesday, May 5th, 2026. Happy Cinco de Mayo. I call this meeting of the Washoe County Planning Commission to order. Could we have a determination of quorum, please?

Jim Barnes?

Here.

Michael Flick?

Here.

Linda Kennedy? Is absent. Daniel Lazareski?

Here.

Kate Nelson here. Amy Owens present. Rob Pierce present. We have a quorum.

Thank you. Would you please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance? Thank you. Could we have the ethics law announcement?

Thank you. Commissioners are reminded that if with respect to any matter or any person coming before the commission today, you've received a gift or loan, you have a pecuniary interest, you have a commitment in a private capacity such as family, employment, business, or similar relationship, or if you've provided representation or counseling before an agency to a person or entity for compensation within the last year on a matter that's being considered, you have an obligation to disclose that gift, loan, interest, commitment, or prior representation at the time the matter is being considered. You must further abstain from deliberation or voting on the matter if it's clear the gift, loan, interest, commitment, or prior representation would materially affect the independence of judgment of a reasonable person. Commissioners are also reminded pursuant to Planning Commission rules if you've had any contact with anyone outside this meeting Interested in a matter coming before the Commission today. You need to disclose the nature of that contact at the meeting I Think you could we have the appeals procedure?

Most decisions rendered by the Planning Commission are appealable to the Board of County Commissioners. If you disagree with the decision of the Planning Commission and you qualify as an agreed person or party, you may appeal in writing within 10 calendar days from the date that the decision being appealed is reduced to writing, filed with the Secretary of the Planning Commission, and mailed to the original applicant in the proceeding being appealed in accordance with Washoe County Code. Please call the planning staff immediately at 775-328-6100 for information on the appeal procedure and the application fee.

Thank you. Do we have any general public comment at this time?

Yes, we have public comment in chambers. We will start with Cliff Lowe, followed by Tammy Holdstill.

Good evening, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Cliff Lowe, and I can't expect you to remember me four months later since the last time I spoke to you was January 6th of this year, which is a date many of you probably will remember. I was only one of dozens of people who spoke in opposition to the Sierra Reflections development on that very long night. My comments tonight are, unfortunately, four months late. After you reached your unanimous decision on that night, like pretty much all the public, I left and went out to the parking lot, and I went to my car and realized that there was something I wanted to say in closing public comment. I rushed back here, but you had understandably wrapped up your business for the night and had adjourned the meeting. So my comments are that, and I hope they come across as sincere as I mean them, I thank you for being on this commission. I couldn't do it. I've thought about it, thought about a number of things. I couldn't do it. For one thing, I'm too thin-skinned. Excuse me. Sorry about that. It has to be a difficult job. In fact, I'm not sure it should be called a job because I don't think you get paid. And I think people for jobs usually get paid. But it's often unrewarding. But I also want to thank you, of course, for the decision that you reached. that you determined that you could not make at least one of the required findings. That was a topic that many of us spoke about in public comment. Unfortunately, the Board of County Commissioners rewarded your decision, as you likely know by reversing it, on a vote of three to two. And I think it's fair to say that the three, at least two of the three who voted to reverse your decision made their decision based on irrelevant reasons and paid little or no attention to the same findings that you were required, that they were also required to make. And I don't think that they did that. I'd like to think that you would make the same decision today if you were faced with it again. And once again, I just want to say thank you.

We have Tammy Holtstill followed by Russ Earl. Please state your first and last name for the record.

And I'll lead the overhead. Thank you. Tammy holds still for the record. I know this isn't an easy thing for you guys to do, and I know you do a lot of work regarding it. However, I think that there's a lot of issue with the fact that this board is in a no-win situation a lot of the time. Number one, knowing all the NRSs is important because this NRS states that people have to lose twice to take it to judicial review. It's in the NRS, it's right there, okay? When you deny a project and you don't put all of the NRSs for the findings showing a good reason why they shouldn't be overturning it, it will get overturned. And what you have done at that point, as you've made it. So the residents cannot go to judicial review. I learned this from experience. I got sued because I wanted the planning commission and then the commissioners overturned it for no good reason. And I ended up getting sued for $1,500 from that developer. So this NRS is very important for you guys to understand. And I don't think anybody has ever brought it to your attention. So I am bringing it to your attention now. If you deny a project and you know the commissioners are going to overturn it, baby, you need to think twice if you can't make sure that you have statute, that there's something that can be fought against those commissioners. That's all I have to say. Thank you.

Russ Earl, please state your name for the record.

Good evening. Russ Earl for the record. And this is pertaining general comment for item 9B, which is the Osage. And if I could have the overhead. Okay, all right, and this pertains to the parcel for listener, and this is part of the map of the floodplain. This is Osage down here, and this all area in the green is where he's proposing His building, so it's 53.22 acres. He's going to bring in 92,926 acres of fill and he has 122,158 cubic yards of cut, which once you do all the math on that, it comes to about two and a half feet of material that he's gonna move into and get his property out of the flood zone and negatively impact the surrounding properties. I would say that that is a certain for you guys to be able to find a negative finding. It has a financial negative benefit, an environmental negative connotation. It's a regional planning issue. The businesses out in the Stead Industrial Park are all going to be negatively impacted because now we've lost about 40 acre feet of water storage by him building this development and filling that area. So where is that water going to go? It's going to more negatively impact the entire Silver Knolls community that's in the low end of our development. And I can't see where there's any positive to this. Reno has learned in Lemon Valley it cost them over $10 million. They had approved development and planning out there, and they had to buy back properties in the end. Does Washoe County want to take the liability for that? I can't foresee that they have the finances to do that, and I'll guarantee you the developer listener, he's not going to reimburse anybody if they're negatively impacted by his development as he's making money off of this. So I would hope that you could vote on this and a no. and find that due to negative findings environmentally, financial, and everything else, the homeowners, they won't be able to get flood insurance or any insurance period down with this because it's going to increase the flood zone too because there'll be less of a basin. We're a closed hydrologic basin. There's no place for this water to go. So please think of that with your votes tonight. Thank you.

Thank you so much. And there is no public comment on Zoom. That concludes public comment.

Thank you very much. Has the board had a chance to review the agenda for the evening? Does anyone have any comments? Otherwise, can we have a motion to approve?

This is Rob. I make a motion to approve this review.

I'll second that. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? The agenda is approved. Has everyone had a chance to review the minutes from the April 7th meeting? Do we have any comments or adjustments to that?

This is Rob.

I make a move to approve as written.

Second.

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? The minutes from the April meeting are approved. All right. Mr. Lloyd, can you run us through just what the consent agenda means again in terms of process? We approve it as a whole or request that items be pulled off of it for hearing?

Yes, yeah the purpose of the consent agenda is we have a number of these continuing items that may come before you such as an extension of time request that goes through the normal NRS process rather than having a full presentation and discussion through the board. The board has, this commission has the authority the purview whether or not they simply want to take action on the consent agenda or pull the items specifically any of the two items that are on the agenda tonight off of that agenda for discussion. That's in a nutshell the purpose of the consent agenda.

Thank you. So if everyone's had a chance to review the consent agenda DOES ANYONE HAVE A DESIRE TO PULL ANYTHING OFF OF IT FOR HEARING OR COULD I HAVE A MOTION ON THE APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA?

SECOND.

WE HAVEN'T MADE THE MOTION YET. I'M SORRY. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA OVERALL?

I HAVE NO PUBLIC COMMENT IN CHAMBERS OR VIA ZOOM.

Thank you. All right. If no one requests to pull items off of it, I will make a motion to approve the consent agenda as written. Could I have a second? This is Rob.

I'll second it. Okay.

All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? The consent agenda is approved, and we're on to public hearings. Mr. Lorde.

Okay, item 9A is the Amendment of Conditions, case number WAC 260003, for Silverado Village at Eagle Canyon, Faces 1 and 2, and for Special Use Permit case number WSUP 220001 and WTM 22001. FOR HEARING DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT OF CONDITIONS FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT CASE NUMBER WSUP 220001 AND TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP CASE NUMBER WTM 22001 KNOWN AS SILVERADO VILLAGE AT EAGLE CANYON PHASES 1 AND 2. TO REDESIGNATE .81 ACRE PARCEL FOR TO COMMON AREA RATHER THAN COMMON OPEN SPACE AND TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A ROAD THROUGH THE PARCEL. THE APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED BY SILVERADO VILLAGE EAGLE CANYON LLC. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS and consists of approximately 21.56 acres. The site is currently governed by the commercial master plan land use designation and the neighborhood commercial regulatory zone district falling within the boundaries of the Spanish Springs planning area. And stepping in for Julie Olander is Planner Tim Evans representing Washoe County in this matter.

Thank you. Tim Evans. PLANNER, SO THE CASE BEFORE YOU TODAY IS AMENDMENT OF CONDITIONS CASE NUMBER WAC 26-003 FOR SILVERADO VILLAGE. SO THE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW A ROADWAY THROUGH A 0.81 ACRE PARCEL WHICH HAS APN 532-03219 AS PREVIOUSLY DESIGNATED AS COMMON OPEN SPACE And change the designation to common area so it's just changing that common open space designation to common area for this request. And so, on the screen there is a vicinity map showing the parcel location for this subject request. And so, to give a bit of background so on April 5 2022 the planning Commission approved. Special use permit WSUP 22-0001 and WTM 22-001 for continuum of care cottages. And so the special use permit was to allow for the continuum of care facility, seniors in accordance with Table C3 of the Spanish Springs Area Plan and for major grading to the tune of 55,000 cubic yards. And the tentative subdivision map was for a common open space tentative subdivision on 21.5 acres for 136 lots ranging in size from 2,004 square feet to 2,400 square feet. And so moving forward on September 2, 2025, amendment of conditions case number WAC 25-0014 was approved by the Planning Commission to amend The requirement that at least one occupant of each residence must be 62 years or older to at least 80% of the occupied residences must be occupied by at least one person who is 55 years or older. So that was that amendment of conditions on September 2nd, 2025. And then coming forward, bringing it forward to this year on January 6th, 2026 amendment of conditions, WAC 25-0019 was approved by the Planning Commission to amend changing the use type from continuum of care senior to senior housing, reduced the total number of residential units from 136 units to 134, and removed all conditions associated with medical requirements and equipment for a continuum of care facilities use type. And so, to give some evaluation on this request, so the applicant is now requesting to allow a private roadway through that 0.181 acre parcel mentioned earlier, and that was as previously shown in the approved development has common open space so like mentioned before it's going from common open space to common common area. And then the roadway will connect the subdivision to the proposed subdivisions known as Silverado 3 to the south and per Washoe County Code section 110 408.45 D public or private vehicular streets are not allowed in areas designated as common open space. So that is why there's that change going from common open space to common area. And then the request itself will change the acreage of common open space from 10.42 acres to 9.61 acres for the total 21.56 acre site. And so continuing on, so the applicant wants to connect the two developments by this roadway and is requesting to amend tentative map WTM 22-001 to accomplish the change. And the roadway will allow all residences access to the amenities located in both subdivisions and provides access to neighborhood way from the proposed subdivision Silverado 3. And so on the screen there at the very top, you can see that 0.81 acre parcel is the subject of this amendment of conditions. And it shows where that connection would occur going in between or through that 0.81 acre parcel. And so noticing for this project did occur, parcels within 500 feet from the site were noticed of the amendment of conditions and a total of 45 notices were sent out. and no e-mails or phone calls were received as a result of noticing. And so in relation to reviewing agencies and findings and the motion, so various departments and agencies were provided the project application for review and their comments are included in the staff report. Agencies with conditions are included in the conditions of approval and staff is able to make all findings as shown in the staff report and possible A POSSIBLE MOTION AND POSSIBLE MOTIONS CAN BE FOUND IN THE STAFF REPORT AS WELL. AND I AM AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS AS IS THE APPLICANT.

THANK YOU. DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE THEIR OWN PRESENTATION OR NO? I TAKE IT THEY DON'T. I HAVE A QUESTION.

If this goes through and you're converting open space to community access or whatever it is for the road, is that a private or a public road? Who's responsible for the maintenance of the road?

Mike Evans, for the record. I'm with Silverado Homes, the applicant. Those are that is a private road that community both phases wanted to which is approved is private roads and then the proposed phase 3 will also be private roads so the road connection just allows the community even we call it different phases to function as one. Okay, thank you.

All right do we have any public comment on this item.

There is no public comment via Zoom or in chambers.

Thanks very much. Any further questions from the Commission? Discussion, deliberations, or we have a couple of proposed motions.

All right.

On the special use permit, I move that after giving reasoned consideration to the information contained in the staff report and the information received during the public hearing, the Washoe County Planning Commission approve amendment of conditions case number WAC26-0003 for special use permit case number WSUP22-0001 for Silverado Homes, Nevada, incorporated with conditions included as exhibit A to this matter, having made all 5 findings in accordance with Washoe County Code section 110.810.30. Commissioner Nelson, I'll second. All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? special use permit motion carries and with regard to the tentative subdivision map I move that after giving reason consideration to the information contained in the staff report and the information received during the public hearing Washoe County Planning Commission approved amendment of conditions case number WAC 25-0019 for tentative subdivision map case number WTM 22-001 for Silverado Homes Nevada Incorporated with the conditions included as exhibit A to this matter having made all 10 findings in accordance with Washoe County Code section 110.608.25.

Commissioner Nelson, I'll second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Any opposed? The motion carries. Thank you. Mr. Lloyd.

Yeah, thank you. This next item is tentative subdivision map case number WTM 26002 Osage Road and special use permit case number WSUP 260004 for the Osage Road infrastructure. for hearing discussion and possible action to approve a special use permit for a sewer lift station which is classified as a utility service use type and a common open space tentative subdivision map for a 131 lot common open space development with lots ranging in size from 5,310 square feet to 15,515 square feet the project will include grading OF APPROXIMATELY 122,000 CUBIC YARDS OF CUT AND 92,926 CUBIC YARDS OF FILL. THESE APPLICATIONS WERE SUBMITTED BY LIFESTYLE HOMES, TND, LLC. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 10600, 10100 AND 10101 OSAGE ROAD AND INCLUDES A PORTION OF OSAGE ROAD. TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 53.22 ACRES. THE SITE HAS A MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION OF SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL AND REGULATORY ZONES OF MEDIUM DENSITY SUBURBAN AND PUBLIC SEMI PUBLIC FACILITIES. THE PARCEL IS LOCATED IN THE NORTH VALLEYS PLANNING AREA. REPRESENTING WASHOE COUNTY ONCE AGAIN IN THIS MATTER IS PLANNER TIM OWENS.

chair i have a disclosure i have since since the last time that they were here i have met with the developer but we did not discuss this project i do not feel that it will affect my voting all right thank you for that mr evans thank you tim evans planner just waiting on the tim it's it's loading really slowly tim okay

Mr. Trick, if we could please have just like a five minute recess to get this presentation up.

Sure thing. It's 628. We'll adjourn until 635. Thank you so much. It's 635. We'll reconvene if the presentation is ready for Mr. Evans to make the staff report.

Tim Evans planner. So the cases before you today are, uh, is the first one is tentative subdivision map case number WTM 2626-002 and special use permit case number WSUP 26-0004. So to give a bit of background on the project site. Um, so the property itself is located at one zero six zero zero. 10100 and 10101 Osage Road. And it also includes a portion of Osage Road. So the entire development itself encompasses 53.22 acres. It is located within the North Valley's planning area. And the subject parcels are zoned medium density suburban and public slash semi-public facilities. And so the request specifically for the tentative subdivision map is for a proposed common open space development. And as mentioned earlier, the subject parcels are 53.22 acres. And the number of lots proposed is 131 lots. The lots will range in size from 5,300, just slightly over 5,300 square feet, to 15,515 square feet. And in addition, with this tentative subdivision map, there is associated grading as well. And the special use permit request is for a sewer lift station. And there on the right side of the screen, you can see the layout of the proposed subdivision. And so as mentioned earlier, the number of lots proposed is 131 lots. And what is on the screen is the actual density calculations based on the minimum density or the density allowed for the medium density suburban zone and the public semi-public facilities. So as far as the dwelling units per acre that are allowed in MDS or that medium density suburban zone, it's three dwelling units per acre. And for the public semi-public facilities, there is no density allowed for dwelling units. So going through the calculations and by the acreage, it comes out to 131 lots that are allowed. And that is what is proposed. So this is, as mentioned earlier, a common open space development. So specifically Article 408 of Washoe County Development Code sets forth the requirements for common open space development. And so common open space allows for minimum lot sizes and minimum lot widths to be modified and lot setbacks to be modified as well. And so as mentioned earlier, the lot sizes will range from about just over 5,300 square feet to just over 15,000 square feet. And the common open space is commonly used to allow the density clustering in an effort to do a total of approximately five of the following, and that would be preserve or provide open space, protect natural and scenic resources, achieve a more efficient use of land, minimize road building, and encourage a sense of community. And so as part of this common open space development, the Applicant is proposing to modify the setbacks, and Article 408, as mentioned, does allow for that. So what is being proposed is really a modification of the side setbacks in relation to the MDS zoning itself as it is applied to the property. Requires a 20-foot front setback. an eight foot side setback and a 20 foot rear setback. And so what is actually being modified as far as the setbacks go as mentioned is the side setbacks, which would be changed to five feet and 11 feet instead of just the eight feet. And so as part of the common open space, there is common open space areas that are landscaped that are proposed. as well as trails. And so there on the right side of the screen, you can see the yellow line there that goes and traverses the exterior of the proposed subdivision, shows the trail that is proposed as part of this common open space subdivision. And so as mentioned earlier, as part of this subdivision map, there is grading that will be involved. Total excavation would be 122,158 cubic yards. Fill would be 92,926 cubic yards. And in relation to these two specific thresholds, It does trigger major grading requirements within Washoe County Code, specifically Article 438 of Washoe County Code. And so the project was sent to multiple agencies for review, one of them being engineering department and engineering reviewed the proposed grading plan grading and drainage plan that was provided with the application and they provided a condition stating that a set of construction improvement drawings specifically showing on-site grading should be provided during you know any building or grading permits in the future And so as far as biological resources go, a biological resource assessment was submitted with the application. It was prepared by NCE, and the analysis was for the project boundary and for the project area itself, and then outside of that, going out with a one-mile buffer. And so special status species were identified with the potential to occur in the analysis, ANALYSIS AREA AND THERE ARE RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES THAT HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WITHIN EXHIBIT A. AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, IT WAS ALSO SENT TO THE NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT. AND SO CONDITIONS WERE PROVIDED BY ENDOW IN RELATION TO THE specific to wildlife friendly fencing, appropriately shielding lighting for homes or whatever it may be, as well as best management practices for garbage disposal due to being within a bare habitat. And so all of those comments have been addressed with conditions in exhibit A of the staff report. And so as far as cultural resources go, so in the unanticipated discovery of any prehistoric or historic resources, as well as human remains, which is a possibility. Conditions of approval are being recommended to require notes on the final map, specifically addressing the discovery of those and what should occur if that is to occur. And so those have been made conditions of approval. in the staff report and it is part of Exhibit A. And additionally, a condition of approval requires the submission of a cultural resources survey prior to the recordation of the final map. And so in relation to flood, the project site is partially located within a special flood hazard area, specifically the Zone AE special flood hazard area. The property is also located in within FEMA flood zone X and FEMA flood zone X shaded. And so you can see the location. It's a little bit difficult, somewhat difficult to see on the right side of the screen due to the colors being fairly close with our FEMA mapping. But it does show the approximate boundaries for that zone AE special flood hazard area as well as the zone X there on the right side of the screen. And so again, this was reviewed or this project was reviewed by Washoe County Engineering and a total of five conditions were provided in relation to the floodplain. And those have been included in the staff report as conditions of approval in Exhibit A. So in relation to the school district, so this project was sent for review to the Washoe County School District. And so it is zoned or this property is zoned for the desert heights elementary school cold springs middle school and the North valleys high school and so comment was received from the school district stating that they have available capacity should this development move forward. And so, in relation to share the sheriff and structural fire protection. So this was sent to the truck emails for protection district as well as the sheriff's office and also the city of Reno fire department for review. And so one thing to note about the project itself is that or the location and. agreements between Truckee Meadows Fire Protection District and the City of Reno Fire Department. There is an automatic aid agreement between TMF PD and the City of Reno Fire Department that requires fire service to be provided by the agency that is closest to the call. And so as I go along in this presentation, that'll make a little bit more sense. But that's one important point to keep in mind. And then with the extension of Echo Avenue, Um, the city of Reno fire station number nine will be approximately one and a half miles east of the project site so there will be as proposed with the subdivision a connection or extension of echo avenue allowing fire trucks and things like that to be able to get to this specific area that they never previously had access or quick access from fire station number nine and so project information as stated was provided to the washoe county sheriff's office and the reno fire department and the Truckee Meadows Fire Protection District for review. And so no responses or comments were received from the Sheriff's Office or the Reno Fire Department. However, I did speak specifically with one of the captains at the sheriff's office in relation to this project and specifically in relation to the number of deputies or whatever it may be on staff for this specific area in the North Valley and what was explained to me is that staffing will remain as it is and they haven't changed any staffing levels or anything like that within the last three years. And so there's that piece. And then as far as response times. So I also spoke to emergency services in relation to response times and how long it potentially may take for emergency services to serve this area. And so based on their response, it would be their standard response time of about 15 minutes and 59 seconds. And so the truck of meadows fire protection district, they did provide a comment when we sent this out for review and so all of their comments are conditions of approval and exhibit a. And so public utilities currently exist within echo avenue and they are they have the ability to be extended to serve the proposed subdivision and as mentioned earlier, there is a part of this. Part of the requests before each day is for a special use permit for a sewer lift station. And the sewer lift station on the right side of the screen, you can see it's somewhat highlighted in that little square blue box, and it'll be approximately 750 square feet if that sewer lift station is actually needed. And so sewer service would be provided and would end up, will end up at the Reno Stead Water Reclamation Facility, which I've confirmed with the City of Reno, since they are the ones that oversee that facility, that they have capacity to serve the proposed subdivision. And so water service would be provided by the Truckee Mountains Water Authority, and I also spoke with them as well, and they stated that they have no concerns in relation to this project and that there are utilities within Echo Avenue that could be extended to serve the subdivision. Concerning roadways and traffic, a traffic impact study was provided with the application, and it was prepared by professional professional engineer, a professional engineer of GCW for the proposed project and so as a result of that preparation of that traffic impact study, there will be approximately 1,270 daily trips and a total of about 95 a.m. peak hour trips and 127 p.m. peak hour trips. And so proposed improvements for roadways and traffic in relation to this project One would be to pave approximately 1.41 miles of Osage Road, and the other would be to extend Echo Avenue, as I mentioned earlier. And so Washoe County Engineering did review this project and the project information and provided a total of 23 conditions concerning traffic and roadways, which included traffic calming measures as well. That is one thing that seemed to come up with some of the public comments that I received. were concerns with traffic speed and things like that. And that is one of the conditions that engineering has recommended is to address traffic calming measures. So that is included in Exhibit A. And so as mentioned, this project was sent out to multiple agencies for review. A total of 35 agencies received the project information for review. And a total of four agencies, those being And now, Engineering, Truckee Meadows Fire Protection District and the Washoe Story Conservation District provided conditions of approval and those are included in Exhibit A of the staff report. And so noticing did occur for this project, a total of 52 property owners were noticed and a total of actually now, as of about an hour ago or so, 13 public comments were received in relation to this project. and all public comments received were in opposition to the project. So staff is able to make all required findings as detailed in the staff report, specifically for the tentative map findings. Staff is able to make all required findings for the common open space findings as stated in the staff report. And staff is able to make all required findings as detailed in the staff report for the special use permit. And staff recommends the Planning Commission approve tentative subdivision map WTM 26-002 and special use permit case number WSUP 26-0004 and provides the motions on the screen as well as in the staff report. And I am available for any questions and the applicant has a presentation as well.

All right. Thank you. If the applicant would like to make their presentation.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, Mr. Lloyd, good to see you. For the record, Garrett Gordon, tonight representing Lifestyle Homes. With me tonight is Mr. Bob Lissner, who has developed homes in North Valley for approximately 38 years, and his son, Peter Lissner, who has built most of those homes and currently resides in the North Valleys in one of their developments. It's always great representing a local developer. Tonight, before you, is two applications bundled together for a tentative map, as well as a special use permit. Mr. Evans did a great job with his presentation, so I will try not to be redundant but just hit a couple main points. So you've heard about the location, 52 acres north of Silver Lake, includes Osage Road between Cal and Maria Street and Red Rock Road. Vacant land, just one dwelling unit. And you can see on the map to the right, and I did do this presentation to you for the zone change and the master plan amendment. And one of the points that was made when we moved forward with this rezoning, you could see on the right-hand side, is it is somewhat of a transition area, because you have City of Reno to the east. You have industrial manufacturing buildings to the east. This project, 131 units, is a natural transition into the existing densities that are located to the west. The property is bisected by Osage Road. As we've talked about before, that road is actually currently owned by Lifestyle Homes, and they will be improving it for this development. And again, it's 131 lots. So a common open space development, 131 lots, the common area we've discussed. We are improving Osage Road. But that connection from Echo Avenue to Osage from the right-hand side, east to west, it was noted a few times in the staff report how important that actually is for a couple reasons. One, it gives the neighborhood now two ways out from where they live, not only this project but the surrounding neighborhood. They can now exit this area on the Red Rock to the west or on Echo to the east. It was also noted, and I might note this a couple times because it's so important, FIRE has noted now that there will be a connection to Echo and the City of Reno Fire Station Number 9 will be responding, there's increased response times, not only to this development, but to the surrounding area. So that's a big deal, too, connecting ECHO to this area. And it's not random to connect ECHO because that is in the RTC-RTP plan to have ECHO connect to Red Rock. And so this development is facilitating that at its own cost to make that connection. On-site retention, I'll hit this a couple times, but when I stood before you for zoning, one of the big questions many of you remember was the flooding and what we would be doing to mitigate that flooding. And I told all of you that given we were talking about zoning and master plan amendments, changing the colors on the map, that you couldn't really condition it, but I made a commitment to you that when I came back on behalf of Lifestyle, that we would not only make the situation status quo or the same, it would get better. And why is that? Because Washoe County has on its books the retention requirement, the mitigation requirement to one to three. So we have to make the situation 30% better. So we're not just saying nothing will change. We have these retention ponds on site. Don't worry surrounding neighborhood. Nothing will change. Actually, it says, and then the staff report, not to take my word for it, but from staff, It says, by providing this additional flood storage capacity, and I quote, it will lower the chances of extreme flooding events for surrounding properties with the development of this site. The on-site retention ponds will be reseeded and returned to a natural state. So you can see here to the right, to the south of the property where it was in the flood zone, it's all retention ponds now. It'll capture all of that stormwater flow onto the site and capture it heading into those communities to the north and to the west. There's also a retention site in the middle of the development as well that also will capture any stormwater from the impervious surfaces from the development on the roads and driveways will go into that site. So everything is captured on site And it's not only mitigating the flows that would head north or west, but capturing 30% more of them. And then staff's language and staff's words, it will reduce dramatically any flood risk to this area, thanks to this development. And I should note, a lot of times these retention ponds, attention bonds, as all of you know, are owned and managed and paid for by the county. Not the case here. The developer will be constructing these retention ponds and then turn it over to the HOA. And so these residents will be maintaining on their dollar these retention ponds that not only protects these homes, but homes to the north and west. So it's a really good system. It complies with code and you saw what was explained by staff. All those reviewing agencies from the engineering department to the health department all have signed off on this, that this is a very good plan with me today is also who drew this plan is Wood Rogers. I have a planner, I have a civil engineer and the hydrologist of any of you have specific questions. So I continue the common open space development, as I mentioned, and as staff mentioned, the ability to average about 7,000 square foot lots. And again, don't forget what Lifestyle does in the North Valleys. They build entry-level housing, attainable housing. And so that's this vision for here as well. I've talked about the on-site retention ponds, but I'll again stress that that absolutely mitigates flooding from a legal requirement, from a planning requirement, from an engineering department. It's no doubt that it makes the situation better for the surrounding area. Residential adjacency, staff didn't touch on this, so I will. It was important to us, as it is in all lifestyle development projects, to make sure we're being compatible or sensitive or respectful to the surrounding area. So you can see some enhanced setbacks and buffers between 60 feet to 40 feet to 25 feet. And you saw on the trail system provided by staff, the this area that you can see that shows the 25 40 and 60 that's part of the trail network along the road there and that trail network goes all around the property and will in fact be open to the public as well and also osage the county is requiring us to have a sidewalk on the north side of osage to connect red rock to echo So there should finally be a nice pedestrian pathway, pedestrian access from Red Rock on sidewalks, a nice trail system in and around this area that eventually will send you off to Echo if that's where you'd like to go. So absolutely, we check that box for trails and pedestrian paths and connectivity. The roadway improvements, as I mentioned for Osage, that in fact will be improved with that sidewalk on the north side of Osage. Traffic, as staff mentioned, the traffic study was conducted. That connection to Echo Avenue and Osage is in the RTC plan, so it is coming. It is planned for, it is needed. And of course, that plan was approved by the Washoe County Commission, so it's been signed off by the county that this is a needed connection. Let me again say, and not to be too redundant, but that connection to Echo definitely provides the surrounding area with another route to get out of the area and also not only day-to-day but the emergency route that only not only do what they dump on to with the residents and these residents and the surrounding residents dump on the red rock for an emergency but now they have certainly this project will not be gated or anything like that it'll be open and residents can evacuate on ECHO in the event there's an emergency. So that's a benefit. And also, as I mentioned, improved response times now that Station 9 will be serving this area. Then we also say in regards to traffic, two points. One is it's based on our traffic engineer's review, which was reviewed by your county as well. We imagine about less than 30% of the trips taken out of this development will head west. So about 30% head west on Red Rock, and 70%, just because of proximity and access and circulation plans, will head on Echo. So it won't even be a 50-50 split. We anticipate 70-30. So certainly less trips going on Osage than there will be on Echo. And then it's also good to keep in mind, I mean, 130, you guys have seen some very big subdivisions in your time, but 131 is small compared to a lot of those. But those AM peak trips, you heard... The number 95 trips, that's less than two per minute. And PM trips, it's about two per minute. So not necessarily a lot of trips for this particular 131 development project, which is now mitigated with Osage and connection to ECHO. Again, this is a really important slide, and I know there was some comment about who has reviewed this particular proposal, and I'm just now on page 34 of the staff report reviewing agencies. Environmental Protection has approved this plan, Nevada Water Resources, Department of Water Resources, Washoe County Building and Safety, Washoe County Water Rights, Washoe County Engineering, Northern Nevada Public Health, Truckee Meadows Regional Planning. This went to them. There was no comments in regards to any concerns about the regional plan. So many qualified experts in their field, in this particular field of retention and flood, have reviewed this and have signed off that, yes, our on-site retention ponds will provide for an additional 30% of flood storage, so 30% above and beyond what's happening today, to make the situation better in regards to flooding in this particular area. And we will, as we modify that flood zone with fill, And move it out of certain flood areas Staff was very diligent in their conditions and the conditions are very clear That before any occupancy we have to receive our conditional letter of map revision or a Clomar To ensure that what we're saying is actually true What we're saying is based on a draft hydrology report that staff reviewed we need to have a final hydrology report a time of final map and So there'll be a whole nother level of review at the final map, whole nother level review of the final hydrology report by all these agencies to make sure what we're saying is in fact accurate, which we believe it is, and which we believe staff believes as well, given their recommendation. Utilities and services. Water will be provided by Tumwa. Municipal sanitary sewer. Lift station, as we've talked about, that's needed for gravity flows to get sewer out. We've talked about extending Echo Avenue. It's important to note that this lift station is only sized to serve this 131 lots. We're not putting a lift station in that's double the capacity so more developers or more lots can connect to it. It's only these 131 lots. And I would note you can see fire hydrants will be provided along all local streets and along Osage Road. And let me just note in the staff report, this was written by the sheriff and the Truckee Meadows Fire Protection District. They say, again, City of Reno Fire Station 9 will be approximately 1.5 miles east of the project site. The extension of Echo Avenue will significantly improve response time for properties surrounding the project site. In addition, the proposed fire hydrants, which you see up here, within the development, the project is also proposing to install fire hydrants at the north and west boundaries along Osage. So you can see not only internally but externally to the project, these extra hydrants will increase the area that can be utilized in the event of a fire, benefiting the surrounding areas. So I would say... No surprise that lifestyle always tries to go above and beyond. They have developed up there for a long time. Peter Lissner lives up there. This is another effort to go above and beyond, and we appreciate it was noted by the sheriff and Truckee Meadows Fire Protection District. This is the lift station. I'm happy to answer any questions here, but it's pretty straightforward just for gravity flows to connect to the municipal sewer system. But again, just wanted to stress, it's sized just for this project, nothing more. So to conclude, we had a neighborhood meeting on January 21st, submitted the application in February, submitted the use permit application in March, worked very diligently with staff at all reviewing agencies to come up with not only these, I would say, very supportive comments in the staff report, but if you look at all the reviewing agencies and, gosh, about 20 pages of conditions that puts... LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF WHAT WE HAVE TO DO. EVERYTHING I'VE SET UP HERE IS NOT JUST SAYING IT, BUT IT'S A REQUIREMENT IN THE CONDITIONS. SO WHEN THE FINAL MAP COMES BACK TO STAFF, THIS WILL BE THE EXACT PROJECT ALONG WITH ALL THE REVIEWING AGENCIES' COMMENTS. AND THAT'S OUR PRESENTATION. I APPRECIATE THE TIME TONIGHT. LIKE I SAID, I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. SO ARE OUR PLANNER FROM WOOD ROGERS, HYDROLOGIST FROM WOOD ROGERS, AND CIVIL ENGINEER FROM WOOD ROGERS. AND THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, FOR THE TIME.

All right. Thank you very much. Do we have public comment on this item?

Yes. In chambers I have Tommy Holt Still followed by Russ Earl.

I need the overhead. Tammy, hold still for the record. You all received this. As you can see by the DRI report, Silver Lake is attached to Swan Lake, especially when they put in a lift station and their stormwater runoff runs into their sewer and then their sewer goes over to the Stead sewer plant and the Stead sewer plant pushes it right onto Swan Lake. That's a problem. You got both of these pages. Washoe County was not sued back in 2019. It was the city of Reno, even though the city of Reno wanted Washoe County included. But by taking away the floodplain, the natural floodplain, you are increasing everybody's chances of flooding. Also, one of my residents who's gotten very good at LOMARs, CLOMARs, it should not be a CLOMAR, it should be a LOMAR-F. Reason being, the residents should be approving it before it gets developed. Look into it, that's your responsibility as being on this board to understand it all. Your staff that is telling you that they should recommend this, they don't, as far as I know, I have not seen anybody who has a hydrology stamp. There's engineer stamps, but not a hydrology stamp. And hydrology is very important in this. It's a lot of water. Silver Lake has not gone down since 2017. There's a good reason for that. In my research, it's because of the amount of water that is being pumped into the aquifer. So it doesn't let the saturation of Silver Lake go into the aquifer like it's supposed to. Development is good when we need it, but development for the sake of developing is not good, especially when the developer doesn't come through with his promises to begin with and I believe that every single developer should have a performance clause or a performance bond now so that everything is done and done accurately and we keep their money until they do it correctly. We know this person hasn't. Red Rock Road is a good example. Thank you.

Thank you. Next in chambers, I have Russ Earl, lastly followed by Catherine Yarte.

Good evening. Russ Earl for the record. I'd like to read you something here. I am in formal opposition to the development currently scheduled for voting based on significant concerns regarding the accuracy, consistency, and transparency of the transportation infrastructure assumptions that have been relied upon to justify recent rezonings in this area. Prior to December of 2020, the 2020 RTP Regional Transportation Plan identified the widening of Red Rock Road from US 395 to Placerville Drive as a long-term project plan for the 2030 to 2050 timeframe. However, staff reports prepared for the White Owl and Red Rock Road RZA and the Osage RZA Unexplicably advanced this timeline to 2026 to 2030. This accelerated schedule was explicitly relied upon during both Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners' deliberations, making these rezonings appear feasible based on assumed near-term roadway capacities and safety improvements. After project approvals were granted and applicable appeal periods had expired, the Red Rock Road widening timeline quietly reverted back to 2050, as reflected on page 147 of the current RTP. This change is deeply concerning. During the Osage RZA proceedings, the project engineer expressly stated the project support hinged on the fact that, quote, the map would not be approved if the widening had not occurred, unquote. underscoring that the earlier timeline was a material factor in securing approval. The lack of consistency and clarity surrounding the Red Rock Road widening schedule undermines public trust in the planning process and raises serious It undermines public trust in the planning process and raises serious questions about whether these rezonings were approved based on assumptions that are no longer valid. Advancing high-intensity development or mid-development, in this case, based on near-term infrastructure that later proves to be decades away places existing residents road users and emergency responders at risk and shifts the burden of inadequate infrastructure onto the surrounding community. For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Planning Commission pause further development approvals relying on the Red Rock Road corridor, clarifying which infrastructure tie-along is accurate, and enforceable and reconsider whether the approvals previously granted remain appropriate in light of the reverted RTP schedule. At a minimum, this discrepancy warrants transparent public discussion and reassessment before additional entitlements are approved. Thank you.

Thank you. Lastly, in chambers, we have Catherine Yarte.

Good evening, Catherine Yarte for the record. I actually just have questions that I feel would be appropriate for you to ask because these are things that I don't understand. So I'm going to pose it as a question for you to consider or for the developers to consider. It was mentioned that the HOA would be responsible for maintaining the retention ponds as part of their HOA fees. Will the HOA have the ability to amend their bylaws and transfer that responsibility in the future? I live in a POA. We amend our bylaws a lot. So knowing that that long-term vision, is that something that we would be facing that the county may have to take back over? Who would the responsibility fall to to ensure that those are being maintained properly? And secondly, I appreciate the inclusion of the sidewalks. I don't see the value in connecting a sidewalk to Red Rock Road when Red Rock Road does not have sidewalks, and it also has very minimal shoulders and is incredibly dangerous for any sort of pedestrian or non-motorized vehicle traffic in its current state. So I just want those ideas to be considered. That's all I got. Thank you.

all right um we'll bring it back to the board does anyone on the board i apologize we we have a hand raised on zoom kirk if you will please unmute and say your first and last name for the record yeah kirk johnson here i live at 8600 osage road and i was just uh uh wanted to comment on where where does the water go from you know midway on osage road it's going to go in the retention pond that's already full behind my property And if you pave it, there's nothing in the plans that shows where that water is going to flow to. You can't flow it uphill to Mr. Lissner's development. And also on the proposal, I saw that, you know, in his retention pond on the southwest corner, like their emergency overflow would go into the already full one. So that's just a concern I have about that. And that's all I got. Thank you.

Thank you for your time. We have no further public comment.

All right. Thank you. Does the board have questions for staff or the applicant?

Yes, Rob. Tim. Earlier I called you on that 2050 RTP, the change, because if I remember right, WRZA 24004 back in November of 24 called out the widening of Red Rock Road as one of the approvals on this. And it was The way I understand it is it was a guarantee that it was going to be done or there would not be a tentative map filing. What did we find out about that?

Tim Evans. Tim Evans, planner. So as far as that goes, I was able to speak with staff over at the Regional Transportation Commission earlier today in relation to that and tried to get some background on what was originally proposed in the previous RTP and then what is currently proposed in the current one that sounds like it was recently updated. And so what they provided me with is that it's 2035 to 2050 is the timeframe. for that. They weren't able to go back and under short notice and go back and look at previous documents that they have in relation to the 2026 to 2030 and to go back to that 2026 to 2030. The previous staff report or the staff reports for that regulatory zone amendment for Osage and White Owl. That was referenced in the traffic impact analysis that was done and that was an exhibit to the project application. So that's where that came from. i looked through the staff report itself and staff never referenced any of that or leaned on that piece at all in the staff report i'm in making the fine or recommending that the findings could be made but that's that's where that came from and yeah it didn't come necessarily from staff saying that or anything like that but yeah as far as that time period i was informed by rtc's that it's 2035 to 2050.

okay yeah it was brought up with the white owl project which was just a little bit further down the road and that one was the rwrza24.0003 and that's the one that that it was discussed back and forth because you have to get past osage to go to white owl and that's where it was brought up that it was going to be widened And I seem to remember sitting here on the board and we all were like, well, if it gets widened, then, you know, it's not going to cause too much of an issue. And it ultimately got approved. The White L-1 did. And I believe that it was based upon the widening of Red Rock Road. And I'm just a little concerned that if we don't widen Red Rock Road on this, that we're going to have a problem. We've already got a problem with a lot of the roads constructed. Spanish Springs because they're not widened. We've got big projects coming in. Red Rock Road already has approximately 10,000 approved homes on it that haven't been built yet. And so I'm a little concerned that Red Rock Road really needs to be widened. You know, I know I understand that that wouldn't be a developer's deal. That would be RTC's. But I think that it was because it was brought up and it was and the point was hammered home that that should be looked at as part of this project. Whether it's an RTC issue or not, I don't know, but that just makes me lose public trust in RTC because it's not being brought up in this project. Was there any discussion with RTC about moving up the timeline? Or was it stuck with 2036 to 2050? Because back in those days it was 2026 to 2030.

Yeah, so as far as the timeline goes, we didn't get into that, you know, whether or not the timeline would be moved up or anything like that. Okay.

And then you talked with the sheriff's office today because I had that concern when I called you. Correct. And they said that they... or not changing the level of staffing? Exactly, yeah.

So I ended up talking to the commander that's in control of patrol, and he specifically stated that they have not changed anything within the last three years as far as staffing capacity in that area.

Okay, because I had just heard last week that they just changed that, and there was only going to be one deputy out there. But you're saying no, okay? Correct. What about on the flooding? Well, not flooding, I'm sorry, on the retention ponds. Are we taking into account the subdivision that's up above them that the water's coming down in? Janelle, have you? Did you look at that? Because I know that we've been having some discussions with the subdivision up above the Silver Knoll subdivision and the water coming down and flooding an area just above this Osage place. Is that taken into consideration with these retention ponds?

Janelle Thomas, senior licensed engineer for the record. We are exploring what that current drainage looks like at this point and analyzing it in the Silver Knolls area around, I believe it's Bodie and Crockett area. But that's not tied to this project. So, but... What I will share is that this project has an obligation to look at the or analyze the existing conditions that are in place today. And they have to include that in their analysis when they're presenting their design for development.

So they have to look at that before they can get...

In every case, they have to look at existing conditions and then what the impact of that project results in for the hydrology and the hydraulics of the project site.

Okay. All right, because I know that we've been having a lot of discussions with the residents up there and how they have to keep the ditches clean and they have to do all that. And I just want to make sure that that's going to be mitigated in this. That's all going to be looked at. They're going to be looking at the neighbors. We are currently exploring options up there. Okay. In your mind, do you feel it's going to be adequately handled in this?

I'm going to stand behind our recommendation within the staff report with the conditions that support this development that this can be developed in a responsible manner.

Okay. Okay. I think that was all the questions I had.

Thank you. Go ahead.

nobody else.

Is there a question for the applicant?

Go ahead. So who owns the lift station and who's responsible for maintaining it? Your HOA or

Janelle Thomas, for the record. I wouldn't consider this to be my subject matter expertise, but I do understand that if a lift station does present itself as the viable option for sewage disposal, that it will be It will be designed to Washoe County standards and dedicated to Washoe County for overall maintenance. The individual lines that lead into that, if they are within private roadways, that will be a private system. But the lift station would be Washoe County's in the long term.

So that particular lift station is going to be on public property?

Yes, it would have to be placed on a Washoe County easement or parcel, probably parcel, in fee simple terms.

Okay. Which leads to another question. You mentioned the streets, interior streets of the development. Are those dedicated streets or does the HOA... um, own them. And again, who maintains them?

Uh, thanks for the questions. Uh, commissioner, the interior streets of development will be private, will stay private and will be owned and maintained by the H. O. A.

By the H. O.

By the residents in their H. O. A. Correct.

Okay.

Along with the retention basings.

Right. Is there anything else that's thrown in? Do you have common open space?

We have some common area. Yeah, I think seven acres, if I recall correctly, of a park common area that would be maintained as well.

I recall that, too. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

I do have one more. One of the public comments was about the CC&R regulations. Are those going to be down the road? Are those going to be open to be transferred?

Thanks for the question, Commissioner. No. My understanding is those retention basins will continue to be maintained and owned and operated by the HOA. And even if the HOA arbitrarily tried to amend their CC&Rs to transfer, the county would have to accept them. And my understanding was the county was not willing to accept those, and they're going to stay and remain private and operated by the HOA. Okay. Thank you, sir.

question to council. Council, on the same lines, as I recall that if you have CC&Rs and all the property owners that are on the CC&Rs get together and they don't want to do something or they don't want to exclude something, that they can do that.

There's a condition. It's on page 50 of the PDF of your staff report that provides that the common area shall be identified as common area on the final map. They must be privately maintained and perpetually funded by the HOA.

Okay. Thank you. I've got a question on the FEMA conditional letter of map revision, whoever would be best to answer that. Does this letter of map revision, so it is specific to the proposed grading plan, does it evaluate changes to the flood zones only on the properties proposing the grading, or does it look at the larger basin margin?

The application would be, sorry, Janelle Thomas for the record. So the way that the process works is that when the development comes in, if they have grading that is going to impact the floodplain as currently exhibited on the mapping through FEMA, they will file an application through FEMA for a conditional letter of map revision that will require signature by the county before it gets submitted to FEMA. And then once that application is reviewed and accepted, then the obligation is for the developer to submit to activate those improvements that were improved as part of that conditional letter of MAP revision. And when that work is complete, that's when the subsequent application for the letter of MAP revision, which makes it You know, it trues it up with what they were approved by FEMA to go in and perform the work and, you know, identify any changes to the floodplain that result from the work that they're doing within the floodplain. Does that make sense?

I understand. Apologies if my question wasn't clear. The scope of review of the floodplain, is it limited to the parcels being graded, or does it evaluate changes to the floodplain anywhere caused by the grading?

If the grading impacts on the development parcels impact the overall floodplain, then they will have to reach out to adjust that floodplain appropriately. They have to look at the entire floodplain when they're proposing something to be adjusted. So if their grading impacts provide an opportunity for that floodplain to be modified outside of their project boundary, they would have to identify that on their applications.

Okay, so the FEMA conditional letter of map revision which would be issued after the grading but prior to any building permits to actually start?

Prior to grading activity occurring.

Okay. Prior to grading activity occurring would identify any extension of the floodplain on neighboring parcels or elsewhere in the basin. So prior to the issuance of the grading permit, they can point to whether FEMA, the flood management agency, deems there to be any negative impact on any other parcel flood-wise?

Correct. And Washoe County staff is also reviewing that application because we are required to be signatory to that application as the jurisdictional agency.

Okay. That eases my mind quite a bit, but I did have a couple of specific questions related to flood retention volume. The upgrades to Osage Road, are those going to include elevating it at all?

I don't have access to their final design at this point, but the anticipation is that the roadway will be appropriately located to manage the floodplains.

Okay. So the areas north of Osage road that are currently within, um, the hundred year floodplain would maintain connectivity to maintain that storage volume.

Okay.

Um, and the onsite retention basins, um, does their design, they have berms around them. Yes. Maybe this is best for the applicant.

Claire Evans for the record. I'm the hydrologist professional engineer on this project, so ask away. For the most part, those ponds don't have berms as in an up and down. We have a space at the edge, and then it cuts down and is deep down, so we don't have the issue of water getting caught and not going into the pond. Everything coming towards it goes into it.

All right, great.

That answers the question.

Yes, thank you. Any other questions from the board? Well then, I guess we can have discussion, debate. Thank you very much to the staff and applicants and the public for giving comments on this. I personally voted against upzoning this property when it came to for a regulatory zone amendment because I think that it is risky to put more residential use, more investment of individuals in housing and property in a place where water ponds and can't exit. Closed basin flooding is not As straightforward as calculating runoff in a river, you can get the net results of a 100-year flood without ever getting a 100-year flood just by having a few bad years in a row. That being said, the regulatory zone was approved and the applicants own the land and they have this zoning and they have this right to develop at this density. I think that overall, through the tremendous efforts of the staff and the coming to the table to meet those, what is proposed to us is a net benefit in terms of flood storage and public facilities in the area and while it wouldn't be my choice to go out there and put residential zoning up against a closed basin flood plain and it wasn't my choice to increase the density of residential zoning against a closed basin flood plain given that those rights exist I think that this is a responsive development plan to those constraints. So I'd support it. Does anyone else have discussion or debate?

I have a concern with the previous RZAs being approved with Red Rock Road being widened, but now they're not. That's my concern on this. It's an infrastructure safety issue. There's 10,000 homes approved up above this project. And so with that part, that's the issue that I have with this.

I definitely hear that there is certainly potential there for at some point other developments, increasing impermeable surface impacting the overall runoff. Staff can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that we have to consider the applicant's application and not What someone else might do with their property at some point in the future, but I can certainly take the point that if. If the runoff situation changes, then what is comfortably a foot above the 100 year floodplain could become uncomfortably damp.

We've just been, it seems like the county, the developer, you have a right to build on your land. You own the land. You have a right to build on your land. There's nothing against that. I'm not saying anything against that. It seems like as a county, though, we're chasing our tail when it comes to infrastructure, when it comes to road widening and stuff like that. And these two projects, this one and another one up the road, were called out to have Red Rock Road widened. And so that's, like I said, that's the only issue I have because if we don't, if it doesn't happen now, I don't know if it's ever going to happen. RTC, when they changed it, they lost the public trust in my mind. So the only issue that I have is the issue when it's not detrimental and it has to do with the road whitening. The rest of it.

Of Red Rock.

Of Red Rock Road. That's it.

I know we've got a similar, Mr. Chairman, we have a similar situation on Pyramid, where we've got thousands of houses already approved that aren't built yet, and we still get down to a two-lane highway. It's, well, you can't plan. At some point in time, there's going to have to be a coordination with... Road improvements to permits being issued. I mean, right now, the way the law is set up is that if it's planned, that's all they need. That doesn't do you any good if you're trying to get on a two-lane highway that doesn't have a signal or anything. So I certainly sympathize with what you're saying. Looking at the project itself, my major concern is the roadway, Red Rock. But it seems that the staff and the property owners working with staff have really gone over and above the call of duty here. I don't see that they have really disagreed with anything that staff wanted. There certainly appears to be sufficient wording to make sure that everything that's in the report is going to be enforced. And if it isn't, then that's on staff. And heads should roll on that. But a person has, a property owner has a right to develop their property. And we cannot... force an individual property owner to solve the problems of the county. The county's got to solve the problems of the county, and we're not doing too good a job. But I'm with you, Rob. I think the... What are you going to do with Red Rock?

Chair?

Well...

Are you done, Commissioner Flick? To your point, Rob, I've been on this planning commission for quite a while, and it always seems that we're running up against RTC and the roadways aren't being improved as quickly as the developments are happening. And it seems like it's a broken system, and I don't think we've been able to figure out how to solve that issue. When I look at the findings that we have to find, that's not even... taken into account, right? I can't see where adequate there's access, but it's not, you know, access down further away from the development, which is unfortunate because, you know, all of those people that live in those homes have to eventually get to a major freeway, right? And they're going to get onto Red Rock. So unfortunately, I think that's a failure of the setup that we have in our county with RTC. So. That's all I want to say.

I think that's something that needs to be looked at going forward.

Perhaps we can address that with a request to staff.

Something for a future agenda item. I think it'll work.

All right.

Any further discussion or debate on this agenda item? Would anyone like to make a motion?

where is it page 21.

Okay, I'll start. On the tentative subdivision map, I move that after giving reasoned consideration to the information contained in the staff report and the information received during the public hearing, the Washoe County Planning Commission approved the special use permit case number WSUP26-0004 and tentative subdivision map case number WTM26-002 for lifestyle homes TND LLC with the condition included as exhibit A to this matter, having made all 20 findings in accordance with Washoe County Code section 110.408.28. Article 408, common open space. Section 110.608.25, findings. Article 608, tentative maps.

And that's all. I can't even find it.

Commissioner Owens for a second.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Nay. All right. The motion carries. And with regard to the special use permit for the sewer lift station, I move that after giving reason consideration to the information contained in the staff report and information received during the public hearing, the Washoe County Board of Adjustment WASHER COUNTY BOARD OF WASHER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS SPECIAL USE PERMIT CASE NUMBER WSUP 26-004 FOR LIFESTYLE HOMES TND LLC WITH CONDITIONS INCLUDED AS EXHIBIT A TO THIS MATTER HAVING MADE ALL FIVE FINDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH WASHER COUNTY CODE SECTION 110.810.30. I'LL SECOND. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? The motion carries. Thank you very much. That brings us to the end.

Mr. Chair? Yes. If I could, I'd like to read the appeal procedure. Most decisions rendered by the Planning Commission are appealable to the Board of County Commissioners. If you disagree with the decision of the Planning Commission and you qualify as an agreed person or party, you may appeal in writing within 10 calendar days from the date that the decision being appealed is reduced to writing filed with the Secretary of the Planning Commission and mailed to the original applicant in the proceeding being appealed in accordance with Washoe County Code. Please call the planning staff immediately at 775-328-6100 for information on the appeal procedure and the application fee.

Thank you. That brings us to the end of our public hearings. Is there anything the board would like to hear in terms of future agenda items?

I'd like to try to figure out that RTC issue. Why do they approve something? Give us something to look at, like an RZA, and they say the timeline is this for a road, but then as soon as it's approved, they go out and they change it. I'd like to know. That's what I'd like to find out.

I think what we can do is provide, get some answers from RTC. You know, I can certainly speculate, but I'd like to have the experts actually provide us with that information.

I mean, seriously. You know, we should have been able to approve this had they stuck with what they said. You know, I feel bad. I really do.

But... Well, it's... No, we're making land use decisions here for our population that we have no control over when these damn roads are going to get built. We got a whole different agency that seems like they do what the hell they want to do. And somehow we got to tie these things together. We're already in gridlock and some of our major thoroughfares and we're just contributing more and more to gridlock. And yet our hands are tied because we can't deny an individual or thank you.

Any other requests? Alright, do you Mr Lloyd have reports on any previous planning Commission items?

Well, first of all, I hate being the bearer of bad news, but we're losing someone pretty special here. Unfortunately, this is Adriana's last meeting here, and I think we owe her a lot of gratitude when our meetings always run so smoothly, and so much of that is because of her professionalism, and she's always so prepared, and I'm going to miss you, Adriana. I do have a few items to report from the county commission meetings. At the April 14th county commission meeting the commission adopted the attainable housing amendments that was for the expedited process. At the April 28th meeting the BCC approved and adopted the Mustang MPA and RCA. upcoming meetings the May 12th meeting this will be the public hearing and second reading for the DCA involving residential and commercial districts also at the May 12th meeting will be the first reading of the small unit density bonus DCA and finally the upcoming May 26th meeting the BCC will be hearing the SOI rollback MPA RCA that this commission just heard and that's all that I have THIS GOES TO LEGAL.

THE LADY THAT READ US THE

discussion for, um, our discussion for, um, RTC, obviously that's an outside entity. Uh, I just want to make the suggestion to potentially look at, I believe what happened here was more of a existing code issue that there is nothing in our current codes that requires developers or requires us to find, um, there's no findings that reference road development. So if there was a way, it's probably a legal question or even maybe a Trevor question, but, um, to add to the findings and the requirements for developers when looking to do zoning amendments or maps that the road capacity and development is in line with that. And if it's not, then that can be a finding that can't be met. So I'm probably not wording that correctly because I am not a planner, but I do feel like there's an opportunity for this board to send this back to planning for review on the code itself that we use for findings rather than relying on RTC because that's an outside entity. So that is the only suggestion I wanted to share. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other public comment?

No additional comment in chambers or via Zoom.

Thank you so much. All right. We are adjourned.