Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Do you want to do the Pledge of Allegiance first?

Recording in progress.

Welcome, everybody.

I'd like to bring the Washington County Planning Commission meeting to order. It is 6 o'clock on January 7th. Can we have a determination, a quorum, please?

Jim Barnes? Here. Michael Flick is not here. Linda Kennedy.

Here.

Dan Lazareski. Here. Kate Nelson.

Here.

Amy Owens.

Present.

OK. And Rob Pierce.

Present.

We have a quorum.

All right, thank you. Will you all please join us for the Pledge of Allegiance? May we please have the ethics law announcement?

Sure thing. Jen Gustafson for the record. Commissioners are reminded that if with respect to any matter or any person coming before the commission today, number one, you've received a gift or loan. Number two, you have a pecuniary interest. Number three, you have a commitment in a private capacity such as a family, employment, business, or similar relationship. Or number four, if you've provided representation or counseling before an agency to a person or entity for compensation within the last year on a matter being considered here tonight, please remember to disclose that gift, loan, interest, commitment, or prior representation at the time the matter is being considered. And furthermore, please remember to abstain from deliberation or voting on the matter if it's clear that the gift, loan, interest, commitment, or prior representation would materially affect the independence of judgment of a reasonable person. Commissioners are also reminded that under the Planning Commission rules, if you've had any contact outside this meeting with any persons interested in a matter coming before the Commission today, you should disclose the nature of that contact at this meeting. Let's also let the record reflect that Commissioner Flick has joined us at 6.02 p.m. I'm also going to read the Zoom instructions. This meeting, of course, is being held here in the County Commission Chambers. It's also via Zoom. To attend the meeting via Zoom, you can log into the Zoom webinar at the link found on the first page of the agenda. You can join the meeting by typing zoom.us into your browser, clicking Join a Meeting on the Zoom website, and entering meeting ID. 842-7265-9406. If anyone has any computer issues or would like to join the meeting via telephone only, you can do so by dialing 1-669-900-9128 and enter meeting ID 842-7265. 72659406 and press pound. For those wishing to provide public comment via Zoom, you can do so during any public comment period by utilizing the raise hand feature. To provide public comment via telephone only, you can press star nine to raise your hand and star six to mute or unmute. Thank you.

Thank you. Can we please have the appeal procedure, Mr. Lloyd?

Yeah, 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 qualify as an agreed person or party. You make 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 328-3610 for information on the appeal procedure and the application fee.

Thank you. At this time, I'd like to open up general public comment. Do we have any general public comment?

We have no general public comment in chambers, nor any hands raised on Zoom.

OK. We'll close that. Move on to item number six, approval of today's agenda. I just want to note that 9C has been postponed. It may come back. It will come back at a future date. Other than that, there is no changes. Can I get a motion to approve with the amended motion or amended agenda?

I move we approve the amended agenda.

Second, Commissioner Lazareski.

Mr. Chairman, I apologize for being late and number two, I apologize for not being at the last meeting. I'd like to change it from unexcused to excused as I was at the emergency room with my wife at that time and really had no way of contacting anybody, but that's where I was.

Okay, we'll do that with the draft minutes. The next one, the draft minutes.

Oh, okay.

Yeah, right now we're just approving the agenda. So for the agenda for today, we have a motion, we have a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed say nay. Sorry. Okay. Item number seven is the approval of December 3rd draft minutes. Go ahead, Mr. Flick. Do you want to... State that again Hmm for the for the just to keep the record straight you want to change it.

Yes On the draft. I'm sorry on the The last meeting that we had okay, I wasn't able to attend because I was in the emergency room with my wife, okay I'm okay.

I'm okay with that. I'm okay with that. Thank you. Does anybody else have any other changes I? have I have one change I for the minutes on page 10 of the minutes. Down to the third, fourth paragraph. It says, Chair Pierce expressed frustration that the RTC's map showed a decrease in traffic over the next 10 years. He had difficulty to determine whether the development met any of the required conditions, and he worried about the lack of commercial services in the area. According to the video at two hours, 23 minutes and 20 seconds, I talked about that and then there was no notes until two hours and 38 minutes and zero seconds. So I would like that 15 minute segment somehow either attached to the minutes or written out because there was a lot of good information. It's my understanding that both sides appealed it. I just want to make sure that the county commissioners have accurate minute readings. Other than that, I have no changes.

Jen Gustafson for the record. So given what you just stated, my recommendation would be, because the minutes are supposed to be a summary of the proceedings, they don't really include links to the video. That's kind of a separate thing. So I would recommend that you would simply request that those 15 minutes be reviewed by whoever creates the minutes and summarized.

OK. I request that the minutes be reviewed and summarized and added to the minutes. Other than that, there's no other changes. Can we get a motion to approve as amended?

I don't think we can make a motion to approve if you're requesting they be amended substantially with a summary that's not included.

Right, and that's absolutely fair. It would be a request to bring the minutes back at the next meeting, to amend the minutes in this manner and then bring those draft amended minutes back at the next meeting.

I've never had to do that, so I didn't know. Okay, so I ask that they be brought back at the next meeting so we can vote on them. Okay, I make a motion that the minutes, my previous motion where somebody go in and take a look at it and then summarize between those minutes, and then we bring it back at the next meeting to re-look at the minutes and vote on it at that time.

Commissioner Lazarewski, I'll second that.

Does that get it? Yeah. Okay. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. I apologize. Yeah. You're abstained. Right. And then all those opposed, say nay. Okay. I apologize. I've never had to do that before, so that's my first time. Okay. Moving on. Item number eight. This is a consent item. It's for an abandonment of case number WAB24-0002 for LC Highlands 2 slope easement. Mr. Lloyd, would you please announce?

Yeah, it's for a possible action to acknowledge the re-recording of the resolution of order of abandonment with correct document numbers and to correct the title of the easement from a construction easement to a slope easement. FOR WAB 240002, THE L.C. HIGHLAND LLC. THE FORMER DOCUMENT NUMBER 5486425 FOR A TWO AND A HALF ACRE acres of a slope easement located along the west side of Highland Ranch Parkway within a portion of two parcels APN 50802042 and 50802044. The resolution and order of abandonment subject to this re-recording was recorded on November 18th, 2024 as document number 5499038.

Okay, so this is just an acknowledgement of a minor change. It's my understanding that it's a title document numbers, correct?

Yes, that's correct. There are no substantive changes with this request.

There are no changes. Did everybody get a chance to look at that? Does anybody have any questions? No. Can I get a motion to approve?

I have a question. Can we make the motion without findings, or do we need to include the findings?

No, it's consent. And does this need to go to public comment? Yes, so Jen Gustafson, for the record. That's what I was wondering.

Yes, so you should ask for public comment. And to answer Commissioner Kennedy's question, there are no particular findings with this type of item. Because you're simply acknowledging the re-recording of the resolution in order of abandonment.

OK. All right. So with this time, if we don't have any discussion, I'd like to open up public comment on the matter. Do we have any public comment on the matter?

There's no public comment in chambers, no public comment on Zoom.

Okay, I'll bring it back to the board for any more discussion. Do we have any more discussion on it? Okay, I'd like to open it up for a motion.

Kennedy moves to acknowledge the re-recording of the resolution and order of abandonment with correct document numbers and to correct the title of the easement from a construction easement to a slope easement for WAB 24-0002. LC Highland 2 LLC. The former resolution and order of abandonment was previously recorded on September 23rd, 2024 as document number 5486425 for plus or minus 2.57 acres of a slope of easement located along the west side of Highland Ranch Parkway within a portion of two parcels, APN 508-020-42 and 508-020-44. The resolution and order of abandonment subject to re-recording was recorded on November 18th, 2024 as document number 5499038. Okay, do we have a second?

Commissioner Nelson will second.

Okay. Do we have any discussion on the matter? No. Then we have a motion and a second. All right. We have all those in favor then of the motion to say aye. Aye. Those opposed say nay. All right. Motion passes. That brings us on to item 9A, abandonment case number WAB24.0009 Spur Road. Mr. Lloyd, please announce.

Yeah, for hearing discussion and possible action to approve an abandonment of Washoe County's interest in a 17,061 square foot portion of a 4.789 acre parcel that is owned by Washoe County to the abutting property owners at APNs 220-06010, 220-0609, and 220-0608. The requested area of abandonment is used as a private street to access the above three parcels. Representing Washoe County in this matter is Planner Julie Olander.

Good evening, Julie Olander for the record. So as Mr. Lloyd said, this is an abandonment for a small portion of a four plus acre parcel that's owned by Washoe County. And the adjacent property owners are requesting the abandonment. And they're going to use this street as a private access to those properties. This did come before you before on January 24th of 2022, abandonment case number 21-0012. However, the applicants were not able to meet all the conditions and did not record the abandonment before it expired. So the applicants are applying for basically the same, they're applying for the same abandonment again. Here is the parcel is outlined in blue, and then the area to be abandoned is highlighted in yellow. So there's three parcels off of what we call the spur road that they are requesting to be abandoned to their properties. And there'll still be access to the open space, which is to the left on the map through the ditch trail that's on the top portion of the map that's highlighted in blue. are outlined in blue. This is a request, as I said, for a four-plus acre parcel, and the proposed area will be just an access easement to those property owners. And if it's approved, the roadway will be then maintained by those property owners. And then per the conditions of approval, there will be an access easement for Washoe County and Collin Ranch HOA so that they can continue to Use the road, the HOA will continue to use the road to access the open space and trails that they are responsible for maintaining. And then the public access will be along the Steamboat Ditch Trail. I just want to point out on the recorded map that there is a phrase, there's a wording on it and I highlight it in yellow and then I have it enlarged over on the left-hand side. It says a 30-foot access and PUE for the exclusive use of lots 706, 707, and 708. There had been an interest from the property owner to the south to be included in this abandonment. However, staff has concluded that because of this phrasing on the map, as the map is stated, that the access is only for public utility easement and exclusive access for those three lots that the abandonment could not include those three parcels to the south that are adjacent to the Spur Road. The noticing was set out to all the abutting properties as required by the code I did receive some phone calls, primarily from the property owners to the south, and also from the Cullen Ranch HOA. Various agencies and departments.

It just cut us off, so Julie, if you'll just repeat, or Rob, if you'll please just repeat the last thing you said.

Does the applicant present, would they like to make a presentation?

The applicant is not in here. I believe they might be available online. The applicants are the three property owners that the road is proposed to be abandoned to. So sorry. Thank you. I believe they would just be available for any questions if you have any.

OK. You can go ahead and unmute Rebecca. Just state your first and last name for the record, please.

My name is Rebecca Jennings. I'm available to answer any questions that you may have.

OK. Does anybody on the board have any questions for anybody? For the planner, for the applicant, for anybody? Yeah, it's weird. No? Okay. Let's open it up for public comment. Do we have any public comment?

In chambers, I have Catherine Reichenberg. Please state your first and last name for the records.

Good evening, commissioners. Catherine Reichenberg on behalf of the Webster Family Trust, the owners of the properties adjacent to the Spur Road, which is up for abandonment. The Websters do not object to the abandonment of the Spur Road However, they do have an easement right to the property. They have been using that road for 35 years. They have improved areas around the road on their own property that is adjacent, and they wish for that to be recognized in this abandonment.

If I may, Madam Secretary.

The abandonment request has been made by three of the property owners, and they are the property owners that are depicted in this map up here. This is the Webster property down here. The Websters use this road and have used this road for 35 years to access their property, which is here adjacent to the road. And they are working on a private easement with those owners, but they do want their use to be recognized and their use to be preserved. If you look here, there's a turnaround. This was made by my clients on their property, on the Webster's property, for the benefit of all of these three homeowners up here and was mirrored by the Jennings who are here on this direction. In addition, they've built rock walls and other improvements along this property. They have established their rights to the use of this property. They do have a prescriptive easement. And they would like for there to impact on them should this abandonment not include their use and their easement to be recognized. The impact of privatizing the road without reserving an easement allowing the Websters to continue to use the road for access to their properties. would be detrimental to the Webster's. And one of the considerations for the commission is detriment. As such, the Webster's ask that if the abandonment is granted, that it preserve the Webster's easement and their right to use the spur road to maintain, use, and protect their real property interests, which they use the spur road to do. In addition, that road is used for fire, for emergency vehicles. It is not simply for the maintenance of the trail. And those uses need to be recognized as well. Thank you.

There is no further public comment in chambers. And no hands raised via Zoom. My hand is raised. I apologize. Go ahead, Rebecca. Please say your first and last name for the record.

Yes. My name is Rebecca Jennings, and I would first like to reiterate what staff explained is that this abandonment was approved two years ago. There were no objections to it then, and at that time, There were a few conditions that needed to be met, which included an easement that we negotiated with Washoe County and some additional survey maps, and time simply ran out. There were no objections to this abandonment at that time. What I'm a little concerned about is Council's statement just now that They ask for rights to be recognized even though the map is clear in front of the commission that that spur road is and always has been for the exclusive use, it's the only ingress and egress for the three homeowners to the right of the road upon entry. What's also important to note is that the elements that were found to be met for abandonment, and the abandonment has been recommended to you to approve, requires that you make a finding that there is a material injury to the public. There is no injury to the public. The access to the trail system as indicated in staff's presentation is that there are trails on either side. Now, we are in negotiations, and the Websters, the people who own that property, we consider them friends, and we are in negotiations with them. But I think it's a step too far for this commission to recognize any private property right over our exclusive easement. That is outside the purview, I believe, of what your jurisdiction is. And if there is going to be any sort of arrangements with regards to the use of the south homeowners, that would be proper outside in another forum, not before this commission. So with that, I would ask that just as before that the commission grant the abandonment and again not recognizing rights other than those that are required to be recognized in any abandonment proceeding, that it does not violate the master plan, that there's no material injury to the public, and that any existing easements for utilities are properly relocated. That's not being asked to be done here. All of the easements that exist are staying in place for all public utilities. I appreciate your time and I'm asking that you all vote for this abandonment.

I have no further public comment in chambers, no hands raised on Zoom.

Okay, we'll close public comment, bring it back to the board for questions, comments, discussion. Go ahead, Dan.

Commissioner Lazareski, I have some follow-up questions for staff.

Julie Olanda, for the record.

Julie, when we abandon a roadway, typically it gets abandoned 50-50 to properties on either side of that roadway. Is that because typically all properties abutting the roadway have the same claim to the use and space?

Yes, typically the easement is being accessed on both sides. This roadway is not, the properties to the south have access to other roadways, so they don't really have an access point to this spur road. So that's the reason it's just being abandoned totally to the property owners to the north. Also, because of that note on the map, which says it's exclusive to those three parcels, that's where that roadway can be abandoned to is those three properties. Would you like me to put that map back up?

No, no, I understand the map and I understand the exclusive easement. I'm just following through the logic of we're abandoning a roadway that abuts two sides and we're abandoning it in one direction because that direction is the only one that has had legal access rights recorded.

And in other situations where there's parcels on both sides, Typically, we abandon 50-50 or whatever the breakdown is, is because the adjacent property is accessing that road also. They have legal access to that road, and that's the way they access their property. That's not the case on this abandonment.

All right, thank you.

Anybody else got any questions, comments, discussion? Well, with that, if we don't have any, then I'll accept a motion. No, sorry.

Commissioner Lazareski, I move that after giving reason consideration to the information contained in the staff report and the information received during the public hearing, the Washoe County Planning Commission approve abandonment case number WAB24-0009 for Erin and Rachel Jennings, Nicole Levy and Jaceb Selnick, and Eric Llanes. With the conditions included as exhibited to this matter, having made all three findings in accordance with Washoe County Code, section 110.806.20.

Okay, we have a motion. We have a second. Commissioner Nelson, second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Do we have any discussion, any further discussion? Okay, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed say nay. Motion passes unanimously. That moves us on to 9B, Regulatory Zone Amendment, case number WRZA240007 for Galena Creek School. Mr. Lloyd, please announce.

Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. If you don't mind, I would like to read the appeal procedure first. All right. Most decisions rendered by the Planning Commissioner are appealable to the Board of County Commissioners. If you disagree with the decision of the Planning Commission and 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 328-3610 for information on the appeal procedure and the application fee.

Okay, thank you. And then we're moving on to 9B, Regulatory Zone. Amendment case number WRZA240007 for Galena Creek School. Mr. Lloyd, please announce. Sure.

For hearing discussion and possible action to approve a regulatory zone amendment to the forest regulatory zone map to change the regulatory zone for a one acre parcel APN 04547228 from low density suburban to parks and recreation. And if approved, authorize the chair to sign a resolution to this effect. Representing Washoe County in this matter, once again, is Planner Julie Olander.

Julie Olander for the record. So as Mr. Lloyd said, oops, I'll go back real quick. This is a request to approve a zone change for the forest regulatory zone map for one acre parcel from low density suburban to parks and rec. And here is a vicinity map on the left. You can see a closer view. And then on the right, it's sort of out farther. It's off of Mount Rose Highway, Cullen Ranch Parkway. Callahan Ranch. I'm going from Collin to Callahan. Callahan Ranch Road. Anyway, and so you can see on the left, the parcel to the north is where the existing park is located. And here is a map showing the zone change. On the left, you can see the little triangle is in pink. And then on the right, if it goes, it's green. is what the proposal is to go to Parks and Rec. So you can see the surrounding parcels to the east and south are primarily low density. And then the parcel to the north and west is Parks and Rec. This parcel is located on 16,000 Callahan Ranch Road, or Callahan Road, excuse me. And the one parcel is master plan suburban residential. So in the regulatory zone, it has a regulatory zoning of low density suburban. The request to go to Parks and Rec is allowed in suburban residential. So this is just a zone change. And there is no minimum lot size or width size for PR, Parks and Rec's regulatory zone. And it is located in the forest planning area. Just a little background on this parcel, which is sort of interesting, at least it was to me. The parcel itself is located adjacent to the Phillip and Annie Callahan Ranch. Phillip and Annie Callahan Washoe County Park. The school is on the National Registry of Places since 2011. And there's possibly up to three school houses that were on that site. And the school was built for the town of Galena, which thrived in the 1860s as a timber town, which supplied timber for Virginia cities. And then the rocks that were used to build the school came from the area and the stonemason was from the Works Progress Administration, the WPA. And the school was opened in 1940 with those rocks on it and was used up until 1959. And then the school was used as a residence at one point. And here's some, oops, here's some pictures of the school. It's in a little disrepair, but they are doing some improvements on it. Parks is requesting this change to better reflect the type of uses they want to have going on in the school, and that PR would allow that to use the both active and passive recreation activities and uses. Washington County Parks has stated that they want to use this area as an extension of the Callahan Park property, and that that rezone would allow them to do that. The LDS is more geared for residential uses. The PR is for parks and rec. The school was, the plan is to basically to do some improvements so that can be used for docent and ranger led educational events and as an interpretative center. And it also be reservable for small gatherings or groups. A classroom is planned for 10 to 12 people on the north side of the building, and on the east and north, there will be patio areas for 15 to 20 people to gather. The schoolhouse building is being restored and recently received a commission of cultural centers and historic preservation grant, and phase one was completed in August of 2024, and phase two is anticipated to be completed in February of 2025. The site has access to power and municipal water. However, there's no sewer service in the area, and the parks is planning to construct a vaulted toilet. Here's the site plan that parks has provided. You see outlined in the darker bolded print is where the restroom would be located, and then the schoolhouse is to the right of that. And you can see where the parking area would be located. A neighborhood meeting was held on October 16th at the South Valleys Library with two attendees. And the attendees didn't really have any questions about what the Parks Department was planning or was concerned about the rezone. They just had questions about the area and how the schoolhouse was being restored. I did not receive any phone calls or emails. Property with 1,000 feet of the site was noticed, and 39 notices went out, and an illegal notice was put in the Gazette 10 days before this hearing date. Various staff and agencies have reviewed the application, and their comments are included in the staff report. This is not an application that can be conditioned, and staff can make all the findings as explained in the staff report. and I provided a possible motion in the staff report. Parks staff is here. If you have questions for them, they don't have a presentation, and so they're just available for any questions, and I'm available for any questions also.

Okay, thank you. Do we have any questions for staff or anybody? Okay, let's open up public comment. Do we have any public comment?

I have no public comment in chambers. I have no hands raised on Zoom.

Okay, we'll close public comment, bring it back to the board for discussion again. Do we have any discussion, any questions? Okay, I'll go ahead.

Commissioner Lazarewski, I'd just like to thank staff for a very straightforward and well-explained application or report.

Okay, let's open it up for a motion if we don't have any discussion.

Commissioner Kennedy, I move that after giving recent consideration to the information contained in the staff report and information received during the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopt the resolution included as exhibit A recommending adoption of Regulatory Zone Amendment Case Number WRZA24-0007, having made all of the following findings in accordance with Washoe County Code Section 110.821.15. I further move to certify the resolution and the proposed regulatory zone amendment in WRZA 24-0007 is set forth in the staff report for submission to the Washoe County Board of Commissioners and authorize the chair to sign the resolution on behalf of the Washoe County Planning Commission.

Okay, do we have a second?

Commissioner Nelson will second.

Do we have any discussion? Motion and second. Okay, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed say nay. Motion passes unanimously, thank you. Okay, moving on to item number 10, chair and commission items. Do we have any requests for future agenda items? Moving on to B, request for information from staff. Do we have anything from legal?

Nothing for today, thank you.

A report on previous commission items.

Yeah, I have a couple items to report on. At the December 10th BCC meeting, the BCC adopted the Care of the Infirmed DCA that was recently heard by this Planning Commission. Also, just wanted to give you a heads up that Package 2.5A, the housing package, that DCA will be returning in February to the Planning Commission for some modifications before going back to the BCC. That's all that I have.

Okay, thank you. Nothing from legal. Okay, let's open up public comment. Do I have any general public comment?

I have no general public comment. Chambers, no hands raised on Zoom.

Okay, 638 meeting is adjourned.