Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Linda, can you unmute and can we do a check to make sure we can hear you?

Good evening. It is Tuesday, March 3rd at 6 p.m. This meeting of the Washoe County Planning Commission is called to order. Could I please get a determination of quorum?

Sorry, everybody. Mike Flick. Here. Amy Owens. Present. Dan Lazareski. Here. Jim Barnes. Here. Rob Pierce. Present. Kate Nelson. Here. And Linda Kennedy.

Here.

We have a quorum. Thank you. Please join me for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thanks very much. Could we have the ethics law announcement?

Yes, commissioners are reminded that if, with respect to any matter or any person coming before the commission today, you've received a gift or a loan, you have a pecuniary interest, you have a commitment in a private capacity, such as family, employment, business, or a 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 being considered, you are required to disclose that gift, loan, interest, commitment, or prior representation at the time the matter is being considered. You must furthermore 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 that under planning commission rules, if you've had any contact outside this meeting with any person interested in a matter coming before the commission today, you need to disclose the nature of that contact at this meeting.

Thank 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 328-6100 or information on the appeal procedure and the application fee.

Thank you very much. Do we have any public comment at this time? I have no public comment. Chambers? I have no hands raised on Zoom. Thank you. With regard to the agenda, items seven E and F are not ready to be presented at this time and will be heard time certain at next month's meeting, April 7th at 6 p.m. With that amendment, does anyone else have comments on the amended agenda?

I move to approve as amended.

Commissioner Owens for a second.

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Aye. The motion carries. Thank you very much. As far as the minutes that were presented online, we did receive one comment correcting the minutes. The corrected minutes have been shared to the board members. Does anyone have any further comments or corrections on the minutes of last month's board meeting?

I didn't get an updated minute. Is it just a minor?

It is. I was just going to mention it because I spoke with the member of the public personally. It's page 10. Under public comment, a comment? Page 10, under public comment, it'd be line nine that starts with 3,000, the number 3,000, it says 3,000 feet at the beginning of that sentence. It should be 500, and that's for Pat Davis, so I'm gonna go ahead and change that to 500 per her request.

That's minor.

And that's all I have.

Okay. All right, I move to approve as amended. Mr. Roth, for the motion.

I'll second that. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion carries. All right. That brings us to Item 7A. Would you announce? Okay.

Item 7A is an abandonment, case number WAB250008. It's for hearing, discussion, and possible action to approve an abandonment of Washoe County's interests of Florence Place right-of-way, a 49 and a half foot wide roadway to the east of 7495 Robert Banks Boulevard. Representing Washoe County in this matter is Planner Julie Olander.

Good evening, Julie Olander for the record. As Mr. Lloyd said, this is a request to abandon Washoe County's interest in Florence Place. Oops. Sorry. So here's a vicinity map. You can see on your left, just a little tiny blue spot where this parcel is located. It's asking for the abandonment. And then on the right is an enlarged picture of that. And then Florence is that roadway, that dead ends that's just adjacent to the right. And then here's another map showing the proposed easement highlighted in yellow on the map to the east. Left is the Washoe County map, and then on the map to the right is the track map. So the request is to abandon this portion of Florence Place. It's approximately 50 feet wide and 135 feet long and is adjacent to the applicant's property. The original intent of Florence Place was to provide access to the residents to the north, However, Wild Hawk Ridge subdivision was developed and the houses were built not accessing Florence Place. The road does not provide access to any of the surrounding parcels. And I should say any direct access. Typically, when Washoe County abandons right-of-way, the title of the street is averted 50% to the budding properties. However, the county contacted the neighboring property at 7505 Robert Banks Boulevard, offering her an interest in the property, and she was not interested in the abandoned right-of-way. So the property owner that applied for the abandonment is going to get the whole roadway. Butting properties were contacted. I did not receive any phone calls or emails concerning the abandonment. Various agencies reviewed the application and their comments are included in the staff report. Agencies with conditions are included in the conditions of approval. Staff can make all the findings as explained in the staff report. And I provide a possible motion. And I'm available for any questions.

Thanks very much. I assume no applicant or presentation on this matter.

Is the applicant here? Are you the applicant? Yes. Oh.

Do you have it?

I would say the applicant is available for any questions if you have any. That's fine. You can stay.

Thanks very much. Any questions from the board for staff or the applicant?

I have one. So the other property owner has refused to accept the vacation of the property?

On Julio Land, for the record, yes. And there's a letter that's from the neighboring property included in your staff report. I'd have to look at one of the exhibits. And, yes, she declined any portion of Florence Road. Okay. Well, that's good.

All right. Do we have any public comment on this item?

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

Any further discussion from the board? If not, I'm happy to entertain a motion.

This is Rob. Oh, go ahead. This is Commissioner Kennedy. I move that after giving reasoned consideration to the information contained in the staff report and information received during the public hearing, the Washoe County Planning Commission approved abandonment case WAB 25-008 for Morris Taylor with the conditions included as Exhibit A in this matter, having made all three findings in accordance with Washoe County Code Section 110.806.20. Did I do the right one?

Very good. Thank you, Linda.

Yeah, this is Rob. I'll second it.

I have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? The motion carries unanimously. Unanimously. Thank you very much. Could we hear item 7B?

This is abandonment case number WAB 260001. We're hearing discussion and possible action to approve an abandonment of Washoe County's interest in two 33-foot access easements along the northern and eastern portions of a parcel and a 13-foot portion of an easement along the western portion of the property line. Representing Washoe County in this matter once again, Planner Julie Olander.

Good evening, Julia Lander, for the record. So as Mr. Lloyd said, this is an abandonment for two 33-foot easements and a 13-foot portion of an easement. This property is located in the northern portion of the county. You see on the left where the overall view of it and then on the right a closer view of it. And they highlighted in yellow areas are the areas to be abandoned. On the east and the north, it's the 33 foot, and then on the west, it's the 13 foot. And 20 feet will be preserved as easement, part of the easement. So none of these three easements really are developed as roadways. However, we're only abandoning 13 feet of the easement on the west side to continue to provide a 20-foot access easement to the parcel to the north. As you can see on this picture, the other easements, all those joining properties, neighboring properties, have accesses to other roads. The ones to the south and east have access to Hot Springs Road, and then the ones sort of to the north, I mean sort of also to the east, have access to Yankee Blade, However, the parcel to the north, which is owned by the federal government, we could not find any real clear access to that. So the conclusion was to preserve that 20-foot easement. So when and if that parcel is developed, they will still have an easement to the north through this parcel. The abutting properties were noticed. I didn't receive any phone calls or any emails concerning this abandonment. Various agencies reviewed the application, and their comments are included in the staff reports, and those with conditions are in the conditions of approval. Staff can make all the findings as explained in the staff report, and I provide a possible motion, and I'm available for questions. Is the applicant here? I don't think so. Okay. So I'm available for any questions.

Thank you very much. Are there any questions from the board for staff? Hearing none, do we have any public comment on this?

I have no public comment. Chambers, I do have one hand, I have several hands raised. I do look like the applicant, Sierra Dixon, with her head raised. So, Sarah, if you'd like to say something, you can go ahead and unmute.

Hello, I just wanted to say I am available via Zoom for any questions. Thanks for discussing our abandonment application.

Thank you. Do we have any other public comment? Yes, I have one more public comment. Dale's iPad, please unmute. State your first and last name for the record.

Hi, Dale of France. I'm sorry, Dale of France. Can you hear me? All right. So my question is, what is the purpose of the abandonment? Because it wasn't listed in the request? Are they planning to build? And if so, how much?

Is that all your public comment, Dale?

Yeah, I am curious to why they want the abandonment here because if they're going to build, we have concerns. And with the building that would be considered, we've lived out here for close to 40 years, and that's been accessed to BLM up there, and we just want to know what's going to be happening up there. So that's pretty much what I'm bringing up.

Thank you for your comment. Generally speaking, public comment isn't a question and answer period, but Mr. Lloyd, could you maybe give me a quick rundown on these kind of routine access easement abandonments?

Yeah, and I know that Julie is much more versed with this specific application. I do know that there are a number of constraints when you look at this property and the applicants have also submitted for a parcel map application and I'll let Julie go ahead and provide a little more information on that.

Julia Lynn, for the record. Yes, they are in a request that will go before the Parcel Map Review Committee next Thursday for splitting this parcel into four parcels. There's no specific plans to develop it any further than that, than the four parcels.

Okay. Miss Hollander, any normal building setback constraints that apply to the zoning in the area would still apply after the setback? Correct.

Yeah, they would still meet all their setback requirements and so forth.

All right. Any further discussion from the board? Do we have a motion?

Mr. Rob, I'll make the motion. I move that after giving reason and consideration to the information contained in the staff report, information received during public hearing, the Washoe County Planning Commission approve Abandonment Case Number WAB26-0001 for Sierra Dickerson with the conditions included in exhibit A to this matter having made all three findings in accordance with Washoe County Code Section 110.806.20. And Kennedy will second.

Motion is second. All those in favor? Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Any opposed? The motion carries. Mr. Lloyd, could you announce item 7C?

Okay, so item 7C is an amendment of conditions, case number WAC 250021, the PSREC transmission line for special use permit WSUP 230020. For hearing, discussion, and possible action to approve an amendment of conditions, WAC 250021, for the PSREC transmission line. The request is to amend condition 1C for the approved special use permit in order to grant an additional two-year extension of time to obtain building permits for the construction of the project until December 14th, 2027. WSUP 230020 was approved to construct a two-mile long 69 KV transmission line which is a utility service use type. And representing Washoe County in this matter is Senior Planner Courtney Wiecki.

Okay, good evening. Courtney Wiecki, Senior Planner with Washoe County. The item before you, as Mr. Lloyd indicated, is WAC 25-0021 for the PSREC transmission line in association with WSUP 23-0020. It's just an overhead aerial photo of the location. The project is located in the high desert area plan and has a regulatory zone of general rural and is located on 15 separate parcels. The surrounding land is generally undeveloped with the exception of a handful of residential dwellings. Fish Springs Solar and the NV Energy Fort Sage substation are located on two parcels in the southern portion of the proposed development. And the land to the west is in the state of California's jurisdiction. The two mile transmission line would be located within an existing utility easement along Rainbow Way and then continue west between Herlong Lane and Indiana Lane into the state of California. Okay, the original special use permit request was for a major public facility use type for an extension of a two mile long, 69 kilovolt transmission line within the existing utility easements from NV Energy's Fort Sage substation through Washoe County to the California state line. The request before you today Oh, excuse me. After review and approval by both the required county and TM RPA boards and commissions, the regional planning governing board adopted an amendment adding the new regional utility corridor to the regional plan on December 14th, 2023, which became the effective SUP date.

Okay. Now the request before you.

So the applicant is requesting a two-year extension of time to obtain building permits from the current deadline of December 14, 2025 to December 14, 2027. The application states the request is necessary due to delays in securing necessary grant funding and completing prerequisite federal approvals before being able to go out to bid for contractors. The applicant is here and can expand on these circumstances and any specific questions you may have during their presentation. Public notice was sent to 51 unique property owners within seven, 750 feet of the entire project area. No comments or phone calls were received. In addition, all appropriate agencies were notified of the application and again with no comments of concern or opposition with the request for the time extension. The applicant did propose a amended condition of approval. Staff is recommending just a couple more minor change, a minor change basically to memorialize the effective date being December 14th of 2023, that we're extending that time period by two years. And so the amended one, the amended condition 1C would read The applicant shall submit construction plans with all information necessary for the comprehensive review by Washoe County and initial building permits shall be issued within four years from the effective date of the approved special use permit, which is the December 14th, 2023. And the applicant shall complete construction within the time specified by the building permits. Staff has made all the appropriate findings for the request and provided those in your staff report. Staff is making a recommendation of approval and I have provided a possible motion for your consideration. I'm available for questions and we do have the applicant present with a presentation.

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

Good evening. My name is Karen Downs. I'm here on behalf of the applicant, the Pluma Sierra Rural Electric Co-op for the Fort Sage Transmission Line Project. And out of respect for your time, I'm happy to go through the project itself. But again, tonight is for the SUP amendment of condition to extend that. So if you could go to the next slide. Oh, I have it. Maybe. There we go. So as previously pointed out, this is the location of the existing project. It goes through existing utility easements through approximately two miles of Washoe County and then extends through to the state of California. It's for the extension of a 69 KV transmission line from the Fort Sage substation to the Patton substation in California. Since the time of the approval in December of 2023, the applicant has prepared construction plans and has submitted for a building permit. following that regional approval in December of 2023. We did get through the approval process with the Washoe County building permit. It was submitted in February of 2025 and approved in April of 2025. However, the way that the condition reads, it requires the building permit to be issued, not yet approved. And PSREC has not yet selected a contractor, so that building permit can't be selected, or can't be issued to the contractor yet, hence our request for the special use permit to extend the special use permit from the two year, for the building permit to be issued within two years from the date of approval of the building permit to four years. Our request will allow the applicant additional time to secure the grant funding, complete all the federal approvals. There are, I believe there's four different federal agencies they're working with throughout the state of California for that transmission line. So that has taken more time than anticipated. as well as, if you recall, there was the government shutdown in 2025 that significantly impacted their project. So anyway, it will allow them additional time for those federal approvals and to select a prospective contractor so that the billing permit can be issued. This project, they're definitely still working on this. in earnest and hope to be able to go out to bid in April of 2026 for the prospective contractor. The Washoe County permit is one of their last steps to get the grant funding for this extension line. That is all I have for you tonight and I'm available for any questions.

Thank you very much. Are there any questions from the board for staff or the applicant? Do we have any public comment on this item? No public comment in chambers.

I have no public comment online.

Any discussion or comments from the board? If not, do we have a motion? I move. After giving reason consideration to the information contained in the staff report and information received during the public hearing, the Washoe County Planning Commission approved amendment of conditions case number WAC 25-0021 for Plumas Sierra Rural Electric Cooperative, with the conditions included as exhibit A to this matter, having made all five findings in accordance with Washoe County Code section 110.810.30. Mr. Rob, I'll second.

Mr. Nelson, I'll second.

I think Rob beat you to the punch. That's all right. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? The motion carries. All right. Item 7D, please.

ITEM 7D IS REGULATORY ZONE AMENDMENT CASE NUMBER WRZA 260001 OR HEARING DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF A REGULATORY ZONE AMENDMENT TO THE TRUCKEE CANYON REGULATORY ZONE MAP TO CHANGE THE ZONING ON PARCEL APN 08406013 TOTALING 624 ACRES FROM 27% PARKS AND and 73% regulatory, I'm sorry, general rural to 100% general rural. And if approved, authorize the chair to sign a resolution to this effect. So representing Washoe County once again in this matter is Senior Planner Courtney Wiecki.

Okay, good evening again. Courtney Wiecki, Senior Planner Washoe County. And as Mr. Lloyd stated, the item before you is WRZA 26-001 for Mustang RZA. The request is a regulatory zone amendment to the Truckee Canyon regulatory zone map to change the zoning on one parcel from 27% parks and recreation and 73% general rural to 100% general rural. The subject parcel is 624 acres and is located at 12005 Interstate 80 East in the Truckee Canyon Planning Area. The parcel is located on the north side of Interstate I-80 near exit 23 Mustang Road. And here's a side-by-side comparison of what the regulatory zone map change would look like. The parcel was previously zoned 100% general rural. In 2013, a regulatory zone amendment Case number RZA 12-005 was granted to change the zoning for a 170-acre portion of the parcel from general rural to parks and recreation to accommodate off-road racing events, which are defined as outdoor entertainment. And that is an allowed use in the PR regulatory zone. At present, as we've stated, the parcel has 73% general rural, which is 454 acres, and 27% parks and rec, which equates to 170 acres of the parcel. The parcel is served by Washoe County Sheriff's Office and the Truckee Meadows Fire Protection District. They both received a copy of the application and no comments of concern were received. Water is sourced from a well located on the property. Washoe County Water Rights Manager indicated no concern in their agency comments. There is no existing municipal sewer infrastructure or private septic systems serving the site. Primary access to the site Via a private paved and gated roadway which extends west into the site from the i-80 frontage road no change to the existing access traffic or circulation of the site is anticipated with the approval of this amendment a Neighborhood meeting was held virtually on December 9th 2025 and there were no members of of the public that attended that meeting. Staff also did not receive any comments or calls on the request. And to note, property owners within 4,000 feet of the site did receive a notice of the application. And to reiterate, no phone calls or emails were received. A legal ad was placed in the Reno Gazette Journal as required per the development code. All applicable agencies reviewed the application. Their comments are included in the staff report and there should not be conditions of approval because there are no conditions of approval with the regulatory zone amendment. I apologize for that. Staff can make all required findings as I have explained in the staff report. and I have provided a possible motion for your consideration, and I'm available for any questions. The applicant, Ms. Melissa Smith, is available as well and is prepared to make a presentation.

All right, it's the applicant's choice. If you'd like to make a presentation on this, you're welcome to.

Yeah, Melissa Smith, for the record, with Wood Rogers, representing our applicant Q&D construction in this regulatory zone amendment application. I do have a presentation prepared, and I think Courtney has just done a fantastic job, so I'm going to forego the vast majority of it.

I'm just going to proceed here to a couple of other slides to reiterate some key points.

A little bit of history on the site. In 2004, the site was approved with an SEP for an aggregate facility for one of the current tenants of the site or occupants of the site, Granite Construction. And then in 2013, as Courtney has said, a 170-acre portion of the site was zoned to accommodate this dirt racing track. That use no longer occurs on site. Q&D Construction does have an existing aggregate facility adjacent to the site. Granite Construction still operates an aggregate facility on site. So this zone amendment has a few benefits. One, it's going to eliminate, ooh, that's really hard to see. Returns the site to its original intended zoning. It's going to eliminate spot zoning on the site, eliminate split zoning across the site. It's going to align the site with the existing uses, and it's going to facilitate any future expansion of those uses. So again, my name's Melissa. I'm with Wood-Rogers. If you guys have any questions, I'm here. I can't see who's online. I'm thinking that our applicant and property owner are both online as well, if you guys have any other questions. I know I have 15 minutes, so I'm just going to say I will reserve the rest of my time on the off chance that we have some robust discussion on this. Thank you.

Thanks very much. Do we have any questions from the board for staff or the applicant? Do we have any public comment on this item? I have no public comment in chambers. I have no hands raised on Zoom. Anyone on the board wish to discuss this? Otherwise, would anyone like to make a motion?

I would make a motion. that I move that after giving recent consideration to the information contained in the staff report and information received during the public hearing, the Washoe County Planning Commission approved Amendment of Conditions Case Number WAC 25-0021, for Plumas Sierra Rural Electric Corp.

I'm sorry, that was the previous item. I'm sorry. It's okay.

Am I in the wrong one?

Yeah, we've moved on to item D, the regulatory zone amendment, Mustang RZA. I'm sorry.

Well, then someone else should move. Excuse me. I didn't know we were on D.

This is Rob. I move that after given reasonable consideration of the information contained in the staff report, information received during the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopt the resolution and include it in Exhibit A, recommending adoption of the Regulatory Zone Amendment Case Number WRZA 260001, having made all of the following findings in accordance with Washoe County Code Section 110.821 to 15.1 through 7. Mr. Nelson will second.

All right. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion carries. Thank you very much. That brings us to the end of our hearings for the night. Again, items 7E and F are going to be heard at April's meeting. Do we have any future agenda requests or requests for information from staff, from the board? Mr. Lloyd, do you have any reports on previous Planning Commission items?

I do. The Sierra Reflections tentative map appeal will be heard by the County Commission this coming Tuesday, March the 10th. Also on March the 10th, the BCC will hear the first reading of the Attainable Housing DCA. That was the item that came before you on February 3rd, and that's all that I have.

Thank you. Do we have any legal updates? Thank you.

Any further public comment? We have no further public comment in chambers. I have no hands raised. Thank you. We are adjourned.