Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Recording in progress.

All right. Welcome, everybody. We're going to call the meeting to order. It's October 7th at 6 p.m. It's the Washoe County Planning Commission. Can we find out who's here, please? Call to order determination.

Jim Barnes. Here. Michael Flick. Here. Linda Kennedy. Here. Chair Lazareski is out. He does have an excused absence. Kate Nelson.

Here.

Amy Owens also has an excused absence. She will not be here. And Vice Chair Peirce.

I'm present.

Thank you. We do have a quorum.

Thank you. Will you all please join us in the Pledge of Allegiance?

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

All right, may we please have the ethics law announcements?

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 that you must 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. I'm also going to go ahead and read the Zoom instructions. We are holding this meeting tonight in person in the county commission chambers. It's also being held via Zoom. To attend the meeting via Zoom, you can log into the Zoom webinar using the link that's found on the first page of tonight's agenda. You can also join the meeting by typing zoom.us into your computer browser. Click join a meeting on the Zoom website and enter meeting ID 842-7265-9406. If anyone's having any computer difficulties, you can join the meeting via telephone only by dialing 1-669-900-9128 and enter meeting ID 842-7265-9406 and press pound. For those wishing to provide public comments that are logged in via Zoom, you can utilize the raise hand feature during any public comment period. 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. We have the appeal procedure.

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 775-328-6100 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?

I do not have any general public comment in chambers. I have no hands raised on Zoom.

All right, we'll close public comment. Move on to item number six, approval of today's agenda. I have no changes. Can I get a motion to accept as written?

Commissioner Kennedy moves for the approval of the minutes.

Commissioner Nelson will second.

That's the agenda. We have a motion and a second.

Jen Gustafson, for the record, can we please redo that motion? since we're on the other item.

Thanks. Linda, can you please remake that? It's for today's agenda. Oh, I'm sorry.

I jumped. I'd like to make a motion to approve today's agenda.

Commissioner Nelson, I'll second.

We have a motion and a second. All those in favor of today's agenda approval, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. All right, moving on to number seven, approval of the September 2nd draft minutes. Everybody get a chance to look at it. We have any changes? If not, can I get a motion to accept?

I move that we accept the minutes as written.

All right. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Second. All right. And so we have a motion and a second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, say nay. All right. Motion passes. The second was by Mr. Flick. All right. So that starts off with number 8A, which is WAB 25-0008. Mr. Lloyd, would you please announce it?

Yes. This is abandonment case number WAB 25-0006 for the U.S. 40 roadway easement abandonment. For hearing, discussion, and possible action to approve an abandonment of Washoe County's interest in a 60-foot wide roadway easement. And filling in for Chris Bronsick tonight is Senior Planner Kat Oakley. Kat, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Kat Oakley with Washoe County Planning. I'm presenting this on behalf of Chris. This is WAB 25-0006, an abandonment for U.S. 4D. So this is a request to abandon Washoe County's interest in a 60-foot-wide roadway easement that was established in 1977. This parcel is located kind of in the north of Verdi. It's part of a grid system of roadways that never got built out, kind of up in the hills back there. And development in the area has utilized other roadways that are better suited to the topography to access existing development and infrastructure. This abandonment is necessary to allow the finalization of a parcel map associated with a Tumwa water tank in the vicinity and that access road. That is a parcel map that was approved by the City of Reno, and this is actually a parcel that is in the City of Reno's sphere of influence, but they have asked us to process it for them, and we've agreed to do so. So that's why you all are seeing it. Here's a vicinity map. You can see it's on the edge of Somerset there, and that there is an existing water tank to the north of the parcel. Again, it's in their sphere of influence, but we are processing it, and it is in the Verdi planning area. Here's an image of the actual easement. So it traverses the parcel from north to south, and you can see it is connecting to where that existing water tank is. But again, that water tank has an existing developed access in the legal access easement. And so there is no need for this easement now or in the future due to that. The abutting property owners were noticed, and we did not receive any comments. And staff does recommend approval with conditions of this request based on an ability to make the required findings. And I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

OK. Anybody have any questions?

The applicant is here as well and has a presentation.

Would the applicant like to make a presentation?

Let's see if it's here. Sure, I do have a presentation, or I'm also happy to answer any questions.

Okay, just please state your name for the record.

My name is Karen Downs. I'm with Manhart Consulting on behalf of the applicant. on this roadway easement abandonment. Excuse me. I will try not to duplicate the information that Kat just presented. Again, here's the location of the project. And the purpose of why we're here tonight requesting the abandonment is to allow for a parcel map to be recorded on the site. That parcel map, as we'll look at, will allow for an approved water tank for Tumwa and the access road. Here's the map of how that easement was originally recorded. It's hard to see. I thought I had outlined, but the Existing parcel is kind of down in the bottom center. It's one of those parcels and as you see the parcels were all created with roadway easements along the boundary of each parcel. That was never built out for numerous reasons, but this is how it was created. That easement now goes through the center of this parcel as shown and what is here before you is the parcel map that has been I guess, is going through the process, going towards recommendation. The water tank parcel is that square in the middle of the parcel. That's for the water tank, along with the associated infrastructure. That part's been approved by the city of Reno. It was a conditional use permit for major utility and also for grading at the time. And then this parcel map is to create the parcel. That abandonment goes through the center center of the water tank parcel and the access road. And let me go to the next slide to show the abandonment area. Because it goes through that area, it is required as part of the parcel map process to be abandoned. So now we're here. It's a little different as you weren't the board looking at the project itself that went through the city of Reno, but that is why we're here. It's kind of the final step in that approval process. Again, as we discussed, those are kind of the reasons why we're here. The easements have not been developed in the area itself. There's no foreseeable use for that easement. The abandonment will not change the existing parcel configuration, and there are no utilities in the abandonment area. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions you have.

Thank you.

That's Commissioner Flick. Could you show me again where the new tank is going?

Yes. She's bringing it back up.

So if you see that kind of square parcel, you'll see that's for the water tank. There is an access road to the water tank that's on the west side of that. You'll see on the east side there is an area for easement, a variety of easements on the east side that is existing. It includes a public utilities easement, water line easement, water facilities easement, communications easement, And overhead electrical easement on the east side, kind of that darker easement line.

Is that the one that's drawn on the east side of the square? Yes. That's where the existing utility easements are?

Correct.

Okay.

The only thing that was separate from that is that roadway easement that goes through the center under the water tank.

We didn't get that slide in our packet, so... I was a little confused as to where. OK. Thank you.

Anybody else have any questions this time? No? All right. Let's open up public comment. Do we have any public comment?

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

OK. We'll close public comment, bring it back to the board. Do we have any discussion on the matter? Any questions? If not, can we get a motion?

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 approve abandonment case number WAB25-0006 for Toll Brothers with the conditions included as Exhibit A to this matter. having made all three findings in accordance with Washoe County Code Section 110.806.20. All right, we have a motion.

Do we have a second?

Mr. Nelson will second.

We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. All right, thank you. Motion passes. That moves us on to 8B, WDCA 25-0009 for senior housing. Mr. Lloyd, would you please announce?

Yeah, for hearing discussion and possible action to initiate an amendment to Washoe County Code Chapter 110, the Development Code, in Division 3, the Regulation of Uses. These amendments include modifying the title of Article 336 from Affordable Housing Incentives to Housing Incentives, adding provisions to describe the purpose of Article 336, Housing Incentives, and and create incentives for senior housing, and amend provisions to include senior housing as a residential use type in Table 110.302.051, and define the term and all matters necessarily connected therewith and pertaining thereto. If the approved amendments are initiated, the Planning Commission may recommend approval of the proposed ordinance as submitted, recommend approval with modifications based on input and discussion at the public hearing, or deny the proposed ordinance. If approval is recommended, the Planning Commission is asked to authorize the Chair to sign a resolution to that effect. And representing Washoe County in this matter once again is Senior Planner Kat Oakley.

Hi, Kat.

Floor is yours. Kat Oakley with Washoe County Planning. This is WDCA 25-0009, a senior housing focused set of development code amendments. A little bit of background. You have seen some of these figures before, so I will not belabor it, but seniors are the most cost burden group in our region in terms of housing costs. Figure two there on the top right shows the percentage of the population that is spending 30% or more of their household income on rent broken down by age, and that bottom red bar there is 65 plus. So a part of our community that's experiencing a lot of challenges when it comes to housing. And there is also an anticipated increase in senior population of about 30,000 people by 2044. And that is according to the Washoe County consensus forecast. And that's that table there in figure one. And so we know there is a need for more senior housing options in our region, and that's what these code amendments are attempting to address. Senior housing right now in our code isn't defined as a use type or really talked about. The only similar use type we have is continuum of care, but that has a medical care element that doesn't encompass all senior housing products and types that are available or could be available. And so what we're proposing is to add senior housing as a residential use type in Article 304 and add it to the use table in Article 302. And we're defining it in a way that aligns with the definition at a federal level under the Housing for Older Persons Act. So that is a development in which at least 80% of the occupied units are occupied by at least one individual who's 55 years of age or older. So that kind of typical 55 plus community that you might see around advertisements for it, that that's what this is trying to encompass. The permitting and density requirements and allowances will be whatever they are for that housing type. So if it's multifamily senior housing, it will be subject to the multifamily housing requirements, same for single family or any other type of housing. Another thing in the definition is inclusion of the ancillary commercial type uses that might be associated with a senior development provided as amenities for the residents. So that would include like a pool house or recreational facilities, activities, those sorts of things that developments sometimes provide for the social lives of the seniors who live there. There is also reference to Article 336, housing incentives, which we'll move on to now. So we are activating Article 336 that has been held in reserve to include incentives for housing. And so everything in this article is new code. We're proposing to add incentives for senior housing, and specifically to add a 25% density incentive. So the idea is that senior housing developments that fall under that definition could get that 25% bonus incentive if they agreed to have a deed restriction that restricts the use of the property to senior housing for at least 20 years. And that deed restriction can be either a deed restriction on each property or if it is a subdivision where there's feasible ownership where the houses are sold, it could be in the CC&Rs. So long as the owners association that manages those has an agreement with the county to enforce that restriction. And you did receive a memo recently which added just the language in red on the screen to this part of the code that specifies that the HOA or Property Owners Association enforcing the CC&Rs would need to be in an agreement with us to enforce this part of it in order to qualify for this density incentive. So that's just to make sure that we have adequate enforcement mechanisms for these restrictions going forward that we are are getting and in return for that density incentive. There was a public workshop held on September 10th of this year. We had three attendees and had some questions and comments related to deed restriction enforcement, which I just touched on a bit, incentives for income-restricted housing, which is something we are working on but is going to be addressed separately from this in a future set of amendments. and then on the development code update process and the timing of that and how it works. Overall, at the meeting, there was support for the amendments. As a reminder, only one of the four possible findings needs to be made to recommend approval of a set of development code amendments, and the staff report contains reasoning for why all four can be made. Here is a recommended motion. There is a motion in the memo that you got that I would ask that you use because it references the memo. And the date of that memo should be 10-6-25, which is what the date ended up being. So with that, I am happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Flick.

Yes, Commissioner Flick. So we have the 25% incentive. Let's say you're in a zone where minimum lot size is, say, 3,000 square feet. And then does that get waived when you add the 25%?

Caddo, Glee, Washoe County Planning, it does not. They could utilize, if it were a single-family type development, they could utilize a common open space subdivision to modify... the minimum lot size and setback standards to accommodate whatever the density is. But also, particularly with that 3,000 example, in some cases, these developments might be multifamily. And in that case, they would be multiple units on one larger parcel.

Even if it doesn't comply with the underlying zone?

It would need to comply with the minimum lot size, setbacks, and dimensions unless they varied it through some other process. We do have processes to vary it, but this density bonus does not give them that as a blanket allowance. They still have to comply with the other regulations.

That's going to be pretty hard to do.

It depends. It really does. But we do see quite a lot of developments just in general come through as common open space developments, and that allows the lot size variation. And then you will see that we are working on other pathways to kind of allow the smaller lot, smaller house type development. And you'll be seeing that very soon at a future meeting. So we're keeping our eye on that as well.

Because the way I see it right now, I mean, you have a 25% bonus that you really can't implement. I mean, if somebody buys a piece of property, they're going to have their engineers determine what the max density is. is how many lots are going to be able to yield. And if they already do that, and they still have to comply with the square footage of the lot, I mean, there's no room for the 25% increase unless you start encroaching on open space and the things that you were talking about. But that loses part of the appeal.

I believe what this does, it does accommodate for a slightly higher density when senior housing criteria is implemented. In these instances, what you're going to find is that I don't think you're going to see the standard lot and block type development with the senior housing. What we anticipate is that you're going to see a common open space development where there's opportunities to vary lot sizes, to vary minimum widths and minimum setbacks. And I do believe that there will be that ability to accommodate it. So they're not going to be restricted to those standard minimum lot sizes within the regulatory zones.

All right, but that's coming in with another ordinance?

No, it's right now we do allow that. Most of the developments that this planning commission currently sees, most of the tentative subdivision maps, utilize the common open space standards. Okay. Thank you.

Commissioner Nelson. Just a quick question. So... It's for a period of no less than 20 years. What happens after 20 years and they decide that they no longer want to provide senior housing?

Cat Oakley, for the record, they could do that. And that is kind of typical for deed restrictions. Whether it's senior housing or affordable housing, it'll be for a time horizon of 20 or 30 years. And the community gets that benefit for that amount of time. And then going forward, it may or may not be that way. Often with... With housing, when there's federal funds involved, they may kind of re-up to maintain some funding opportunities. In this case, it's likely that it would have only that time horizon of 20 years, but we would get the benefit for that amount of time. And also the benefit of having units that are more likely to be constructed to be friendly to seniors or people as they age, and that kind of built-in benefit would continue regardless of the deed restriction status. Thank you. Yeah.

Do you, Cat, do you see this as kind of the first step to regulate senior housing and there'll be more restrictions or rules as to how it's handled that needs to happen before you can move forward?

Cat Oakley, for the record. So this is our first attempt at defining it in our code and providing some incentives for it. Right now, people have developed senior housing in the county, and it's just been classified as whatever housing type it is. So if it's multifamily, it's a multifamily development. If it's single family subdivision, then that's what it is. And so what this does is addresses senior housing more specifically and allows us to encompass those kind of amenity parts of a senior housing development, the social amenities. and then also to provide the incentives. We don't have any plans at the moment for additional more restrictive regulations specific to senior housing, if that is what you are asking about.

OK. Thank you.

Does anybody else have any questions right now? OK, let's open up public comment. Do you have any public comment?

I have Pat Davidson in Chambers.

Good evening, Vice Chair Pierce, members of the Commission. My name is Pat Davison. I'm a resident of District 5. I was the person at the September public workshop who suggested the density bonus be on a sliding scale based on whether income restrictions were part of the development. Given staff's answer that future density incentives will be aimed at income-restricted housing, I'm satisfied with this draft as is and look forward to more discussion about incentives. Remember, this is your first entry in Article 336 describing incentives. Yay, let's celebrate. What I really like about this proposal is that it is not limited to housing type, giving developers a lot of flexibility. Your previous actions to add several different housing types like duplex, cottage court, made for a very strong foundation on which to build the county's housing program. Piece by piece, it is coming together. One general question I did ask staff a few weeks ago was about fractional portions resulting from the 25% calculation. Can they be transferred or sold as credit to another project? The answer is no. My only other question is, again, of a general nature and relates to any increase to growth projections from an approved density bonus. Does that increase in housing units and population require a master plan amendment or regional plan amendment? I'm looking to staff in the next week for an answer on process. So that's it from me. I support this package as a proactive, simple, straightforward step to encourage the creation of new senior housing, which is needed now and will be needed in the future. And it's good news that the cabs were notified. Thanks for listening.

Thank you.

Would you like your public? Go ahead, sir. Sir, when you're done, could you please come over and fill out a form for us? Thank you. You have three minutes. And state your first and last for the record.

Thank you. Hello, I'm Mike Evans with Silverado Homes. I just wanted to speak to you for a second. We're fully in support of this measure. We're actually currently building a senior project in Washoe County. It's off of Neighborhood Way off of Eagle Canyon Drive. And the reason we support it is it creates an easier pathway for us to build the model that we are currently building. And if you guys haven't been out there, I highly invite you to come visit it. It's called Silverado Village. You can look it up online, and you can also visit it off of Neighborhood Way. The only real concern, and it's not a big concern, is medical, at least at the independent level, should never... Rarely, if ever, be part of like the independent living programming. And in the code amendment it talks about that it's an allowed use or that it may be used as part of the senior housing. And I just want to express that at least at the independent level we would hope that the county, whether it be the planning commission, county commissioners, or anyone that writes conditions of approval would not make medical mandatory at the independent level because it kind of goes against creating affordability. When you start adding medical services to someone who generally doesn't need it, the expenses of the community, you know, go up astronomically. That was it. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Sir?

Oh, you need to fill out the form. Thank you.

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

All right. We'll close public comment then and bring it back to the board. Do we have any discussions or questions?

Well, I would like to thank the young lady for her participation in the drafting of this ordinance. I also want to say that I have been to the Silverado and went through the models and everything, and it's a very nice development. And from the developer side, if he's satisfied with the written instructions that are in this ordinance, then I am too. I was just worried about, again, You can put a carrot out, and you can never reach it. And I wanted to make sure that we do start planning and implementing laws that will service this population that's coming upon us. And hell, it's already here. I'm living proof. Anyway, that's all I have.

Okay, does anybody else have anything? All right, I'll entertain a motion.

Okay, Commissioner Kennedy, I move that after giving reason, consideration to the information contained in the staff report memo dated 10-325, and information received during the public hearing, the Washoe County Planning Commission recommend approval of WDCA 25-0009 to amend Washoe County Chapter 110 Development Code within Articles 302, 304, and 336 as reflected within the proposed ordinance contained in Exhibit A to the 10-325 memo. I further move to authorize the chair to sign the resolution contained in Attachment A on behalf of the Washoe County Planning Commission and to direct staff to present a report to this commission's recommendation to the Washoe County Board of County Commissioners. Within 60 days of today's date, this recommendation for approval is based on the ability to make at least one of the four findings set forth in Washoe County Code Section 110.818.5E. We have a motion. We have a second.

Commissioner Nelson would like to just verify that you meant the 10-6-2025 memo, the revised one that came out this week.

Yes, I was reading the revised one, yes.

I will second the motion with that update.

All right, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed say nay. All right, motion passes. Thank you, Kat. All right, that moves us on to item number nine, chair and commission items, future agenda items. Do we have anything for Mr. Lloyd? No. A request for information from staff. Go ahead.

On the future agenda items, or I don't even know if that's the right place. I'm trying to see if there's any coordination between the development of streets with the development of housing, because it seems to be rather lopsided at this point in time, and people are always complaining about the traffic and gridlock, and depending on what time you go and where you're going, it's quite frustrating. And then you see a pyramid, for example, where the road was improved from, say, the Walmart turnoff up to just past the Summit Church. But this still has the same number of lanes as it had before they did the improvement. No. Yes, it was two lanes each way. And we got sidewalks that are wide enough that you could put a go-kart through, and really you could have put another extra lane on either side of the street. Anyway, I'm just wondering if we can't integrate in the approval process road improvement with housing development, particularly when you're getting into... you know, the 500 units coming in or 1,000 units coming in. I mean, it's going to get worse than it is today.

I can speak a little bit. Am I on? I can speak a little bit, having formerly worked for NDOT, is that the decision-making process of NDOT, which only involves state highways, which would be pyramid, for example, is a very different process than our process. And then you have RTC, which handles other highways, and that there are so many different agencies with different budgets with different priorities that it would be great, but it would be a very difficult process, and it would be a real challenge to someone to get the planning of the various agencies to sit down together with this planning. Because at this point, or at least when I was there, they didn't talk to each other. So that would be a challenge that we could take to our county commissioners to work more with the other planning agencies in this state to work together. But it's beyond the scope of this agency.

If I could weigh in really quickly, I'm a little cautious that we're starting to tread into an area on an item that has not been agendized currently and having too much discussion. That being said, yes, there are numerous agencies, including RTC and DOT, depending on the jurisdiction, and we can certainly have more robust discussion in what all of the different agencies and how they coordinate their their activities involving traffic throughout the region. But probably not the best time to have a full discussion at this time. Sure.

I agree. I was just bringing it up because we got sidewalks that nobody's going to use to any degree. You spend a fortune on concrete.

I think that's original coordination issue. So I think that's a regional coordination issue. I don't know if that's something we can handle at the Planning Commission. But if so, can we get it on the agenda, please? And if not, then we'll move on. Any other requests? Okay. I would like to, and I don't know if it needs to go here or where, but I would like, But Linda said that she got locked in after the last meeting, and so I would like to request that security stick around until at least she gets out of the building for all future meetings. I do not want to see her get locked in this building again.

I would agree. And I spoke with Ms. Kennedy earlier, and I had promised her that I will make sure that she safely exits the building after these meetings.

I think we need to look into that. Thank you. Okay, any information from staff? I guess that would be it. Number 10, report on previous planning commissioner items.

Yeah, a few items to report on. At the September 9th BCC meeting, the BCC had approved and adopted the MPA and RZA for 700 Harper Court, up an incline, and also heard the first reading for 560 Lakeshore Boulevard. That was the development code amendment. The second... Reading is scheduled for October 14th for that item. Also, upcoming at the October 28th BCC meeting, the BCC is scheduled to hear the Marengo Springs RZA, the regulatory zone amendment. And that's all that I have.

Thank you. Anything from legal?

Jen Gustafson, I just have a quick announcement. I am going to be kind of phasing off of planning and building. So I think most likely the November Planning Commission meeting will probably be my last meeting representing this board. But I'll be kind of phasing off in the next couple months. But I just want to let everyone know that I've really enjoyed working with you all. And I've really enjoyed this assignment, planning and building. And yeah, so just to let you know, I'll be kind of phasing off of this assignment. Thank you all.

I personally have enjoyed having you here. Thank you for all your time. Okay. Any public comment? Do we have any public comment?

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

641. Meeting is adjourned.