It is Tuesday, November 4th at 6 p.m.

I'm gonna call this meeting of the Washoe County Planning Commission to order.

Can we please have determination of a core Jim Barnes?

Here Mike Flick.

Here.

Linda Kennedy.

Here.

Dan Lazareski here.

Kate Nelson.

Here.

Commissioner Nelson is on Zoom.

Amy Owens.

Present.

And Rob Pierce.

Present.

All right.

Please do.

We have a quorum in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Thank you.

Could we have the ethics law announcement, please?

Certainly.

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 that's 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, you must uh 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 your 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 please disclose the nature of that contact at this meeting.

I'm also gonna go ahead and read the Zoom instructions.

It's also being held via Zoom.

To attend the meeting via Zoom, you can log in to the webinar using the link found on the first page of the 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 is having any technical difficulties tonight, 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 comment 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.

Mr.

Secretary, could we have the appeals procedure?

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 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?

In chambers, I have Mark Newman.

I am speaking on the Sun Valley, which will be in front of you tonight here in a little bit.

That Sun Valley traffic is horrendous.

Okay.

They want to build apartments.

Sun Valley community agreed with these housing development.

And yes, three houses per acre is probably a little bit out.

We changed uh the Sun Valley at the Highland Ranch and Highland Highland Village to 4.5 houses per acre to make them more affordable for people to buy.

And I would really consider harsh, just like I did when I sat on Pars Commission and Winnie Damani wanted to put a soccer field in in South Meadows.

You can make a motion that says no.

I do not accept this.

You don't have to make a motion to approve.

You can make a motion to and let them change their mind.

We are looking for housing in our area.

Or apartments isn't the answer.

People want places to buy.

You all want a house.

You all live in a house.

We need houses for people to be able to buy.

Even our county commissioner Mary Luz Garcia, District 3.

She didn't rent an apartment, she bought a condo.

You have to have income.

Why are we going to be paying Colorado, Indiana, Utah, or some other developer from some big LLC?

Because this may be a local developer that owns a property, but as soon as this is approved, he is going to turn it over and sell it to some big LLC from out of state, and they're going to be building apartments.

Oh thank you.

I'll talk to you on this one.

Thank you very much.

Do we have any further public comment at this time?

No more further general public comment.

No further uh comment online either.

All right.

Item six.

Um approval of the agenda.

Did everyone get a chance to review?

Any issues with the agenda as written?

No.

This is Rob, I move to approve is written.

This is Linda Kennedy.

I second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries unanimously.

Um has everyone had a chance to review the draft minutes from the October 7th meeting.

Uh are there any changes or can we have a motion to approve?

I think that there was an amendment that was sent out.

So we'll be voting on that.

I move this row.

I move to approve the amended minutes.

Did everybody receive a copy of the many minutes I sent the other day?

Yes.

Okay.

I'll second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The motion carries unanimously.

All right.

Item 8A.

Moving into public hearings.

Mr.

Lloyd, could you announce?

Yes, this is development code amendment case number WDCA 250010 for the Ibison DCA for hearing discussion and possible action to initiate an amendment to Washoe County Code Chapter 110 in Division 2 area plan regulations to establish standards for permanent employee housing in the high desert planning area to allow permanent employee housing on parcel zone general rural within the high desert planning area at a density of one up to one dwelling unit per 40 acres as an allowed use and to allow permanent employee housing on such parcels at uh a density of up to one dwelling unit per five acres with approval of a special use permit and all matters necessarily connected therewith and pertaining thereto.

If the proposed 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 is senior planner Chris Bronzik.

Thank you.

Um Chris Bronzik, Wash County Planning.

We're looking at WDCA 25-0010.

This is the ISON DCA.

So this proposed DCA is very specific to the High Desert planning area.

The High Desert Planning Area is one of our largest planning areas, and it encompasses Gurlach and Empire.

And this proposal is very specific to general rural regulatory zones.

So in the high desert planning area, we have what's called modifiers, and these modifiers uh have a specific uses allowed for general rural.

And so this DCA is proposed to amend that to uh increase allowances.

And so specifically, it would increase the allowances for employee housing.

And the proposal does conform with regionals density allowance on rural properties.

So what we're ultimately going to propose is one dwelling per five acres uh for employee housing, and that would be under a special use permit.

And the reason for that is because the special use permit would allow for uh the board, staff, and our agency reviewers extra discretion on uh what's happening on a site-by-site basis for employee housing.

So right now, the current proposal is under the allowed uses to change company towns, bunk houses, and permanent employee housing and add equal to or under the allowed maximum density, which at the moment is one dwelling per 40 acres.

We're also proposing a new change with the multi-uses requiring a special use permit before the board of adjustment.

And so this is for company towns and permanent employee housing in excess of the allowed GR density of one dwelling per 40 acres.

We're also proposing additional uh requirements as part of this change.

So, as mentioned, um the maximum allowed density that could be uh feasible is one dwelling per five acres.

Um because it's permanent employee housing.

We're looking at it as being limited to uh legally employed individuals, and then we are also deferring to Article 313, which further establishes requirements for uh employee housing.

The applicants did hold a public workshop on September 23rd.

Uh, there were six attendees that uh were present.

It was a remote meeting, and they did have questions related to uh maximum density allowed and the number of units that uh the project needed and potential remediation of employee housing if employee housing is no longer needed.

Uh the applicants did submit a summary.

Their summary did indicate that there was support for this amendment from the attendees.

Um the commission is being asked to make one finding, one of the following findings of those four.

Consistency with master plan promotes the purpose of the development code, response to change conditions, and no adverse effects.

Staff is able to make all those findings, and we are recommending uh approval.

I'm available for any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Do we have any questions for staff at this time?

Then are there any public comments on this item?

I have no public comment in chambers.

I do have one hand raised on Zoom.

Chair Lazarus, do you want to ask for applicant presentation?

Do you want to public comment?

Um, the applicant wish to make a presentation.

It's a development code amendment, not a specific okay.

We'll come back to public comment.

Keep your hand up, please on Zoom.

Thank you.

Thank you for the record, Dave Snellgorf.

I'm planning manager with Willman Consulting Group working with the people who are looking at doing the Iverson Ranch project.

This case was listed on the uh agenda as the Iveson Development Code amendment.

It wasn't submitted that way.

It's the high desert area because this doesn't encompass the whole high desert area.

We happen to have a project that'll be coming forward to you at a later time.

That if this were to be approved, we could get more housing than what's allowed right now.

The one per 40 acres is very challenging in terms of the number of units.

I'll go through and point out some of the things.

Chris covered a lot of it, so I'll go go through some of it quickly.

Um taking a look at it, this is the high desert area.

The whole area is 40 is 4,408 square miles.

I out of interest, I took a look at it.

That's bigger than Rhode Island and Delaware combined.

So this is a rather large area.

So this gets to the remoteness issue of a lot of the high desert area.

Over on the right hand side, and this is from the area plan uh for Washel County for the high desert area.

You have your two uh suburban areas of Gurlach and Empire.

When we did take this to the neighborhood advisory board, some of the comments that were made was there's there's a housing challenge in housing shortage overall in the Gurlach area.

So something like this could be beneficial and helpful.

Um move to the next slide.

And it was probably not as necessary.

We we initially got a lot of calls when we sent our workshop out that people thought it was in the Spanish Springs or Cold Springs area, and it's like it has no effect or impact on those.

So this blue shaded area shows all the general rural zone properties in the high desert area, which is quite sizable.

And the farther you get up north of uh Gurlach and Empire, you're you're getting very, very remote.

Um we do feel that this can benefit not only the proposed use that we'll have with the Ives and Ranch, but agricultural hunting lodges, fishing lodges, things like that, that it's just too far for people to reasonably drive and to have a workforce out there.

Um if you if you can't deal with one dwelling unit per 40 acres, something it may be one dwelling unit per 20 acres that you go for.

Doesn't mean you have to go to one per five acres, but it gives a flexibility.

Chris went through kind of what's allowed right now.

Um the company towns, uh bunk houses, permanent housing are are allowed right now by right.

And that's this one here.

This is with no special use permit, but you gotta stay at no more than one dwelling unit per 40 acres.

Just put that into uh true size.

If you had a half a section of land, 320 acres, you could only put eight dwellings on there that would be employee housing, which is fairly low.

And if you have some agricultural or different types of uses that need more employees out there in a remote setting, this is can be a positive, not only for what we're gonna be proposing, but for other uses.

Chris went through what they propose.

We're we're in agreement with the additional uh conditions and you know, the kind of some of the development standards and tying those in.

There may be a few challenges, but through the through the special use permit process, we are allowed.

This would have to go through a special use permit, so it would come to either here or board of adjustment.

And there is additional uh critique and review that can be done.

So we feel that's appropriate.

We do feel this benefits allows for employee housing uh through the necessary level for remotely located businesses, reduces vehicle miles traveled, which is one of the things that you're always kind of looking at and how how can we reduce things like that?

We're reduces wear and tear on county roads, provide seasonal year-round employee housing, and provides reasonable flexibility uh with appropriate safeguards SUP.

Um, with that, I'll close my presentation.

I'll be available for any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Uh do we have any questions for the applicant?

I had a question.

It's Commissioner Owens.

This has uh one dwelling per what is going to be five acres.

How many people can be in that dwelling?

Like what's your max occupation?

When you have when you have bunk houses, you could have more than one in there.

Um when you have uh if you had one single like a studio, probably just have one person.

You could put duplex units out there, you could put bunk houses.

So it does it is incorporated into the name.

It provides some flexibility to you in how you address your employment needs in a very remote setting.

Thank you.

Uh if there are no further questions for staff or the applicant, we can proceed to public comment.

I have no commons comments in chamber, but I do have Elizabeth Gambrel online.

Elizabeth, please unmute and state your first and last name for the record.

Hi, Elizabeth Gambrell of Gurloch, Nevada.

And um I do belong to many boards and commissions out here as well, but I'm not speaking for them, I'm speaking for me.

Um I love this idea because we have quite a few ranches and people out here who really do need to hide house people all year long.

So I think this is a brilliant idea.

The one thing I did want to mention is that in the WhatsApp, um, they are still referring to Squaw Valley Reservoir, and the name was changed in 2023, I believe it was, to Granite Mountain Reservoir.

And it's in there four times.

So just for the final product, I'd like to mention that.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

All right.

Do we have any I have no further public comment?

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Sorry for cutting you off.

No problem.

Any uh discussion or debate amongst the board.

Yes.

Commissioner Flood uh to staff.

I'm a little I'm a little confused uh, and I'm probably getting it confused with the court the uh the courthouse uh not the courthouse, but where they were putting five units for employees, and they could go up to eight individual lots.

I think it's probably in another how many how many units can they put in so this is based off of uh one dwelling unit per uh five acres would be the maximum.

Oh, but we do have dormitory style employee housing, so it'd be uh shared kitchen.

You could potentially see a configuration of of multiple employees sharing that same area and that counting as a unit as well.

Okay, but they wouldn't be apartments.

It it would this is only for uh permanent employee housing and company towns for this code change.

Okay, so they would have to be um permanent employees.

Okay, thank you.

Come to the board.

Any further discussion amongst the board?

Anyone care to make a motion on this item?

This is Rob, I'll make 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 Washer County Planning Commission recommend approval of WDCA 25-0010 to amend Washoe County Chapter 110 development code within Article 206 as reflected within the proposed ordinance contained in exhibit A1, and further move to authorize the chair to sign the resolution containing an attachment a on behalf of the Washington Planning Commission and to direct staff to present a report to the commissioner's recommendation to the Washa County Board of County Commissioners within 60 days of today's date.

This recommendation for approval is based upon all of the following four findings in accordance with Washington County Code Section 110.818.15E.

And those would be consistency with master plan for most purpose development code response to change conditions and no adverse side effects.

Commissioner Kennedy seconds the motion.

We have a motion and a second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The motion carries unanimously.

Thank you.

That's all for 8A.

Uh Mr.

Lloyd, would you announce 8B?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh this next item is uh development code amendment case number WDCA 25008, small housing and infill development for hearing discussion and possible action to initiate an amendment to the Washoe County Code, Chapter 110 in Division 3 regul uh regulation of uses, division 4 development standards, and division 9 general provisions.

These amendments include adding various sections to establish small lot residential development standards and establish infill residential and commercial standards.

These amendments also include amending various sections to include an example of the multifamily minor residential use type and allow cottage courts on multiple parcels.

Modify the maximum floor area from 1,000 square feet to 1,200 square feet for cottage court developments.

Specify that only one community access uh accessory structure is allowed for every four cottages in a cottage court development, clarify the calculation of setbacks for cottage court developments, modify lot and yard standards for common open space developments, add various definitions and all matters necessarily connected therewith and pertaining there to.

If the proposed 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 the 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 are uh senior planners Chris Bronzick and Chris Bronzik will be given the presentation.

Chris Bronzik, Washoe County Planning.

We're looking at uh WDCA 25-008.

Chris, could you speak up a little bit?

Sure.

We're looking at a deep WTCA.

Is it good?

All right, yes.

So we're looking at WDCA 25-008.

Small housing and infill development.

So this package before you is part of the housing packages that you've seen previously.

Currently, we're looking at amending quite a number of articles.

So first we're clarifying multifamily minor, and we are updating the definitions and uh requirements for cottage court.

For accessory dwelling units, we're increasing the size from uh 50% allowance to 80% allowance.

And so uh part of the reason for this is over the years we've had numerous people come in uh with smaller homes who would like to create uh an ADU, but with the 50 percent, it's just too uh size prohibitive.

And so the 80 percent allows for individuals with a smaller home to um get a better sized ADU for their loved ones.

There's still a cap within the MDS regulatory zone of 1200, and it's still a cap for all the other regulatory zones of 1500.

That is not changing.

The only thing that's changing is the 80 percent.

So for cottage courts, um, that's a relatively uh bigger change associated with this package.

So we're increasing the cottage court sizes from a thousand feet maximum, thousand square foot maximum to twelve hundred square feet.

And part of this change is allowing cottage courts on individual parcels, and so the graphic before you is uh intended to display that.

There's more information within your staff report related to cottage courts.

So small lot development standards is another big one that we um were seeking to tackle with this change with this development code amendment.

And so we reached out to uh professionals and experts within our community to better understand uh potentially what our code was lacking or what was impossible to do.

And what we heard from them was that small lot developments uh based off of current code standards were completely impossible.

And so uh we worked together to um Kat and I worked to create uh additional standards, uh reduced standards for small lot developments, and so with these uh you see reduced setbacks as well as uh lot sizes being reduced.

So part of this package also contains infill uh development standards.

So infill is really focused on areas that are already uh heavily developed, they've historically been developed for some time.

And typically these are lots that are already non conforming or areas that are just extremely difficult to currently develop under our current standards.

And so we worked with our GIS team to understand where in the county this may uh infill development standards may impact the most, and we uh found that Verde, downtown Sun Valley, Wadsworth, and Gurlac were the ones that uh needed it the most.

So with these standards came well, low density suburban uh through high density suburban, which is 75% of the minimum lot size, and then with commercial, we looked at general commercial and neighborhood commercial, which is uh up to half an acre.

So with the infill incentives with residential, what we're looking at basically is if uh the residence that's being proposed meets the overall um setback or character of that street or neighborhood, they can have that reduced setback.

With commercial, we're looking at a flat front yard 10 foot side and rear as five foot for infill standards.

We're also looking at for infill having conformance with existing design of the area, so building orientation and site design overall.

And so these are some of the maps that our GIS team uh created.

So on the left is residential for some valley, and on the right is commercial within the downtown corridor.

Similarly, uh Verdeye.

Wadsworth and Gerlac.

And so the red and the blue are the ones that are uh subject to these standards.

So we're also looking at changing and updating common open space development.

So this proposal is just updating how one would vary standards or vary setbacks within um common open space developments.

As part of this package, we're also updating and adding new definitions.

Those definitions are building orientation, cottage, cottage cluster, courtyard apartments, and infill development.

The planning commission must make one of the following findings for this development code amendment.

Those findings are consistency with master plan, promote the purpose of the development code, response to change conditions, and no adverse effects.

Staff was able to make all those uh all the required findings.

We are recommending approval, and I'm available for any questions you may have.

All right, are there any questions from the board for staff?

I have questions.

Um would you explain infill standards?

Can you pull the slide up?

So, what specific questions do you have related to the infill?

What is an infill standard?

So with the infill standards and infill allowances, we're looking at reduced setbacks and reduced um lot sizes as well as allowing for the building structures or the building orientation to differ from what is normally acceptable within current Washoe County code.

So it's just trying to allow for more flexibility for these smaller lots, more constrained lots within uh Verde, Wadsworth, uh, Gerlac.

So in other words, you can just change the orientation of the building.

It's just allowing for it to be consistent with the neighboring properties.

I see.

Okay.

My biggest question is we um approved a big um proposal earlier this year, last year, about um a lot of this.

Um it seems like a lot of this is corrections to something we just approved.

Why uh it seems like we're doing something that was just done.

Can you explain to me what's different about this than what we did just seems like just a few months ago?

So the intent for this is to add we are clarifying parts related to those previous uh projects or development code amendments, but really we're trying to add uh additional allowances.

So infill development is something that's not been within Washto County's code before.

Small lot developments is something that's not been uh within Washoe County code before.

Uh similarly, some of these cleanup items weren't part of the previous packages at all.

So allowances were increasing ADUs is something that we've historically been hearing from the public, and so this project uh this proposal intends to uh address that.

And then clarifying um common open space standards.

So a lot of what we're seeing uh before you is new stuff exclusive to this package.

But didn't we just approve the size of ADUs?

And now you're changing the size of ADUsley, Washa County Planning.

There was a development code package in uh I want to say early 2024 that came before you all that the main um focus of that package was changing the permitting requirements for ADUs.

So previously a special use permit was required for ADUs in the medium density suburban regulatory zone, and a administrative review permit was required for them in the the rest of the regulatory zones for detached ADUs.

And that 2024 change transitioned to having allowance by right for eight detached ADUs in most of our zones and then transitioning from the special use permit to the administrative review permit in the medium density suburban zone.

So there was a change to the medium density suburban ADU overall maximum, which used to be 800 square feet, went to 1200 square feet.

Um and then the rest of the changes were focused on permitting requirements.

So you're correct that we we have opened this these sections of code recently.

Um obviously I think it's ideal to kind of catch everything the first try if you can, but since we have been working on housing kind of continuously since that time and have been talking to people about it and hearing more feedback about it.

Um we were hearing enough about this, the constraint of the proportionality requirement that we thought it was worthwhile to open up that section of code again to address it, and in the context of thinking more broadly about how we can enable more of those small units that are more affordable by design and allowing allowing that more broadly in the community.

So that's why we are revisiting the ADU topic, um, but it is a as Chris mentioned, a different change than what you have considered previously.

Hopefully that is helpful.

Okay.

Have you gotten any public feedback to the change from 50 percent to 80 percent?

Not specifically on that change in response to this package.

We have I personally have had several conversations where people have come in um asking about developing an ADU on their property where they have a smaller house, and I've kind of told them about the 50 percent requirement we have now, and I've said, hey, but you know, we're we're going to be considering changing this soon, and the response I've heard from them in those situations is oh, that would be great.

Um that would make this much easier, but I haven't we haven't received any official comments on this development code amendment on that subject.

Okay, thank you.

Another question is Steph.

I think on this infill, are you saying that the side yard setbacks that are currently that that have been changed from 10 feet to five feet can be two and a half feet?

So the residential that's really good neighborly.

So with residential, it's specific to the front yard setbacks.

Um with commercial, we're looking at just five five foot uh rear and side setbacks.

So it is a reduction in allowed setbacks.

But it's dealing with the front yard setbacks for residential.

For residential.

So there would be no two and a half foot.

Um so now it's now that with this change, it's 10 feet to the house, 20 feet to the garage.

So with this change.

Um garages would still have to meet 20 foot based off of our discussion with uh reviewing agencies.

Uh that has not changed, but there's variation with the living space.

That living space with the with the house orientation, it can be less than 10 feet.

It can be closer, yes.

It's it's gonna be dependent on what the adjacent properties are.

That's based that's basically what the intent is.

Okay, and the same thing for the rear yard setback.

The so with residential, it doesn't touch up on rear side for commercial, it's just a flat allowance.

Okay, and with the residential is where residential is based off of uh how the existing neighborhood is developed already.

Okay, so what is right now?

What is the rear yard setback?

10 feet?

It would be based off of the existing zoning.

So if it was medium density suburban, for example, it would still be the 20 feet.

Okay, yeah, 20.

Okay, thank you.

If correct me if my summary is wrong, but the in fill standards are specifically to address lots that wouldn't be created, wouldn't be created today in conformance with the zoning that they have, and trying to allow them to develop in alignment with the existing neighborhood around them at least as much as the underlying zoning that their lot size and or shape is existing non-conforming with correct.

So the intent is if if one's 10 feet from the property line, we're not requiring all the new homes to be 20 or 30 feet uh back, instead, we're trying to keep it in line.

Uh any further questions for staff.

Do we have any public comments on this side?

In chambers, I have Dave Snellgrove.

Good evening for the record.

I'm Dave Snellgrove here, just speaking.

I I do work as a consultant, which you can tell by the last case.

Um the the weird thing about this that that last case looked at housing, and this one also looks at housing.

I like one of the things that Kat said and affordability by design, that's really what we're looking at here.

I'm supportive of this.

I'll go through a few issues that I see within the community.

I mean, housing prices have really outstripped wages and wage growth.

I've got three kids who've all graduated college who there's no way that they can afford to buy a house here.

I wish that were different.

It's not.

Um this does allow for both ownership properties, you can subdivide properties with the cottage courts.

It also allows for apartments or rentals.

We we do need both in the community.

We do need greater affordability.

I've got younger engineers in my office who one of them's dating another engineer at another office.

They're two young professionals a few years into their career, and they're wondering how on earth they're gonna be able to afford to buy a house.

So unfortunately, we do need things like this.

We need this kind of creativity and proactivity to try and spur some things on.

We've got to get ahead of the supply and demand issue that we have on housing.

Um, for those of us that own houses is great, but those that don't getting into the market's gonna be very, very difficult unless we do some things that are very helpful to to the situation.

These do look at small-scale projects, accessory dwelling units as part of it.

Um also smaller lots or smaller units in general.

Um one of the comments and questions came up that you'd looked at some of this stuff before, I think it was with the ADUs, and one of the things that you need to understand about zoning codes is they tend to be a one glove fits all, and you the best attempts are made to try to get it right the first time.

And oftentimes you'll end up seeing that you put something into place and then you're not really getting either to the desired effect or you're getting some negative effects that weren't you really didn't anticipate.

So, in terms of of zoning codes, you should really look at them as a document that you learn from.

See if you're getting the results, if you're not getting the results, you try and make appropriate adjustments and tweaks.

And that's what I feel that staff is trying to do here in some of those.

I I appreciate your time very much, and I know looking at some things over and over can get a little bit frustrating at times, but you know, we're we're trying to make the best situation possible.

So with that, I am supportive of what the staff is proposing tonight.

And if you have any questions for me, I'm happy to answer.

Lastly in Chambers, I have Pat Davison.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Pat Davison.

I'm a resident of District 5.

I asked staff for some general county information to prepare for the meeting tonight.

Here's what I learned.

Most development is happening in the MDS regulatory zone.

The median size of housing units in the MDS zone is 1,706 square feet.

In 1960, the average size of a housing unit was closer to 1500 square feet, but now is over 2,000 square feet.

And in the last 25 years, the number of units built under 1,200 square feet has been decreasing.

Those are some sobering statistics.

Obviously, we could do a finer grain analysis if needed, but let's look at some remedies.

Here are four changes before you tonight.

The first, adding courtyard apartments as an example of either multifamily minor or multifamily and differentiating them from cottage court helps with overall understanding.

Second, increasing the percentage of ADU size makes sense given the staff explanation of how this could be an incentive for owners of smaller main dwellings.

Since the overall cap on ADU size does not change, this should be allowed.

Third, thanks to staff for including a diagram in the staff report showing variations of cottage clusters.

The code change to increase the minimum size of a cottage by 200 square feet may seem silly, but could make the difference in livability for a household with children or provide a new lower cost option for other households.

The change to allow these small cottages to be individually sold is huge, and kudos to staff for recognizing that.

That is my single most favorite change in this whole package.

Fourth, giving attention to small lots and small homes, especially those with a maximum size cap of 1,200 square feet hits the nail on the head.

And something I found noteworthy, but not a code change, is that staff is getting feedback from the public asking about different possibilities.

If people are asking questions and talking about other changes, that is a good sign.

That gives me hope we are on the right track.

We know many of our current residents are struggling with housing costs and supply.

We know the housing market has not been moving in the direction of smaller units for a variety of reasons.

Since the trend toward larger units has been happening over many years, I think we should expect any on-the-ground change to also towards smaller units to also take some time.

The goal is to simulate or create a desire to build smaller units to make meet the demand, not only for existing residents who are struggling today, but for those 15,000 757 new residents expected to come here over the next 20 years.

Where are they going to live?

Thank you.

Do we have any further public comment?

I have no further public comment in chambers.

I have no hands raised on Zoom.

All right.

Do we have any discussion or debate?

If not, I'm happy to make a motion.

Um 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 Planning Commission recommend approval of W DCA 25-0008 to amend Washoe County Code Chapter 10 and Development Code within Articles 304, 306, 313, 404, 408, and 902, as reflected within the proposed ordinance contained in exhibit A1.

I further move move to authorize the chair to sign the resolution containing exhibit 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.

The recommendation for approval is based on the ability to make at least one of the four findings set forth in Washoe County Code Section 110.81815E.

Do I need to include those?

Um I would recommend that you either you state which findings you can make.

Okay, consistency with master plan promotes the purpose of the development code.

Response to change conditions and no adverse effects.

Thank you.

I'll second that motion.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

The motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Item 8C.

Mr.

Secretary.

This is uh master plan amendment case number WMPA 25005 and regulatory zone amendment case number W RZA 25006 for the Sun Valley 48 LLC for hearing discussion and possible action to one adopt an amendment to the Washoe County Master Plan, the Sun Valley Master Plan Land Use Map to change the master plan land use designation for a 17.2 acre parcel and 1.2 acre parcel from suburban residential to urban residential on a 14.1 acre uh 14.1 acres and open space on 4.4 acres.

And if approved, authorize the chair to sign a resolution to this effect.

Any adoption of the planning commission is subject to the approval by the Washoe County Board of County Commissioners and a finding of conformance with the Truckee Meadows Regional Plan by the Regional Planning Authorities.

And two, subject to final approval of the associated master plan amendment and a finding of conformance with the Trucking Meadows Regional Plan, recommend adoption of an amendment to the Sun Valley Regulatory Zone map to change the regulatory zoning for a 17.2 acre parcel and a two uh 1.2 acre parcel from medium density suburban to low density urban on 14 acres and open space on 4.4 acres and authorizes the chair to sign a resolution to this effect.

Representing Washoe County in this matter is planning planner Julie O'Lander.

Good evening, Julio Landon for the record.

So before you you have a master plan and a regulatory zone change for two parcels in the Sun Valley area off of first and second avenue, it's sort of the terminus.

And as Mr.

Lloyd Red Off, the master plan is basically concerning a 17.2 acre parcel and a 1.2 acre parcel, changing it from suburban residential to urban residential.

That's okay.

That's okay.

And then um one part of the um and 4.4 acres to open space, and then a regulatory um zone change on that seven same 17.2 acre parcel and 1.2 acre parcel to medium from medium density of suburban, which it basically is a three unit allows three units per acre for single family or five units per acre for single family attached and middle housing, two low density urban, which allows 10 dwelling units per acre for single family or 14 units per acre for single family attached multifamily middle housing up to 12 units per acre for our mobile home park.

And that would be on 14 acres, and then 4.4 acres would go to um open space.

So I just want you to get your little oriented parcels out in Sun Valley on the left is some overview.

You can see the city of Reno's to the um south, and then on the right-hand side is a closer view, and you can see sort of the sound surrounding areas with residential and then the elementary school.

So this characteristic um characteristic of the site is it is vacant.

It's just got native vegetation.

It does slope towards the west, upward, I should say.

I should have said that upwards, an upward slope towards the west, and then the Red Hill open space is located to that west area, and then um Logis Ellen Elementary School is located directly to the east.

And then, as I said, um Renos to the south, and then residential the residential houses to the north.

And here's a zone showing of the um master plan request on the um left.

You have what's existing, and that's um outlined in black.

And so you can see that it currently is uh master plan the same, and then the proposed is on the right, and you can see where the proposal is changing from to the um where the OS section is down that lower section.

And then the proposed is on the right, and you can see where the proposal is changing from to the where the OS section is down that lower section.

So currently that's MDS currently, and they're proposing to change that to OS open space.

And again, here on your RZA request sort of shows the same thing.

And then you can, oops, and then you can see the surrounding areas have some of the similar zoning.

Just to give you a little background, on May 3rd, 2022, a tenant of a subdivision map did become come before this board.

It was for 80 48 single family residential lots and an open space development.

However, the applicant concluded that after they looked at the proposal closer, that the MDS three units per acre would not make the projects feasible.

So the applicant that is before and they so that's the reasons application is before you.

They're proposing the master plan and regulatory zone amendments that will increase the density and which the applicant contends will make the residential development more viable.

The applicant did indicate that the proposed request will align with the subject property with the changes in the surrounding properties and increase the allowable density from residential development.

And just to outline that, you can sort of see some of the projects that have gone on the area.

Number one, which is down there next to the elementary school.

In 2005, there was an MPARZA that changed the MDS zoning to MDU, which would allow multifamily development, and then in number two is that long narrow section, that's where Chocolate Drive development was, and again that was changed from MDS to MDU.

And then south to the south is in the city of Reno, and they did a designation change there that would allow for multifamily development with no maximum density requirement.

So currently, like I said, the existing master plan is designated suburban residential, and that does allow the MDS regulatory zoning that is there currently.

And then the proposal is to designate that portion of the property to urban residential, which will allow the LDU and then the open space.

And then I want to repeat myself again here.

The proposal will change out of the whole project, 14 acres to L UR, which is urban residential, and then that 14 acres to OS.

And then with the residential, the zone change, currently 18.4 acres are zoned MDS, and they're changing that to 14 acres of LDU and 4.4 acres to OS open space.

And that will reduce the amount allowed residential uses on that from 18.4 acres to 14 acres.

The MDS regulatory zoning, as I said, allows three units per acre, which would allow up to 55 units on the whole site on the 18.4 acres, with the LDU regulatory zoning, that would change, it will change down to 14 acres, which changes the allowed density.

For attached and detached, it would allow, or for excuse me, for single family detach, it would allow up to 140 units, and then up to 196 for single family attached, multifamily, or that missing middle units, some of those units like triplexes and quadplex quadplexes.

And again, the applicant states that there is no proposed development stage at this point, but they have conceptually designed this project for 160 unit residential development.

I did want to point out that there is some slope, and this map sort of outlines where the slope is.

And I have sort of drawn in just with that dashed line where the OS area is, so that will really capture most of the sloped area, and just a drainage way, that's a natural drainage way that travels through this through this area, and they are proposing to pull that out as OS, and that will prohibit any kind of development on those properties and that area on that property.

So talking about the available facilities, this site is within the Sun Valley Hydrological Basin and the Sun Valley GID.

And they would provide water, the GID will provide water and sewer for the site.

According to the GID, they have the capacity to provide water and wastewater for the site.

Washoe County Parks and Open Space did review the application and indicate with further development, they would propose different trails through that area.

And one of the intent is to align with the Sun Valley Rim Trail and then also to connect with the Red Hill open space from the elementary school.

The applicant has completed a traffic study for the conceptual 160 unit development.

And the applicant stated that the project is anticipated to generate approximately 1,132 daily daily 600 67 peak hour and 86 PM trips.

And then the analysis for Sun Valley Boulevard and 2nd Street intersection was conducted, and based on the existing and existing PLUS project and baseline press projects for the traffic volumes.

All of these scenarios kept the project under the expected operating levels of service.

That's what LOS stands for for the project.

So at this time, the project should be generating less than 3% to the overall intersection traffic and would not significantly impact the operations.

I do want to add that this is conceptual.

If they move forward with the tentative map subdivision map, as you often often see before this board, they would have to provide this in a more detailed analysis.

So this is sort of the big picture as a master pilot and zone chain application typically are.

But as they move down into a more specific project, they will have to provide all of the information on sewer and water, and then on traffic.

And at that point, you can make a better analysis of what is being proposed.

There was a neighborhood meeting held at Obi's casino on August 26th, and there were comments by the attendees on traffic, impacts to school, access to open space and trails, safety concerns for the community, grading impacts to the environment, and the increased density.

The meeting lasts over 15 minutes.

It was somewhat heated, but very congenial in many ways too.

But they had the major comments were about the increase of housing in the area.

And then they also had the concerns about the topography and then access to the open space.

Property owners within 750 feet were noticed.

And then also a legal ad would put in the Reno Gazette 10 days before this hearing.

Various agencies review the application and their comments are included in your staff report.

Again, this is a master planning zone change, so there are no conditions.

They can only comment on this and basically approve or denial if they have any major concerns.

As staff, I can make the all the findings required for the master plan and the regulatory zone amendment, those are in your staff report.

And as I said, the motions in your staff report.

That concludes my presentation and the applicant representatives here.

And I believe they have a presentation also.

For the record, Chris Baker and Manhart Consulting here on behalf of the applicant.

Thanks for having us this evening.

We do have some redundant slides, so I'll do my best to conserve time and jump through this stuff.

So as you can see, the property is uh bound there by 2nd Street to the north, 1st Street to the south, and you can see the elementary school immediately east.

Oh, come on.

As mentioned, uh existing master plan is suburban residential and existing zoning is medium density suburban.

Bop through these as quick as possible.

Uh the existing approval that is in place was approved in 20 uh 2022, as mentioned.

Um, the applicant did go as far as getting a tentative map approved, doing performas, um, and then you'll see uh the basis for the the request is just really changed to the area since that approval and some of the land use applications that were approved just prior to the approval.

This is uh again a little bit of a redundant slide, but um it really focuses on the findings and then the changes to the area.

Uh as mentioned the tentative map was there for 48 residential units, and it's still actually in place uh for another year or so.

Um as mentioned uh APN 085 uh 82031, which is uh immediately adjacent to the east of the school, uh did go through the uh master plan change and a uh regulatory zone change and does allow up to 21 dwelling units per acre, and there are actually multifamily apartments being uh constructed currently.

Uh I think everyone's pretty familiar with the chocolate drive request, uh, which is there to the north and contiguous to this property.

They also went through a uh a master plan amendment and zoning map amendment to allow go from MDS of three dwelling units per acre uh up to 21 dwelling units per acre.

Uh they do have some open space included with that project, uh, but again, it was a significant increase in density uh immediately adjacent to the project.

Uh and then as mentioned by Julie, the uh immediately to the south is uh APN 035 uh 1104, which is in the city of Reno, but that they also did go through uh the mapping stage uh and there's currently 480 apartments, I believe, that are currently approved and on in the process of being constructed.

So, as you can see, um, just prior to and or since the approval of the tentative map, uh there's been a drastic change to the area.

When we're looking at these uh from a land use perspective, as mentioned, there there is no development proposed here.

We're talking about getting things in line with the current uh Washoe County Master Plan goals and objectives uh for that in Sun Valley for some increased densities and variety of housing.

When we're looking at that, we want to make sure that from a planning perspective, we're looking at things like transportation routes, make sure that uh other agencies are planning for this, um, not just uh project specific.

So we we looked at uh kind of regional roads.

Um I'm sure most of you are familiar with uh RTC Pyramid Highway 395 connection project.

There's actually two concepts here.

The one on the left uh was prior to us meeting with uh with RTC and in conversation, they've actually modified that as recent as September.

But the goal here is they are looking at this, they understand there are concerns, not just from local roads, but from regional roads, uh, and there are concepts in place uh to hopefully address some of the concerns at a planning level.

Another thing that uh applies to these properties uh is there's actually a hug qualified census track.

So again, there are federal funds available for this specific property as identified in as recent as 2025, and those funds are available in 2026.

There are specific project qualifiers.

Uh the previous project that's currently approved does not qualify from a density standpoint.

So that's another thing that would be available for a variety of flexible housing options.

And again, when we're looking at this, we're looking at long-range planning, making sure that the findings can be made, making sure there's infrastructure that is available.

Uh when we were talking about the 168 unit conceptual plan, that was actually just put together so we could do scenarios from a traffic standpoint and scenarios from a water and sewer infrastructure standpoint.

So we did submit a discovery to the GID.

Um the outcome was determined that there is adequate water and sewer in place or with minor improvements.

Um a lot of that is resulting from the change in the area and some improvements that those projects are required to make.

And then, as mentioned, we did do a high-level traffic analysis that determined uh that the immediately adjacent streets would still continue to function level of service C.

Again, what's in front of you tonight?

No project associated, but a master plan amendment from suburban residential to urban residential and open space.

That regulatory zoning map amendment from medium density suburban to low density urban.

And again, this is to allow for flexibility of housing types.

It's just increasing density from the underlying three dwelling units to the acre that really only allows single family detached and duplex units, um, up to five dwelling units per acre.

What we're looking at is 10 to 14.

This would not prohibit you from having for sale product.

This could be condos, this could be townhomes, this could be multifamily, but limited to 14 dwelling units per acre, unlike some of the changes that are up to 21 or in the city of Reno's case, unlimited.

So in the future, if this is approved, this would require a regulatory land designation change at regional.

Um, and then as mentioned, even though there is no development proposed today, this isn't something that wouldn't be back in front of you.

So not only would there be tentative maps if they did go for a for sale product, there would be special use permits for any multifamily designated property, uh, and there is grading associated with the site.

So this would not be the last time you see this.

So with that, uh, I'm available for questions.

Uh thank you.

Before we go to discussion, do we have any disclosures on this item?

Commissioner Owens, I have a disclosure.

Um Chris Baker contacted me yesterday, and he left me voicemail of which I did not return.

And he also did the similar presentation at the Sun Valley Citizens Advisory Board last night, of which I sit on the board.

I did not have any contact with him, no conversation or anything aside of his presentation at the board last night.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do we have any questions for staff or the applicant from the board?

Um I have a question, Julie, just to clarify.

Uh as currently zoned, they could build up to five dwelling units per acre across the entire 18.4, so that would yield 92 dwelling units if they uh went with single family attached rather than detached.

Um this is Julie O'Landa for the record.

Um so currently the it's 18.4 acres, and they are allowed three units.

It's MVS, so that's basically three units per acre.

So it's three times.

If it's attached, it's five.

Yes, I believe so.

That is correct.

Yeah, looking at the numbers.

Um, depending on the housing type, they could go up to a maximum of 92 units currently.

If they're yeah, attached, correct.

I'm sorry, yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um sale or for just rental to give away either.

So that would be determined at the time of approval.

Could you speak in the mic, please?

Yeah, that would be oh, yeah, and if you could speak in the mic too.

So yeah, the question was uh would those units, would they be rental units or they could they be fee simple ownership units?

Uh depending on the product type, they uh they could have either or okay, but it could be conditioned at the time of the special use permit.

It would be, yeah, determined it if it requires a special use permit or a tentative map, but uh very likely would come back before this planning commission.

Okay, is a special use permit required for any of this?

Can't recall, frankly.

So I'm sorry, the question again is is a special use permit going to be required?

Yes, after assuming that this gets approved for the for the specific project.

It would either be well, it depends on the type of product that they're proposing.

So it may require a tentative map.

Um however, it I think there are some certain category of uses that would require a special use permit.

Okay.

Um, this is Julie and for the record.

So if it came back um for a multifamily, it would require a special use permit.

So I I don't believe it would come before this board, it would become become um would come before the board of adjustments.

Thank you.

All right.

Are we ready to move to public comment on this item?

In chambers, I have Carol Burns followed by Mark Newman.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Kira.

You're okay.

I guess it my name is Carol Burns, and I'm a resident of Sun Valley.

Uh Sun Valley started out as a rural community of mobile homes.

I moved there in 1970.

Back then, we were we were uh a claim for our uniqueness in Look in Life magazine as the largest mobile home community in the country.

We had community gardens, horseback riding clubs, I had chickens, my neighbors had goats.

Notably, we were a rural community.

Obviously, times have changed.

We now have multiple mobile home development development, housing developments, and numerous apartment development proposals coming forth.

However, the basic nature of who we are is still rural.

Because Sun Valley Boulevard has been extended to the back of our valley now to accommodate the development of Highland Ranch homes, and access has been opened to Pyramid Highway.

So we now have a tremendous traffic problem twice a day, causing our residents much difficulty in trying to get to their homes.

More multiple developments will cause nothing but tension and stress to our community, plus increased traffic accidents.

To amend the master plan in any rate is totally unacceptable to us.

Thank you.

Next we have Mark Newman, followed by Veronica Cortez.

Good evening again, Commissioners.

So as you've all heard, Carol just speak about the traffic.

Once a Chocolate Drive, as you all voted when it was originally intended in front of you, was a no to keep it housing.

And Commissioner Connie Jung overturned it and said, Oh, apartments will be great for Sun Valley.

Well, it doesn't matter what you vote.

You could you any one of you could say no to this, and all of you could say no.

And it came out and came out, county commissioners will take the big money from the LLCs from Indiana, Colorado, Utah, or wherever else for their politish.

And your vote doesn't matter.

I I've been there, I'm up there with you guys.

I've been there.

I've been overruled by county commissioners numerous times on a no vote.

One time, South Meadows on the soccer field.

They agreed with us on that one.

We don't need apartments.

You guys just on the last one did a cottage.

Let's do cottage.

You know, 52% of our seniors at the homeless center are seniors and senior vets that can't afford a place to live.

Let's do a cottage development.

You just approved 1,200 square foot houses.

You could put six houses, little cottages for our seniors.

They're gonna be taking the lift, or they're gonna be off to their own because they don't want to drive in that traffic.

Think about that, guys.

Please do not let this happen.

I like Chris, he's a nice enough guy.

But an LLC is gonna buy the property from our local person who owns the property.

And it's gonna end up just being more of a big rat race out there.

And I truly invite all of you to go sit there on that corner and watch that traffic.

I had to take my girlfriend to the emergency room the other morning because she cut her finger.

I sat in traffic on Sun Valley Drive all the way back from Fifth Street, and it took 45 minutes to get out of the valley.

Do you think putting in another 300 apartments is gonna make traffic better?

He only does a traffic study from his apartment from on 2nd Street to Sun Valley.

Sun Valley Drive doesn't matter on the traffic report.

Just like Highland Ranch.

They did traffic study during a COVID.

Had less traffic when it was built.

Thank you.

Lastly in Chambers, we have Veronica Cortez.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Hi.

Good evening, everybody.

I'm Veronica Cortez.

I was born in 1977 at Great Old St.

Mary's.

Grandpa was born there.

Mom was born there.

So apparently I'm third generation of that in Washoe County.

I did Virginia Palmer, Billinghurst, and Reed till I dropped out because I was being bullied.

So I went to Washo High, did my GED, got my diploma, then discovered Crystal Meth.

Cracked out for about 15 years, got recovered, and found out what a great place this is to live.

Then I also found out that we are victims of our own community.

Okay.

I'm on the Citizens Advisory Board in Sun Valley.

Um I joined the board honestly for the snacks.

They don't give snacks anymore.

But every time there's a board meeting, I will go to a local restaurant and I will bring in snacks and dinner for everybody since they changed our meeting from Saturday morning to Monday evening.

And it's not fair that people get to miss their dinner so that they can, you know, attend one of the meetings like tonight.

So that's why I bring snacks because I don't want to pass out.

So at the meeting last night, this gentleman was there, you know.

Great presentation, very professional.

However, for the rest of us that are just normal people, um, it's not gonna work out for us.

I tried to get an apartment down at 4700 elevate, and as a lunch lady for 15 years, I don't qualify for this affordable housing that you guys are coming up with.

We're not saying we don't want it, we're just saying we need a better idea, and before anything gets approved on this specific project, even the master plan, we're not ready to go forward.

I have a nonprofit called Valley Amigos out in Sun Valley, and we teach ranching, farming, and horseback riding.

We have an on-call therapist, and we do strategies, kids, um, terminally ill patients, autistic, and we also work with all the courts to give um community service for DUIs and domestic violence.

We also have a clothing exchange where we collect donations of closer to the community and redistribute them specifically in Sun Valley.

It's a great place.

We have a lot of great stuff going on, but before we go further with these projects, we really need to work on the traffic.

I stopped my job of 12 years at Veterans Memorial STEM Academy as the lunch lady, the girls on the run coach, the dance teacher, and whatever else they needed me to fill in with because I honestly couldn't get to work on time and I couldn't get home.

I couldn't pay for child care, and this is working for the Washoe County School District.

We have some bigger problems besides these apartments coming in.

So I please urge you from our citizens, from our um our neighbors, our friends, our family.

Please don't go forward with this project until we get our traffic fixed.

Please, please.

The traffic studies not adequate for us.

And I'm running for County Commissioner District 5.

Hope for hope to get your vote.

Thanks.

Do we have any public comment online?

Uh excuse me, I have no further public comment in chambers or uh no public comment online either.

Thank you.

All right.

Well, um, do we have any discussion and debate from the board?

Commissioner Owens, I have um something I would like to say about that.

Um Sun Valley is its own unique thing that happens out there.

Currently, we're lacking basic resources.

We don't have a grocery store, we don't have a banking available for our citizens, and I realize that some of these other projects that are coming up are already approved, like the Chocolate Dry Project.

Um, they're already coming, and I just don't feel like adding another possible 168 units is at all good for the area when we don't even have some basic services.

Traffic being one of them, we don't have a grocery store, we don't have a bank.

We're lacking a lot of things that we need before we were to bring in other people, like another 168 units, possibly.

Um other comments, Rob for the record.

I uh I just want to clarify a couple things.

First of all, there's just speculation on selling.

There's no talk about selling anything, there's no planned development, and I've been at Hobies, and I've sat in their traffic.

It's not that bad.

It's less than three percent of an increase according to the traffic study, which is law-abiding, and I look at things for affordable housing on a sliding scale.

There's a difference between a teacher and a uh unionized culinary worker.

Things I look at for projects like this are traffic, which yes, everybody has a traffic issue, especially out in the North Valleys.

It's major.

Walkability, bikeable, easy transit.

For me, this is a perfect place for a project like this.

I think that this project should go forward, and I'm all in favor of it.

Uh, if folks in the audience could refrain from commenting back to board discussion, it'd be greatly appreciated.

Uh all right.

We have a couple of comments.

Would anyone else like to voice an opinion on the findings that we need to make on this master plan and zoning amendment?

I'll make a motion if we're done.

I will say I I'm having trouble making finding number five for the master plan, finding number six for the zoning, that this is the desired pattern of growth.

Uh given the existing density in the area and resource constraints, and the fact that this would be significantly denser than what preexists and occurring on the edge of that between that and open space, so rather than being a gradual step down in density as we come to the edge of residential, we're increasing density on the periphery, and that we're looking at upzoning an area that uh the county designated tier three land, which was meant to develop at existing allowed densities, not uh greater densities than that and go.

Um I have a question as far as the it was brought up that the uh cottage court developments going into an area like this.

Um is that feasible from the regulations?

Uh the overall density on that would be limited to whatever the what the overall density on a cottage court development would be limited to whatever the underlying maximum zoning density is.

So in this case, if we did not approve the rezone, the cottage court development could happen at five dwelling units per acre.

And if we did approve the rezone, the cottage court development could happen at 14 dwelling units.

So if it's improved, it couldn't have it couldn't be built.

Oh, it could be it could be built with a higher density.

Correct.

Okay.

Okay.

As far as the traffic is concerned, I've I don't know what do you say about it.

Uh until and it doesn't exist now, and I said it last meeting, until the number of units that are approved or coordinated with the circulation element of this county and in the surrounding communities, uh, which does not exist.

I mean, we're just choking ourselves with with automobiles.

Uh and I don't know what it's going to take to try to get some coordination between the two, but it's got to start somewhere.

Otherwise, we're all going to be riding bicycles around here.

And I'm too old to do that.

Right.

And and this is Rob also for the record.

I just want to state on that fact that yeah, traffic is a concern, yes, we we all know that.

But this area, you can bike to downtown.

You can bike, you can walk.

This isn't like way out in the North Valleys out in Red Rock or Cold Springs where you can't do that.

This area is close to town.

This area is perfect for development.

There's sewer, there's water, there's everything.

It's already there.

Yeah.

I I feel bad about the traffic.

I mean, but I personally have been there.

I mean, I've driven that road.

It takes 10, 15 minutes to get from Hobies to the freeway.

And you know, and you know what?

That's that's that's not bad.

That's not good, but it's not bad.

When I live out in Red Rock, it takes me 45 minutes to an hour and a half to get to town.

So talk about you know, traffic.

That's that's bad.

And yes, but they will fix that.

They've got contingency plans.

They've already said that.

They've mentioned it.

We can't go against what they say.

So I'm still I still think because given the location with it being close to town, that this is a good project.

If this was further out of town, I would be saying the exact opposite.

But I don't see any good reason to change it.

No one's come up with a direct reason to change it besides the developer who wants to make more money.

So I'd like to focus the board on the findings that you need to make.

So when we're looking at, first of all, obviously, as we've discussed, there's no specific project before you to consider.

We're we're only talking about a master plan amendment and a regulatory zone amendment.

So I would you know ask the board to focus on the findings that's involved in those, and keep in mind to approve a master plan amendment, you need to make three of the five findings and the regulatory zone amendment six of the of the findings to clarify all seven of the findings for the regulatory zone amendment.

So for the regulatory zone amendment, it's it's the six findings in your staff report.

Seven is the militar military installation, and that's not applicable here, so don't worry about the seventh finding in the in the code.

Okay is my mic on yes, okay.

Commissioner Kennedy makes a motion that we not approve this proposal based on the fact that it is not consistent with the master plan.

It is not a good response to any change.

There's no changes in conditions that justify it.

It is adverse effects on the community.

It is not a desired pattern of growth.

You're making a motion on the regulatory zone amendment.

On I'm making a motion on the motion already on the floor.

I'm making a motion on WPA 25-05.

So the master plan amendment does not include a finding of no adverse effects.

That finding of no adverse effects only applies to the regulatory zone amendment.

So just want uh clarify we can proceed with your motion uh on the master plan amendment, but that finding is not applicable.

Is there something I need to correct?

Yes, uh I think the record can reflect that that finding isn't applicable.

Yeah, I would I would you know when you're looking at the staff report, it's got the two different motions, right?

For master plan and regulatory zone.

So yeah, I would I would start and and focus on the master plan amendment and please you know describe for the record why you can what findings you specifically cannot make and why.

If you look at page uh 16 of 20, that will list the uh the findings.

I move we not approve the master plan amendment motion because is this the right one?

Um case number WMPA 25-0005.

B because it is not consistent with the master plan.

It does not there's no um need to respond to changing conditions, and it is not uh desired, does not support any desired pattern of growth.

Thank you for the motion.

Are there any specifics that you'd like to cite in not making those findings?

Uh the the question is you cannot make those three findings.

I cannot make those three findings.

Is there anything specifically about those three findings?

Um I do not see all the surrounding area is of the same the current um level of that it is now, and I see no reason to change it.

And there is no justification to change it.

And there's been no change in the conditions of the area that justify the change.

And the master plan, there's nothing in the master plan that justifies the change.

Okay, we we have a motion.

Do we have a second to that motion?

Commissioner Owens for a second.

You can also not make the same three findings.

I cannot make I cannot make sorry.

Finding number two, three, four, five.

And that's it.

Okay.

Um we have Julia Lander for the record.

It's really critical we get the same.

No, so whatever the motion is that you have the same findings on that, so that's clear.

No.

So she's saying different ones though, right?

That's fine.

So you said number four also, is that correct?

Correct.

All right.

We have a motion and a second.

Uh all those in f and we'll go through afterward, and for anyone who supports the motion, state what findings you can't make and why.

Uh all those in favor of the motion.

Aye.

Uh all those opposed.

No.

All right.

So that motion doesn't carry.

Um willing to entertain another motion on the question of the master plan amendment.

I'll make a motion on the master plan.

Okay.

I move that after giving recent consideration information containing a staff report and information received during the public hearing of Washington County Planning Commission adopt the resolution containing an attachment A and the staff report and amend the master plan set forth the master plan amendment case number WMPA 25-0005, having made at least three of the following five findings in accordance with Washington County Code section 110.820.15D are further moved to certify the resolution and the proposed master plan amendments of the WMPA 25-0005 is set forth in the staff report for submission of the Washington County Board of Accounting Commissioners and authorize the chair to sign the resolution on behalf of the planning commissioner.

Thank you.

I have a motion to Jen Gustison for the record.

Um Mr.

Pierce, can you please clarify which finding you can make?

Oh, I can make them all.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Uh we have a motion.

Do we have a second to that motion?

Commissioner Nelson will second.

All right.

We have a motion and a second.

Um we'll vote yay and nay, and then go around if anyone needs to clarify whether there are any of the findings that they can't make.

And keep in mind too, this does require a two-thirds majority vote from the commission.

Okay.

Thank you.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed?

Nay.

Okay.

We have two-thirds in favor.

Can we do a roll call vote?

Your roll call vote.

Yeah, please.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh please say uh yeah, nay.

What I call your name.

And this is for the approval to approve uh Rob's motion.

Jim Barnes.

Yay.

Michael Flick.

Yay.

Linda Kennedy?

Nay.

Dan Lazareschi.

Um Linda, you just voted nay.

She said nay.

Okay.

Um apologies.

Uh I vote yay.

I can make the findings one through four.

I cannot make finding five that this is a desired pattern of growth, uh, given that this has not been identified as an area in the county that we want to increase density.

And that this density is inconsistent with the uh existing pattern of growth in the area.

Kate Nelson.

Yay.

Amy Owens.

Nay.

Rob Pierce.

Yay.

Okay, we have a it passes five to two.

We have a supermajority.

Thank you.

Um we have a second motion before us requested the regulatory zone amendment motion.

I'll make that one if that's okay.

I move that after giving a reason for consideration of the information containing the staff report information received during the public hearing.

The planning commission adopt the resolution included it as attachment B recommended an adoption of regulatory zone amendment case number WARZA 25 000 six, having made all the finding following findings in accordance with Washington County Code Section 110.821.15D are further moved to certify the resolution and proposed regulatory amendment in WRZA 25 000 six as set forth in the staff report for submission of the Washington County Board of Commissioners and authorized the chair to sign the resolution on behalf of the Washa County Planning Commission.

We have a motion.

Do we have a second?

Commissioner Flickl second it.

Um let's do a roll call vote on this one too.

Jim Barnes.

Yay.

Michael Flick.

Yay.

Linda Kennedy.

Nay.

Dan Lazareschi.

Nay, for the reasons previously stated, I cannot make finding six in this case that this meets the desired pattern of growth.

Kate Nelson.

Yay.

Amy Owens?

Nay.

Ed Rob Pearce.

I say yay.

Okay, it's a four to three vote.

So this is okay.

Kate, was it your yay or nay?

Uh yay, yes.

Okay, thank you.

It is a four to three vote, so it is not a supermajority, so this will not pass, correct?

All right.

So there was four yeses and three no's.

Correct.

Then it passes.

It does pass.

Okay.

You do not need a supermajority for a regulatory zero.

Just that PA, thank you.

All right.

I believe that brings item eight C to a close.

Thank you, everyone, for your deliberation on that matter.

Uh that's it for public hearings.

Um we have any future agenda items or requests for information from staff from the board.

Yeah, I'd like to know what the desired pattern of growth is.

So if there were some of you that can't make that, because if my understanding is obviously different than everybody else's, so I'd like to see that on our future agenda.

All right.

Any other requests of staff?

Okay.

Item uh 10A.

Uh, any reports on previous planning commission items.

Yes.

Um, I do have several to report on.

Uh at the October 14th uh county commission meeting.

Uh the county commission adopted uh the Crystal Bay condo DCA that came before the planning commission.

At the October 28th meeting, the county commission adopted the uh regulatory zone amendment for Morengo Springs and upcoming uh at the November 18th BCC meeting, the uh BCC will hear the first reading for the senior housing code amendments.

Uh and just a follow-up to Drop's request for a future agenda item.

We will be scheduling, I believe the second week in January.

We're pushing out a little bit of the training for both the BOA and the PC.

I think that would be a great time to address the issue of the desired pattern of growth and all of the findings.

There we go.

All right.

Uh legal updates.

Nothing.

Nothing from the night.

Well, then thank you very much for your excellent service as our counsel.

I understand tonight's your last meeting sitting with this board.

Is this well, not entirely?

Um we are having a special meeting in November on November 20th.

So I will be present um for the next November meeting, and I may or may not be here for December.

So you you haven't got quite gotten rid of me yet.

Well thank you for your service nonetheless.

That's okay.

Thank you.

Uh, do we have any further public comment?

No general public comment in chambers or on Zoom.

All right, thank you very much.

We are adjourned.