Recording in progress.

Good afternoon.

I'd like to call the uh December 4, 2025, Washoe County Board of Adjustment meeting to order.

May we please have a determination of quorum?

Peter Gashawn.

Present.

Rob Pierce.

Present.

Kathy Julian.

Present.

Patrick Caldwell.

Present.

Leo Harishni.

Present.

Present.

We have a quorum.

Thank you.

Let's all uh please stand and do the Pledge of Allegiance.

I put the flag of the United States and two three public for which it stands.

One nation under indivisible with liberty.

Thank you.

May we please have the ethics law announcement.

Board members are reminded that if with respect to any matter or any person coming before the board today, you have received a gift or loan, you have a pecuniary interest, you have a commitment in a private capacity, such as a family employment or business or similar relationship, or you provided representation or counseling before an agency to a person or entity for compensation within the last year on a matter being considered.

You must disclose that gift, loan, interest commitment, or prior representation at the time the matter is being considered.

And you must further abstain from deliberation or voting on the matter if it is clear from that gift loan interest commitment or prior representation would materially affect the independence of judgment of a reasonable person.

Board members are also reminded that under the board of adjustment rules.

And then uh zoom instructions.

This meeting will be held in the county commission chambers and via Zoom.

To attend this meeting via Zoom, please log into the Zoom webinar using the link found on the agenda.

You can also join the meeting by typing Zoom.us into your computer browser, clicking join a meeting on the Zoom website and entering this meeting ID.

8721567 5749.

Alternatively, you can join the meeting via telephone only uh the telephone only by dialing 1669 900 9128, entering the meeting ID 872 1567 5749 and pressing pound.

For those wishing to provide public comment via Zoom, log into the Zoom webinar using the link on the agenda and utilize the raise hand feature during any public comment period to provide public comment via telephone.

Only press star nine to raise hand and star six to mute, unmute.

Thank you.

Mr.

Lloyd, the appeal procedure, please.

Yeah, most decisions rendered by the uh Board of Adjustment are appealable to the Board of County Commissioners.

If you disagree with the decision of the Board of Adjustment 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 Board of Adjustment 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, do we have any general public comment?

For general public comment, I have nothing in chambers and no hands raised via Zoom.

Okay, thank you.

Uh on to today's agenda as everyone reviewed today's agenda.

Any comments, questions, changes?

Ms.

Rob, I move to accept as written.

This is uh Leo Harishni.

Um I second that.

Okay, we have a motion and a second to approve the December 4, 2025 agenda as written.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, say nay.

Okay, motion passes.

Next, let's take a look at the draft meeting minutes from the last meeting, November 6, 2025.

Any comments, questions, concerns?

No.

If none, I just rob I'll uh make a motion to accept as written.

Okay, we have a motion and a second to approve the November 6, 2025 draft minutes as written.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, say nay.

Okay, motion passes.

Okay, we're on to the public hearing items.

Uh item 8A, special use permit case number WSUP 25-0016, the incline substation expansion.

Mr.

Lloyd, may you please introduce yes?

Uh for hearing, discussion, and possible action to approve a special use permit to expand the existing incline substation uh defined as a public utility center use type.

The applicant is also requesting to modify the maximum retaining wall height landscaping and parking service standards representing Washoe County in this matter.

His senior planner Courtney Wikey.

Okay, good afternoon.

Uh Courtney Waike, senior planner with Washoe County.

Uh the item before you is WSUP 25-0016 for incline substation expansion.

On there we go.

Okay, the request is to approve a special use permit to expand the existing incline substation, which is defined as a public utility center use type per the TRPA code of ordinances.

The applicant is also requesting to modify the maximum retaining wall height, landscaping, and parking service standards.

The project is located at Zero Sweetwater Road in Incline Village on a 2.7 acre parcel located in the Ponderosa branch regulatory zone.

A previous special use permit was issued in 1968 for the original construction of the electrical substation.

Due to the scope of the project, this does require a new special use permit.

State Route 28 or Lake Tahoe Boulevard is approximately 55 feet in elevation below the site and separated by a distance of approximately 1,000 feet of paved roadways surrounded by existing pine trees, pine trees that screen the use.

If good property and facilities directly adjoin and surround the subject site.

Article 220.1, chapter 6 requires the area to be landscaped of a minimum of 20% of the developed area.

The parcel has limitations that make it impractical for traditional landscaping to be reasonably implemented.

The existing terrain is steep and heavily wooded, making it difficult to meet the landscaping code and would involve clearing native habitats and require permanent irrigation.

Preserving the existing native vegetation provides adequate screening from adjoining parcels and public view.

The parcel is in a remote location on a dead end street with very little to no traffic and is not visible from any main roadway.

Staff does support the request to vary the landscape, the landscaping standards of chapter 6 of Article 220.

Article 220.1 chapter 4 states a public utility center requires three parking spaces per 2500 square feet of facility area.

The project meets this standard by providing three additional three parking spaces using an approved gravel base.

No additional improved parking spaces are necessary.

For reasons previously described to vary the screening and landscaping standards.

The applicant is requesting not to add form any formal landscaping to screen or stripe the parking as required in Article 220.1.

Staff also supports the request to vary these parking design standards.

The site grading will require cutting 900 cubic yards and filling of 1200 cubic yards to be balanced on site with an overall disturbance of roughly 24,000 square feet.

The applicants are requesting to vary standards within Article 438 for retaining wall height.

Greater than eight foot heights are required as a structural necessity in order to create usable space on the slope site, manage erosion and runoff more effectively.

The existing site topography requires use of higher retaining walls to meet the code setbacks for structures, limit site disturbance, and meet TRPA requirements for ground disturbance and coverage limitations.

Staff also supports this request for the additional height to 14 feet for the retaining wall within the side yard setback.

Appropriate noticing was uh did occur and was sent to property owners within 1450 foot radius of the subject property, noticing 33 separate property owners.

Uh no emails or phone calls were received.

Applicable agencies reviewed the application and their comments are included in the staff report, and appropriate conditions of approval have been added to exhibit B.

Staff believes all findings can be made as described in the staff report, and staff supports varying all standards as requested.

And with that, I have provided a possible motion for your consideration, and I'm available for questions.

And we have Mark O'Sullivan from NB Energy here representing the applicant.

Thank you.

Uh any questions for staff at this time.

Is the applicant present and wish to make a presentation?

Good afternoon.

Thanks for hearing our item today.

Uh my name is Mark Sullivan.

I work with MV Energy.

Uh I think that the staff, in addition to being one of the more pleasant people I've ever worked with over the years, uh, she has a level of professionalism and comprehensive analysis that she did on the staff report uh on the project was fantastic.

So we don't have any issues.

Um we we did have some issues.

She calls us up and went through what we need to do to work them out.

I mean, she was fantastic to work with.

So I don't have a presentation to add to what she did, and uh we appreciate your support and certainly uh happy to answer any questions.

Okay, thank you.

Any uh questions for the applicant?

Do we have any uh public comment?

No public comment in chambers or via Zoom for this item.

Okay, let's uh bring it back to the board for discussion, questions.

Please support the project.

Okay.

I'll entertain a motion.

Okay, Kathy Julian for the record.

I move that after giving reason consideration to the information contained in the staff report and information received during the public hearing.

The Walsha County Board of Adjustment approved with conditions, special use permit case number WSUP 25-0016 for NV Energy, with the conditions included as exhibit A to this matter, having made all five findings in accordance with Washoe County Code Section 110.810.30.

Mrs.

Rob, I'll second it.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed say nay.

Okay, motion passes.

Thank you.

Okay, moving on.

Item 8B, special use permit case number WSUP 25-0021 Lockwood and administrative case number WADMIN 25-0005 Lockwood.

Mr.

Lloyd.

Thank you.

Uh for hearing discussion and possible action to approve one, a special use permit uh for grading within 300 feet of the center line of the Truckee River is required by Washoe County Code Section 11022210B.

The request also includes varying the requirement for a commercial use to operate from a commercial building.

The uh the grading is proposed in two phases and includes 558 cubic yards of cut, 570 cubic yards of fill with uh with phase two ground disturbance of 65,843 square feet, which is approximately one and a half acres.

And the second part of the request is uh administrative uh permit uh to allow for a wholesaling storage and distribution uh industrial heavy use type in the industrial regulatory zone.

The applicant is proposing uh for the site to be an outdoor storage area and lay down yard uh with no on-site presence.

All right, so uh representing Washoe County in this matter is planner Tim Evans.

Thank you.

Thank you, Tim Evans planner.

Just one minute while I wait for the PowerPoint.

Sorry, Tim.

All right, so the case before you today or cases before you today are administrative permit case number WADMIN 25-0005 and special use permit WSUP 25-0021 for Lockwood.

So the subject property is located at 10705 Lockwood Drive.

It is approximately 5.65 acres, and surrounding this subject property.

The parcel to the north has the railroad line.

To the south and east across the Truckee River is a residential subdivision and an industrial complex within Story County.

The subject property is located within the Truckee Canyon planning area, and the property is zoned industrial and open space.

So as mentioned, there are two requests before you is for an administrative permit and the other is a special use permit.

So the administrative permit is specific to the use itself, and it is to establish an outdoor storage area for operable vehicles, such as light duty passenger trucks and a lay down yard for non-hazardous contractors' materials.

And the special use permit is specific to grading.

And so Boshow County Code Section 11022.10B specifically requires a special use permit to be submitted and obtained for grading within 300 feet of the center line of the Truckee River.

So on the screen is the portion of the site plan that was submitted with the special use permit application and the administrative permit or the it's yeah, the administrative permit application.

And so there in the yellow on the screen is, then I'll go into more depth in this and later on in the presentation.

But the yellow portion on the screen is the phase one grading, which is approximately one acre of grading.

The area that's in red, that's the area that is the remaining portion of the grading that will occur in phase two.

So between the two, it's around 2.7 acres or so of grading for this proposed project.

And so that yellow line that is their short or yellow line, the green line, excuse me, that is shown there on the screen, is the 300-foot line from the center line of the Truckee River.

And to point it out additionally, the entire area, the yellow and the red, is the area proposed, the proposed storage area for the operable vehicles and lay down yard for the contractor's materials, non-hazardous contractors' materials.

Okay, so discussion, a little bit of discussion on the special use permit itself, and as mentioned earlier, so the special use permit is required specifically by Washoe County Code due to there being grading within 300 feet of the center line of the Truckee River.

So the grading to construct a 2.51 acre gravel pad for the outdoor storage area for operable vehicles and lay down yard for the non-hazardous materials.

And as mentioned earlier, this grading will be conducted in two phases.

The phase one grading will include approximately one acre of grading of that 2.51 acre gravel pad, and phase two, which is specifically what triggered the special use permit requirement, will include the remaining 1.51 acre portion of the grading, which would construct the 2626-foot wide driveway, cutoff ditches slash retention ponds, all to mitigate flow crossing the site.

And so as mentioned earlier, phase one grading does not require the special use permit as that portion of the grading is concentrated beyond that 300-foot center line from the center line of the Truckee River.

So phase one, the special use permit is not required.

Phase two is what triggered that special use permit requirement.

So in relation to the administrative permit and the actual use itself, so as mentioned, it is to establish an outdoor storage area for operable vehicles such as light duty passenger trucks and a laydown yard for non-hazardous contractors' materials.

So as part of this project, there are no structures proposed, and the facility would not be open to the public.

It would be limited to specific tenants that the applicant or property owner would lease sections of that property to.

But this would go through the director of planning and building.

So that being said, as the site is going to be unmanned, staff has gone through and done a complete analysis in relation to the parking, and what is being requested in this director's modification of standards is that the parking requirements be waived.

So planning is planning staff is supportive of waiving the parking space requirement as it will be in unmanned site.

There's not going to be a structure on site and no employees on site.

And one of the additional pieces that the applicant has requested as part of this director's modification is to waive the paving requirement.

So that being said, planning staff is not supportive of waiving the requirement for paving.

As during the review period, planning staff received comments specifically addressing paving being required from engineering and environmental health, and they both supported requiring paving and planning staff after looking at all the code and everything and doing an analysis on the project is not supportive of waiving the paving requirement, but is supportive supportive of waiving the parking space requirement.

So as part of an additional piece to that director's modification, as mentioned earlier, there's various things that can be waived or modified under that modification director's modification of standards.

One of them is landscaping.

And so that being said, the applicant requested that all the landscaping requirements be waived under this director's modification.

So planning staff is supportive of waiving the landscaping standards.

And the reason being is that there is no water source or hookup will be needed or as proposed for this project, which means that any landscaping that is planted would most likely not survive.

And additionally, in looking at the site, and staff did do a site visit, formal landscaping would generally look out of place on this parcel with the surrounding environment.

And so, to give some additional background on why planning staff is actually talking about this director's modification of standards, even though it's going to be reviewed and approved or an action taken by the director of planning and building.

Planning staff is looking for or seeking guidance from the board of adjustment with regard to those requests, so specific to the parking and the landscaping, just to give some guidance.

So the board of adjustment doesn't necessarily make the doesn't make the decision on the director's modification of standards, but staff is just seeking some guidance in relation to that if you are in agreement with staff's conclusions.

And so staff also looked at noise requirements in relation to this project.

And so, based on staff's analysis and as set forth through in the staff report, no long-term impacts are anticipated in construction noise, which would be a potential impact initially, would be addressed with a condition of approval.

And so, as far as lighting goes for this project, after speaking with the applicant for the project, solar lighting may be initially installed, and permanent light hardwired lighting would potentially be installed in the future, and to address the code requirements set forth in Article 414 noise and lighting, as well as Article 340 industrial performance standards.

Staff has recommended conditions of approval to ensure that all code requirements are met.

And so one additional piece that the Board of Adjustment would be acting on in relation to this administrative permit and the special use permit is the varying the requirement for the commercial use being operated from a commercial structure pursuant to Washoe County Code Section 110 304.25.

So the applicant is requesting that that code requirement be removed since they're not proposing any structures and they're not going to have it as a manned site.

So staff is supportive of waiving that requirement as the site will be unmanned.

So the project was sent out for review for to multiple agencies and departments for review.

A total of 19 agencies were provided the project application information, as well as the Truckee Meadows Flood Authority and the One Truckee River, and Story County's planning department as well.

A total of five agencies, the Nevada Department of Transportation, Water Rights, Engineering, Environmental Health, and the Washoe Story Conservation District Provided Comments and Conditions, which are included in the staff report as conditions in exhibit A.

Additionally, comments received from Story County are addressed as conditions included in exhibit A of the staff report.

And additionally, Story County provided additional comments today, December 4th, 2025, in relation to the project specific to landscaping, which I believe the Board of Adjustment has received copies of those.

And I have spoke with Story County planning staff, and they will be as well as Story County staff, and they will be providing comments during the public comment period for this project today.

Okay, and so that agency review that was just discussed was specific to the special use permit.

This one that I'm going to discuss is specific to the administrative permit.

And so both the agencies for both projects or both applications are exactly the same as to who it was sent to and who provided comments.

Provided conditions and comments for the special use permit.

A total of four agencies provided comments and conditions in relation to the administrative permit.

Specifically, water rights, engineering environmental health, and the Washoe Story Conservation District provided conditions, which are included as exhibit A to the staff report.

And comments were received from Story County as well in relation to the administrative permit.

They also provided comments for the administrative permit as well.

So proper noticing occurred for the proposed project.

A total of 149 separate property owners received notices, and only one public comment was received.

So staff is able to make all five required findings as detailed in the staff report.

And staff recommends the Board of Adjustment approved special use permit case number WSUP 25-0021 and administrative permit WADMIN 25-0005 and provides the following motion on the screen as well as in the staff report.

And I am available for any questions, and the applicant is available as well and may have a presentation.

Thanks, Tim.

Anybody have any questions for staff at this time?

I'd rather hear.

Well, other than I didn't get a comment from the uh story county.

No.

Uh is the applicant present and wish to make a presentation.

Good afternoon, and thank you for hearing our project.

Um before I get started, and I'll keep this brief.

Please state your name for the record.

Uh my name is Doug Fellens.

I'm with Tech Engineering.

I'm one of the engineers for the project.

Um before I get started, I just want to say thank you guys for hearing this, and I want to kind of give a special thanks to the Washoe County staff during the course of this process.

They were fantastic in terms of communication, and you know, this is a complex project, and there are a lot of moving parts, and I think they did a great job of uh maneuvering with us through this project to get to this point.

So again, I I appreciate staff for that.

Um I think Tim did a great job of of basically laying out the project and and what the intention is.

Obviously, we want to take the the northern portion of this project, and we want to provide an outdoor storage and lay down area.

Um, just for just a point of clarification, you can see that it's broken up into two phases on the plans that you saw.

Um those two phases are essentially the same thing.

They were broken up to the one-acre phase one and the remaining acre and a half phase two, strictly to allow the possibility for the phase one to begin grading activities in lieu of us working towards the end right now.

Um but again, it it is an interim plan when this property was purchased.

There wasn't there was an ultimate goal in mind to you know develop the property value add the property, which is why they went through the master plan amendment zone change to uh redesignate it as an industrial light.

But in the interim, until we can get through the you know, the several hoops that are involved for us to get to the point of that, what I'll call phase three.

The uh the client has you know, he wanted to to bring a value add to the property in the meantime until we get there.

That's where we've come to the point of this this laydown area.

But there is a final improvement idea, say in the next two years in mind for this property.

Um couple points of clarification on on Tim alluding to the variances we're asking for on the landscaping.

So obviously, yes, we don't have a water supply to irrigate a standardized landscaping, but uh clients definitely open to a zero scape system of sorts, especially on the westerly side, which is going to be at your entrance side from the uh right-away.

And in discussions with the Story County neighbors to the south, we discussed the possibility of doing some native species plantings along the entirety of the south of the property to not only provide that screening aspect but to keep it natural.

Um, so we're definitely open to that um option as well.

And as for the variance request for the paving, again, we go back to this is an phase one and phase two is an interim to a final goal.

So instead of paving two and a half acres with paving that we then would tear out.

Our idea was it since it is going to be lay down area, let's keep it gravel until we get to that point where we do that final development.

But in that sense, you know, what we can do, or what we definitely are willing to entertain, is maybe paving a portion of it.

Maybe we pave the the circulation throughout the property into and out of, which would allow us to have the proper ability to service the the capture of the stormwater so that we can take it down into the storm system, clean the water before release, but that would prevent us from having to come back on the entirety of that north side and then tear out brand new asphalt when we get to that phase three.

That's really where that where that request has come in.

But anyway, I said I'd keep it brief.

That's uh I just wanted to add those clarifications.

I'll leave it to public comment and any questions you may have.

Okay, thank you.

Anyone have questions for the applicant or staff at this time?

Yeah, yeah, this is Rob.

I've got a question for the applicant.

How much traffic do you anticipate um coming in and out of this property?

Uh being a being a laydown area, you're you're not anticipating a high traffic count.

You're probably going to be looking again when we get to the phase where as part of what's going to be uh conditioned on the property anyway, we we're gonna have to go through end out and get an encroachment permit, and as part of that, the traffic count analysis is going to take place to defend whether they'll give us that permit or not.

But just as an estimate, I think you're looking at less than 10 trips a day.

10 trips a day, yeah.

Okay, all right.

Um then on your asking us to waive the commercial structure part.

Um, would you be okay if we add it in to that as long as there's no um buildings of any type put put on this property until you go to phase three, which I would assume you would have to get a new permit for that.

Yes, sir.

So yeah, that'd be that'd be absolutely acceptable.

All right.

Um that's all I have right now.

Thank you.

Um I have a question for the applicant.

Uh, can you elaborate more on just what will be stored on the uh property and I'm a bit confused about some of the terminology, the staff report mentioned here summarized that it would be non-hazardous construction material, but in other areas we we saw it would be non-flammable, non-combustible, non-hazardous.

Yeah, it would be all the above.

Um, in fact, that was a a back and forth with staff that that we had at length and with fire, and that that's actually what spurred that conversation.

Um in order to clearly define usage in such a way that it would not mandate a fire hydrant that we obviously don't have or a water source to get one there easily.

Um we talked about isolating down the usage such that that fire hydrant would no longer be necessary, and as part of that, the language and it's on the plan uh came into play about um non-hazardous, non-flammable, non-combustible.

About non-hazardous, non-flammable, non-combustible.

Meaning prior to the developer, the owner being able to accept the tenant, they would have to, and they would need to uh discuss with Washoe County staff and uh local fire what their intended storage was so that they could confirm that they met all of those conditions of non-flammable, non-combustible, non-hazardous but just to follow up, but what might that actually entail?

I mean, we we hear that it would be light um like an F 150 vehicle, presumably that has gasoline in it, oil in it, so in a sense it's flammable, but I mean uh what other types of uh equipment or items primarily you'd be looking at at vehicle fleets like you're saying.

Um other opportunities could be you know like uh pipe, uh you know uh steel beam.

It would it would be anything and everything that does not have the high probability of fire.

So again, that what would be brought before Washoe County when that when that tenant came up would have to be approved to be such a material, but I think predominantly it would be vehicle fleet storage.

And I I suppose this would be a question for Walsho County staff or legal.

Um what what is the scope where the county would even be involved in looking at any proposed lease or any of any tenant?

I I wouldn't think the county would get involved with that and um through through the chair um Madam uh board member if you could please repeat the last part of the question, and maybe it's my hearing whistle was a little bit bad.

Okay, um the the applicant has has indicated that it proposed leases with particular tenants would go before, among other things, to the fire department and the county um for review on the issues of combustibility, flammability, and so forth.

But I would assume that the county would not be reviewing such leases, they would simply have in the conditions that those things shouldn't be there, but then the question is how is that monitored?

Thank you for the question.

And thank you.

Leases was the word I was I was struggling with.

Um for the most part, what you are doing here today is determining whether or not the request by the applicant is an appropriate request based on the location and and other factors.

Uh we really won't get involved in terms of uh reviewing the lease and and who decides to put what where it's similar to a uh a mini storage or personal storage operation, right?

Where the county really doesn't get involved in in those negotiations.

However, if it becomes known that there is, for example, materials, hazardous materials or some type of of flammable materials that are stored on site, um, that could be problematic, and we would we would seek assistance from from either Truckey Motors Fire uh Northern uh Nevada uh Health, for example, uh but it would essentially be on a complaint basis.

So we're not gonna proactively monitor um what is being stored on the site.

Thank you.

Yeah, um yeah, so I'm curious.

So this is essentially so from what I'm under from what I'm understanding.

So this is essentially a construction and materials um storage lot that you don't have tenants for, or you do have or you do have tenants in mind, no, and okay, so you would be soliciting or I have advertising that we have these spots open.

Um have questions later on, but not right now, just for that.

All right.

Pat, anything from you?

Uh yes, this is Pat Colville for the record.

I have a few questions and comments.

My first question would be when the reference to light duty passenger trucks, are these single axle trucks?

You mentioned pipes that right.

Well, in terms of actual storage, I would say you're looking at single axle, you might have more than single axle delivering materials and then leaving the site after the fact.

Right.

Okay, and then my my second question, and really my concern is that it's within 300 feet of the center line of the Truckee River and the grading, and um that especially that phase two portion that I understand the cost of you know paving the entire portion, you know, may not be uh advantageous to the applicant, but simply putting down a gravel-based roadway for that entire area after grading it, what mitigating efforts are the applicant going to take to make sure that there is no pollution or potential contamination of the Truckee River, right?

So uh one of the conditions, sorry, sorry, versus paving.

Yeah, one of the conditions that's already going to be associated with the project is that uh prior to anything starting, we're gonna have to have a water quality analysis done of the of the uh proposed development to answer exactly that question.

Is there, if any, effect on the the Truckee River due to our means of mitigation?

And right now, as the plan showed, the means of mitigation are essentially to uh capture all of the waters that are flowing across the site, all the rainwater, and capture them in retention ponds so that they naturally percolate, infiltrate, and evaporate.

Um, but as I mentioned at the towards the beginning, the opportunity of a of a hybrid idea to where maybe we pave the south portion of this property for the circulation of the traffic into and out of the property while at the same time allowing us that mechanism to capture the water through, say, you know, uh an alley section system where we can adjust our grades in the paved portion to capture and drop inlets and filter all of the water before release is definitely an idea that we're open to.

Um and it would actually solve what we're asking about uh waving the pavement to begin with, because when that final phase three comes to play, whatever ends up happening predominantly is gonna be on the northern half, so we wouldn't have to tear out all the asphalt when we get to that point.

Well, at the same time, during this particular moment, we're able to take that that circulation of asphalt along the southerly portion of what we're showing to uh disturb, and we can use that as a mechanism to capture into those drop inlets and then filter the water before it ever leaves the site.

So uh, this is Pat Caldwell for the record.

Thank you.

I I have an additional question.

Then uh are these retention ponds actually on the information that we received and their locations, and uh if they are, if you could point those out.

Um and then are any of those retention ponds within the hundred-year flood area?

No.

Uh in fact, none of the development, the proposed disturbed areas in in the uh floodway or the floodplain.

Um and yes, they're they're on the gradient plane, and they're there's three of them on the southerly edge of what's shown to be disturbed.

Um that captures all site flows prior to exit.

Yeah, this is Pat Caldwell for the record.

Uh it just shows on my map that they are in the hashed area that's the hundred-year floodplain, but maybe that's just not technically correct, but um, we could probably pull up the grading plan.

We would we wouldn't be able to do any disturbances within the floodplain until we dealt with FEMA anyway.

Yeah, no, I understand that, but here for the board to be able to approve you know the special use permit.

And then has there been any consultation with Story County about their concerns not only for the neighborhood, but the adjacent property across the river looks also like a potential storage yard that is uh even closer to the river, and what efforts they have taken to make sure that there's no pollution or can't contamination because I I don't think it's a paved area where the storage area is, and uh I was just curious to know if you'd consulted them in any way about how they address those issues.

Are you referring to the storage facility on the south side of the river, kind of to the west of the residential area?

Correct.

Yeah, to this point, we we have not had any discussions with them to answer those questions.

Okay, thank you.

Kathy Julian for the record, I have another question about my my concern is the one of my concerns is that if you have vehicles that are stored on the gravel, you and perhaps I'm not understanding the physics of this, you have seepage into the gravel and into the below surface.

Now, how you're going to why why would that not just go to the river, that seepage and that flow, and how will you block that?

Right.

And please say your first and last name for the record.

Mine?

Yes, each time, please.

Thank you.

Oh, okay.

Um Doug Fallon's uh tech engineering, sorry.

Um so again, that would be I can give you what my answer is, but that would be a part of the water quality analysis that would be done by somebody that's particular in that area to give a more clear answer to your question.

Um but again you're talking about the potential for say petroleum-based seepage if there's a leak in a um in a gas tank or whatever, or uh an oil leak on a motor.

Whereas you could ask the same question of two and a half acres of petroleum-based pavement that's laid on top, and the potential for that seepage into the same groundwater table.

So my answer would be that the opportunity for that seepage to even to have an effect, whether it would or not, um, based on investigation and analysis again done by somebody other than me.

Um I think your potentials must lower for the for the maybe of a leaky truck versus the absolute of two and a half acres of petroleum-based pavement.

So I I actually think that your chances are less in the gravel pad scenario.

And and how far is the development where we understand it's within 300 feet of the center line, but how far is the actual work or storage area from the edge of the water in the river?

So and and and can you relate what the open space is and describe to us where I understand there's two sections of this, there's industrial zoned and then open space, and you're not operating in the open space buffer zone, right?

Yeah, pretty much when they went through the process of the master plan amendment zone change, the the open space that was designated within the FEMA floodway.

So when you look at the plans and you see the hatched area, and there are delineations with annotations to show you where that AE zone is, where it begins, um, everything south of that line is is designated open space as part of that previous process.

Um in terms of how far the actual disturbing activities that we're asking for are from the river, you're looking at 200 to 250 feet.

So you you definitely were not right on top.

That that decision that was made to delineate open space from industrial to preserve that area was essentially for the reason you're asking.

It forces the any possibility of development from being not close to the river.

That was the whole point is to keep any possibilities to the north.

Um Leo Horishni for the record, or uh just have a question.

So the um the and the map here, and there are two areas that marked FEMA AE, and then FEMA X.

So could you explain that?

Because that was one of my because it's fairly level there.

Um I'm I'm aware that the South side has had effects negatively from flooding, but I have no idea about the the north side.

So the so the FEMA zone AE versus phenomzone X, do you can you explain that more?

Yes, sir.

Um so essentially uh FEMA models all of their waterways um well I won't say that they they do different levels to different degrees of of um exactness, the waterways of the US.

And AE happens to be one that they have modeled to the point where they can establish as you transition down the river the base flood elevations at any point along that river.

So the to keep it simple, the AE zone has a tangible chance of flooding, according to FEMA's modeling at any given time for a large storm.

X, on the other hand, you have your shaded X, you have your unshaded X.

Your X zone actually has less than a 1% chance of hitting that line or above in any given hundred year storm.

So in in layman's terms, when when we look at the aspect of FEMA and flood zones from property to property.

When you see a zone X property designation, you just immediately tend to, it's not prone to flooding in that area.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

That uh that helps.

Anyone else?

Uh yeah, this is Pat Colb for the record.

I had another question.

Um, as far as the notifications that went out to the uh neighboring properties, was notication notification be then given to the rainbow bend community?

Was that part of the notification?

It was.

In fact, um when we had the actual meeting, a lot of those residents from Story County met at the rainbow bin, I forget the name of the place.

They were all they all came together in that location so that they could make one call in um and have a representative.

Yeah, just uh to follow up on that question, and thank you, board member Caldwell for that.

Uh yeah, we we provided the standard 750 foot noticing that did include a number of properties uh within Story County as well as uh within Washoe County Great.

Uh thank you.

Peter, for the record, I just would like to make sure we're looking at this correctly.

We have the Truckee River flowing straight through downtown Reno through the Sparks Industrial Corridor, on down past into the Tahoe Reno Industrial Center, all of which is surrounded by industrial facilities, heavy industrial facilities, huge storage and parking areas, all of which, by my estimation, is developed within 300 feet of the center line of the truckee.

But is that accurate, roughly, Tim?

Tim is nodding his head in agreement.

Tim Evans planner, so I would tend to agree that yes, there are industrial complexes in development within 300 feet of the center line of the Truckee River.

Yeah, so I just Peter again for the record.

I don't think there should be any issue with this particular use and the proposed intensity.

Um I think the questions relative to the administrative permit, uh excuse me, the director's uh modification are interesting, but just from a gating standpoint, I think the special use permit um is reasonable.

Uh Kathy Jillian for the record, but uh question for staff.

Um that much of that development in downtown renal and so forth.

Do the waters flow directly to the river, or do they go into any kind of municipal water wastewater treatment facility and so forth?

Are we looking at apples and apples or apples and oranges?

Tim Evans planner.

So as far as that goes, I can't speak to that in exactly how they flow.

Um potentially maybe engineering might be able to provide some background on that.

So Janile Thomas, the senior engineer is here to speak to that.

Good afternoon, Janelle Thomas, senior licensed engineer for the record.

Yeah, so most of the outflow from various developments along the Truckee River are have incorporated into their design strategies for stormwater management, some sort of pretreatment before those stormwater flows enter the Truckee River.

Some basic examples of those are storm scepter systems, which I'm not sure if any of you are familiar with those types of systems.

They're basically a big basin underground basin that separates the petroleum and oils as well as the silt and sediment out.

It slows those flows so that then the water that is discharged isn't conveying those contaminants into the Truckee River.

So as you'll note on the recommended conditions of approval for this particular application or these particular applications, item 2M identifies that there needs to be a formal treatment program infrastructure put um put in place before the building permits are approved.

And just to provide a little bit of clarification on your question, um member uh regarding the uh different zoning for the FEMA designations.

Um the A and AE zones are typically um they're designated as a one percent chance um storm events, and so there's a one percent chance each year in which it could um flood.

Uh the X and shaded X are typically the 500-year floodplain, and so that is about a.2 percent uh chance each year for those events to occur.

Janelle, since you're up there, I was gonna ask you later, but on page 43, condition six.

It says the applicant shall include in the stormwater design of proposed project storm drain infrastructure which routes all on site stormwater runoff through an infrastructure to treat for photochemicals and sand silk prior to release from the site.

Would that be a sand oil separator type thing?

Correct.

Thank you.

Yes.

Uh this back hold for the record.

So will that type of mechanism be similar to what is used in the downtown area?

I would say that it is um Janelle Thomas for the record.

Um I would say that it is um likely very similar, if not identical.

Okay, thank you.

And Janelle Rupp, here again, one other question.

Are you okay with them paving only part of this project?

Would that satisfy the engineering require requirements on this or Janelle Thomas for the record?

Um our conditions require um that it be that at least the dry vials be paved and that the storage areas because there needs to be a functional way to route that stormwater into a treatment facility.

Okay.

I'm I'm sorry, couldn't I my hearing must be bad now?

Uh so you're saying your recommendation is that the storage platform pad be paved because then you can better guide the water, the runoff to the filtration area, right?

Janelle Thomas for the record, yes, that is correct.

That is our recommendation.

Um, due to the proximity to the river, we felt um compelled to um require this condition on the on the application.

Okay.

And uh this was also recommended by the engineering department and the Northern Nevada Health area.

I can't recall if Northern Nevada Public Health had that identical um type of recommendation.

I think that they had a very similar recommendation.

Okay, okay.

Um, let's uh move on to uh public comment.

Do we have any?

Yes, in chambers we have Austin Osborne followed by Mitch and Rainey.

Yes, I'll go down the line.

So you'll all have three minutes to speak.

Please state your name before you begin.

Good afternoon.

My name's Austin Osborne for the record.

I'm the Story County manager.

I'm taking my time here today with you all because this uh really matters to our community that is abutting this project that roughly is about where you're sitting, if you were to look at the back of the room with a river in the middle.

That's kind of what you're looking at.

I want to start off with I just want to say your uh planning staff has just not only on this project, but on others been fabulous to work for or work with, they communicate with us, they go uh out of their way just to include us in the process.

And so you have a very professional team, that's much appreciated.

I uh we did submit agency comment that you have in front of you.

Thank you and your staff for including that in the packet.

And we had talked about noise, lighting traffic, landscaping, and a few other items.

And uh really appreciate the conversations you've had today on all those items.

You're taking this very seriously, and it's noticed.

So I don't plan on belaboring on those items unless you have further questions.

I do just want to touch on two items and then provide a suggestion for a third.

The first is the traffic.

Uh, if you don't know that area, there is an on-ramp, I guess you would say that goes on to the interchange uh from the Lockwood community.

Uh the way it's designed right now is designed in the 40s or 50s when a semi-truck is coming up or down that everybody else has to stop and let that truck go through.

You can't have two cars going at the same time.

That is a challenge already, and the county has spent a substantial amount of years uh working with waste management to get their waste management trucks off that road for that reason, and now those trucks are routed through uh Mustang.

Uh the second thing on lighting, uh, we appreciate the town hall that was uh that occurred in the Lockwood community, and it does appear you're gonna comply with dark skies lighting, uh Washville County standards.

We'd ask if potentially also that just some shoebox is gonna be put over those lightings just to further shield them from the rainbow bend community.

And third is a simple resolution to I think as some of the problems with our community is adding one condition that is in front of you as an addendum.

It is to put land natural landscaping, just simple trees, simple um uh natural trees and landscaping and simple irrigation that would be able to effectively screen the use from the rainbow and community, and the language we asked to be added is in addition to opaque fencing, northern Nevada natural Iperion species of trees and shrubs shall be planted in a dense fashion along the entire south boundary of the site so that is effectively screened from the abutting rainbow bin residential community and the Truckee River and appropriate irrigation and other maintenance, ensuring flora health and longevity be maintained.

An example of that is provided in an illustration, uh simply showing pretty much what's there already with some added uh features and just keeping it alive.

Thank you.

You're welcome, thank you.

Thank you, next in chambers.

I have Mitch and Mitch Andrini followed by Lisa Holman.

Please state your name for the record.

Hello, Mitch Andrini.

I'm manager Canyon General Improvement District for Lockwood, which is basically Lockwood, and I report to an elected board, one of who's in the audience, board members.

I just first of all thank you.

The question you guys are doing are great, because that's all concerns we have.

You're entering our neighborhood, storage yard now.

Who who regulates what's going in there?

What kind of stuff, you know, over time, you know how these things evolve and and what happens with them.

Uh a block away over the bridge, the industrial complex is all landscaped.

Raised uh landscape and heap uh water and you know, control over where that stuff goes to in the river and stuff.

That's just right across the bridge.

The other issue uh the neighbors tell me is that's a big slope.

Mr.

Osborne touched on it on the on-ramp, their off-ramp.

So during the winter, it's a mud pit right now where that proposed site's gonna be.

And you know, if it if NDOT doesn't get to the ramp, it's an ice ice ramp, too, which you know could cause more issues.

So I just want to say uh that's all I want to say.

Thank you, and uh have any questions for me.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Next we have Lisa Holman followed by Paul Scott.

I'm short Lisa Holliman.

Um I represent pretty much the rainbow bend residents, which is the development immediately to the south.

Um, where Austin addressed several of the issues.

One that uh came up to me uh today, especially, and I have been to every hearing here, um, and the Zoom meetings.

We conducted one in the other night, Monday, I believe.

Um so our community has a very strong interest in it.

It is comprised of a lot of seniors which don't travel as well, as well as young families that are working, so they don't have the ability to get here.

Um the paving is a big thing because number one, I'm have been a former trucking company owner, so I'm aware of the fuels that leak from vehicles.

Um, and the fuels will leak through gravel and get into the trucky.

The trucky is close in that area, and the underground water in that area is very close.

Uh I'm familiar with that land from several avenues.

One, I looked into buying it.

Two, um, my husband and I work with the wild horse campaign, and we are frequently almost daily are in use of that area where the wild horses gather.

So I I'm familiar with the ground slope and the water retention during any kind of rain or snow event.

So paving it would be extremely important to keep those fluids from reaching the ground.

If he says that they are um non-flammable fluids and our fuels would not be there, uh anything from a vehicle is flammable.

And on one hand, you're talking about operational vehicles, and on the other hand, you're talking about storage of vehicles, uh, cargo trailers, things like that.

So to me, the possibility of uh contamination into the ground is high.

Also, that dust, that dirt on that side of the river is different from the dirt on the other side of the river.

The other south side of the river is heavy rock.

That side is more soil.

Um, so it floods much easier, and I'm not gonna get through all this.

But paving is a major thing to retain also for air pollution.

Um the residents don't have an objection to something being done there, but the traffic, the lighting, the landscape is massive, and again, I do a lot of volunteer work and I um clean the rivers.

Uh we do the weed cutting and and control.

I've worked with Washa Story County Conservation District, uh, mitigating weeds in that area, and trust me, the Truckee River will take care of any landscaping that's put along there.

It does a great job, and it's very thick.

Um I have a concern that oh, and all the other developments are paved out there.

Thank you.

Thank you, lastly in uh chambers.

I have Paul Scott.

If anyone else would like to make public comment, please come fill out a public comment form.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

Paul Scott for the record.

I own the uh uh Wonder Haven properties and River Haven Ranch, which is the only other uh privately owned um property down there in Lockwood on the Washer County side anyway.

And uh I'm here to support the uh the project.

Right now that property is I mean, I've been down there for over 50 years.

Um the property's become an ice or because it's just been abandoned before these guys uh came in and tried to uh do something with it.

Um people dump trash down there every September.

The burners coming back from the burn do a lot of gray water and black water dumping there.

It's it's better to have anything there than leave it blank.

So um I think the fish painted on the drains, drain directly into the river.

Um and those those are all over Reno, if I'm not mistaken.

But the uh that's really about all I wanted to say.

I think that uh we can do better down there in Lockwood, and um, as far as the paving goes, I think that the county itself has been very derelict in not keeping Lockwood Drive paved because there's about a thousand feet of Lockwood Drive that has just gone to complete hell because nobody's upkept it.

And uh with that, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That concludes the public comment in chambers.

If anyone on Zoom would like to make public comment, please use the raise hand feature.

I see no hands raised on Zoom.

That concludes public comment.

Okay, thank you.

Let's uh bring it back to the board for discussion.

Anybody Kathy Julian for the record.

I I have some I have some concerns about this application.

Um mostly because it it the conditions of uh non-flammability, non-combustibility, non-hazardous.

I find those are good conditions to have, but it's unclear to me if you have individual tenants going in and depositing items for storage, and you have no one working on site, it's unclear to me how this is going to be enforced and monitored and enforced over time.

So that's one concern.

Um the other concerns are have to do with the paving issue and and to ensure that um these concerns that have been raised by these various agencies are adhered to.

And I have a question as to perhaps for staff as to why we're relying upon a director's modification when we could make it just a condition of the approval that it be paved or that the um landscaping be done.

Um and why do we have to put a uh director's modification in the mix the this this asks us to approve something for use, and that's what I'm focused on for use, and we have to ascertain that it's not going to be detrimental, and to not be detrimental, you need mitigation.

And so it feels like we're being asked well, approve it without really ensuring that the mitigation of paving is actually done, because we're kind of handing it off to the director's modification and making simply a recommendation that it be done.

So that that's where that's one of my concerns here, and perhaps planning can opine on that.

Mr.

Lloyd, would you like to?

Thank you for the uh the question.

Um board member Julian.

Um there's a number of uh maybe just uh to back up a little bit, there's some history with this project.

It originally came in as a a grading plan.

Uh was uh that was a request for a permit.

It was determined at that side uh at that time that it would require a special use permit.

Uh however, prior to that it was uh it was acknowledged through a number of discussions that the mechanism that they could use initially was a director's modification of standards.

Um, going through the process, we then realized well, based on the use, it's gonna need to come before the board of adjustment because of the uh the proposed use as well as the grading within uh the 300-foot um setback from the middle of the the uh the Truckee River.

Uh so essentially it was a uh a discussion.

The applicant had already submitted application for the director's mod.

Uh the determination by the director was that we would honor uh that that application request.

However, we would bring to this board a uh the the entire packet and and request uh the um request direction from the board in terms of whether or not those uh the those requests to vary those certain standards should be uh should be honored.

Uh additionally, they are there's some technical issues involved.

Um as uh as Janelle Thomas from Engineering indicated, um there's a number of uh conditions or technical requirements that uh that staff would like to add uh as part of the modification request.

Um and and from both engineering and health, there was a request uh for uh a request that was for paving of all of the circulation and the laydow areas as well.

And so I think they wanted to keep that more at the technical level with staff uh for this particular project.

I I hope that answers your question.

Just as a follow-up, Kathy Julian, for the record, but it would be it would be um allowable for the board of adjustment to put as a condition the pavement of the pad and the circulation surfaces, right?

I'll have to look at my legal uh that was not that was not part of the request since the request was for the use and for the grading, but the modification request came directly to to staff through our director.

So I I don't know if that's something that we would entertain, but I will look at uh legal staff break.

Yeah, we might have to take I might have to look at look at some excuse me.

Yeah, let me uh I'm gonna have to review some the code and then also just some other areas to determine that.

If if I may, maybe the and I'll leave it up to the chair, but maybe you want to continue the questioning, and then we if we need to, we can take a short recess to to answer that question.

Yeah, this is Peter.

I'd like to continue the discussion amongst the board.

Legal can do some research and get back to us.

That's fine.

Um Pat, would you like to offer any thoughts?

Uh yeah, this is Pat Hold for the record.

Uh I uh too am along the lines of uh member Julian that I would like to place a condition if it's possible on the paving so that we know that any mitigation and uh any hazardous materials will be properly handled by the retention ponds and be able to be directed.

Um also that landscaping be placed on the border where the rainbow bend community is.

I don't know how feasible it is to actually incorporate watering any landscape would be.

But um I just think in general that those those two items um I would like required if it's possible.

Okay.

Otherwise, otherwise I would support the project, right?

Rob Leo?

Yes, this is Rob for the record.

Um on page 39, the the health department commented that uh there is no on-site disposal system and drinking uh water well would be difficult to put in.

So if we put the landscaping in there, uh we could be putting an undue burden on the landowner because uh right here it says it would be difficult to get water up there.

So um I do see in the report though that there is a fence that's gonna be required to go all the way around it.

Um can I can I ask a question?

In that fence, um, is there any possibility putting colored slats in it?

Something along that side along that line for kind of to block out the project.

For the record, Doug Fellens, absolutely.

As a matter of fact, I believe that the entirety of the back and forth discussions about that with with staff, coupled with the conversations when we had our neighborhood meeting was it was going to be screened opaque fencing all the way around.

The extension of that conversation is whenever the uh story county neighbors suggested asked as was discussed earlier, could we also do landscaping along that southerly uh stretch?

And the answer to that one, and you've already touched on it, is we're definitely agreeable to do native species um plantings, but we have no means to water it, so you we would be at the mercy of Mother Nature.

There is no water source.

Um Leo, this is Leo Richie for the record.

So you're within 300 feet of the river, but you're not able to drill a well for irrigation for the record, Jason Gillis Tech Engineering.

Uh you you're exactly correct.

We can't just go out there and drill a well.

There would be a whole process of acquiring water rights, uh placing a new point of diversion there, getting that approved through the state engineer.

Um, invariably the residents of Lockwood would protest that permit, and 12 years from now I'd be possibly in a hearing with the state engineer trying to get that well.

So we are definitely at the mercy of Mother Nature on the plantings.

Now we are 300 feet from the river.

Well, there is a water table there.

These are native plants.

The odds they're gonna grow, pretty good.

They're not gonna spring up like if we were fertilizing and irrigating them.

But the applicant is willing to try to plant screening vegetation down there.

And with all native species, it may take one or two shots.

But eventually, as this project move forward to phase three, they're gonna have the ability to have potable water and sewage and irrigate and plant things like you know, your evergreen trees and poplars along that fence.

But for right now, the best we can do is talk about native plantings, and then we all cross our fingers that they grow.

I think that's fair.

So so you're so you're saying that you're um so let me be clear.

So you're you're anticipating in the future when you when you get up to speed that you would maintain and uh you know that would you would support and continue to uh promote native plantings, which is which is good complete, you know, which is completely reasonable given the the fact that um and I don't know what the standard I see that the the fence listed is um and I don't know what the the uh I don't know what the county standards are the fence listed is six foot and then looking if you're living at Rainbow Bend looking across the river there, a six-foot fence, I I don't imagine that a construction equipment storage area is going to have all of its materials below the fence line.

So there will be there will be visual intrusion from whatever is going on there and no I I get that I would um I would definitely be strongly in support of making reasonable attempts to you know to landscape or line there because for one it and on one level it sounds good to put in slats for a visual um uh you know for visual buffer to make it a visual opaque system.

But if not last month, the month before, we had an issue with a um with the application where it was pointed out that putting slats out into a fence is going to be a um that's gonna be a cost and a negative visual um maintenance and upkeep issue with the fact that especially in the fence in there, that's southern exposure, so that is going to be getting the UV exposure.

That is, you know, if you were to just rely on putting s plastic slats in a in a fence there, that's not over time gonna be, you know, an accept an acceptable visual buffer.

And as far away from the river or from the river and the homes as there are, a six-foot fence is not gonna be a big enough, that's not gonna be enough big enough visual buffer.

So I s I appreciate and I see the um efforts made here with the maintenance dishes for stormwater retention.

Interestingly enough, I don't understand.

I don't know if Trevor can say or answer this.

We're talking about paving the pad.

Is there an is there an expectation that the pad is the pad is or the surface is to be paved with asphalt, not concrete.

You know what you know, so we're we're talking about we can't have dirt and gravel base, but is a concrete surface, something that can be um specified and would um would offer the stormwater retention and collection and maintenance without the petroleum effluent.

And I may need to lean on my engine.

But uh my understanding is that um uh a safe alternate could be concrete.

Uh they are both considered impervious surfaces.

Um but I would defer to my the expert in that regard.

If if I may, Jason Gillis, tech engineering.

You know, when we're talking about paving the site, we are definitely talking about a combination of asphalt and concrete, the uh drainage structures that are gonna be required and the treatment that's required, um, they will end up with inlets set in concrete, curbs, gutters, valley gutters, asphalt.

The real question in our mind is do we have to pave the whole thing and then rip it out?

So if there's the ability to work with staff as we go forward, that's what we're looking for.

We we understand the concerns with the pavement.

So I know at this meeting it's really hard to put a number or a evaluation on that or say we won't pave this area.

So what we're talking about is you know, in general terms, the north side of the project, which is the uphill side, is the side we don't want to pave.

The south, the downhill side where we need to capture all that stormwater, run it through the various processes, get the permits from NDEP before it ever goes anywhere.

That's the part we we we totally understand paving impervious surface, concrete, storm drain, all that stuff there.

We just we're looking for a little leeway on where that demarcation line is and if I may add, um, there's absolutely no way to get into a sand oil separator unless there is cubs, girk or curbs, gutters, concrete, asphalt, things along that line.

And that is a requirement.

So it has to be paved somewhere in concrete, somewhere.

It has to be.

Otherwise, it can't go through that, and that's a requirement.

So my question is to Janelle.

Would you sorry, I have to ask from an engineering standpoint, would it be okay to not pave the northern portion, somehow just pave the southern portion or asphalt or asphalt paved or um concrete, whatever curb gutter down the southern portion to try to trap all that water?

Is that a possibility that they don't do anything on the north end?

Janelle Thomas for the record.

Um I would suggest that you know it be presented as a as a design concept um to our engineering staff to evaluate to ensure that you know those inlets are available and that the water is being treated before it's being discharged to the Trekkie River.

Okay.

So how would we word that, Tim?

In the motion then Kathy Julian, for record, can I get a clarification?

Um when we're talking the northern side, that's the side away from the river.

It's closer to the freeway.

Closer.

Okay.

So and then it's slanted, so the water is going to come down towards the river, and that's where they have to catch all the water there.

Kind of like a storm drain type thing.

And there is a lot of storm drains in the city of Reno.

I know there was a comment made that have they have little fishes on them.

Those directly go straight into the river with no filtration at all.

So this is Peter.

I I just want to hit reset for a second and just remind the group that we're looking at a special use permit for grading and an administrative permit to establish a use.

I wish candidly, staff didn't bring up anything that is going to the director's modification.

And I hope legal agrees with me that I don't want to condition any motion on something that the director of planning who has professional training in this space to opine on the Kathy Julian for the record.

We're just looking at a decision we have to make that the use is allowable if it is not detrimental.

And you have a couple agencies who have said this would be detrimental if it is not paved.

And so as a board member, I'm looking at making a decision to say it's not going to be detrimental, but if I have agencies that tell me it will be detrimental if it is not paved, then what am I to do on that?

But staff staff just told us that they need to see an engineering design that contemplates all of this.

I'm not willing to condition the applicant when staff hasn't even opined on the specific design.

The piece from James English said it might proximity could lead to.

If the if the chairman allows, um Janelle Thomas for the record.

Um yes, there is a condition which requires that design to be presented during building permit, and that is condition 2M as in mother.

And we are we are confident that we can adequately protect the community with that with that condition in place.

So we don't need a change in it.

You guys have to do that.

I don't think I don't believe it's like it is.

Does legal have anything else to add at this time?

I I just wanted to add one thing when bringing up the request uh for a possible condition.

Um typically our recommendation is not to condition something that is code.

It is a code requirement, uh, and there is a separate avenue for the applicant to pro uh to request uh a modification of that code requirement, and they have done so.

So it's basically gone going on a uh a parallel path.

So again, I understand uh I do you understand your concerns, and typically we prefer bringing uh any varying requirements or varying requests before this board, but this is a little unique situation.

So uh the recommendation is uh not to condition the paving of of the uh the project, but instead to provide any any of your thoughts and and cons uh concerns to that regard.

Yeah, this is Peter.

Uh I think what staff asked for is commentary and and and thoughts from the Board of Adjustment to take to the director.

I think uh the record adequately reflects a host of our collective concerns.

Um so with that I'd like to try to proceed on the special use permit and the administrative permit I'm good.

Okay, I'll entertain a motion.

I'm just Rob, I'll make the motion.

I moved it after giving recent consideration the information containing staff report, information received in the public hearing, the Washington County Board of Adjustments approved, special use permit case WSUP 25 0021 and administrative permit case number WADMIN25-0005 for Lockwood Development Group LLC, but the conditions include an exhibit aid of this matter having made all five findings in accordance with Washington County Development Code 11080825 and 1181030 and waive the commercial structure requirements of section 11 through 0425 of the Washington County Development Code, as long as there are no buildings on site.

Kathy Julian, can I have a um clarification here?

Are we adding what the story county manager no?

Nope.

It is just exactly what is written here.

Uh Leo Horishny, for the record, will we be seeing this since we're waiting for the directors?

Um we won't see this again.

No.

I I should I shouldn't speak too quickly.

Uh not directly.

There is a possibility if uh if the applicant decides to appeal the decision of the director, then it can come back to the board.

So that's the nature of the process.

Yeah.

Uh we have to do that.

So was there a determination what the district attorney's office was going to determine whether this was legal to put a condition on it or not?

Has that been resolved or what member Julian asked?

I have not waited on because we had we had moved on, and I think there had been there is a motion pending right now.

Um this this is Leo Rishny.

I I I appreciate I appreciate the director um trying to keep this on track, but at the same time, we were here.

We have we have outside um legal requests, we have community input uh for request for modification.

And I believe that um having in the motion some specifics as to the fact of whether or not this will be landscaped or any attempt to be landscaped.

I think I think needs to be uh to me that that to me that's a that that's a deal breaker as far as this goes forward or not for my mystery.

We can't put an extra requirement that costs money on uh on the applicant uh without their approval.

I don't think we can this can't condition a condition and on a condition.

That's something that's within the director's modification purview.

You're you're being asked to opine on a grading special use permit and an administrative permit for the use.

Right.

Staff is gonna beat them up on all the requirements.

The director's modification is gonna tell them what to do relative to the landscaping.

But this pack called but for the record, didn't they ask for a waiver of the landscaping?

And that is within the director's purview, not ours.

Okay.

Yep.

Okay.

Kathy Julian, for the record.

I feel as though this is um essentially we're having, and this is unique.

We're being asked to opine on whether this is detrimental in these conditions, and yet we're not being allowed to put in the conditions that would mitigate.

And I am unclear as to why for instance for this landscaping, why that cannot happen.

The paving is a little bit more complicated.

But um I wouldn't be able to support this in the in the form here.

Uh this Pat Caldwell for the record.

I I guess I should go back to you know where this project evaluation is, and maybe this is hanging us up a little bit.

But it says staff is seeking guidance from the board of adjustment with regard to the applicant's request to eliminate all paving for the parking and circulation areas as well as requests to eliminate all landscaping on the site.

So having said that they've heard what we said.

Um it's on record, like um has already been mentioned, and so I'm comfortable.

I think now with knowing that the staff has heard our comments and um that we could proceed forward, and uh I I would be in favor of it because I have reliance on the staff that they will abide by the regulations and the director's inquiry, and so um do we need to make another motion or there's there's a motion uh on the table.

Uh this is Peter.

I will second the motion.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye, aye.

Any opposed, say nay.

Nay.

Motion passes.

Thank you.

Okay, that was fun.

If yeah, if I can, I'd like to read the uh appeal procedure.

Uh most decisions rendered by the board of adjustment are appealable to the board of county commissioners.

If you disagree with the decision of the board of adjustment and qualify as an agreed person or party, you may appeal in writing within 10 calendar days from the date that the decision be an appeal is reduced to writing, filed with the secretary of the board of adjustment and mailed to the original applicant and 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.

Okay, thank you.

Uh moving on to uh item nine, chair and board items.

Any future agenda items to discuss?

Uh this pack called up for the record.

Um, I think this was brought up maybe uh on the off record, but as far as the presentations to the board members on requirements and legal, and I think there's some sort of board education that is potentially in the works in January.

Is that still absolutely in the works?

We'll be uh sending out a reminder email shortly.

We're looking at I believe the 15th of January.

That's the current tentative schedule.

Did we ever get a request for that?

No, not yet.

Oh, well, then how do we know the 15th is gonna work?

Oh, I thought we sent I thought Brandon sent out the or if Brandon Brandon did then I thought.

Um I did not get it.

I didn't get it.

I wonder if that just went to our planning commission.

I didn't 15th.

Oh, well, then we'll make sure we send it out to the full uh this board as well.

I didn't even get it in the planning for the record because I don't have it on my calendar at all.

15th of January.

We'll make sure we uh we send that out and make sure that everybody is if if that doesn't work, uh let us know.

But we'll uh we'll send out an email uh asking for everybody's input.

Okay.

Great.

Okay, thanks, Trevor, for the clarification.

And uh I just wanted to apologize to the other board members that I couldn't be there in port in person.

Uh I'm trying to get through uh a little bug here that I didn't want anybody else to get either.

Thank you for not sharing.

Thank you.

Yes.

Yeah, okay.

Item 10 directors and legal counsel items.

Any uh previous board of adjustment items worth discussing?

Uh nothing to report on.

Okay.

Any legal information or updates?

Nothing, nothing to update on.

Okay, item 11, public comment.

Any general public comment?

There is no public comment in chambers or via Zoom.

Okay, it is 310.

This meeting is adjourned.