Recording in progress.

It is Tuesday, May 5th, 2026.

Happy Singer to Mayo.

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

Could we have a determination of quorum, please?

Jim Barnes.

Here.

Michael Flick.

Here.

Linda Kennedy.

Is absent.

Daniel Lazareski.

Here.

Kate Nelson.

Here.

Amy Owens.

Present.

Rob Pierce.

Present.

We have a quorum.

Thank you.

Would you please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance?

Thank you.

Could we have the ethics law announcing?

Thank you.

Commissioners are reminded that if with respect to any matter or any person coming before the commission today, you've received a gift alone, you have a pecuniary interest.

You have a commitment in a private capacity, such as family employment business or similar relationship, or if you've provided representation or counseling before an agency to a person or entity for compensation within the last year on a matter that's being considered, you have an obligation to disclose that gift loan interest commitment or prior representation at the time the matter is being considered.

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

Commissioners are also reminded pursuant to planning commission rules.

If you've had any contact with anyone outside this meeting interested in a matter coming before the commission today, you need to disclose the nature of that contact at the meeting.

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.

Do we have any general public comment at this time?

Yes, we have public comment in chambers.

We will start with Cliff Lowe, followed by Tammy Holt still.

Since the last time I spoke to you was uh January 6th of this year, um, which is a date many of you probably will remember.

Um I was only I was only one of dozens of people who spoke in opposition to this year reflections development on that very long night.

Um my comments tonight are umfortunately four months late.

Um after the after you reached your unanimous decision on that night, um like most of the public all the public.

I left and went out to the parking lot and I went to my car and realized that there was something I wanted to say in closing public comment.

I rushed back here, but you had understandably wrapped up your business for the night and had adjourned the meeting.

So my comments are that and I hope I hope they come across as sincere as I as I mean them.

I thank you for doing that for being on this commission.

I couldn't do it.

I've thought about it, thought about a number of things.

I couldn't do it.

For one thing, I'm too thin-skinned.

Um excuse me.

Sorry about that.

Um it's it has to be a difficult job.

In fact, I'm not sure it should be called a job, because I don't think you get paid, and I think people for jobs usually get paid.

Um it's often unrewarding, but I I also want to thank you, of course, for the decision that you reached.

Um that that you found you determined that you could not make at least one of the required findings.

Um that was a topic that many of us spoke about in public comment.

Unfortunately, the Board of County Commissioners rewarded your decision, as you likely know by reversing it on a vote of three to two.

And I think it's fair to say that the three at least two of the three who voted to reverse your decision, made their decision based on their relevant reasons, um, and paid little or no attention to the same findings that you were required that they were also required to make.

And I don't think that they did that.

I would like to think that you would make the same decision today if you had if you were faced with it again.

Um I just want to say thank you.

We have Tammy Holt still, followed by Russ Earl.

Please state your first and last name for the record.

And I'll need the overhead.

Thank you.

Tammy holds still for the record.

I know this isn't an easy thing for you guys to do, and I know you do a lot of work regarding it.

However, I think that there's a lot of issue with the fact that this board is in a no-win situation a lot of the time.

Number one, knowing all the NRSs is important because this NRS states that people have to lose twice to take it to judicial review.

It's in the NRS, it's right there.

Okay.

Without when you deny a project, and then it goes and you don't put all of the NRS for the findings showing a good reason why they shouldn't be overturning it, it will get overturned.

And what you have done at that point is you've made it so the residents cannot go to judicial review.

I learned this from experience.

I got sued because I wanted the planning commission, and then the commissioners overturned it for no good reason.

And I ended up getting sued for $1,500 from that developer.

So this NRS is very important for you guys to understand.

And I don't think anybody has ever brought it to your attention.

So I am bringing it to your attention now.

If you deny a project, and you know the commissioners are going to overturn it.

That's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Russ Earl.

Please state your name for the record.

Good evening.

Russ Earl for the record.

And this is pertaining general comment uh for item 9B, which is the SH.

And if I could have the overhead um.

Okay.

All right.

And this pertains uh to the parcel per listener.

It and this is part of the uh the map of the floodplain.

Uh this is Osage down here, and this all area in the green is where he's proposing.

His building.

So it's 53.22 acres.

Uh he's going to bring in 92,926 acres of fill, and he has 122,158 uh cubic yards of uh cut, which once you do all the math on that, it comes to about two and a half feet of material that he's gonna move into and get his property out of the flood zone and negatively impact the surrounding properties.

Uh I would say that that is a certain uh for you guys to be able to find a negative finding.

Um it has a financial negative benefit and environmental negative uh connotation.

It's a regional planning issue.

Uh the businesses out in the stead industrial park are all gonna be negatively impacted because now we've lost about 40 acre feet of water storage by him building this development and filling that area.

So, where is that water gonna go?

It's gonna more negatively impact the entire Silver Knowles community that's in the low end of our development.

And I can't see where there's any positive to this.

Reno has learned in Lemon Valley, it cost them over 10 million dollars.

They had approved development and planning out there, and they had to buy back properties in the end.

Does Washoe County want to take the liability for that?

I can't foresee that they have the finances to do that.

And I'll guarantee you the developer developer listener, he's not gonna reimburse anybody if they're negatively impacted by his development as he's making money off of this.

So I would hope that you could vote on this in a no and find that due to negative findings environmentally, uh financial and uh everything else.

The homeowners, they won't be able to get uh flood insurance or any insurance period down with this because there'll be it's gonna increase the flood zone too uh because there'll be less of a basin.

We're a close hydrologic basin, there's no place for this water to go.

So please think of that uh with your votes tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

And there is no public comment on Zoom.

That concludes public comment.

Thank you very much.

Um board had a chance to review the agenda for the evening.

Does anyone have any comments otherwise?

Can we have a motion to approve?

This is Rob, I make a motion to approve this meeting.

I'll second that.

All in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Uh huh.

The agenda is approved.

Uh has everyone had a chance to review the minutes from the April 7th meeting.

We have any comments or adjustments to that.

This is Rob, I make a move to approve is written.

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

The minutes from the April meeting are approved.

All right.

Uh Mr.

Lloyd, can you run us through uh just what the consent agenda means again in terms of uh process?

We approve it as a as a whole or request that items be pulled off of it for hearing.

Yes.

Uh yeah, the purpose of the consent agenda is we we have a number a number of these uh continuing items that uh that may come before you, such as an extension of time request that goes through the normal NRS uh process rather than having a full uh presentation and and uh discussion uh through the board.

Um the the board has uh this this commission has the um the purview whether or not they simply want to take action on the consent agenda or pull the items uh specifically any of the two items that are on the agenda tonight off of that agenda for discussion.

That's in the nutshell uh the purpose of the consent uh agenda.

Thank you.

Uh so if everyone's had a chance to review the consent agenda, uh does anyone have a desire to pull anything off of it for hearing or could I have a motion on the approval of the consent agenda?

Second.

Sorry, we have we haven't made the motion yet.

Oh I'm sorry.

Um do we have any public comment on the consent agenda overall?

I have no public comment in chambers or via Zoom.

Thank you.

All right, if if no one requests to pull items off of it, I will make a motion to approve the consent agenda as written.

Could I have a second?

This is Rob will second it.

Okay.

All those in favor?

I am any opposed.

The consent agenda is approved, and we're on to public hearings.

Mr.

Lloyd.

Okay, uh item 9A is um the amendment of conditions, case number WAC 26003 uh for Silverado Village at Eagle Canyon face is a one and two, and for special use permit case number WSCP 22001 and WTM 22001.

For hearing discussion and possible action to approve an amendment of conditions for special use permit case number WSCP 22 uh 0001 and tentative subdivision map case number WTM 22001, known as uh Silverado Village at Eagle Canyon phases one and two to redesignate point eight one acre and eight one acre parcel um to common area rather than common open space and to allow construction of a road through the parcel.

The application is submitted by Silverado Village Eagle Canyon LLC.

The subject property is located at Bethwyn Street off neighborhood way and consists of approximately 21.56 acres.

The site is currently governed by the commercial master plan land use designation and the neighborhood commercial regulatory zone district falling within the boundaries of the Spanish Springs planning area.

And stepping in for Julie Olander is planner Tim Evans representing uh Washoe County in this matter.

Thank you.

Tim Evans planner.

So the case before you today is amendment of conditions case number WAC 26-003 for Silverado Village.

So the request is to allow roadway through a 0.81 acre parcel, which has APN 5320219 as previously designated as common open space and change the designation to common area.

So it's just changing that common open space designation to common area for this request.

And so on the screen there is a vicinity map showing the parcel location for this subject request.

And so to give a bit of background, um, so on April 5th, 2022, the planning commission approved special use permit WSUP 22-0001 and WTM 22-001 for continuum of care cottages.

And so the special use permit was to allow for the continuum of care facility, um, seniors in accordance with table C3 of the Spanish Springs area plan and for major grading to the tune of 55,000 cubic yards.

Um and the tentative subdivision map was for a common open space tentative subdivision on 20 point 21.5 acres for 136 lots, ranging in size from 2,004 square feet to 2400 square feet.

And so moving forward on September 2nd, 2025, amendment of conditions uh case number WAC25-0014 was approved by the planning commission to amend the requirement that at least one occupant of each residence must be 62 years or older to at least 80 percent of the occupied residences must be occupied by at least one person who is 55 years or older.

So that was that amendment of conditions on September 2nd, 2025.

And then coming forward, bringing it forward to this year on January 6th, 2026, amendment of conditions WAC 25-0019 was approved by the planning commission to amend uh changing the use type from continuum of care, um senior to senior housing reduced to the reduced the total number of residential units from 136 units to 134 and removed all conditions associated with medical requirements and equipment for a continuum of care facilities use type.

And so to give some evaluation on this request.

Um, so the applicant is now requesting to allow a private roadway through that 0.181 acre parcel mentioned earlier.

Um, and that was as previously shown in the approved development as common open space.

So, like mentioned before, it's going from common open space to common common area.

Um, and then the roadway will connect the subdivision to the proposed subdivisions known as Silverado 3 to the south, and per Washoe County Code section 110408.45D, public or private vehicular streets are not allowed in areas designated as common open space.

So that is why there's that change going from common open space to common area.

Um, and then the request itself will change the acreage of common open space from 10.42 acres to 9.61 acres for the total 21.56 acre site.

And so continuing on, so the applicant wants to connect the two developments by this roadway and is requesting to amend um tentative uh map WTM 22-001 to accomplish the change.

Um, and the roadway will allow all residences access to the amenities located in both subdivisions and provides access to neighborhood way from the proposed subdivision Silverado 3.

And so on the screen there at the very top, you can see that 0.81 acre parcel.

It is uh the subject of this amendment of conditions, and it shows the where that connection would would occur going in between or through that 0.81 acre parcel.

And so noticing for this project did occur.

Um parcels within 500 feet from the site were noticed of the amendment of conditions, and a total of 45 notices were sent out, and no emails or phone calls were received as a result of noticing.

So in relation to reviewing agencies and findings and the motion.

So various departments and agencies were provided.

The project application for review, and their comments are included in the staff report.

Um agencies with conditions are included in the conditions of approval.

And staff is able to make all findings as shown in the staff report and possible a possible motion and possible motions can be found in the staff report as well.

And I am available for questions as is the applicant.

Thank you.

Does the applicant have their own presentation or no?

I take it they don't.

Um question.

Yeah.

All right, as you're uh if this goes through and you're converting uh open space to uh community access or whatever it is for the road.

Is that a private or a public road?

Who may who's responsible for the maintenance of the road?

Mike Evans, for the record, I'm with Silverado Homes, the applicant.

Those are that is a private road.

That community, both phases one and two, which is approved, uh, is private roads, and then the proposed phase three will also be private roads.

So the road connection just allows the community, even though we call it different phases to function as one.

Okay, thank you.

All right, do we have any public comment on this item?

There is no public comment via Zoom or on in chambers.

Thanks very much.

Uh any further uh questions from the commission.

Discussion deliberations or uh we have a couple of proposed motions.

All right.

On the special use permit, I move that after giving reasoned consideration to the information contained in the staff report and the information received during the public hearing.

The Washoe County Planning Commission approve amendment of conditions case number WAC26-0003 for special use permit case number WSUP 22-0001 for Silverado Homes Nevada Incorporated with conditions included as exhibit A to this matter, having made all five findings in accordance with Washoe County Code Section 110.810.30.

Commissioner Nelson, I'll second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

And with regard to the tentative subdivision map, I move that after giving reason consideration to the information contained in the staff report and the information received during the public hearing.

The Washaw County Planning Commission approve amendment of conditions case number WAC25-0019 for tentative subdivision map, case number WTM 22-001 for Silverado Homes, Nevada Incorporated with the conditions included as exhibit A to this matter.

Having made all 10 findings in accordance with Walshrow County Code Section 110.608.25.

Commissioner Nelson, I'll second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

The motion carries.

Thank you.

Mr.

Lloyd.

Yeah, thank you.

This next item is uh tentative subdivision map, case number WTM 2600 two, Osage Road and special use permit uh case number WSUP 26004 for the Osage Road Infrastructure.

For hearing discussion and possible action to approve a special use permit for a sewer lift station, which is classified as a utility service use type, and a common open space tentative subdivision map for a 131 lot common open space development with lots ranging in size from 5,310 square feet to 15,515 square feet.

The project will include grading of approximately one hundred and twenty two thousand cubic yards of cut and ninety two thousand nine hundred and twenty six cubic yards of fill.

If we could please have just like a five minute recess to get this presentation out.

Sure thing.

It's 635.

We'll reconvene.

The presentation is ready for Mr.

Evans to make the staff report.

Tim Evans, planner.

So the cases before you today are uh is the first one is tentative subdivision map case number WTM 2626-002 and special use permit case number WSUP 26-0004.

So to give a bit of background on the project site, um, so the property itself is located at 10600, 10100, and 10101 Osage Road.

And it also includes a portion of Osage Road.

Um so the entire development itself encompasses 53.22 acres.

It is located within the North Valley's planning area, and the subject parcels are zoned medium density suburban and public slash semi-public facilities.

And so the request specifically for the tentative subdivision map is for a proposed common open space development, and as mentioned earlier, it will be the subject parcels are 53.22 acres, and the number of lots proposed is 131 lots.

Um the lots will range in size from 5300, just slightly over 5300 square feet, um, to 15,515 square feet.

Um, and in addition with this tentative subdivision map, there is associated grading as well.

Um, and the special use permit request is for a sewer lift station.

And there on the right side of the screen, you can see the layout of the proposed subdivision.

And so, as mentioned earlier, the number of lots proposed is 131 lots, and what is on the screen is the actual density calculations based on the minimum density or the uh density allowed for the medium density suburban zone and the public semi-public facilities.

Um so as far as the dwelling units per acre that are allowed in MDS or that medium density suburban zone, it's three dwelling units per acre, and for the public semi-public facilities, there is no density allowed for dwelling units.

So going through the calculations and the by the acreage, it comes out to 131 lots that are allowed, and that is what is proposed.

So this is as mentioned earlier, a common open space development.

Um so specifically Article 408 of Washoe County Development Code sets forth the requirements for common open space development.

And so common open space allows for minimum lot sizes and lot minimum lot widths to be modified and lot setbacks to be modified as well.

And so as mentioned earlier, the lot sizes will range from about just over 5300 square feet to just over 15,000 square feet.

And the common open space is commonly used to allow the density clustering in an effort to do a total of approximately five of the following, and that would be preserve or provide open space, protect natural and scenic resources, achieve a more efficient use of land, minimize road building, and encourage a sense of community.

And so as part of this common open space development, the applicant is proposing to modify the setbacks, and Article 408, as mentioned, does allow for that.

Um so what is being proposed is really a modification of the side setbacks in relation to the MDS zoning itself as it is applied to the property, requires a 20-foot front setback, an eight-foot side setback, and a 20-foot rear setback.

And so what is actually being modified as far as the setbacks go, as mentioned is the side setbacks, which would be changed to five feet and eleven feet instead of just the eight feet.

And so as part of the common open space, there is common open space areas that are landscaped that are proposed as well as trails.

And so there on the site right side of the screen, you can see the yellow line there that goes and traverses the exterior of the proposed subdivision, shows the trail that is proposed as part of as part of this common open space subdivision.

And so, as mentioned earlier, as part of this subdivision map, there is grading that will be involved.

Total excavation would be 122,158 cubic yards.

Fill would be 92,926 cubic yards.

And in relation to these two specific thresholds, it does trigger major grading requirements within Washoe County Code, specifically Article 438 of Washoe County Code.

And so the project was sent to multiple agencies for review, one of them being the engineering department, and engineering reviewed the proposed grading plan, grading and drainage plan that was provided with the application.

And they provided a condition stating that a set of construction improvement drawings specifically showing on site grading should be provided during any building or grading permits in the future.

And so as far as biological biological resources go, a biological resource assessment was submitted with the application.

It was prepared by NCE.

And the analysis was for the project boundary and or the project area itself, and then outside of that, going out a one with a one mile buffer.

And so special status species were identified with the potential to occur in the analysis analysis area.

And there are recommended mitigation measures that have been incorporated as conditions of approval within exhibit A.

And in addition to that, it was also sent to the Nevada Department of Wildlife for review and comment.

And so conditions were provided by End Ow in relation to the project, specific to wildlife friendly fencing, appropriately shielding lighting with for homes or whatever it may be, as well as best management practices for garbage disposal due to being within a bear habitat.

And so all of those comments have been addressed with conditions in exhibit A of the staff report.

And so as far as cultural resources go, so in the unanticipated discovery of any prehistoric or historic resources, as well as human remains, which is a possibility, conditions of approval are being recommended to require notes on the final map, specifically addressing the discovery of those and what should occur if that is to occur.

And so those conditions, those have been made conditions of approval in the staff report, and it is part of exhibit A.

And additionally, a condition of approval requires the submission of a cultural resources survey prior to the recordation of the final map.

And so in relation to flood, the project site is partially located within a special flood hazard area, specifically the zone AE special flood hazard area.

The property is also located in within FEMA flood zone X and FEMA flood zone X shaded.

And so you can see the location.

Um with our FEMA mapping, but it does show the approximate boundaries for that zone AE special flood hazard area as well as the zone X there on the right side of the screen.

And so again, this was reviewed or this project was reviewed by Washoe County Engineering, and a total of five conditions were provided in relation to the floodplain.

And those have been included in the staff report as conditions of approval in exhibit A.

So in relation to the school district, so this project was sent for review to the Washoe County School District.

And so it is zoned, or this property is zoned for the Desert Heights Elementary School, Cold Springs Middle School, and the North Valleys High School.

And so comment was received from the school district stating that they have available capacity should this development move forward.

And so in relation to the sheriff and structural fire protection.

So this was sent to the Trucking Meadows Fire Protection District, as well as the Sheriff's Office and also the City of Reno Fire Department for review.

And so one thing to note about the project itself is that, or the location and agreements between Trucking Meadows Fire Protection District and the City of Reno Fire Department.

There is an automatic aid agreement between TMFPD and the City of Reno Fire Department that requires fire service to be provided by the agency that is closest to the call.

And so as I go along in this presentation, that'll make a little bit more sense.

But that's one important point to keep in mind.

And then with the extension of Echo Avenue, the City of Reno Fire Station number nine will be approximately one and a half miles east of the project site.

So there will be, as proposed with the subdivision, a connection or extension of Echo Avenue, allowing fire trucks and things like that to be able to get to this specific area that they never previously had access or quick access from fire station number nine.

And so project information as stated was provided to the Washoe County Sheriff's Office and the Reno Fire Department and the Trucking Meadows Fire Protection District for review.

And so no responses or comments was were received from the Sheriff's Office or the Reno Fire Department.

However, I did speak specifically with one of the captains at the sheriff's office in relation to this project, and specifically in relation to the number of deputies or whatever it may be on staff for this specific area in the North Valleys.

And what was explained to me is that staffing will remain as it is, and they have not changed any staffing levels or anything like that within the last three years.

And so there's that piece.

And then as far as response times.

So I also spoke to emergency services in relation to response times and how long it potentially may take for emergency services to serve this area.

And so, based on their response, it would be their standard response time of about 15 minutes and 59 seconds.

And so the Trucker Meadows Fire Protection District, they did provide a comment when we sent this out for review.

And so all of their comments are conditions of approval in exhibit A.

And so public utilities currently exist within Echo Avenue, and they are they have the ability to be extended to serve the proposed subdivision.

And as mentioned earlier, there is a part of this part of the requests before you today is for a special use permit for a sewer lift station.

And the sewer lift station on the right side of the screen, you can see it's somewhat highlighted in that little square blue box, and it'll be approximately 750 square feet if that sewer lift station is actually needed.

And so sewer service would be provided and would end up, um, will end up at the Reno Stead Water Reclamation Facility, which I've confirmed with the City of Reno, since they are the ones that oversee that facility, that they have capacity to serve the proposed subdivision.

And so water service would be provided by the Trucking Meadows Water Authority, and I also spoke with them as well, and they stated that they have no concerns in relation to this project, and that there are utilities within Echo Avenue that could be extended to serve the subdivision.

Concerning roadways and traffic, a traffic impact study was provided with the application, and it was prepared by professional engineer, a professional engineer of GCW for the proposed project.

And so, as a result of that preparation of that traffic impact study, there will be approximately 1,270 daily trips and a total of about 95 a.m.

peak hour trips and 127 p.m.

peak hour trips.

And so proposed improvements for roadways and traffic in relation to this project.

One would be to pave approximately 1.41 miles of Osage Road, and the other would be to extend Echo Avenue, as I mentioned earlier.

And so Washoe County Engineering did review this project and the project information and provided a total of 23 conditions concerning traffic in roadways, and which included traffic calming measures as well.

That is one thing that seemed to come up with some of the public comments that I received were concerns with traffic speed and things like that.

And that is one of the conditions that engineering has recommended is uh to address traffic calming measures.

So that is included in exhibit A.

And so as mentioned, this project was sent out to multiple agencies for review.

A total of 35 agencies received the project information for review, and a total of four agencies, those being in Dow Engineering, Truckee Meadows Fire Protection District, and the Washoe Story Conservation District provided conditions of approval, and those are included in exhibit A of the staff report.

And so noticing did occur for this project.

A total of 52 property owners were noticed, and a total of actually now, as of about an hour ago or so, 13 public comments were received in relation to this project.

And all public comments received were in opposition to the project.

So staff is able to make all required findings as detailed in the staff report, specifically for the tentative map findings.

Staff is able to make all required findings for the common open space findings and relate as stated in the staff report.

And staff is able to make all required findings as detailed in the staff report for the special use permit.

And staff recommends the planning commission approve tentative subdivision map.

WTM 26-002 and special use permit case number WSUP26-0004 and provides the motions on the screen as well as in the staff report.

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

All right, thank you.

If the applicant would like to make that presentation, good evening, Mr.

Chairman, members of the commission, Mr.

Lloyd, good to see you.

For the record, Garrett Gordon tonight representing Lifestyle Homes.

With me tonight is Mr.

Bob Listener, who has developed a homes in North Valleys for approximately 38 years.

And his son, Peter Listener, who is uh built most of those homes uh and currently resides in the North Valleys in one of their developments.

It's always great representing uh a local developer.

Um tonight before you is two applications uh bundled together for a tentative map as well as a special use permit.

Uh Mr.

Evans did a great job with this presentation, so I will try not to be uh redundant, but just hit a couple uh main points.

So you've heard about the location, uh, 52 acres north of Silver Lake, um, includes Osage Road between um Calamaria Street and Red Rock Road.

Vacant land, uh, just one dwelling unit.

You can see on the map to the right, and I did do this presentation to you for the zone change and the master point amendment.

And one of the the points that was made when we move forward with this rezoning, you could see on the right hand side is it is somewhat of a transition area because you have city of Reno to the east, uh, you have industrial manufacturing buildings to the east.

This project, 131 units, uh, is a natural transition into the existing uh densities that are located uh to the west.

Um the property is bisected by Osage Road, as we've talked about before.

That road is actually currently owned by Lifestyle Homes, and they will be improving it for this development.

Um, and again, it's 131 lots.

So a common open space development, 131 lots.

Um, the common area we've discussed.

Uh we are improving Osage Road, but that connection from Echo Avenue to Osage from the right hand side, uh, east to west.

Uh, it was noted a few times in the staff report how important that actually is for a couple of reasons.

One, it gives the neighborhood now two ways out uh from um where they live, not only this project, but the surrounding neighborhood.

Uh, they can now exit this area on the Red Rock to the west or on Echo uh to the east.

It was also noted, and I might note this a couple times because it's so important.

Uh, fire has noted now that there will be a connection to Echo and the City of Reno Fire Station number nine will be responding.

There's increased response times, not only to this development, but to the surrounding area.

So that's a big deal too, connecting Echo to this area.

And it's not random to connect echo because that is in the RTC RTP plan to have Echo connect to Red Rock.

And so this development is facilitating that at its own cost to make that uh connection.

On-site retention, I'll hit this a couple times, but when I stood before you for zoning, one of the big questions and many of you remember was the flooding and what we would be doing to mitigate that flooding.

And I told all of you that given we were talking about zoning and master pond amendments, changing the colors on the map, that you couldn't really condition it.

But I made a commitment to you that when I came back on behalf of lifestyle, that we would not only make the situation status quo or the same, it would get better.

And why is that?

Because um Washoe County has on its books uh the retention requirement, the mitigation requirement to one to three.

So we have to make the situation 30% better.

So we're not just saying nothing will change, we have these retention ponds on site, don't worry surrounding neighborhood, nothing will change.

Actually, it says, and then the staff report of not to take my word for it, but from staff, uh it says by providing this additional flood storage capacity, and I quote it will lower the chances of extreme flooding events for surrounding properties with the development of this site.

The on-site retention ponds will be reseeded and returned to a natural state.

So you can see here to the right, to the south of the property where it was in the flood zone, it's all retention ponds now.

It'll capture all of that stormwater flow onto the site and capture it heading into those communities to the north and to the west.

There's also a retention site in the middle of the development as well, that also will capture any stormwater from the impervious surfaces from the development on the roads and driveways will go into that site.

So everything is captured on site, and it's not only mitigating the flows that would head north or west, but capturing 30% more of them, and then staff's language and staff's words, it will reduce dramatically any flood risk to this area thanks to this, uh thanks to this development.

And I should note a lot of times these retention ponds, attention bonds, as all of you know, are owned and managed and paid for by the county.

Not the case here.

The developer will be constructing these retention ponds and then turn it over to the HOA.

And so these residents will be maintaining on their dollar these retention ponds that not only protects these homes, but homes to the north and west.

So it's a really good system, it complies with code, and you saw what was um explained by staff, all those reviewing agencies from the engineering department to the health department, all have signed off on this, that this is a very good plan.

With me today is also who drew this plan is Wood Rogers.

Um I have a planner, I have a civil engineer and a hydrologist.

If any of you have specific questions.

And again, don't forget what lifestyle does in the North Valleys.

They build entry-level housing, attainable housing.

And so that's this vision for here as well.

Um, I've talked about the on-site retention ponds, but I'll again stress that that absolutely mitigates flooding from a legal requirement, from a planning requirement, from an engineering department.

It's no doubt that it makes the situation better for the surrounding area.

Residential adjacency, um, staff didn't touch on this, so I will.

It was important to us as it is in all lifestyle development projects to make sure we're being compatible or sensitive or respectful to the surrounding area.

So you can see some enhanced setbacks and buffers between 60 feet to 40 feet to 25 feet.

And you saw on the trail system provided by staff, the this area that you can see that shows the 2540 and 60, that's part of the trail network along the road there.

And that trail network goes all around the property and will in fact be open to the public as well.

And also Osage, the county is requiring us to have a sidewalk on the north side of Osage to connect Red Rock to Echo.

So there should finally be a nice pedestrian pathway, pedestrian access from Red Rock on sidewalks, a nice trail system in and around this area that eventually will send you off to Echo if that's where you'd like to go.

So absolutely we check that box for trails and pedestrian paths and connectivity.

The roadway improvements, as I mentioned for Osage, that in fact will be improved with that sidewalk on the north side of Osage.

Traffic, um, as as staff mentioned, um, the traffic study was conducted.

Uh that connection to Echo Avenue and Osage is in the RTC plan.

So it is coming, it is planned for it, it is needed.

And of course, that plan was approved by the Washa County Commission, so it's been signed off by the county that this is a needed uh connection.

Let me again say, and not to be too redundant, but um that connection to Echo definitely provides the surrounding area with another route uh to get out of the area, and also not only day to day but the emergency route.

That only not only do would they dump onto with the residents and these residents and the surrounding residents dump on the red rock for an emergency, but now they have certainly this project will not be gated or anything like that, it'll be open uh and residents can evacuate on echo in the event there's an emergency.

So that's a benefit.

And also, as I mentioned, in improved response times now that uh station nine will be serving this area.

Then we also say in regards to traffic, two points.

One is it's um based on our traffic engineers um review, which was reviewed by your county as well.

We imagine about less than 30% of the trips taken out of this development will head west.

So about 30% head west on Red Rock, and 70% just because of proximity and access and circulation plans will head on Echo.

So it won't even be a 50-50 split.

We anticipate 70-30.

So certainly less trips going on Osage than there will be on Echo.

And then it's also good to keep in mind, I mean, 130, you guys have seen some very big subdivisions in your time, but 131 is small compared to a lot of those.

But those AM peak trips, you heard the number 95 trips, that's less than two per minute.

And PM trips, it's about two per minute.

So not necessarily a lot of trips for this particular 131 development project, which is now mitigated with Osage and connection to to Echo.

Um again, this is uh a really important slide.

And I know there was some comment about who has reviewed uh this particular proposal.

And I'm just now on page 34 of the staff report reviewing agencies.

Environmental protection has approved this plan, Nevada uh water resources, Department of Water Resources, Washa County Building and Safety, Washa County Water Rights, Washaw County Engineering, Northern Nevada Public Health, Truckee Meadows Regional Planning.

Uh, this went to them, there was no comments in regards to any concerns about regional the regional plan.

So many um qualified uh experts in their field in this particular field of retention and flood have reviewed this and have signed off that yes, our onset retention ponds will provide for an additional 30% of flood storage, so 30% above and beyond what's happening today to make the situation better in regards to flooding in this particular area.

And we will, as we modify that flood zone with fill uh and move it out of uh certain flood areas.

Uh staff was very diligent in their conditions, and the conditions are very clear uh that before any occupancy, we have to receive our conditional letter of map revision or a clomar uh to ensure that what we're saying is actually true.

Uh what we're saying uh is based on a draft hydrology report that staff reviewed.

We need to have a final hydrology report, a time of final map.

So there'll be a whole nother level of review at the final map, whole nother level review of the final hydrology uh report by all these agencies to make sure what we're saying is in fact accurate, which we believe it is, and which we leave staff is believes as well, given their recommendation.

Utilities and services, um, water we will be provided uh by Tama Municipal Sanitary Um sewer um lift station as we talked about, uh that's needed for gravity flows to get sewer um uh out.

Uh we've talked about extending uh Echo Avenue.

Um it's important to note that this lift station is only sized to serve this 131 lots.

We're not putting a lift station in that's double the capacity, so more developers or more lots can connect to it.

It's only these 131 lots.

And I would note you can see fire hydrants will be provided along all local streets and along Osage Road.

And let me just note in the staff report uh this was written by uh the sheriff and the uh Trucking Meadows Fire Protection District.

They say, again, City of Reno Fire Station 9 will be approximately 1.5 miles east of the project site.

The extension of Echo Avenue will significantly improve response time for properties surrounding the project site.

In addition, the proposed fire hydrants, which you see up here within the development, the project is also proposing to install fire hydrants at the north and west boundaries along Osage.

So you can see not only internally but externally to the project, these extra hydrants will increase the area that can be utilized in the event of a fire, benefiting the surrounding areas.

So I would say no surprise that lifestyle always tries to go above and beyond.

They have developed up there for a long time.

Uh Peter Lisner lives up there.

Uh, this is another effort to go above and beyond, and we appreciate it was noted by the sheriff and Trucking Meadows Fire Protection District.

This lift station, I'm happy to answer any questions here, but it's pretty straightforward uh just for gravity flows to connect um to the uh municipal sewer system.

But again, just wanted to stress it's sized just for this project, nothing more.

So to conclude, we had a neighborhood meeting on January 21st.

Um in February, uh submitted the use permit application in March, um, worked very diligently with staff at all reviewing agencies that come up with not only these uh I would say um very supportive comments in the staff report, but if you look at all the reviewing agencies and gosh, about uh 20 pages of conditions uh that puts uh legal requirements of what we have to do.

Everything I've set up here is not just saying it, but it's a requirement in the can in the um in the conditions.

So when the final map comes back to staff, this will be the exact project along with all the reviewing agencies' comments.

And that's our presentation.

I appreciate the time tonight.

Like I said, um, I'm here for any questions.

So are our uh planner from Wood Rogers, hydrologist from Wood Rogers, and civil no civil engineer from Wood Rogers.

And thank you, Mr.

Chairman, for the time.

All right, thank you very much.

Uh do we have public comment on this item?

Yes, in chambers, I have Tommy Holt, followed by Russ Earl.

Okay.

I need the overhead.

Tammy holds still for the record.

You all received this.

As you can see by the DRI report, Silver Lake is attached to Swan Lake, especially when they put in a lift station and their stormwater runs out runoff runs into their sewer, and then their sewer goes over to the Stead sewer plant, and the Stead sewer plant pushes it right on to Swan Lake.

That's a problem.

You got both of these pages.

Washoe County was not sued back in 2019.

It was the city of Reno, even though the city of Reno wanted Washoe County included.

But by taking away the floodplain, the natural floodplain.

You are increasing everybody's chances of flooding.

Also, my one of my residents who's gotten very good at Lomars Clomars.

It should not be a Clomar.

It should be a Lomar-F.

Reason being the residents should be approving it before it gets developed.

Look into it.

That's your responsibility as being on this board to understand it all.

Your staff that is telling you that they should recommend this.

It's a lot of water.

Silver Lake has not gone down since 2017.

There's a good reason for that.

In my research, is because of the amount of water that is being pumped into the aquifer.

So it doesn't let the saturation of Silver Lake go into the aquifer like it's supposed to.

Development is good when we need it, but development for the sake of developing is not good, especially when the developer doesn't come through with his promises to begin with.

And I believe that every single developer should have a performance clause or performance bond now, so that everything is done and done accurately, and we keep their money until they do it correctly.

We know this person hasn't.

Thank you.

Next in chambers, I have Russ Earl lastly, followed by Catherine Yarte.

Good evening, Russ Earl for the record.

I'd like to read you something here.

I am informal opposition to the development lead development currently scheduled for voting, based on significant concerns regarding the accuracy, consistency, and transparency of the transportation infrastructure assumptions that have been relied upon to justify recent rezonings in this area.

Prior to December of 2024, the 2050 RTP Regional Transportation Plan identified the widening of Red Rock Road from US 395 to Placerville Drive as a long-term project plan for the 2030 to 2050 timeframe.

However, staff reports prepared for the White Owl and Red Rock Road RZA and the Osage RZA unexplicably advanced this timeline to 2026 to 2030.

This accelerated schedule was explicitly relied upon during both planning commission and board of county commissioners' deliberations, making these rezonings appear feasible based on assumed near-term roadway capacities and safety improvements.

After project approvals were granted and applicable appeal periods had expired, the Red Rock Road widening timeline quietly reverted back to 2050, as reflected on page 147 of the current RTP.

This change is deeply concerning.

During the Osage RZA proceedings, the project engineer expressly stated the project support hinged on the fact that, quote, the map would not be approved if the widening had not occurred, unquote.

Underscoring that the earlier timeline was a material factor in securing approval.

The lack of consistency and clarity surrounding the Red Rock Road widening ski uh widening schedule undermines public trust in the planning process and raises serious uh excuse me uh it undermines public trust in the planning process and raises serious questions about whether these rezonings were approved based on assumptions that are no longer valid.

Advancing high-intensity development or meet mid-development uh in this case based on near-term infrastructure that later proves to be decades away, places existing residents, road users, and emergency responders at risk and shifts the burden of inadequate infrastructure onto the surrounding community.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that the planning commission pause further development approvals relying on the Red Rock Road Quarter, clarifying which infrastructure tilam is accurate and enforceable, and reconsider whether the approvals previously granted remain appropriate in light of the reverted RTP schedule.

At a minimum, this discrepancy warrants transparent public discussion and reassessment before additional entitlements are approved.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Lastly in Chambers, we have Catherine Yarte.

Uh good evening, Catherine Yarte for the record.

I actually just have questions that I feel would be appropriate for you to ask because these are things that I don't understand.

So I'm going to pose it as a question for you to consider or for the developers.

Do you consider um it was mentioned that the HOA would be responsible for maintaining the retention ponds as part of their HOA fees?

Will the HOA have the ability to amend their bylaws and transfer that responsibility in the future?

I live in a POA.

We amend our bylaws a lot.

So knowing that that long-term vision, is that something that we would be facing that the county may have to take back over?

Who would the responsibility fall to to ensure that those are being maintained properly?

And secondly, um I appreciate the inclusion of the sidewalks.

I don't see the value in connecting a sidewalk to Red Rock Road when Red Rock Road is uh not include, does not have sidewalks, and it also has very minimal shoulders and is incredibly dangerous for any sort of pedestrian or non-motorized vehicle traffic in its current state.

So I just want those ideas to be considered.

That's all I got.

Thank you.

All right.

Um we'll bring it back to the board.

Does anyone on the board?

I apologize, sir.

We we have a hand raised on Zoom.

Kirk, if you will please unmute and say your first and last name for the record.

Yeah, Kirk Johnson here.

I live at 8600 Osage Road.

And I was just uh uh wanted to comment on where does the water go from you know, midway on Osage Road?

It's gonna go in the retention pond that's already full behind my property.

And if you pave it, there's there's nothing in the plans that shows where that water is going to flow to.

You can't flow it uphill to Mr.

Listener's development.

So and also on the proposal, I saw that you know, in his retention pond on the southwest corner.

Like their emergency overflow would go into the already full one.

So that's just a concern I have uh about that.

And that's that's all I got.

Thank you.

Thank you for your time.

We have no further public comment.

All right, thank you.

Um does the board have questions for staff or the applicant.

Earlier I called you on that uh 2050 RTP to change.

Because if I remember right, um WRZA 240004 back in November of 24 called out the widening of Red Rock Road as what are the uh approvals on this.

Um, and it was the way I understand it is it was a guarantee that it was going to be done, or there would not be a tentative map filing.

What did we find out about that?

Tim Evans.

Tim Evans, planner.

Um, so as far as that goes, I was able to speak with um staff over at the Regional Transportation Commission earlier today in relation to that and tried to get some background on what was originally proposed in the previous RTP and then what is currently proposed in the current one that sounds like it was recently updated.

Um and so what they provided me with is that um that it's 2035 to 2050 is the time frame for that.

Um they weren't able to go back in and under set short notice and go back and look at previous documents that they have in relation to the 2026 to 2030 and to go back to that 2026 to 2030.

Um the previous staff report or the staff reports for that regulatory zone amendment for um OSH and what White Owl, um that was referenced in the traffic impact um analysis that was done um and that was an exhibit to the the project application.

Um so that's where that came from.

I looked through the staff report itself, and staff never referenced any of that or leaned on that piece at all in the staff report um in making the find or recommending that the findings could be made.

Um, but that's that's where that came from.

And yeah, it didn't come necessarily from staff saying that or anything like that.

Um, but yeah, as far as that time period, I was informed by RTCs that it's 2035 to 2050.

Okay, yeah, it was brought up with the White Owl project, which was just a little bit further down the road, and that one was the RWRZA 24-0003.

Um, and that's the one that that it was discussed back and forth because you have to get past Osage to go to White Owl, and that's where it was brought up that it was going to be widened.

And I I seem to remember sitting here on the board, and we all were like, well, if it gets widened, then you know it's not gonna cause too much of an issue.

And um it ultimately got approved.

The White L one did, and I believe that it was based upon the widening of Red Rock Road, and I'm just a little concerned that if we don't widen Red Rock Road on this, that we're gonna have a problem.

We've already got a problem with a lot of the roads, Spanish Springs because they're not widened.

We've got big projects coming in.

That haven't been built yet, and so I'm a little concerned that Red Rock Road really needs to be widened.

You know, I know I understand that that wouldn't be a developer's deal, that would be RTCs.

But I think that it was because it was brought up and it was and the point was Habered Home that that should be looked at as part of this project.

Um, whether it's an RTC issue or not, I don't know, but um that just makes me lose public trust and RTC because it's not being brought up in this project.

Um was there any discuss, any discussion with RTC about moving up the timeline?

Or was it stuck with uh 2036 to 2050?

Because back in those days it was 2026 to 2030.

Yeah, so as far as the timeline goes, I didn't we didn't get into that, you know, whether or not the timeline would be moved up or anything like that.

Okay, and then you talked with the sheriff's office today because I had that concern when I called you correct, and they said that they are not changing the level of staffing.

Exactly.

Yeah, so I ended up talking to the commander that's in control of patrol, okay, and he specifically stated that they have not changed anything in the within the last three years as far as staffing capacity in that area.

Okay, because I had heard just heard last week that they just changed that, and there was only gonna be one deputy out there, but you're saying no.

Okay, correct.

Um what about on the flooding?

Well, not flooding, I'm sorry, on the retention ponds.

Are we taking into account the subdivision that's up above them that the water's coming down in?

Jadelle, have you did you look at that?

Because I know that we've been having some discussions with the subdivision up above the silver knolls subdivision and the water coming down and flooding an area just above this OSA place.

Is that taken into consideration with these retention ponds?

Janelle Thomas, senior licensed engineer for the record.

Um we are exploring what that um current drainage looks like at this point and um analyzing it uh in the Silver Knolls area around I believe it's Bodie and Crockett area.

Um, but that's not tied to this project.

So what I will share is that this project has an obligation to look at the or analyze the existing conditions that are in place today.

Um, and they have to include that in their analysis when they're presenting their design for development.

So they have to look at that before they can get it.

In every case, they have to look at existing conditions and then what the impact of that project um results in for the hydrology and the hydraulics of the project site.

Okay, all right, because I know that we've been having a lot of discussions with the residents up there and how they have to keep the ditches clean and they have to do all that.

And I just want to make sure that that's gonna be mitigated in this.

That's all gonna be looked at.

They're gonna be looking at the neighborhood.

Okay.

In your mind, um, do you feel it's gonna be adequately handled in this?

I'm gonna stand behind our recommendation within the staff report with the conditions that support this development that this can be um developed in a responsible manner.

Okay.

Okay.

Um I think that was all the questions I had.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

Go ahead.

Um so who owns the lift station and who's responsible for maintaining it?

Your HOA Janelle Thomas for the record.

Um wouldn't consider this to be my subject matter expertise, but I do understand that if a lift station does um present itself as the viable option um for sewage disposal, that it will be um it will be designed and then dedicated designed to Washoe County standards and dedicated to Washoe County for overall maintenance.

So it will okay.

Yeah, the individual lines that um lead into that, if they are within private roadways, that will be a private system.

Okay, so the list station would be Washoe Counties in the in the lawn.

So that particular lift station is going to be on public property.

Yes, it would have to be placed on a um Washoe County easement or parcel, probably parcel, um, in fee simple um terms.

Okay, which leads to another question.

Um you mentioned the the streets, interior streets um of the development.

Are those uh dedicated streets or does the HON them?

And again, who maintains them?

Uh thanks for the questions, uh Commissioner.

The interior streets of the development will be private, will stay private and will be owned and maintained by the HOA.

By the HO by the residents in their HOA, correct.

Okay.

Along with the retention basins.

Right.

Is there anything else that's thrown into common open space in the common area?

Yeah, I think seven acres, if I recall correctly, of a park common area that will be maintained uh as as well.

I would call that too.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, sir.

I do have one more one of the one of the public comments was about the C C and R regulations, or those gonna be are those down the road, are those gonna be open to be transferred.

Um thanks for the question, Commissioner.

Um my understanding is those retention basins will continue to be maintained and owned and operated by the HOA.

And even if the HOA arbitrarily tried to amend their CC and Rs to transfer, like the county would have to accept them.

And my understanding was the county was not willing to accept those, and they're gonna stay and remain private and operated by the HOA.

Okay.

Thank you, sir.

Question to council.

Um council uh on the same lines.

I recall that uh if there you have C C and Rs and all the property owners that have that are on the C C and Rs get together and they don't want to do something or they want to exclude something, um that they can do that.

There's a condition, it's on page 50 of the PDF of your staff report that provides that the common area shall be identified as common area on the final map, they must be privately maintained and perpetually funded by the HOA.

Okay.

Uh thank you.

I've got a question on the FEMA conditional letter of map revision, whoever would be best to answer that.

Um does this letter of rep map revision, so it is specific to the proposed grading plan.

Um does it evaluate changes to the flood zones only on the properties um proposing the grading, or does it uh look at the larger basin margin?

The application would be uh sorry, Janelle Thomas for the record.

Um so the way that the the process works is that when the development comes in, if they have um grading that is going to impact the floodplain as currently um exhibited on the on the mapping through FEMA, they will file an application through FEMA for a conditional letter of map revision that will um require signature by the county before it gets submitted to FEMA, and then once that application is reviewed and accepted, um then the obligation is for the developer to um to activate those improvements that were improved as part of that conditional letter of map revision, and when that when that work is complete, that's when the subsequent application for the letter of map revision, which makes it you know, it trues it up with what they were approved by FEMA to go in and perform the work um and you know identify any changes to the floodplain that results from the work that they're doing within the floodplain.

Does that make sense?

I I understand.

Apologies if my question wasn't clear.

The the scope of review of the floodplain, is it limited to the parcels being graded, or does it evaluate changes to the floodplain anywhere caused by the grading?

If the if the grading impacts on the development um parcels impact the overall floodplain, then they will have to reach out to adjust that floodplain appropriately.

They have to look at the entire floodplain when they're um proposing something to be adjusted.

So if their grading impacts um provide an opportunity for that floodplain to be modified outside of their project boundary, they would have to identify that on their application.

Okay.

So the FEMA conditional letter of map revision, which would be issued after the grading, but prior to any building permits to actually prior to grading activity occurring.

Okay.

Prior to grading activity occurring, would identify any extension of the floodplain on neighboring parcels or elsewhere in the basin.

So correctly prior to the issuance of the grading permit, they can point to whether FEMA, the flood management agency deems there to be any negative impact on any other parcel flood-wise.

Correct.

And Washoe County staff is also reviewing that application because we are required to be signatory to that application as the jurisdictional agency.

Okay.

That eases my mind quite a bit, but I did have a couple of specific questions related to flood retention volume.

The upgrades to Osage Road, are those gonna include elevating it at all.

Um I don't have access to their final design at this point, but um the anticipation is that the um the roadway will be um appropriately located to manage the floodplain.

Okay, so the areas north of Osage Road that are currently within the 100-year floodplain would maintain connectivity to maintain that storage volume.

Yeah, um, and the uh on site retention basins.

Um does their design they have berms around them, yes.

But maybe this is best for the applicant.

Uh Claire Evans for the record, and the um hydrologist professional engineer on this project, so ask away.

Um, those ponds don't have berms as in an up and down.

We have a space at the edge, and then it cuts down and is deep down, so we don't have the issue of water getting caught and not going into the pond.

Everything coming towards it goes into it.

All right, great.

That answers the question.

Yes, thank you.

Uh any other questions from the board.

Um well then, I guess we can have discussion debate.

Uh thank you very much to the staff and applicants and uh the public for giving comments on this.

I personally voted against upzoning this property when it came for a regulatory zone amendment because I think that it is um risky to put more residential uh use, more investment of individuals in housing and property uh in a place where water ponds and can't exit uh closed basin flooding is not as straightforward as uh calculating runoff in a river.

You can you can get the net results of a hundred year flood with um without ever getting a hundred year flood just by having a few bad years in a row.

Um that being said, the the regulatory zone was approved.

Um and the the applicants own the own the land and they have this zoning and they have this right to develop at this density.

Um I think that overall the through the tremendous efforts of the staff and the um applicant coming to the table to meet those.

We we what is proposed to us is a net benefit in terms of flood storage and uh public facilities in the area, and while it wouldn't be my choice to uh go out there and put residential zoning up against a closed basin floodplain, and it wasn't my choice to increase the density of residential zoning against a closed basin floodplain.

Uh given that those rights exist, I think that this is um a responsive development plan to the to those constraints.

So I'd support it.

Does anyone else have discussion or debate?

I have a concern with um previous RZAs being approved with Red Rock Road being widened, but now they're not um that's that's my concern on this.

It's a it's uh infrastructure safety issue.

There's 10,000 homes approved up above this project, and uh so with that part that's that's the issue that I have with this I I definitely hear that there is certainly potential there for at some point other developments um increasing improvable surface impacting the overall runoff um staff can correct me if I'm wrong, but I I think that we have to consider the applicant's application and not um what someone else might do with their property at some point in the future.

I I definitely hear that there is certainly potential there for at some point other developments um increasing improvable surface impacting the overall runoff and staff can correct me if I'm wrong, but I I think that we have to consider the applicant's application and not um what someone else might do with their property at some point in the future.

But I can certainly take the point that if the runoff situation changes, then what is comfortably a foot above the flu hundred-year floodplain could become uncomfortably damp.

We've just been um it it seems like the county is the developer you have a right to build on your land.

You own the land, you have a right to build on.

There's nothing against that.

I'm not saying anything inside.

It seems like as a county though, we're chasing our tail when it comes to infrastructure when it comes to road widening and stuff like that.

And these two prods, this one and another one up the road were called out to have Red Rock Road widened.

And so that's like I said, that's the only issue I have.

Um because if we don't if it doesn't happen now, I don't know if it's ever gonna happen.

RTC when they changed it, they lost the public trust in my mind.

So the only issue that I have is the issue when it's not deprimental, and it has to do with the road widening.

The rest of it of road road of red rock road.

That's it.

We have a similar situation on pyramid where we got thousands of houses already approved that are built yet, and we still get down to a two-lane highway.

Uh it's uh well, you can't plan.

Some at some point in time, there's gonna have to be a coordination with road improvements to permits being issued.

I mean, right now there isn't the way the law uh is set up is that if it's planned, that's all they need.

That doesn't do you any good if you're trying to get on a two-lane highway that doesn't have a uh signal or anything.

So I I certainly sympathize with uh with what you're saying.

Looking at the project itself, um my major concern is uh roadway red rock.

Um but it seems that the the staff and the and the property owners working with staff have really gone over and above the the call of duty here.

Uh I don't see that they have really uh disagreed with anything that staff wanted.

Um there certainly appears to be uh sufficient wording to make sure that everything is that's in the report is gonna be enforced.

And if it isn't, then that's up uh that's that's on staff.

Um and heads should roll on that, but um a person has a property owner has a right to develop their property, and uh we cannot force an individual property owner to solve the problems of the of the county.

Uh the county's gotta solve the problems of the county, and it's we're not doing too good a job.

Um but I'm with you, Rob.

I think the what do you gotta do with Red Rock?

Yeah, Chair.

Well, are you done, Commissioner Flick?

Okay, um to your point, Rob.

I've been on this planning commission for quite a while, and it always seems that we're running up against RTC and the roadways aren't being improved as quickly as the developments are happening, and it seems like it's a broken system, and I don't think we've been able to figure out how to solve that issue.

Um, when I look at the findings that we have to find, um that's not even taken into account, right?

I can't see where um adequate um there's access, but it's not you know access down further away from the the development, which is unfortunate because you know, all of those people that live in those homes have to eventually get to a major freeway, right?

And they're gonna get onto Red Rock.

Um, so unfortunately, I think that's a failure of the setup that we have in our county with RTC.

So that's all I want to say.

I think that's something that needs to be looked at going forward.

Uh perhaps we can address that with uh request to staff, something for a future agenda item.

Think it'll work.

All right.

Uh any further discussion or debate on this agenda item.

Uh would anyone like to make a motion?

Where is it?

Page 41.

Okay.

Um, I'll start on the tentative subdivision map.

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

The Washa County Planning Commission approved the special use permit case number WSUP 26-0004 and tentative subdivision map case number WTM26-002 for lifestyle homes TND LLC with the condition is included as exhibit A to this matter, having made all 20 findings in accordance with Washoe County Code Section 110.408.28.

Um Article 408 common open space, section 110.608.25 findings, article 608 tentative maps, and that's all.

I can't even find it.

Commissioner Owens for a second.

Thank you.

We have a motion and a second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Nay.

All right.

The motion carries.

And with regard to the special use permit for the sewer lift station.

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

The Washaw County Board of Adjustment.

Washer County Board of Washer County Planning Commission.

Yeah.

Approved with conditions.

Special use permit case number WSUP 26-004 for lifestyle homes TND LLC with conditions included as exhibit A to this matter, having made all five findings in accordance with Washhow County Code, section 110.810.30.

A second.

We have a motion and a second.

All those in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Uh that brings us to the Mr.

Chair.

Yes.

If I could, I'd like to read the appeal procedure.

Uh 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.

More information on the appeal procedure and the application fee.

Thank you.

Why do they approve something?

Give us give us a something to look at, like in RZEA.

They say the timeline is this for a road, but then as soon as it's approved, they go out and they change it.

I'd like to know.

That's what I'd like to follow.

I I think what we can do is provide uh guess some answers from RTC.

Um, I can certainly speculate, but I'd like to have the experts actually provide us with that information.

I mean seriously, you know.

We should have been able to approve this.

Yeah, had they had they stuck with what they said.

You know, I I feel bad.

I really do.

But it's it's no, we're making land use decisions here for our population.

That we have no control over when these damn roads are gonna get built.

We got a whole different agency that did seems like they do what the hell they want to do.

And uh somehow we gotta tie these things together.

We're already in gridlock in some of our major thoroughfares, and we're we're just contributing more and more to gridlock.

And yet our hands are tied because we can't deny an individual or a corporation their their right to develop property if they comply to all of our laws just because we need roads and that it's gotta stop.

Something's gotta the dam is gonna is gonna break I don't know what the hell is when I'll get by a vote.

You know I mean we can't keep going on this way.

We gotta have some firm dates from these other agencies and they gotta stick to them.

We uh we will commit to reaching out to RTC to figure out exactly why those dates were uh were pushed back and we will we'll bring that forward back to the planning commission likely in a memo format good thank you maddening thank you any other requests all right do you uh Mr Lloyd have reports on any previous planning commission items well first of all I'd hate I hate being the bearer of bad news but we're losing someone pretty special here unfortunately this is Adriana's last uh last meeting here and and I think we uh we owe her a lot of uh a lot of a lot of gratitude when uh our meetings always run so smoothly and uh so much of that is is because of her professionalism and uh she's always so prepared and gonna miss you Adriana thank you all so much cookies I do have a few items uh to report from the county commission meetings uh at the April 14th county commission meeting uh the commission adopted the attainable housing amendments that was for the expedited process at the April 28th meeting uh the uh the BCC uh approved and adopted the Mustang MPA and RCA uh upcoming meetings uh the May 12th meeting um this will be the set uh the public hearing and second reading uh for the DCA involving residential in commercial districts also at the May 12th meeting will be uh the uh the first reading of the small unit density bonus DCA and finally um at the upcoming May 26th meeting the BCC will be hearing the SOI rollback MPA RCA that this uh commission just heard and that's all that I have um this goes to legal uh the lady that uh read us the state law on I didn't quite understand all that you want to elaborate for me I can't elaborate at this time because I couldn't read even what statute she was referencing on the projector but I will take a look at it.

Yeah I had no idea what that was either I couldn't read it none of us could read what Tammy had up there we couldn't read that okay so can you look into it great thank you all right thanks uh do we have any legal updates thank you so much any further public comment at this time last minute thought uh Catherine Yarte for the record to the discussion for um RTC obviously that's an outside entity uh I just want to make the suggestion to potentially look at I believe what happened here was more of a existing code issue that there is nothing in our current codes that requires developers or requires us to find um there's no findings that reference road development so if there was a way it's probably a legal question or even maybe a Trevor question but um to add to the findings and the requirements for developers when looking to do zoning amendments or um maps that the road capacity and development is in line with that and if it's not then that can be a finding that can't be met.

So I'm probably not wording that correctly because I am not a planner but I do feel like there's an opportunity for this board to send this back to planning for review on the code itself that we use for findings rather than relying on RTC because that's an outside entity.

So that is the only suggestion I wanted to share thank you.

Thank you thank you any other public comment no additional comment in chambers or via Zoom.

Thank you so much.

All right we are adjourned