This meeting is being recorded.

Good evening.

It is Tuesday, June, June 2nd, 6 p.m.

We'll call this meeting of the Washoe County Planning Commission to order.

Could we have a determination of quorum, please?

Mike Flick.

Kate Nelson.

Here.

Dan Lazaruski here.

Amy Owens.

Present.

Rob Pierce.

Present.

Linda Kennedy.

Go ahead and unmute Linda.

You're still muted, Linda.

Yeah, I don't know.

You need to unmute your Linda.

Go ahead and say you're here.

Here.

All right.

Jim Barnes.

Here.

Thank you.

We have a quorum.

Thank you very much.

Would you all please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance?

I require the United States of America.

Thanks very much.

Could we have the ethics law announcement?

Yes, Commissioners are reminded that if with respect to any matter or any person coming before the commission today, you received a gift or a loan.

You have a pecuniary interest.

Yeah, the 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 tonight, you must disclose that gift loan interest commitment or prior representation at the time the matter is being this is Linda.

You must furthermore abstain from deliberation or voting on the matter if it's clear that the gift loan interest commitment or prior representation will be.

It's Linda, I can't hear you or see you.

The independence of judgment of a reasonable person.

Commissioners are also reminded under planning commission rules.

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

Thank you.

And could we have the appeals procedure?

Yeah, most decisions rendered by the planning commission are appealable to the Board of County Commissioners.

If you disagree with the decision of the planning commission and you qualify as an agreed person or party, you may appeal in writing within 10 calendar days from the date that the decision being appealed is reduced to writing.

Filed with the Secretary of the Planning Commission and mailed to the original applicant in the proceeding being appealed in accordance with Washoe County Code.

Please call the planning staff immediately at 775-328-6100 for information on the appeal procedure and the application fee.

Thank you.

I have no public comment in chambers.

I have no hands raised on Zoom.

Thanks very much.

Any notes?

Otherwise, would anyone like to move to approve it as written?

Mrs.

Rob, I recommend to approve is written.

We have a motion and a second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The agenda is approved.

Did everyone get a chance to review the draft minutes from our May meeting?

Does anyone have uh notes or agenda to that?

Otherwise, could we approve them?

This is Rob, I recommend or make a motion to approve is written.

This is Kennedy.

I second it.

All right.

I hope all those in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

The motion carries.

We move on to the public hearings.

Mr.

Lloyd, would you announce item 8A?

Okay, this is Abaname case number WAB 26003 for hearing discussion and possible action to approve an abandonment of Washoe County's interest in the North, South, and West 33 foot government patent easements.

This applicant uh application is submitted by Tom Tornstrom.

The subject property is located at Zero Cinder Lane and consists of approximately two and a half acres.

The proposal is being reviewed under development code article 806, vacations and abandonments of east mines or streets, and is situated within Commission District 2.

The site is currently governed by the rural residential and rural master plan land use designations and the general rural and high density rural regulatory zone uh districts.

Uh falling within the boundaries of the Southwest Truckee Meadows Planning Area and representing Washoe County in this matter is senior planner Chris Bronzik.

Good afternoon.

Um Chris Bronzik, Washoe County Planning.

We're looking at WAB 26-0003.

That is for Cinder Lane.

So this is a request to abandon uh three sides of a government patent easement, 33-foot access easements.

Uh these were created originally with land patent 38593, which was provided as part of the application packet uh that was provided to you.

It's located just south of Arrow Creek Parkway, and it's located within the Southwest Truckee Meadows Planning Area before you is uh highlighted map of the subject property.

That subject property is currently undeveloped.

Before you use the easement map that is proposed to be abandoned.

Uh staff did review this.

There is a partial approval being recommended by our engineering division for the northern uh property line.

So instead of the full 33-foot abandonment on that northern property line, they're recommending a maximum of a 13-foot abandonment and retaining 20 feet.

Uh the applicant will be unable to block that area off or have any structures encroaching on that 20-foot access easement that will be required to be remaining.

The um other two uh easements are being fully abandoned.

As part of this review process, ATT also uh looked at this property and did have some concerns.

There is an electric pole that does go through the property.

Their concern was that uh no utility easements or public utility easements be abandoned as part of this process.

The applicant will be required to go through any sort of utility abandonments uh through the own channels of MB Energy, ATT, and any other utility uh companies that use that.

So within the published staff report, there was uh uh screen grab didn't properly um replicate.

So I just wanted to put this on record that these agencies did review, respond, and provide conditions.

Uh and they are reflected in uh exhibit a this was noticeed to all the abutting properties as part of that noticing process.

We did receive two public comments as part of your packet.

Uh one of those public comments was about maintaining access on that northern property line.

The other public comment was related to uh fire and and fire concerns and maintaining that 33 foot on the uh east end.

So staff is recommending approval with conditions.

I'm sorry, partial approval with conditions.

I'm available for any questions you may have on this item.

Thanks very much.

Um presentation from the applicant.

No, the applicant.

Thanks.

Uh any questions from the board for staff.

Do we have any public comment on this item?

I have no public comment in chambers.

I have no hands raised on Zoom.

All right.

Well, we're open for discussion and debate or a motion.

Sir Rob, I'll make a motion.

We don't have any discussion.

I moved after giving recent consideration of information containing staff report and information received during the public hearing.

The Washoe County Planning Commission partially approved amendment case number WAB 26-0003 for Tim Tornstrom.

Um specifically abandoned Washa County interest in a 30 foot 33 foot easement abutting to the east and south property lines, but retaining 20 feet of the easement on the northern property line with the conditions included an exhibit aid of the matter.

Having made all three findings in accordance with Washoe County Code Section 110.806.20 and the fourth finding in accordance with Nevada revised statute 278480 sub three.

Commissioner Kennedy seconds it.

Thank you.

All those in favor.

Any opposed?

Then motion carries.

Moving on to item 8B.

Okay, yeah.

This next item is abandonment case number WAB 260004 for hearing discussion and possible action to approve an abandonment of a 50-foot uh access easement known as Indian Lane across the southern boundary of uh APN 07406130 and 07406129.

This application is submitted by CED Rock Springs Solar LLC.

Subject property is located at one uh one zero zero five zero fish springs road and consists of approximately 10.872 acres and 10.934 acres.

The proposal is being reviewed under development code article 806, vacations and abandonments of easements for streets, uh, and is situated within commission district five.

The site is currently governed by the rural master plan land use designation and the general rural regulatory zone uh within boundaries of the high desert area plan.

Once again, representing Washoe County in this matter is senior planner Chris Bronzik.

We're looking at um a b 26 000 four rock springs solar.

So this is a request to abandon a 50-foot access easement along the southern portion of two parcels owned by Rock Springs Solar.

The 50-foot access easement appears to end at uh at these two parcels.

The property owner requesting this abandonment also owns the immediate parcels uh to the east, and there's a deed of combination requirement that was placed on them by our engineering division as part of this request.

The abandonment as being heard today is part of the uh previously approved Rock Springs Solar Project, and this abandonment is necessary to allow for the complete build out.

It is located in the high planning uh high desert planning area before you is the two properties in question, and there's a better view of that area.

There is a presumed public roadway on one of those parcels on the parcel on the left, and the applicant will be required to go through uh the relocation process of that presumed right-of-way or roadway.

Um, and that is outlined within uh state statute.

This is the overall project uh and it shows the overlay of where that abandonment will take place once again.

The screen grab did not populate correctly, but again, this was reviewed by uh agencies conditions were provided, and they are found within exhibit A of your staff uh of the staff report.

This was sent to all property owners that abut uh Indian Lane.

We did receive um significant public outreach on this.

It wasn't anything uh in opposition of the abandonment, it was more just uh more understanding of what's happening and if their properties were impacted.

Once that was explained and they realized that their properties were not impacted, uh there were no concerns.

I am recommending uh approval with conditions.

I'm available for any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Umce again no uh presentation from the applicant.

Is uh the applicant's representative is available on Zoom.

Okay.

Do we have any public comment on this item?

Excuse me.

I have no public comment in chambers.

I have no hands raised on Zoom.

Does the board have any questions for staff or the applicant or discussion?

Or a motion.

In the absence of discussion, I will move that after giving reason consideration of the information contained in the staff report and the information received during the public hearing.

The Washoe County Planning Commission approve abandonment case number WAB 26-0004 for CED Rock Spring Solar with the conditions included as exhibited to this matter.

Having made all three findings in accordance with Washoe County Code, section 110.806.20.

Commissioner Nelson, a second.

Uh-huh.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Aye.

The motion carries.

Thank you.

Uh onto item eight C.

Okay, this next item is development code amendment, case number WDCA 26002 for hearing discussion.

Impossible action to initiate an amendment and approve a resolution to amend Washoe County Code Chapter 110 within Article 408, common open space development.

To require the findings that reference site specific characteristics only when those characteristics are present on the parcels in question.

In order to ensure the uh design flexibility and associated public benefits inherent in uh to common open space developments is potentially available to all subdividable parcels.

If the proposed amendments are initiated, the planning commission uh may recommend approval of the proposed ordinance as submitted, recommend approval with modifications uh based on input and discussion at the public hearing, or recommend denial.

If approval is recommended, the planning commission is asked to authorize the chair to sign a resolution to that effect.

And representing Washoe County in this matter is senior planner Eric Young.

Thank you, Trevor.

Uh good evening, Chair, Commissioners, Eric Young, Planning Staff.

Uh, this is um development code amendment.

Uh the second of the year 2600 two.

There we go.

So um what we're trying to do here is um clean up an amendment that we did just recently in April of 2025.

You may remember brought a series of uh five findings added to this article, Article 408, common open space development.

There were no findings at all prior to that, which um uh is unique to the actions that you normally take.

They normally have to be done uh by uh review of some findings.

And in April, uh staff brought to you an idea that um we should have five findings added to this article for your review uh when you approve common open space developments.

That proposal um required that all five findings had to be met.

This proposal would amend that uh code to require three of the five findings always be met, and the remaining two be met when the site conditions referenced in the finding exists.

And what we're saying here is that two of the findings that we brought forward in April have very site-specific concepts associated with them, and those might not always exist on parcels that come forward.

Um, and so by requiring all five, we were um uh inadvertently uh leaving out uh this opportunity for a lot of parcels.

So the purpose of the common open space, just review this so we know what we're doing, uh, is to set forth regulations to permit the variation of lot size, including density transfer subdivisions in order to 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.

So these are the things that we are attempting to achieve.

Um we are attempting to gain uh by providing this opportunity to developers to decrease their lot size, the required lot size in that zoning.

There are restrictions.

You can't just name anything open space, you can't designate anything.

Common open space areas shall not include areas devoted to public or private streets, detention retention ponds.

That's often something that the developer will attempt to do to designate a retention or detention pond as open space.

That's not permitted, uh, drainage facilities or any land which has been or is going to be conveyed to the public for such things as parks and schools and other public facilities.

That's another thing that sometimes is requested to be open space.

Those things don't qualify.

So what are these?

Provide preserve or provide open space.

It preserves existing steep slopes.

That's often what we find the ones that we come to you with are often a matter of slopes or other developmentally constrained areas, heavily treed areas from development.

Um provides future uh uh residents with an option for open space.

So that's that's that's the first thing that we're trying to achieve.

Protect natural and scenic resources.

Development identifies and protects natural and scenic resources, including but not limited to ridgelines, waterways, large diameter trees, and habitat for special status species.

I think you can see that these are the two findings that we're talking about that have very site-specific conditions that may or may not apply to the parcel that comes forward.

The other three achieve a more efficient use of land, minimize road building, and encourage a sense of community, you can see are not site specific.

They're not parcel specific.

And uh these could apply uh to uh theoretically any any particular parcel.

So the findings for common open space, this is the this is the language that we added previously, and here in bold is the language that we would like to add um now in order to um um make those two findings applicable when they um can be applied.

So we're asking to add the language, shall find A and C below, have A through C have been satisfied, and that findings D and E have been satisfied when they can reasonably apply to the parcels in question.

We think this simple language uh cleans up the uh uh the language that we presented a year ago.

So that is the presentation that I have.

I would like to mention um uh before I stop for the evening that we did have a neighborhood meeting on this, it was fairly well attended.

And um I want to mention that the language that we're bringing forward with was shaped by that neighborhood meeting.

Our uh proposal going into that meeting was to simply say you have to do three out of five.

Yeah, any three out of five.

And uh several members of the public spoke up and suggested that well, that may give people an out when these when these conditions do apply, we want them to apply.

And so we had that discussion, it was very valuable.

Staff recognized the value in that and said, Yeah, that's what we're gonna do.

So this language um reflects the public input of that neighborhood meeting that did uh uh uh help us bring forward better, a better result to you.

So I want to wanted to make sure that we're we're letting you know that these neighborhood meetings um uh do often help us think through, and we do take that public input, and uh when it's possible to do it, we'll make adjustments to what we brought forward.

And that was the case here, and we believe we have better language because that neighborhood input.

So thank you, and I'm able to answer any questions, hopefully.

Thank you so much.

Uh questions for staff.

I just have one quick question.

How are you guys going to implement this?

So, for instance, large diameter trees, is there a definition of what a large diameter tree is?

No, um, that language has always been there.

Um, I don't know in particular how a planner would would um uh would address that.

It's it's not a bad question.

Uh Trevor may be able to talk to you a little bit more about how that would be reviewed during uh review of one of these applications.

Yeah, and if thank you for that question, and and and through the chair, um commissioner, uh I do believe if you look in the uh Article 412 under landscaping, there is a provision about pre preservation of trees.

And I think there is more detail into discussion in terms of what what that actually looks like.

I don't have that in front of me, but if you'd like I can go in and look.

And typically that's part of the review for any subdivision is uh what is on the site and can it be preserved specifically when it comes to the existing vegetation?

So in an actual field visit is done by the planning folks.

Oh, yeah, absolutely.

Yeah, um, because just some of this is a little subjective, and so if you leave it to the developers to say, like, no, we don't have any large diameter trees, right?

Understood.

There's probably a 48-inch tree out there somewhere.

Right.

Or, you know, there is that likelihood.

So that was my main concern is how is this actually going to be implemented?

And you know, because basically you're reducing the findings on many projects down to just three out of the five.

So that was my main concern.

Thank you.

Yes.

Um pretty much along the same lines.

Um dealing with um excessive grading.

Does that does that mean anything over 30 percent?

Um, or is there again criteria for for that?

Yes, 15 to 30 percent is um has to be managed over 30 percent is generally not permitted.

Um slopes above 15 percent are um are managed, so to speak, have conditions.

So they would have to be in that category, yeah, doing the 15 okay.

You know, is that basically uh one to two slope?

I can't recall if it's I'm uh no, I'm not sure.

What the what the okay can you please ask that question again?

I'm not sure I understand this is when when grading are we going on a uh a two to one slope or a two to two slope?

You know, one foot for every two hundred feed.

We we do have standards in Article 438, those are the grading standards of the development code, and we will require, and again, every every property, every project is gonna have its own unique set of challenges, right?

I think what we're asking for is this is the finding uh shown as finding D that preserves existing steep slopes to the extent possible, really.

So it is going to be a you know, up to the discretion of this board, really if that finding can in fact be made.

And again, staff will bring forward a staff report as we always do, and it will be up to this board to make that determination if in your qualified professional um expertise, whether or not that finding finding D can in fact be made.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh thanks.

Any other questions for staff?

Do we have any public comments on this item?

I have no public comments in chambers.

I have no public comment on Zoom.

Uh thank you.

Any debate?

Or does anyone have a motion?

Okay, I'll do it.

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

The Washoe County Planning Commission recommend approval of WDC 826-0002 to amend Washoe County Chapter 110 development code within Article 408 and to update the sections within Article 408.

I further move to authorize the chair to sign the resolution contained in attachment A on behalf of the Washa County Planning Commission and to direct staff to present a report of this commission's recommendation to Washoe County Board of County Commissioners within 60 days of today's date.

This recommendation for approval is based on all of the following four findings in accordance with Washer County Code Section 110.818.15E, findings one through four.

Commissioner Kennedy seconds the motion.

Thank you, Linda.

Um, all those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

And that brings us to the end of our uh public hearings.

Um does anyone on the board have future agenda items or requests from staff?

Chair, I do.

Kind of following along the common open space development look at.

And it's basically because of Sierra Reflections, this is what spurred my thought process on this.

If I read the code correctly, they could utilize the entire um size of the lot to determine the density.

And I think I think we would want to look at that a little bit closer, just because as we're moving into areas that are steeper, um, they're adjacent to more rural existing uses, but now we're coming in with the common open space, allowing those heavier densities.

I think we might want to review that calculation a little bit to see if we're not going too far and allowing a lot, a heavier density as opposed to maybe somewhere in the middle.

Because they are, you know, that development is adjacent to you know, half three quarter one acre lots.

And so now we're squashing in this development.

It's allowed, you know, but I think if we could start opening that discussion with staff and looking at, you know, maybe some different ideas on that, that's what I would ask.

Okay.

This is Robert.

Mrs.

Rob, I second that.

I think that's a great idea.

All right.

Uh any other agenda items or requests from staff?

I would on the same subject.

Um, I have to interrupt.

This was not an agendized matter.

We can't be uh discussing it as a board.

So we won't discuss if you have a specific request from staff.

Yeah.

Make your request.

Um you know, we keep getting uh bombarded about the cost, a high cost of housing.

And if I don't really know how to how to really solve that problem.

If we take a developer has say, you know, a hundred acres, and half of that is unbuildable.

And under this amendment to the to the code, he's able to go ahead and count that unbuildable acreage to come up with this final density of his project, meaning there's a you know, say 50 acres is gonna have all the units uh and he gets some economy out of that because there's uh sewer lines and electrical lines and all that other stuff.

There's got a compacted area to have to put those things in.

So if he can't count that, then the cost is gonna get even higher for those units.

So I it it's uh I understand the area is low density in that particular case that you want to maintain that rural atmosphere.

Uh but it uh you know how do you how do you get lower price housing?

Is this a request for information from staff?

Because it's starting to sound like a discussion of we we can't have a discussion and debate on an item that's not agendized.

Um previous members requested information from staff on a topic.

It sounds like you also have interest in that topic.

So um when staff comes back to us with information or recommendations on it, then we'll have an agendized item to discuss.

Okay, sound good in your lap.

Okay, all right.

Um, do we have any reports on previous planning commissioner?

Yes, I do.

Uh let's see.

On May the 12th, the uh the county commission adopted um the uh residential in commercial DCA.

You may remember that.

Uh and also on the May of the 12th had the first reading of the small unit density uh code amendments.

Uh that uh small unit density is scheduled to be heard for second reading and possible adoption on June 16th.

So on the May 26th county commission meeting, uh the county commission heard uh first reading of the housing density bonus DCA that just recently came before you all.

And uh also uh I'm sorry, the second reading is scheduled for June 16th for that item.

And then on May 26th, the uh the county commission adopted the MPARCA for the S S OI, the sphere of influence rollback.

And that is all that I have.

There's one other thing.

Last month there was a request for a uh a memo from RTC.

I have been working with RTC, I've had several back and forth conversations.

Um I sh uh you will likely uh send that out to you all within the next week or so.

And that's all I I have.

Thank you.

Uh any updates from legal.

Thanks very much.

Uh do we have any general public comment?

No public comment in chambers, no public comment on Zoom.

Thank you very much.

We are adjourned.