[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:01] All right. It is 6 p.m. September 1st, 2026. I call this meeting of the Washington County Planning Commission to order. Could we have a determination of quorum, please?
[0:16] Michael
[0:19] Flick, we're doing a roll call, we're
[0:25] doing a roll call to establish a corp.
[0:28] Here, thank you, Jim.
[0:32] Can we speak louder than the bike?
[0:36] Here.
[0:36] Thank you.
[0:37] Kate?
[0:39] Dan Nazarethski?
[0:40] Here.
[0:41] Amy Owens?
[0:42] Present.
[0:43] Wendy Leonard?
[0:44] Here.
[0:45] And Linda Kennedy?
[0:48] Here.
[0:48] We have a corp.
[0:50] Thank you very much. Would you please rise and join me in the pledge of allegiance?
[0:58] Congratulations to the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister and to the Republic for
[1:04] allegiance and one name.
[1:09] Can we
[1:14] have the Ethics Law announcement, please?
[1:18] Yes, commissioners are reminded that if we respect any matter or any person coming before the commission
[1:22] today you received a gift to alone. You have a pecuniary interest. You have a commitment
[1:26] in a private capacity such as family employment business or similar relationship. Or if you
[1:31] have provided representation or counseling before an agency to a person or entity for compensation
[1:35] within the last year on a matter before the board tonight, you must disclose that gift loan interest
[1:42] commitment or prior representation at the time the matter's being considered. You must further
[1:46] more of a stand for deliberation or voting on the matter if it's clear the gift loan interest
[1:50] commitment or prior representation would materially affect the independence of
[1:53] judgment of a reasonable person.
[1:55] Commissioners are also reminded under the Planning Commission rules if you've had any
[1:58] contact outside this meeting with any person interested in a matter coming before the Commission
[2:03] today.
[2:04] You need to disclose the nature of the contact at this meeting.
[2:10] Thank you.
[2:11] Could we have the appeals procedure?
[2:13] Most decisions rendered by the Planning Commission are appealable to the Board of County
[2:17] Commissioners.
[2:18] If you disagree with the decision of the Planning Commission and you qualify as an
[2:21] person or party, you may appeal in writing within 10 calendar days from the date the decision being
[2:26] appealed as reduced to writing filed with the Secretary of the Planning Commission and
[2:30] mail to the original applicant in the proceeding being appealed in accordance with
[2:34] Washoe County code. Please call the planning staff immediately at 775-328-6100 for information
[2:41] on the appeal procedure in the application fee. Thank you. Do we have any public comment at this time?
[2:51] I have Carolyn White in chambers.
[2:57] Please speak your first or last day for the record. Thank you.
[3:08] My name is Carolyn White and I'm a resident in Palamino Valley. For the past year, my
[3:13] neighbors and I have been working together to ensure that development in our area doesn't negatively impact our community
[3:19] or the limited resources we all rely on. Tonight I was prepared to speak to you about the Palamino
[3:30] 2.5 to 2.82 acre lots at the corner of Whiskey Springs and Pyramid Highway.
[3:36] The applicant has requested the hearing be delayed, and so it will be to October 6th.
[3:41] That is what we've been told.
[3:43] But I had planned to speak, so I thought I would say a few words in interim.
[3:48] 34 houses may seem trivial compared to a lot of the subdivision proposals that cross your
[3:53] desks, but in both proportion and precedent it is significant.
[3:57] The 1992 Worms Spring Specific Plan, which created the zoning on which the development application relies remains large land fulfilled today.
[4:07] As do the various infrastructure improvements, which were imagined as necessary components of any dense development in our area.
[4:14] If approved, Palamina Farms would be Palamina Valley's first subdivision, and would more than double the number of parcels under five acres in our planning area.
[4:22] But like the parcel maps that proceed it, it will rely entirely on domestic wells,
[4:28] cluster septic systems, and existing PVGID maintained roads.
[4:33] It proposes something very different than what the planners and original landowners
[4:37] imagined when they came up with the warmstring specific plan,
[4:40] and does little to address the community's concerns about water quality and availability,
[4:46] traffic, strain to our grid, or emergency response times.
[4:49] There are currently another 810 acres of sub-devitable land for sale in the warm spring specific planning area.
[4:57] In this application we'll likely...
[5:00] Service as a blueprint for future applicants looking to develop in our area. I hope that you will use this delay to carefully weigh the implications of that.
[5:10] And to consider the community report my neighbors and I spent the last year compiling.
[5:15] County staff have indicated to us that this is the moment in the planning process that the voices of ordinary citizens carry the most weight.
[5:23] I hope that's true. I'd also like to invite those of you who aren't familiar with Palamina
[5:28] Vidali to come out and see it for yourselves. What you'll find is a rural Vidali,
[5:33] whose residents are largely dependent on dirt roads, wells and septic systems, and who regularly
[5:39] drive half hour to buy groceries or gas. And who generally chose to live there for exactly
[5:46] those reasons. It's also beautiful. Thank you for your time and your consideration.
[5:51] and I look forward to speaking to you in October.
[5:59] Thank you, is there any further public comment at this time?
[6:02] I have no further public comment in chambers.
[6:04] I do have a hand raised on Zoom.
[6:07] Doug Flaherty, please unmute.
[6:10] And, uh, state you for the last name for the record.
[6:18] We can't hear you Doug, I see you're unmuted,
[6:23] but we can't hear you, so you might be muted on your end.
[6:45] For some reason, we can't hear you.
[6:47] All the controls look good.
[6:48] We're going to go to the next person.
[6:49] we'll keep both come back to you after Mr. Vinegar.
[6:56] Mark Finer, go ahead and unmute.
[7:04] State your first last day.
[7:04] Mark Finer, do you want to do a public comment?
[7:06] Grab your head, raise.
[7:09] Good evening, Jeremy.
[7:11] I can hear you just above it.
[7:12] Thank you.
[7:14] OK, that's seeing, that's seeing.
[7:18] All right, my name is Mark.
[7:20] Yes, my name is Mark Vinegar.
[7:23] Dr. Vainer, I've been a psychiatrist 30 years in rent living at a neighbor of Palamino farms.
[7:33] I raise my family here. I practice medicine here.
[7:40] And I've made the commute every day.
[7:43] Anyway, I'm just an ordinary citizen and when I live out here, there's plenty of nice smelling grass from palamino farms.
[7:58] It's rural. There's a brand new Reno events center right there. The ironwood, except.
[8:07] And there's a lot of lizards and deer and just beautiful wild out, but the problem is there's no people.
[8:16] Okay.
[8:17] And I've waited 30 years to have the opportunity to have a people up here.
[8:23] Is it psychiatrists?
[8:25] It's important for the community, mental health, to populate this area a little bit with regular houses.
[8:35] It's not healthy mentally to keep it so rural and isolated when we're only a few miles north.
[8:44] If you look at Clark County and what happens how they develop from the south, the cave you could see how far behind
[8:54] Wash yoke county and green know is up here in the northern parts and it's beautiful land and it would be very great to have 35 new neighbors and families.
[9:07] I don't want to relocate to an apartment in downtown as I retire.
[9:13] I want to stay on my 10 acre farm here and have door dash and maybe a little convenient store so I don't have to drive.
[9:23] So I'm really in faith. I'm in favor of this development and I really hope you guys do it.
[9:31] I pray you approve it. That's all I have to say. Thank you.
[9:42] Thank you. I still have Doug Flaherty. Doug, go ahead and unmute and see if it'll work this time.
[9:57] Yeah, sorry Doug. I don't even see sound coming.
[10:00] So I don't know what's going on, I would think it's something I hear, and so it's just, we just spoke to his
[10:05] designer.
[10:09] We do have more public comment available later in the meeting. If you'd like to try again,
[10:15] try to troubleshoot your issues, but we have to get this point we want.
[10:23] So no more public
[10:23] I would like to thank the planning department for
[10:24] in the community.
[10:25] Thank you very much.
[10:28] We do have some updates to the agenda.
[10:31] Item 9A, the Montrose sur.
[10:34] Item 9C, the Enclined Village Waldorf,
[10:37] and item 9F, Palamino Farms, or all continue to a future meeting.
[10:46] This is Commissioner Kennedy.
[10:48] I'd like to make a comment.
[10:50] I would like to thank the Planning Department
[10:54] for informing the commissioners of the changes in the agenda ahead of time.
[11:00] I know that I spend hours preparing for this meeting, and it was very gracious of you to let us know ahead of time that these would be areas that we could skip this month.
[11:14] And it was very much appreciated. I hope you continue to do this as things change. Thank you.
[11:24] All right, with those amendments,
[11:28] any other notes or changes on the agenda, otherwise we have a motion to approve as amended.
[11:36] This is Kennedy. I move. We approve as amended.
[11:44] All right. We have a motion a second. All those in favor.
[11:46] Hi. Hi.
[11:48] Any opposed? The motion carries. Thank you.
[11:53] We have the minutes from the August 4th meeting, and a notes,
[12:06] otherwise do we have a motion to approve.
[12:11] Commissioner Kennedy moves to approve the minutes is written.
[12:16] Commissioner Owen's first second.
[12:18] All those in favor?
[12:20] Aye.
[12:20] Aye.
[12:22] The motion carries. Thank you.
[12:24] All right, item 8,
[12:30] we recently had a planning commissioner move on from the Planning Commission to potentially bigger and better things, but we have a resolution to read in appreciation of his service.
[12:44] Whereas, Rob Pierce has since his appointment to the Planning Commission on July 1, 2022,
[12:50] a Ziat large representative North and Shrucky River, been an active and enthusiastic member of the Commission,
[12:55] serving the county and its citizens with dedication and distinction.
[12:59] Whereas, Rob was very generous with his time and energy.
[13:03] You know, he's demonstrated a passion for serving the residents of Washow County,
[13:08] whereas Rob rose to serve as the chair of the Washow County Planning Commission
[13:11] and provided exemplary leadership to the planning commission by serving as chair for two years.
[13:16] Whereas Rob always treated all of his fellow commissioners and staff with the utmost respect.
[13:22] Whereas Rob always asked insightful and thoughtful questions was diligent and conscientious and making decisions.
[13:28] Whereas Rob stated publicly that throughout his tenure he approached every meeting, every application,
[13:34] and every vote with the understanding that decisions have lasting impact on the residents of Washow County.
[13:39] This commitment to thoughtful, resident-centered decision-making exemplifies the spirit of public service that wash our county values.
[13:48] Whereas Rob was a dedicated planning commissioner. It was very thorough with his reviews and often performed site visits prior to commission meetings to better understand the project in preparation for meetings.
[13:58] Whereas Rob volunteered his time in talent to serve two years on the regional planning commission.
[14:02] From 2024 to 26, and whereas Rob volunteered his time and talent to serve four years on the
[14:08] parcel map review committee from 2022 to 26, whereas Rob in his statement before the planning
[14:14] commission on July 14, 2026 described his appointment to the planning commission as one of the greatest
[14:19] honors of his life. Now therefore, be it resolved that the Washow County Planning Commission does
[14:25] hereby commend Rob Pierce for his extraordinary concern and devotion to the citizens of
[14:30] through his service on the Washingtony Planning Commission, the Regional Planning Commission and other Commission appointed boards.
[14:37] And be it further resolved that the Washingtony Planning Commission will sorely miss the unique contributions of Rob Pierce and extends Rob its best wishes for a happy and prosperous future.
[14:56] Thank you, Rob.
[15:07] If it's possible, and Rob, I don't know if you have something to say beforehand, but we would all like to take a photo with Rob if that's possible.
[15:17] Yeah, I just want to say thank you. It has been a privilege and honor to be part of this team to learn about county planning, learn how things work.
[15:26] And as you all know, I'm running for county commissioner district five. This has given me the knowledge and experience that I need to be a good commissioner should the public point me.
[15:36] elect me to that position. So I want to thank you all your all professionals looking forward to
[15:42] working with you after this first year. Again, if I win and I would switch you all the best.
[15:48] You guys are doing a great job for the county. I'm thank
[16:53] you.
[17:21] You want me to have a child?
[17:23] Yeah.
[17:24] For me, do you do?
[17:28] All right, here we go.
[17:30] Play.
[17:34] You know.
[17:37] Well, thank you everybody.
[17:38] Appreciate it.
[17:40] Thanks.
[17:40] Thank you.
[17:42] Thank you.
[17:45] Good.
[17:48] Grab.
[17:49] All right,
[18:14] we're on to public hearings as discussed, 9A is continued, would you announce item 9B, please?
[18:32] All right, item 9B is master plan amendment case number WMPA 26003 and regulatory zone amendment case number WRZ826004 and special use permit case number WSEP260013.
[18:49] the lemon drive project for hearing discussion and possible action.
[18:55] To adopt an amendment of the Washoe County Master Plan, North Valley's Master Plan
[18:59] land use map, to change the Master Plan land use designation for three parcels, APNs 552-19002-20-21-21-toddling-9.19-acres from suburban residential to commercial and if approved authorized to chair to sign a resolution to this effect.
[19:15] Any adoption of the Planning Commission, by the Planning Commission, is subject to approval
[19:20] by the Washington Board of County Commissioners and a finding of conformance with the
[19:24] trucking Meadows Regional Plan by the Regional Planning Authorities and subject to final
[19:29] approval of the Associated Master Plan Amendment and a finding of conformance with the trucking
[19:34] Meadows Regional Plan, recommended adoption of an amendment to the North Valley's regulatory
[19:39] zone map to change the regulatory zoning for three parcels, APNs 5521900220220.
[19:45] 21 from 3.8 acres of load density suburban and 5.37 acres of medium density suburban to neighborhood commercial and if approved authorized the chair to sign a resolution to this effect and
[20:00] 2 approve a special use permit per Washow County Code 1, 10, 8, 10, 30 as required by Washow County Co. table 1, 10, 30, 203, to 021 for 3 existing residences.
[20:13] A 1,857 square foot residence on APN552,19002, a 1,440 square foot residence on APN552,19002, and a 2,880 square
[20:29] foot residence on APN552,19021.
[20:33] The application is submitted by Ryan Hardt Gold family trust on behalf of Elmer Baskess
[20:39] and Nilsa Chavez, and Ryan Hart-Gold family trust.
[20:42] The subject properties are located north of the intersection of
[20:45] lemon, drive, and buck driving consist of approximately 2.073.3 and 3.8 acres.
[20:53] The proposal is being reviewed under development code article 820,
[20:57] amendment of master plan, and article 821, amendment of regulatory zone,
[21:01] and is situated within Commission District 5 within the boundaries of the
[21:09] And this matter is planar to leave a lander.
[21:17] I'm good evening Julie, a lander for the record.
[21:28] So as Mr. Lloyd explained, this is a master plan amendment changing the suburban residential
[21:32] to commercial, the record for rezoning from low-density suburban to neighborhood commercials
[21:37] and especially use permit to allow the existing three homes to be remain on the properties.
[21:46] So the parcels are located off of lemon drive, apparently, and the paint just to give you
[21:51] some orientation.
[21:52] And that's all the city of Reno.
[21:54] So this is a pocket of moisture coming into your
[21:57] jurisdiction, parcels.
[21:59] And now on the right, you can see the parcel sort of
[22:01] close up.
[22:06] The three houses on the properties are owned by the applicant,
[22:09] and they want to remain, have them remain there
[22:11] until the properties are developed by any, to a commercial use.
[22:16] The Silver State canals were located one of the parcels
[22:19] at 600 lemon drive.
[22:20] It is now closed.
[22:22] There are commercial uses to the south
[22:24] and to the residential uses are to the north and the east, and then Lemon Dr. Drive, which is a major arterial
[22:31] is located to the west. Lemon, drive the states as subdivision is the residential development
[22:37] that is located to the north. And here's showing the master plan, request changing, see,
[22:45] where it's orange still on the left-hand side, and then on the right-hand side it would be red,
[22:50] which is commercial, master plan, designation.
[22:55] And then here's the RCA request.
[22:56] Again, it's showing on the left the existing
[23:01] and then on the right it would all become neighborhood commercial.
[23:05] I'm not sure why that parcel is white.
[23:07] It should be pink, I apologize for that.
[23:12] Here's a view of the parcels.
[23:13] You can see the division between the subdivision
[23:16] that's to the north of this.
[23:18] These parcels, there's a fence, there's a drainage way,
[23:21] and then there's a bit of a slope.
[23:23] And then looking towards the east,
[23:27] there's some distinct hillsides over there.
[23:30] So there's some definition there that needs
[23:33] that just showing that there's open space in that direction.
[23:40] The change of the master plan is to allow
[23:44] to commercial would allow the regulatory zoning
[23:47] of neighborhood commercial.
[23:48] That's the reason they need both of these steps to be taken.
[23:51] and according to the applicant, the owners have joined this
[23:56] zone assembly as they are at the point of feeling squeezed out, given the surrounding area
[24:02] has been part of land use change and intensity changes to a more commercial character.
[24:09] The area has been developed as I pointed out to commercial uses to the south and then
[24:21] should use permit process a little bit. There are those three houses existing on each individual
[24:26] parcels I've listed there with the square footage and per wash or county code a few proposed
[24:32] to change the zoning to NC neighborhood commercial, especially as required. So in the situation
[24:40] they have to have the special use permit to be approved also to be able to remain in those houses.
[24:46] And then, as development occurs, the applicant will sell the properties and then move from the
[24:52] dislocation.
[24:57] Water on the site will be provided by trucking by just water.
[25:00] And then Sue will be provided by Washow County. The site is located off of Lemon Drive as I pointed out, and has direct access to 395. There is no proposed development yet, and so at that time when the development comes in, traffic will be assessed to meet Washow County code requirements.
[25:18] Trucking Meadows Fire Station 44 will provide fire and emergency services to the site.
[25:27] A neighborhood meeting was held on April 21st.
[25:31] There were three people at the meeting.
[25:33] One was the applicant.
[25:36] One was the applicant's representative.
[25:38] And the one person there had no significant comments.
[25:42] They seem to think that commercial located at this area was a reasonable choice.
[25:47] and so they didn't really bring up any real concerns.
[25:54] Approximately a thousand property ones within a thousand feet of the site were noticed.
[26:00] That was six or three notices.
[26:01] I did not receive any emails or phone calls and a legal ad was placed in the Reno Gazette.
[26:10] Various agencies review the application and their comments are included in the staff report.
[26:15] Again, this is a master plan zone change.
[26:17] Those, there's no, they can't provide conditions for that.
[26:22] And when I reached out to the individual agencies about the special use permit,
[26:27] which usually has conditions of approval on it, because these are existing homes with the understanding
[26:32] that they will be removed once commercial development occurs at that site.
[26:37] They didn't have any other comments or conditions for those that special use permit either.
[26:45] I have a possible motion staff desk recommend approval for these three items.
[26:49] and the motion can be found in my staff report.
[26:52] I'm available for any questions and the applicants representative is available.
[26:56] He has a presentation which he will present by Zoom online.
[27:06] Excuse me, John, I just never mind.
[27:08] He accepted.
[27:19] Thank you, Julie, for the introduction.
[27:21] Commissioners, can you hear me? Okay.
[27:24] Yes.
[27:25] Thank you.
[27:27] Chair Lazare Rashi.
[27:29] Commissioners, my name is John Crompoticum with KLS planning.
[27:32] I've been working with the property owners representing them since they decided to
[27:38] move forward with this land use change.
[27:43] Let's see.
[27:43] I need to share my screen at this point.
[27:45] Is that correct?
[27:47] I believe it.
[27:48] Correct.
[27:50] Okay.
[27:51] I don't want to assume anything because there's so many potential glitches in the.
[27:58] Remot these virtual presentations so bear with me.
[28:02] Please let me know if you can see that.
[28:05] We can see that. We can see it. Okay. Thank you very much and I also appreciate the opportunity to do.
[28:14] I had a one month vacation at the Tahoe with my wife scheduled, excuse me, a one week vacation schedule a year ago.
[28:21] So I appreciate the opportunity to present remotely. I disclose it to staff and share that same with you.
[28:27] Some of this is similar to the slides to what is a land or share.
[28:32] So I'm going to zoom through them quickly.
[28:33] The summary stuff, she already did a fine introduction on and just the last bullet point there
[28:39] is that at this time, this is light and use and the specialty use permit with the outer
[28:44] project yet.
[28:47] Here's a little different perspective on what's going on around the site, which is largely
[28:50] driving this request.
[28:52] The owners of Silver State canals closed two years ago.
[28:57] They operated for about 40 years.
[29:00] And Carolyn Gaul, who ran that operation, made it super clear to me that they were sort of,
[29:07] when we heard the term in the introduction squeezed out, that's what's going on.
[29:10] It's built up around them.
[29:12] There's obviously a cluster to the south.
[29:16] Jason to the site that's all commercial and then surrounding a great deal of commercial intensity.
[29:21] And then there's that for rent product to the north and then open space on the east.
[29:26] So, it was an opportunity to look at the shape of the parcel and the collection, excuse me, of the applicant, the application area,
[29:36] the three parcels, it's thought out such that they have enough real estate and a cohesive collection of parcels there to make something from a planning and development perspective. I think there's an opportunity there.
[29:51] There is existing LDS and MDS going to NC in the zoning.
[29:58] There is suburban reference.
[30:00] As an initial and commercial corresponding, in the exact same way with the master plan. So there you go, existing proposed zoning, master plan, existing proposed, then you have that collection of commercial parcels adjacent to commercial.
[30:18] One in touch on this, I think it was a key issue when we met with staff in our pre-application and our plan review process.
[30:24] Wanted to make sure we're doing a responsible job with the North Buffer the one in satellite view at the top of the half the top half of the page
[30:30] You can see that what we have to work with is a very foot buffer to existing a wall and a decline
[30:37] There's a depression to the residences to the north
[30:40] So we're confident we can and more precise development planning get a good handle on making sure that there's compatibility there
[30:50] similar on the east. It happens to be GR and open space with because of the rock outcropping.
[30:56] As you see in the image on the top half of the page and then as it's truly pointed out,
[31:04] there's a perspective of it. It's a big rock outcropping just across the property.
[31:10] So no real adjacency issues. There's what we're really trying to show.
[31:15] There's the list of property owners that we noticed for the community hearing, and as staff pointed out, I said,
[31:23] one attendee, it was said she said three, she's correct, because I didn't include myself,
[31:29] but the one person was actually favorable to this request because thought it would be more commercial and retail services to serve the residents of North Valley's.
[31:41] And there's our notice that we did, so that is all I have, glad to answer any questions.
[31:48] We are certainly in agreement with the staff for Portas Residen, Reswritten, first time in my career that I've seen a special use permit that didn't have a condition.
[31:58] That's a unique thing, so it's a good thing.
[32:01] So thank you for your time. I'm here for any questions or any further consideration you might have.
[32:07] Thank you.
[32:08] Thank you very much, Mr. Compotic. Do we have any questions from the board or staff or the applicant's representative?
[32:19] Do we have any public comment on this item?
[32:22] I have no public comment in chambers by do you have a hand raised on Zoom?
[32:27] Katherine, your RT, please state your first last day for the record.
[32:33] Can you hear me?
[32:33] Yes.
[32:35] Okay. Katherine, your RT for the record. Also for the record, I was the one attendee.
[32:39] At the meeting, I am fully in support of this change.
[32:43] I'm very familiar with the area.
[32:45] I actually, my first job at 16 was at Silver State kennels.
[32:49] So I've been familiar with this area for a very long time.
[32:54] I completely agree with everything that was presented that it is very squeezed out.
[32:57] There's no logic to keeping that as a larger property for individual use,
[33:02] making this a commercial property as a very logical next transition for these
[33:09] based on the development that's happened around it.
[33:11] I also stated during that meeting,
[33:13] if I could, we have a magic wand and choose what the development is,
[33:16] I would love to see some like affordable senior housing,
[33:19] just because it's so close to public transportation,
[33:23] but just getting like some small shops
[33:24] where we can get some locally owned businesses in there
[33:28] and restaurants and support local business
[33:32] for residents in Le Men Valley and in the North Valley
[33:35] to be able to give back to their communities.
[33:38] it's a great spot for it and I like it said I think it's a fantastic transition if the
[33:43] seeing is how the homeowners are on board with that and I fully as a community member and
[33:51] former resident of that area, fully support and back this project and I really hope that the board
[33:59] will see fit to approve it as it stands. So that's all I have. Thank you.
[34:09] No further public comment.
[34:12] All right. Thank you. Any discussion from the board?
[34:16] Yes, I'm Commissioner Leonard. The timing of this coming on the heels of the Hawke
[34:22] Fire when 42,000 residents were under evacuation orders and thousands of them were trapped in
[34:29] traffic in that immediate area for hours. They could not get out.
[34:35] I think that I could support this after a time that we hear from our emergency services on
[34:44] how they are going to provide updates to alleviate the traffic concerns with evacuation
[34:51] resources in our area.
[34:54] And on the heels of that, I would move to continue agenda item 9B Master Plan Amendment
[34:58] case number of WMP.
[35:00] 2, 6, 0, 0, 0, 3, regulatory is on amendment case number, WR, VA26004, special use permit case number WSUP260013 lemon drive to a future meeting.
[35:13] New earlier than 60 days to provide adequate time for updated emergency preparedness planning and evaluation for this area of concern.
[35:21] The additional time will allow appropriate coordination, review of emergency response capabilities and consideration of any measures necessary to protect the public health safety.
[35:31] All right. Well, I hadn't called for motions yet, but no worries. Were there any other comments from the board before we address that motion?
[35:46] Okay. We have a motion. Do we have any seconds for that motion?
[35:56] Hearing no seconds, the motion does not pass.
[36:02] Do we have other motions?
[36:07] Kennedy moves. Can you hear me? Yes, glad window. Okay, Kennedy moves that after giving
[36:19] reason, consideration to the information contained in the staff report and information
[36:25] received during the public hearing, the Washoe County Planning Commission adopted
[36:31] resolution contained at attachment A of the staff report to amend the master plan and set
[36:38] forth in master plan amendment case number WMP826-003 having made at least three of the following
[36:49] five findings in accordance with wash-o-comic code section 110.82015D and 110208.45. I'm just going to indicate
[37:04] the titles. One is consistency with master plan. Two is compatible. Land uses three is response
[37:13] to change conditions for is availability of facilities and five is desired pattern of growth
[37:23] and north value areas plan finding section 110 that 208.45.
[37:36] Do we have a second?
[37:40] Mr. Nelson, second.
[37:43] All those in favour?
[37:44] Aye.
[37:45] Aye.
[37:46] Any opposed?
[37:48] Aye.
[37:51] Thank you.
[37:53] All right.
[37:54] I will draw further regulatory zone amendment.
[37:57] I move that after giving reason consideration to the information contained in the staff report and the information received during the public hearing the planning commission adopt the resolution included as attachment B.
[38:07] We're recommending adoption in the regulatory zone amendment, case number WRZ-A26-004, having made all the findings in according to the Welsh or county code section 110.821.15D.
[38:21] I further move to sort of by the resolution.
[38:25] As said in the staff report, for submission to the Welsh or county board of commissioners and authorize the chair to sign the resolution on behalf of the Welsh or county planning commission.
[38:38] Mr. Nelson II?
[38:41] All those in favor.
[38:42] Hi.
[38:43] Hi.
[38:44] Hi.
[38:45] Any opposed?
[38:46] No.
[38:49] All right.
[38:50] And as to the special use,
[38:52] I move that after giving reason consideration to the information
[38:55] contained in the staff report and information received during the public hearing
[38:58] the Washer County Board of Adjustment,
[39:03] Washer County Board of Planning Commission,
[39:06] Approved, especially as per my case number WSUP 26-0013 for
[39:14] our Umar Vaskas, Nelsa Chavez and Ryan Hargol, family trust having made all five
[39:19] findings in accordance with Washer County Code section 110.810.30.
[39:28] Mr. Nelsa little second.
[39:30] All those in favor?
[39:32] Hi.
[39:34] Any opposed?
[39:35] No.
[39:37] Thank you.
[39:38] That brings us to the end of item 9B.
[39:43] 9C is continued.
[39:47] Would you announce item 9D, please?
[39:50] This is Master Plan of Amendment.
[39:52] Case number W, MPA, 26002, and regulatory zone
[39:57] amendment case number W R
[40:02] I'm reading the wrong one. I do apologize. Is that the right one?
[40:10] Well, my code of amendment, WDC-A20.
[40:12] No, I'm sorry. I was, I jumped ahead.
[40:16] I'll back up. This is, this is case number W-A website. This is case number W-D-C-A26004.
[40:27] for agriterism. For hearing discussion and possible action to initiate an amendment and approve
[40:33] a resolution to amend washable county code chapter 1-10 within articles 302-304-342-410 and
[40:41] for 12. The proposed amendments would make the following changes to define agriterism as a new
[40:48] use type under agricultural use types. Add agriterism to table 1-10-302-05.5 and establish the
[40:56] applicable permitting requirements for regulatory by regulatory zone.
[41:01] Rename the produce sales use type to farm stands, allow farm stands by right in the rural regulatory zones of LDS, LDS2, GC, and NC.
[41:12] Modified the definition of farm stand in Article 304.
[41:16] update article 342 to add sections establishing development and operational standards for
[41:22] agracherism, farm stands, and structures used for farm stands. Establish parking standards for
[41:28] agracherism, and farm stands in article 410, parking and loading. Exempt agracherism uses
[41:35] from article 412 landscaping, and all matters necessarily connected there with and pertaining
[41:41] there too. The proposal has been reviewed under Development Code Article 818, amendment of Development
[41:47] Code and is applicable to all districts. If the proposed amendments are initiated, the Planning
[41:52] Commission may recommend approval of the proposed ordinance as submitted recommended approval
[41:56] with modifications based on input and discussion at the public hearing or recommend denial. If
[42:01] approval is recommended, the Planning Commission is asked to authorize the chair to sign a resolution
[42:06] to that effect.
[42:08] So representing Washow County in this matter is as planner and show in Burtetto.
[42:21] The item before you is the presentation for the Agritorism ordinance.
[42:29] Starting off with some background, the Agritorism code amendments were prioritized by the Board
[42:34] of County Commissioners.
[42:36] This was in response to public feedback regarding challenges encountered by farmers and ranchers
[42:42] interested in starting agritorism businesses and farm stands.
[42:46] We heard that there was a desire to diversify income streams, provide education to the community and connected customers directly to growers and producers.
[42:56] And just so that everyone's on the same page when we say agritourism, what do we mean by that?
[43:00] Well, agritourism businesses can take many different forms, but it's essentially a business where visitors are coming to a working farm or ranch for education and enjoyment.
[43:09] use is include educational workshops, tours, and eupict operations.
[43:19] This is a look at our
[43:20] process for drafting these amendments, starting in October 2025. That's when this was
[43:25] prioritized by the BCC and we started our initial brainstorming. In spring 2026 we had
[43:32] phase one of outreach which included one on one stakeholder meetings. We circulated a public
[43:38] survey and had 18 responses, and we hosted an in-person community workshop with eight attendees.
[43:44] After that, the summer, based on feedback, we created our first draft of these amendments,
[43:50] and we coordinated with other departments, including building and the health department.
[43:55] And then later, the summer was phase two of our outreach, where we brought those amendments
[43:59] back to the public. We had another survey. We requested feedback from some of those initial stakeholders,
[44:04] and we hosted a virtual neighborhood meeting with six attendees.
[44:09] We incorporated some more of that feedback,
[44:11] and that brings us to where we are right now,
[44:14] which is the fall for adoption of the revised draft.
[44:20] And before I go into an overview of those amendments,
[44:24] I wanted to touch on what it currently looks like
[44:26] in the Water County Development Code.
[44:28] So right now, there is no definition for agritourism.
[44:32] So if somebody is wanting to start this type of business,
[44:35] they have to do a bit of a hodgepodge
[44:36] of other agricultural and commercial use types.
[44:39] And this is going to trigger things
[44:41] like the commercial parking and landscaping standards.
[44:45] For selling produce, we do have a use type called
[44:47] produce sales.
[44:49] It's allowed with a special use permit in several zones.
[44:52] But as you know, a special use permit is a link to your review process.
[44:55] It requires a public hearing process.
[44:58] Produce sales is allowed.
[45:00] Currently in the general rule zones with a minimum of 40 acres. And then the definition is very narrow. It specifies that a produce sales business can only sell produce grown by the seller. So we wanted to broaden that definition, based on what we heard from the needs of the community.
[45:19] The proposed changes to start off for agrochorism. We are proposing adding a definition for agrochorism businesses under agricultural use types.
[45:28] A key part of that definition is that agritours and businesses are secondary and supplemental to a primary agricultural use.
[45:37] And then, as I mentioned, typical uses are those workshops, tours, you pick businesses.
[45:43] For farm stands, we are changing the name of produce sales to farm stands.
[45:49] It's more descriptive of what's actually intended under that use type and awards confusion.
[45:53] And we also revised the definition to allow for the sale of value added goods that would be somebody being able to create something from these wax that is produced on their farm.
[46:05] And then also the minimum loss size required is being reduced from that 40 acres to 35,000 square feet.
[46:15] This is a look at the use table where agritourism and farm stand businesses would be allowed by right.
[46:21] That's the A, and then A are is an administrative review, which is an internal review process,
[46:27] where we would make sure it's appropriate use type for that regulatory zone.
[46:36] Other amendments include Article 342.
[46:39] This is where we set these standards for agrotourism and farm stands.
[46:44] Under agrotourism, a wash of county business license needs to be obtained for both the primary agricultural use and agrotourism.
[46:50] We set limits to the hours of operations 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. and it allows for the use of portable bathrooms,
[46:59] which is important as many of these areas are in rural rural areas.
[47:03] And then for farm stands, it establishes a loud structure size based on loud size,
[47:08] allows for temporary structures to be used as farm stands with provision that they are moved out of view and not in use.
[47:14] And it curves out a bathroom exemption for temporary farm stands that are open for less than four hours a day.
[47:25] Other amendments include Article 410, which establishes parking requirements of one parking space per employee during peak employment shift and a minimum of two spaces.
[47:34] That's for both agatourism and farm stand businesses.
[47:37] Article 412 exempts agatourism and farm stands from the landscaping requirements.
[47:42] And then Article 304, this is pretty minor, but it adds seedlings to the definition of crop production use type to allow for the sale of seedlings without being considered a full-blown retailer wholesale nursery.
[47:58] And now we do recognize that there are still going to be challenges for somebody who wants to start one of these businesses.
[48:05] One of those challenges is that utilizing existing structures like a barn, if you wanted to convert that into a classroom.
[48:12] that does require modifications to meet the building code.
[48:16] And then camping and overnight visitors would still be considered a different use type.
[48:22] We already have that established in the code.
[48:23] It might be considered a commercial campground, a bed and breakfast,
[48:27] maybe even a short-term rental.
[48:29] So that could be done in conjunction with this,
[48:32] but it will require those standards to be met.
[48:36] And then large events like festivals are not included in agritourism.
[48:39] that would still need to go through the special event permit process, which includes things like
[48:44] notifying the neighbors and a more extensive review of the impacts. And then if approved
[48:49] staff plans on creating a agro-tourism guide and implementation guide to help people through this process.
[48:59] And without we do provide a possible motion of approval
[49:06] and I'm available for questions and I'm here
[49:09] with my colleague Chris Sue co-authored the staff report.
[49:14] Thank you so much, any questions from the
[49:16] for staff at this time?
[49:22] Do we have public comment on this item? I have a hand
[49:25] breeze on Zoom. Catherine, you're a team. Please unmute. State your first
[49:29] last day for the record. Well again Catherine, you're a team for the record. I
[49:34] just want to thank staff for working so hard on this. This came up during the
[49:38] equine code amendment quite a few times that I was pretty heavily involved in.
[49:43] And it's it's a very valuable use. People are wanting to do these types of things when I
[49:49] reached out to during the equipment process. I learned there's no definition for beekeeping in
[49:56] the code and so people are looking for ways to be able to...
[50:00] You do these side businesses and to share their homegrown products and to do it within a legal framework
[50:07] of the county. I just want to thank staff so much for listening to the feedback that was given
[50:12] during the meetings and creating a very workable model that people can follow so that we can
[50:18] continue to support these home-based and agricultural-based businesses that really lean into the
[50:25] history of Nevada and some of the just the great things that this area can provide and we've
[50:30] really moved away from that farm-to-table field and this is a great way to bring that back and
[50:35] and I hope that that will help to continue this industry for this region. So I just want to say thank
[50:40] you. It's a great plan and I look forward to you all approving it hopefully. So thank you.
[50:50] I have no further public comment. Thank you so much. I would also like to thank staff for
[50:56] coming forward with a proposal to amend our code in a way that legalizes stuff that's
[51:03] already happening, does it without a whole bunch of burden to the community members who
[51:09] are doing beneficial things that people like and pay for and create a nice community.
[51:21] We don't have to make everything totally bureaucratic.
[51:29] That's my only comment on that.
[51:31] Any further comment from the board on this item?
[51:34] Discussion?
[51:38] Would anyone like to make the motion?
[51:41] The needy would like to move that after giving
[51:45] Reasoned consideration to the information contained in the
[51:48] Staff report and information received during the public hearing.
[51:52] the Washington County Planning Commission recommended approval of a WDCA26-00.
[52:09] Then there you still there, I think we lost you.
[52:17] Linda, we can't hear you anymore.
[52:24] Linda, I don't know what's going on. I'll go ahead and have us.
[52:27] I'll speak to the budget.
[52:29] I moved that after giving reason considerations.
[52:33] The information contained in the staff report and the information received during the public hearing.
[52:37] the Washer County Planning Commission recommend approval of WDC-826-004 to amend Washer County
[52:44] chapter 1-10 development code within article 302 304 342 and 412. I further moved to
[52:51] authorized chair to sign the resolution contained in attachment A on behalf of the Washer County
[52:56] Planning Commission and direct staff to present a report of this commission's recommendation
[53:00] to the Washer County Board of County Commissioners within 60 days of today's date.
[53:05] this recommendation for approvals based on all four findings in accordance with
[53:09] wash of county code section 110.818.15E.
[53:16] Mr. Owens for a second.
[53:19] All those in favor?
[53:21] Hi.
[53:23] Any opposed?
[53:25] The motion carries.
[53:27] Mr. Lloyd, would you announce?
[53:28] Can I just for the record?
[53:29] Let the last connection off so it's 6.83 to sort of at his aware for the Rick.
[53:37] Okay, hopefully we'll get her back.
[53:40] Item 9 E, the phone lane.
[53:45] Okay, this is Master Plan Amendment.
[53:47] To W MP826002 and regulatory zone amendment.
[53:53] Case number W R Z826003.
[53:57] for hearing discussion and possible action to adopt an amendment to the Washington Master Plan Forest,
[54:04] Master Plan Land Youth Map to change the Master Plan Land Youth designation for one,
[54:10] parcel totaling 40.01 acres from 36.81 acres of rural residential and 3.21 acres of open space,
[54:20] 2.29.6 acres of suburban residential and 10.4 acres of open space.
[54:25] And if approved authorize the chair to send a resolution to this effect, any adoption, by the Planning Commission is subject to approval by the Washer County Board of County Commissioners and a finding of conformance with the Truckie Meadows Regional Plan by the Regional Planning Authorities.
[54:40] And subject to a final approval of the Associated Master Plan amendment and a finding of conformance with the Truckie Meadows Regional Plan recommended adoption of an amendment to the Forest Regulatory Zone map to change the regulatory zoning for one parcel from
[54:55] 3, 36.81 acres of medium density rural.
[55:00] And 3.21 acres of open space, 2.29.61 acres of low-density suburban, and 10.4 acres of open space, and if
[55:09] approved authorize the chair to sign a resolution to the effect. The application is submitted by
[55:14] Metzker Trust. The subject property is located 0.25 miles south east of the intersection of Mount
[55:20] Rose Highway and fond lane. The proposal is being reviewed under development code article 820,
[55:25] amendment of master plan and development code article 821 amendment of regulatory zone and representing
[55:31] wash your county in this matter is senior planner Chris Bronser.
[55:40] Good evening Chris Bronser, senior
[55:43] planner. So we're looking at WMPA 26-2 and WRCA 26-3. This is for the fond lane MPA RCA.
[55:56] So the request
[55:57] is to approve a master plan amendment and a regulatory amendment for one parcel adjacent to fondland.
[56:06] The MPA is to change it from rural residential to suburban residential and to increase the open space
[56:12] designation. As mentioned, the suburban residential is proposed to be 29.61 acres,
[56:20] open spaces increasing from 3.21 acres to 10.4 acres and the regulatory zone amendment is to change
[56:29] from medium density rural, which allows for one dwelling per five acres to low density suburban,
[56:36] which allows for one dwelling per acre, as well as increasing that open space,
[56:42] regular for his own. And the LDS and open space zoning's coincide with the master plan
[56:51] acreage changes.
[56:56] Before you use the property in question highlighted, and it is south of Mount
[57:03] Rose Highway and adjacent to Bombay.
[57:10] The properties to the west are developed with residential
[57:13] uses. Those properties ranged from one acre to five acres. And they have an existing
[57:20] designation of suburban residential. Additionally, those properties to the West have a low-density
[57:29] suburban regulatory zone already. Properties to the North and East consist of undeveloped
[57:34] federal land.
[57:41] Before you is a side-by-side person of the Master Plan Amendment request,
[57:47] As you can see, the proposed master plan amendment is very similar in nature to the existing
[57:57] development pattern for the West and South.
[58:04] Similarly, this is a side-by-side comparison for the regulatory zone amendment.
[58:09] As you can see, it is very similar to the development pattern to the West and South.
[58:20] So access for this property currently is granted from fondlane through multiple recorded
[58:26] easements on the southwest corner of the site.
[58:30] There are additional access opportunities from the north and east.
[58:36] There is a roadway utility easement that was established by a recorded document 347026,
[58:42] which is the original patent deed for this parcel and a joining fondlane.
[58:49] All records that staff are able to review indicate that there are 33-foot roadway and utility
[58:56] easements during the parcel.
[59:02] This property is located within the Tamil service area and Tamil will serve the future
[59:07] development.
[59:10] Wash County will provide sewer, adequate sewer capacity for future development has been
[59:18] and there will be requirements for private easement sewer easements to cross private property.
[59:31] So because this is an MPA RCA, there is no development project associated with it.
[59:39] No development project has been submitted or reviewed as part of this.
[59:43] So any future traffic counts will come with any future development that comes for.
[59:48] However, this project was, this application was submitted to endot as well as Wash County Engineering.
[59:56] Both reviewed the application and no concerns for...
[1:00:00] Comments regarding traffic impacts were provided. Fire station 36, with truck administrator's fire, will serve this site.
[1:00:12] So there was a neighborhood meeting held at the South Valley's library on April 16, there were 15 attendees as part of this request.
[1:00:21] Concerns related to site access, lots under one acre on the subject parcel and number of homes for the future development.
[1:00:29] There was an additional neighborhood meeting hub where people could submit comments, concerns,
[1:00:38] opposition support, and we received two results from that, and they were in opposition of this request.
[1:00:47] Additionally, we did receive public comment.
[1:00:52] That public comment should have been provided to you as one of the exhibits.
[1:00:58] We also received additional public comment in the last couple days, which should have been provided to the commission earlier today.
[1:01:08] The overwhelming majority of those public comments were in opposition to this request.
[1:01:18] Before using the noticing map, staff went out to 1200 feet, noticed 36 individual property owners, and an ad was placed in the RGJ.
[1:01:34] So, and that was provided this application as part of the initial agency review.
[1:01:42] Staff did receive comments from the Department of Wildlife late last night.
[1:01:49] That agency review document should have been provided to the commission before this meeting.
[1:01:54] It was regarding yielder habitat.
[1:01:56] And so, a brief summary is this is endowed, mapped,
[1:02:02] yield your habitat, however due to existing development that has taken place.
[1:02:09] This is no longer a functioning migratory route from yield air.
[1:02:17] Staff is able to make all the required findings associated with this request,
[1:02:24] and the motions can be found within the staff report on page 18 and 18 and 19.
[1:02:28] for both the MPA and RCA.
[1:02:34] I'm available for any questions you may have. Thank you.
[1:02:39] Thank you. Does the applicant have a presentation, separate?
[1:02:43] Yes, they do.
[1:03:01] All right. Good evening, commissioners.
[1:03:03] My name is Eric Casey, I'm with Wooder Rogers, and I'm representing the applicant.
[1:03:07] Who's also here in attendance tonight.
[1:03:10] Chris take a job of going over the presentation. I'll try to not add on to that and just go through some of the things
[1:03:19] that we considered when submitting this application.
[1:03:22] I think we're all familiar with the project site.
[1:03:25] Again, it is a little bit over 40 acres,
[1:03:28] and it's within the forest area plan.
[1:03:33] As stated, we did host a neighborhood meeting in April.
[1:03:36] There was about 15 attendees from the surrounding community.
[1:03:40] We did here concerns considering the increased density
[1:03:46] within the area concerns about the lot sizes
[1:03:49] of the homes and then traffic along Fawn Lane.
[1:03:53] And so, you know, me being from the area as well as the applicant, we were also aware of some
[1:04:01] of the other developments that came in understood that this was going to be a concern in
[1:04:06] something that we wanted to address through this request tonight.
[1:04:12] So to give you an idea of what we're proposing, what we did was we looked at not only the
[1:04:19] existing master plan and zoning on site, but also the site features themselves.
[1:04:24] This is a slope map here showing the slopes on the site where the green areas indicate areas that are relatively flat.
[1:04:32] There are under 15% these are generally considered good for development and then the darker red areas are those that are over 30%
[1:04:41] And so we did take this into consideration when we proposed master plan designations and the lines as well as the same as the zoning.
[1:04:51] I would also like to point out that there are residents to the west that currently are adjacent to the property that the property.
[1:05:00] To the north and to the east is owned by the Forest Service. So there is some interest in protecting
[1:05:05] that open space as well.
[1:05:10] The current master plan designation, Chris, do a good job going over this.
[1:05:13] I just like to point out that there is about a little over three acres open space right now.
[1:05:18] And that's really in that area that was just showing you on the map with the really steep train.
[1:05:24] And what we're proposing to do would be to increase this by over seven acres.
[1:05:30] So increasing the open space to 10.4 acres of open space.
[1:05:37] So this not only protects the steep slopes,
[1:05:40] but also provides some buffer to the existing residents there.
[1:05:46] And looking at the zoning, this is the current zoning designation.
[1:05:51] It is MDR, and again, we are proposing to do the same thing,
[1:05:56] increasing that open space and proposing the LDS zoning.
[1:06:00] So we're going to blow density suburban and I'd just like to read something in the forest area plan that is in the Washow County Comprehensive Plan or this area.
[1:06:11] So the regional plan designates that the area within the TMSA in the forest area plan as tier three.
[1:06:18] So this area is in there. They're in the tier three TMSA areas outside of the TMSA are rural.
[1:06:26] This means that over the next 20 years, the area within the TMSA will continue to experience and accommodate suburban development at a current maximum density of about one to two dwelling units per acre.
[1:06:40] So this is what we're proposing.
[1:06:44] Excuse me.
[1:06:45] And this is in line with not only the master plan, but what is compatible with the surrounding area.
[1:06:51] So, we're asking for the zoning that is within the LDS, which is adjacent to the property.
[1:06:58] This will allow for one acre lots of minimum, and this, when we're comparing it to the existing zoning,
[1:07:05] will show you what the development standards will be.
[1:07:08] So, really, when you have the existing MDR zoning designation, and you compare that with the proposed LDS,
[1:07:14] the side setback is really the only thing that's changing as far as the setback's go,
[1:07:18] and we're reducing that for 15 feet to 12 feet.
[1:07:23] But I'd also like to point out that we are putting in this 30 to 40 foot buffer near the adjacent residents.
[1:07:30] So if there was a building there and they were on the side, they would have to be set back even further because of this open space buffer that we're proposing with this request.
[1:07:39] With this request as well, this will allow for 29 lots if we were to just propose on the entire development with just including that open space, we would be able to have about 38 lots.
[1:07:56] So with this request, we are limiting the amount of potential lots that can be on there for future development.
[1:08:06] Just looking at this, this is how the land use would look overlaid on a 3D image.
[1:08:11] So you can see that those steeper slopes are really protected, those pink areas that are shown there are relatively flat areas.
[1:08:19] And you can see how those buffers are in adjacent, especially when you look up at the northwest picture there, how that buffer interacts with that existing development there.
[1:08:32] Again, just going over the availability of facilities, we did do a discovery,
[1:08:38] I'd like to point out, right. Again, this is, there is no development that is associated with this at this time.
[1:08:45] But for future development, we have done a discovery from Tom Wall.
[1:08:49] There is the availability to extend water resources to this site if it should be needed.
[1:08:55] However, this will be evaluated with future development.
[1:09:00] Well, there's still an option.
[1:09:03] It just depends on what that development consists of.
[1:09:06] Again, I think Chris did a good job of saying how sewer is available.
[1:09:11] And police and fire already servicing this area.
[1:09:16] Looking at site access, there are a number of easements that are available to this project.
[1:09:24] These do access from fondlane.
[1:09:27] Again, site access does not to be established with rezoning,
[1:09:30] But considering that this is a part of the availability of the facilities and one of the findings,
[1:09:37] then we just wanted to go over this real quick, US Forest Service is also adjacent to the site from the north and to the east,
[1:09:47] and so this is a possibility of secondary access as well.
[1:09:50] So all those details will then be provided once we come forward with a development.
[1:10:00] So, just like to recap that we did submit this application in May, we did incorporate the comments from the neighborhood meeting staff recommends approval, and I'm available for any questions. So, thank you for your time.
[1:10:18] Thank you. Questions from the board for staff or the applicants representative?
[1:10:26] chair, I have a question for staff.
[1:10:34] So just a quick question on the density. If they were to come back with a project and do a cluster development, could that increase the density that we're seeing today?
[1:10:49] Chris Bronsick, Washingtony Planning, no, so cluster development,
[1:10:57] we're common open space development, allows for them to cluster,
[1:11:02] but they would be limited to what the underlying zoning is.
[1:11:05] So if it changed to low density suburban and allowed for 29 dwellings,
[1:11:12] they would still be limited to 29 dwelling units even in the cluster.
[1:11:16] Okay. Thank you. One other question and I don't know if you know the answer to this or not.
[1:11:22] The U.S. Forest Service parcels that are to the north and to the east. Are they part of the Mark
[1:11:28] Almadez lands bill or our Senators lands bill?
[1:11:35] Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with whether it's part of that lands bill or not.
[1:11:41] Okay. Thank you.
[1:11:43] I
[1:11:47] have a question for county staff.
[1:11:49] It's might be for engineering, though.
[1:11:54] The applicant's representative indicated that wells were a possibility to serve water to this.
[1:12:00] My understanding of the trucking method of service area was that if you're in the trucking
[1:12:04] method of service area, you don't get to sink new drinking water wells, you have to get service
[1:12:12] from trucking methods.
[1:12:15] So, I will first correct something and then I'll refer to engineering.
[1:12:24] So my presentation said that it was in the service area.
[1:12:29] It is in Tom was territory,
[1:12:34] based off page 9 of the staff report.
[1:12:36] It states that if they do everything that they need to do and they dedicate water rights to Toma,
[1:12:46] they would then get annexed into the service area.
[1:12:51] So then Toma would provide water for them.
[1:12:55] I'll refer to engineering for additional comments.
[1:13:03] I had an additional question along the same line, so what you're saying is there is definitely an opportunity for them to be wells and septic tanks, is that true?
[1:13:20] That's true, however.
[1:13:23] But so therefore you're proposing that we have wells and septic tanks on one acre lots.
[1:13:29] lots, I would say from experience in most of the county, that's inadequate for that type of water and drainage.
[1:13:40] Good stuff. So northern Nevada Public Health would regulate anything related to
[1:13:48] well-inceptic. However, again, there's no development before us. And the northern Nevada Public Health
[1:13:54] standards of five acre minimum lot sizes for new septic so I can not change I believe
[1:14:01] happened earlier this year. What I'm saying is I would be uncomfortable saying they
[1:14:11] could have one acre lots when there's no water guarantee by tumba or sewer available
[1:14:21] this area.
[1:14:25] Okay, that's a fair comment. I will just reiterate that as the code and
[1:14:32] the health code currently works, if development went forward on this parcel with Wells
[1:14:41] and septic, regardless of what the underlying zoning was, minimum lot sizes of five acres
[1:14:48] would apply in order for new septic systems to be installed? Is that accurate staff?
[1:15:03] I hope they have one acre lots. No, they have zoning that would allow for one acre lots. If this is approved, there would be zoning a master plan that would allow for one acre lots, but if they came forward with a tentative map proposal, or one acre lots and septic that would not meet Washow County health standards. And if they came forward with a tentative map proposal, or septic systems, the lots would have to be in one
[1:15:33] five acres average and that that is correct. I will respond to that. Yes, the health rules will
[1:15:42] limit the size of the lots to five acres unless they connect to community sewer system.
[1:16:01] As to what is what is going to be the yield, lot yield on this, if this is going forward.
[1:16:11] Are you asking the total number of lots that would, yes?
[1:16:16] Potential would be?
[1:16:18] Well, yeah.
[1:16:18] I understand that there's going to be some that are three quarters, just under three quarters of an acre, and some that are going to be an acre.
[1:16:27] And what you have before you is a request to change the master plan, land use plan.
[1:16:34] So we don't have in front of us a proposed tentative map at this time.
[1:16:39] There is the potential through a common open space development to reduce the lot sizes below that one acre, but that would require dedication of a certain number of acres of common open space.
[1:16:53] Now, what is before you as a request to ink, essentially upzone, or intensify the potential
[1:17:01] from what is currently allowed, currently the property would allow for seven total
[1:17:06] lots to be created with the proposed amendments that would be increased up to a total
[1:17:13] of 29 units, I believe, if I'm not mistaken, 29 units.
[1:17:18] That's an increase of, yeah, 22 essentially, and increase of, I see, 22 units.
[1:17:26] Thank you.
[1:17:32] All right.
[1:17:32] Do we have public comment on this item?
[1:17:37] I have public comment and chambers.
[1:17:38] I have Kent Taylor, followed by Mary Joe Spiro.
[1:17:52] Hello, I'm Kent Taylor.
[1:17:53] Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
[1:17:55] I'm opposed to this for two reasons.
[1:17:57] One has to do with access in the process, and the second has to do with emergency egress.
[1:18:03] Just for access first, pardon me, but staff in this represented by saying that this was adjacent to fun lane.
[1:18:11] This parcel is not adjacent to fun lane.
[1:18:14] In order to get from this parcel to fun lane, you have to cross private land.
[1:18:18] There are easements across this private land.
[1:18:21] But that's the ability of the development to use as a contestant.
[1:18:28] And in nearly identical case, on Fawn Lane,
[1:18:32] the data Supreme Court ruled that similar easements
[1:18:35] could not be used in this way to access Fawn Lane.
[1:18:40] So it's unclear yet whether or not they even had access to Fawn Lane.
[1:18:44] Also, there is, as been stated by staff,
[1:18:47] access along a far service route in the back of the parcel, which is not been considered
[1:18:52] at all.
[1:18:53] So, access is an issue here, and it seems to me premature that the commission here would
[1:18:58] spend all this time, the half time, public time, considering a parcel for a rezoning,
[1:19:05] where we don't even know if they have access to it yet, it's kind of like we're dragging
[1:19:09] everybody through this.
[1:19:10] So I would encourage you just to postpone the decision on this until the applicant can
[1:19:15] prove and demonstrate that they have access to it because it is contested right now.
[1:19:20] And secondly has to do with emergency egress, like just about everybody on Fung Lane, we're
[1:19:24] really concerned about the traffic on Fung Lane.
[1:19:28] You may recall that the Sente development has been proposed in the south and to Fung Lane.
[1:19:33] So traffic is increasing and as it gets built out, it will be even more increasing.
[1:19:38] This commission reviewed a plan for the second phase of a centae and this commission decided that
[1:19:48] a condition for approving the second phase of a centae, which has not been done yet,
[1:19:54] would be that additional access point be developed along the back side.
[1:20:00] And the reason was, because the fund lane is only 22 feet wide. So, you need access there. It's a big problem for us. We're really concerned about it during the fire evacuation.
[1:20:12] And, you know, I think this is the time to address it. You're adding 22 more homes. You're setting a precedent for many, many more times that. This is the time to address the issue about can you put enough residents down that road 22 foot wide road.
[1:20:29] during a fire evacuation.
[1:20:32] So for those two reasons, one, they don't have access yet.
[1:20:35] It's premature, the out of the access is contested.
[1:20:37] I guess we'll be the way to say it.
[1:20:39] That's one reason.
[1:20:40] And the second reason is this serious concern
[1:20:43] that we have about fire access.
[1:20:46] And you've saw this during the Hawke fire
[1:20:47] just how much we're proud of that is.
[1:20:49] Thank you very much for your time.
[1:20:53] I have Mary Joe Spiro.
[1:20:55] Follow by Dr. I apologize.
[1:20:57] I can't quite read the name.
[1:20:58] It starts, first, digital D is next.
[1:21:03] Meritio Spirofar, but followed by first digital D as a dog.
[1:21:10] Good evening.
[1:21:11] I'm Meritio Spiro, and I've lived on Fondlane for 39 years.
[1:21:17] And I think the woman who spoke about Almeno Valley,
[1:21:25] hit it on the nose.
[1:21:27] We moved out there because it was rural.
[1:21:30] If you want to live in the city, live in the city.
[1:21:33] If you want to live in rural, live in rural, please don't change that.
[1:21:38] It's already been changed by the Ascent Day Tall Project.
[1:21:43] I don't know if any of you have driven out there.
[1:21:45] But if you have, when you start on fun lane, you'll see all of our old country homes.
[1:21:52] And you get to the end of fun lane.
[1:21:54] And you see these two story, large, million dollar homes that don't fit in out there.
[1:22:02] I don't know if you guys live out there, maybe you do, maybe you don't, um, that's not our
[1:22:09] community out there. As Mr. Taylor said, the traffic is horrendous. I know eventually the
[1:22:19] semis are going to stop, but right now they pound down and back all day long. So now we're going
[1:22:28] put another 29 homes in there, along that project going to go. Are we all going to lose our wells?
[1:22:36] Are we all going to be forced to do Tomoa? Again, what is this benefiting us?
[1:22:45] Benefits of County because they're going to get more money for taxes, etc. That's a no-brainer.
[1:22:52] But what is it benefiting us who again moved out there? Sure, there's some people that are not
[1:22:58] out there for 40 years, but there's still quite a few of us that are.
[1:23:02] Please, please listen to us.
[1:23:05] We moved out there because we liked the world lifestyle.
[1:23:09] And that's changing.
[1:23:11] Please don't let this impact us even more.
[1:23:17] Thanks.
[1:23:22] Like I said, I can't read the name.
[1:23:24] I apologize.
[1:23:25] The first initial is D.
[1:23:26] You have a public comment.
[1:23:32] I don't want to read your address.
[1:23:33] I didn't want to.
[1:23:36] Okay, could you please stay here for the last day for the record,
[1:23:41] Doug Crow?
[1:23:41] Yeah, thank you.
[1:23:42] Okay.
[1:23:43] Thank you.
[1:23:44] I'd followed my Jeff Church.
[1:23:47] So I've been on the farm lane for 32 years plus and all I've seen is a lot of bad, bad construction.
[1:23:58] And it was approved by you guys.
[1:24:01] A Cynthia is built on a fault line.
[1:24:03] Okay, whatever, but this 29 homes, there's no way
[1:24:07] if one link can handle more wells or safety tanks.
[1:24:12] Period, there's no way.
[1:24:13] I had to deepen my well down to 455 feet.
[1:24:17] It cost me $24,000.
[1:24:19] The county gave me $9,000 back.
[1:24:23] So, the eaters, some serious issues.
[1:24:26] If they decide to do wells and safety tanks,
[1:24:30] it's going to dry us up.
[1:24:31] There's not enough water for 29 more homes in that bull.
[1:24:36] Another thing is fire evacuation.
[1:24:39] There's none.
[1:24:40] Juan Laine is a narrow road, one mile long, only in, only out.
[1:24:45] That's it.
[1:24:46] There's no other way out of there.
[1:24:48] So when we had a fire two years ago,
[1:24:50] you should have seen the chicken show that went on,
[1:24:53] trying to get out there with the people trying to get out of there.
[1:24:55] It was ridiculous.
[1:24:56] I'm surprised somebody didn't get ran over.
[1:24:59] So to me.
[1:25:00] The hot situation, we should take a serious look at that. That was really serious because that fire was right
[1:25:08] above our house. We're back up against the hill. The fire was right there. And it was basically a really
[1:25:17] crummy show to watch everybody trying to evacuate and get out of there down a narrow little road, which we love
[1:25:22] the real life. That's why we're there. Most people die there. They don't sell their house. They die there. Because
[1:25:28] It's funling the reason it's called funling is that's where the deer go to have their babies every spray
[1:25:34] We got 40 head deer. I don't care what indel says
[1:25:38] They probably didn't even look at it
[1:25:40] They have a lot of babies this year. We got nine almost like a dozen babies this year
[1:25:48] We're they gonna go
[1:25:49] We just keep building and forcing them out
[1:25:53] I sent pictures. I don't know if you got him. I sent him to Chris. And I mean, we've lost five
[1:25:59] deer ran over by construction employees going to the same day. Nothing's been done. There's
[1:26:05] been no counter on no car counter on fondling. There's been no traffic control on fondling.
[1:26:12] So it's just been, you know, kind of a bad situation for us because we've been there for so long.
[1:26:17] Well, you know, we love the area, but seriously, to add 29 more homes and they don't have
[1:26:24] a plan for water, sewer or something, that's going to be really ugly because there's
[1:26:29] not enough groundwater to support 29 more homes.
[1:26:35] That's basically all I got to say.
[1:26:36] Thank you.
[1:26:40] Jeff Church, followed by Jonathan Plasparauts,
[1:26:51] good evening.
[1:26:51] My name is Jeff Church.
[1:26:52] I own property right at the bottom of the hill from the development.
[1:26:55] But I apologize I'm right off the plane with no sleep from overseas, came straight here.
[1:27:02] The master change plan as a request must be for a compelling reason, like baseball.
[1:27:10] It's got to be for a compelling reason to overturn what people have done in advance.
[1:27:15] Importantly, there's an OML violation here.
[1:27:18] I ask you to ask Chris, if the application you have is accurate, because it's not.
[1:27:25] There are seven cases, six plus one being filed related to this property, not one, not
[1:27:33] .4, six, all in our favor that says there is no access, Nevada Supreme Court on down.
[1:27:42] If you look at the aerial view on my property, you'll see my barn, brand new, just built,
[1:27:48] approved by planning on the alleged easement.
[1:27:52] The applicant has already told me that my barn has to be moved or demolished upon approval.
[1:27:59] My barn brand new, hundreds of thousands of dollars would have to be moved and you approved it, the planning commission.
[1:28:07] I just handed over an attorney letter because, again, I apologize I'm just off the plane.
[1:28:12] It goes into great detail, but I ask you not to act until you talk to your attorney
[1:28:17] and until you review the spectacular decision and all the other decisions, and just as soon as we can, there's going to be a 7th.
[1:28:25] Please look at exhibit F, page 4. That makes it clear. Exhibit F, page 4 is a blank public document.
[1:28:35] 100% redacted. Many of the people up here have the completed one that was given upon request, but the other people don't.
[1:28:42] That's about as blatant OML violation as you're going to get.
[1:28:47] Then add in the end-down report that just came out, we even had time to review that.
[1:28:51] Another OML violation.
[1:28:54] I emphasize there is no access to that property.
[1:28:58] None. It's been the court five times, six times.
[1:29:03] I point out also when the attachment, there is no water or sewer.
[1:29:07] Maybe there will be some day. There is no.
[1:29:10] I have it from Tomoa, I have it from the county.
[1:29:13] There's no sewer, no sewer planned, no water planned.
[1:29:19] There's a case pending right now,
[1:29:22] a de-joining property, a special property.
[1:29:24] Right now, I'm in front of Judge Presville.
[1:29:27] You're jumping the gun if you approve this
[1:29:29] and then, Presville rules differently.
[1:29:32] He is already ruled that it's a debatable question.
[1:29:35] That's all you really need to hear.
[1:29:36] It's a debatable question in the courts, not for you.
[1:29:40] Chris is not an attorney.
[1:29:41] ask your attorney, let's let the judge decide this is cannot go on, let's avoid litigation,
[1:29:47] we don't want to litigate, it's not going to litigate it so many times, we don't have to do it again, please.
[1:29:51] Thank you.
[1:29:58] Jonathan Vesperons.
[1:30:03] Good evening, commissioners, Jonathan Lesbrons, online resident for the records, speaking on behalf of myself.
[1:30:10] I will echo the points brought up about access being consisted.
[1:30:14] I think there are advantages, opportunities for access through some of the easements shown across the currently
[1:30:22] They're to the held properties that don't have to
[1:30:24] convert the private residences for context.
[1:30:28] I share common property boundary with the subject
[1:30:31] property for tonight's discussion.
[1:30:34] Recognizing that there's not a development before you
[1:30:37] at this moment, I do want to reiterate infrastructure
[1:30:40] concerns primarily water and sewer.
[1:30:44] Public water served by Thoma would be advantageous for the
[1:30:48] community from a fire protection standpoint.
[1:30:50] and also mitigate the potential impacts to the aquifer that are
[1:30:55] urban-stated by others.
[1:30:57] Sceptics are not desired and really present an
[1:31:01] untenable risk for the water quality in this aquifer.
[1:31:05] We're already within a nitrate plume on the lower end of the
[1:31:08] Glena fan.
[1:31:09] There's likely PFOS contamination, the counties investigating
[1:31:12] that as we speak, to adding additional point source
[1:31:17] contributions for pollutants would be
[1:31:19] advice and so I think public sewer service would be the right way to serve this when a development
[1:31:25] comes forward. Potentially you could consider a conditional approval that would be contingent upon
[1:31:30] public utilities serving water and sewer in addition to the access considerations. The one other item
[1:31:38] I would mention while the application correctly states this is not in a FEMA flood zone. It is in a
[1:31:44] localized flooding area. We have infrequent, but severe flooding on the southwest corner of
[1:31:50] this property. I know because I've properties part of that terminal base and think it's
[1:31:56] affected when we have, especially rain on snow events.
[1:32:00] I will point out the applicant has been
[1:32:03] responsive to a number of the concerns that we brought up at the neighborhood meeting. I want to
[1:32:07] state on the record. I really appreciate the additional open space proposed. I think that's a benefit
[1:32:12] to the community and the buffer along the Western boundary, while it's not required, it's really
[1:32:20] appreciated by my family that we would have that buffer as a potential benefit for the
[1:32:26] applicant's proposed project.
[1:32:28] Please, my comments for this evening.
[1:32:30] Thank you so much.
[1:32:38] Thank you.
[1:32:39] Thank you.
[1:32:45] Thank you.
[1:32:47] I'm speaking on behalf of my mom and dad, they own seven acres, adjacent to directly above
[1:32:54] where the MRSA press is trying to develop.
[1:32:57] We actually tried to come here by the clock.
[1:33:00] We were told by the security guard that this meeting was canceled, so my parents ended up going
[1:33:05] home.
[1:33:06] I rushed back down here, so I just have a note from my parents, so I'm going to try to read.
[1:33:12] says, hello, my name is Jerry Marari. I am 75 years old. My husband and Tony Marari, 81,
[1:33:20] have lived in Nevada over 56 years. We reside at 1549y. We bought the seven acre parcels.
[1:33:31] What they bought five acres in 1995, but they currently own seven acres. We have built seven single family dwelling
[1:33:38] houses that we have least, the various individuals and some, to various individuals and some family members.
[1:33:45] Over the years, as a houses were built, it became expedient to provide a common driveway
[1:33:54] to the main access road, fondly.
[1:33:57] We constructed and paved a 12-foot wide driveway.
[1:34:01] Each tenant uses this common driveway.
[1:34:03] Alongside this private paved driveway are water wells established landscaping four-year-old trees,
[1:34:10] paved power pools, rock walls, brick and stucco pillars, fences, gates, both electric and manual,
[1:34:17] black top and shrubbery. I'll have been upgraded to maintain and paid for by us the land owners.
[1:34:24] We have paid all the taxes on all of these properties. The private paved driveway that runs between
[1:34:30] the following addresses, Biffing for 90, Biffing for 100, Biffing for 20, Biffing for 30, Biffing for 40,
[1:34:37] and Biffing for 82, is not a public asset access. This access were intended to provide a corridor
[1:34:44] access to the smallest tract of bayet-bybe acres.
[1:34:50] There are other granted easements to the parcel.
[1:34:55] I know he did show on the slide there was some easements on the north and on the south.
[1:35:00] But the easement that it was in the middle that accesses through the 1545445445445422 is a private easement, or a private driver, I should say.
[1:35:17] Thank you.
[1:35:23] Douglas Nassart, file, uh, excuse me, file, uh, followed by Brian Arnold.
[1:35:35] Good evening, commissioners. My name is Douglas Newsart.
[1:35:37] I'm speaking behalf of tonight of my in-laws, who on the 7-8 are part of the Trincine
[1:35:42] had just spoke about, directly one of the proposed emergency trust development.
[1:35:47] And as a resident, utilizing our private driveway daily, we are speaking in strong opposition
[1:35:52] to this master plan event in regulatory zone development.
[1:35:56] The developer's application is built on hidden facts and fails to meet the strict
[1:36:00] building findings for infrastructure availability and public safety.
[1:36:04] As Tom was official discovery documents under work order 25-0449 exposed, this project is a physical impossibility.
[1:36:15] Standard number 12 explicitly mandates that utility easements must be 20 feet or greater in width.
[1:36:23] Our private driveway is only 12 feet wide.
[1:36:25] The developer must visit the developer physically cannot fulfill
[1:36:29] come-was spatial engineering standards without legally
[1:36:34] encroaching past our property boundaries and onto our rental
[1:36:38] parcels. We do not and will not grant permission for this
[1:36:41] encroachment. The developer must be forced utilize the alternative
[1:36:45] raw easement corridor located at the northern end of these properties
[1:36:49] instead. Furthermore, come-was standard number five
[1:36:53] mandates that new developments require two separate sources of water supply.
[1:36:58] Because we have denied access, the developer does not have even one legal utility pathway.
[1:37:03] Tim will also note that it does not have the water rights in the area to satisfy this project.
[1:37:09] Despite proposing huge estates, the state lots of two and a half acres and size,
[1:37:14] the developer has mathematically factored in exactly zero gallons per minute for irrigation demand.
[1:37:19] This omission proposes an unstudied threat of depleting the localized water table that are
[1:37:26] family's seven homes and dozens of our neighbors rely on via private domestic wells.
[1:37:31] Finally, look at the aerial satellite map in the topographic slope maps, a massive active
[1:37:38] natural drainage wash and ravine cut directly through the middle of the project boundary
[1:37:43] surrounded by severe 20-30% hillside slopes, tearing up this sensitive terrain and altering
[1:37:50] a major natural watershed violates county hydraulic hydrologic codes and will cause catastrophic
[1:37:56] stormwater runoff to flash flood directly down onto our private properties, driveway and homes,
[1:38:04] as Jonathan was just speaking about. Also, funneling nearly 300 daily vehicle ships for an
[1:38:09] looped dead end subdivision onto a narrow corridor creates an unacceptable wildfire evacuation
[1:38:15] hazard for the entire South of Valley's pocket.
[1:38:18] Because the developer lacks legally utility access, violates Temoan's spatial and
[1:38:22] two source supply mandates, conceals irrigation demands, and creates severe regional flooding
[1:38:27] evacuation hazards, I urge this commission to protect local residents and vote no on this
[1:38:31] reason.
[1:38:32] Thank you for your time.
[1:38:36] Brian Arnold followed by forest or me, I believe, forgive me if I put you to your last day.
[1:38:47] Good evening, commissioners. My name is Brian Arnold. I'm a homeowner property owner on fondlane.
[1:38:53] current count on fond lane of homes before sentate development went in was
[1:38:58] right about 60 houses. Sentate was approved for 219 to 225 homes with fond lane
[1:39:06] being a primary ingress egress. The current road with the fond lane, somebody mentioned 22
[1:39:13] foot earlier, I measured it 24 feet. There's currently no sidewalk, no hydrants,
[1:39:23] no
[1:39:23] a rule mail delivery out there.
[1:39:25] It's also a rule bus route.
[1:39:28] I do have a child that takes Wash County bus
[1:39:30] to inform school every day.
[1:39:33] I have height concern that we put another 29 homes
[1:39:37] on fine lane with the current road width
[1:39:41] and without any additional improvements.
[1:39:43] How is it that the commission allows the development
[1:39:45] like a centae to be built as the primary
[1:39:49] ingress and egress for that many single family
[1:39:51] residential homes to issue
[1:39:53] the first building permit for that home. The commission should have required those improvements
[1:39:57] have taken place on fondly.
[1:40:00] And think about another 29 homes without those improvements being done and performed by the developers
[1:40:07] and builders who were making these requests to you as ludicrous. Furthermore, the easements, I'm currently
[1:40:14] in a litigation being sued for my private easement access. Your planning commission doesn't understand
[1:40:31] of parcels has been subdivided as low as 1.2 acres. So you can get up to 4 parcels per
[1:40:38] five acre land track. Now I was I stood in front of you last year you actually reduced an
[1:40:48] easement on one of these land tracks down to 20 feet. There was an easement reduction approved
[1:40:53] by your commission requested by your planning department.
[1:41:00] Okay, so let's say we need 33 foot
[1:41:02] for ingress and egress on one of these easements
[1:41:04] and that private landowner goes, well, shoot.
[1:41:07] You guys just approved a reduction down to 20 feet.
[1:41:09] I wanna reduce it to 20 feet.
[1:41:11] Which is it?
[1:41:12] Is it 33 feet?
[1:41:13] Is it 20 feet?
[1:41:14] Do we get to abandon them?
[1:41:16] Do we get to, you know, do they have to stay?
[1:41:18] This is to me, it seems like the commission needs
[1:41:20] to do more homework and more research
[1:41:22] on what these easements actually are.
[1:41:25] I pay property taxes for this private easement that I own,
[1:41:29] nor the Lee inside the Lee 33 feet.
[1:41:31] I told the commission, I intend to do a 20-foot reduction,
[1:41:35] just the same as you approved for the neighbor
[1:41:37] on the border and properties to me.
[1:41:40] So, with that consideration, I oppose this.
[1:41:50] Forced, or me?
[1:41:57] How do you consider as my misforced or my property
[1:41:59] on on land. I strongly oppose the addition of 29 new homes. Mostly for a few reasons that have
[1:42:06] been reiterated by a number of people before me. I have two children. It is 5 and 3. We like to
[1:42:13] ride bicycles and it has become untenable for us to do so due to the amount of traffic both from
[1:42:20] construction vehicles, etc. There's no sidewalk that is safe for them and it's embarrassing to
[1:42:25] that on a rural road, we have to drive somewhere else to rider bikes safely.
[1:42:30] I'm concerned specifically to about the fire risks and the ability to escape safely with the addition of 29 new homes.
[1:42:37] I'm concerned about the wells and the lack of water that we're going to have as global warming heats up.
[1:42:42] It makes this harder and harder place to live the chance that we're going to have to get.
[1:42:47] There was going to one dry, it's going to be higher and higher.
[1:42:53] Like Mr. Arnold, I too involved in lawsuit regarding the easement that I currently live on.
[1:43:00] I've been told that it is both a public road and also a private easement.
[1:43:05] So I don't think that it is a established law that this land that they're going to develop 29 homes on has access
[1:43:12] by these easements. It's still under active
[1:43:14] vacation. Thank you.
[1:43:21] I have no more public
[1:43:22] comments and chambers. I do have some
[1:43:24] of ads raised on zoo. Luke Busby, please
[1:43:27] unmute and state your first to last day of
[1:43:29] the record.
[1:43:40] Luke, I'm not seeing your microphone.
[1:43:42] I'm here and muted, but I don't see your microphone
[1:43:44] working. Like there's no volume coming from your
[1:43:46] end. So I'm going to go ahead and I'm going to
[1:43:49] have Casey, Casey, go next and see if you could
[1:43:51] fix your audio. Rob's Luke.
[1:43:57] Casey, Brian
[1:43:58] March, these on mute, state affairs
[1:44:00] a last day for the record.
[1:44:02] Can you all hear me?
[1:44:03] Casey, right here.
[1:44:04] I can hear you go ahead.
[1:44:06] Oh, good.
[1:44:08] My name is Casey, right, part?
[1:44:11] I am a resident resident resident of FAN Lane.
[1:44:15] I wanted to just voice the perspective of somebody
[1:44:17] who has lived here for just over one year
[1:44:22] and moved to FAN Lane with the intent of living somewhere
[1:44:27] Yes, I have not lived here for 30 years, but these neighbors have welcomed me and my family and we moved here with the intent to live in a rural location.
[1:44:40] There were many other highly dense places within Reno where we could have chosen to live and we chose to move somewhere that was not that.
[1:44:49] Please do not undo a decision that our family read less than a year ago with the information and the maps that existed at the time.
[1:44:57] Thank you.
[1:45:06] Okay, Luke, we're going to try again. Go ahead and unmute. State your first last day for the break.
[1:45:21] I look like you're still muted, Luke.
[1:45:29] All right, Luke, I'm getting no response. So we're going to have to move on by apologies.
[1:45:36] So I don't work for their public comment. I'll do.
[1:45:41] Thank you very much. Let's bring it back to the board. I have
[1:45:46] have some additional questions, per staff regarding adequacy, availability of facilities.
[1:45:56] So setting aside Thor for the moment, if we approve the master plan and zoning change,
[1:46:03] that will allow the creation of 29 of lots in a future tentative map, those 29 lots
[1:46:12] If they don't enter into the Truckie Meadows water authority service, would be entitled to
[1:46:22] sink domestic wells to take two and a half acre feet per year to serve their domestic
[1:46:29] uses. So in the absence of
[1:46:37] a clear plan to receive service from
[1:46:42] trekking metals water of more centrally planned water service, it
[1:46:50] seems that this upzoning would potentially create additional draw on the ground
[1:46:59] water in this specific area in an area that I know that we have concerns about groundwater
[1:47:07] drawdown.
[1:47:11] So, Ken County staff speak to what availability of facilities is in terms of
[1:47:20] adequate existing or planned, that is that the concept of a plan, adequate, or do there
[1:47:27] have to be a will serve letter and access easement for water service. We have the division
[1:47:37] director of engineering and capital projects to weigh in Smith to answer that.
[1:47:48] For the record, this is Dwayne Smith. I'm the director of engineering and also serve as a
[1:47:53] county engineer. I just wanted to take a minute to maybe help you as you go through your
[1:47:58] deliberation process tonight to put a little context around the processes that would come
[1:48:04] after this potential approval of the RZA MPA that's in front of you tonight.
[1:48:09] What I'm speaking to is when a tentative map, which would come for this development,
[1:48:15] and what the standard process would look like, and that would certainly include the condition
[1:48:19] of municipal wastewater.
[1:48:21] Yes, the service area is within Washow County, and so we would require through that tentative
[1:48:27] map process that this development under a Washow County development code would be
[1:48:31] municipally seward. It would be the responsibility of the developer to bring that sewer line
[1:48:39] to collect that sewer from these 29 units, and then successfully convey that to one of the
[1:48:46] interceptors which would then go to the South African Meadows water reclamation facility for
[1:48:51] treatment and effluent management. So the water side while I do not want to speak specifically
[1:48:57] to tumour, I want to continue that kind of vein of discussion that under Washingtonity Development
[1:49:02] Code we would condition this project for municipal water service as well, placing the burden
[1:49:09] on the developer to bring municipal water service to this parcel. These are a couple of the things
[1:49:18] I wanted to comment on, you mentioned, sinking wells. I am, formerly with the Department of Water
[1:49:24] resources before we merge with Tomla, I will tell you that there are certain things that
[1:49:29] can and cannot be done. And one thing that cannot be done is simply, during a personal
[1:49:34] map process, create domestic well credits unless well, unless actual water rights
[1:49:41] needed and approved water rights were purchased and approved for use on those lots. So there's
[1:49:48] a lot of work that would have to be done and even to consider something like a domestic well
[1:49:54] approach. And again, we would be conditioning them through the tentative map process for, you know,
[1:50:00] Global, water, municipal, sewer service. I hope that helps provide a little bit of clarity. Let me speak
[1:50:06] also to the roadway issues. And while I certainly am not and will not pretend that I'm a lawyer,
[1:50:11] we do have our district attorney here tonight to answer any of those legal questions about
[1:50:15] access. But I did want to also comment on levels of service and access on to fungling and then on
[1:50:21] to the Mount Rose Highway. Any future development that would come into Washington, a four consideration
[1:50:27] would include those considerations for impact that might reduce the existing levels of service
[1:50:33] to a point that other mitigations would have to be put in place. So as we understand through
[1:50:39] development, development does and is required to mitigate those impacts. So if there were future
[1:50:45] impacts associated with this development or any other development to that point, those appropriate
[1:50:50] mitigations following Wash of County Development Code,
[1:50:54] Ashto, IT, all the requirements that we've adopted,
[1:50:58] National requirements that we've adopted to our code,
[1:51:01] would be brought to bear as part of that consideration and conditioning
[1:51:04] in a future project. So I hope that maybe clears up just a couple of
[1:51:08] those pieces for you.
[1:51:11] Do you have follow-ups? Does a 29 unit,
[1:51:14] tentative map rise to the level of triggering a traffic study?
[1:51:18] typically not, but as a county engineer, I can require even on developments that are less
[1:51:24] than the threshold to comply with the requirement to understand what those impacts might be.
[1:51:31] Okay, and in the case of water rates, when you propose a parcel split that creates additional
[1:51:39] domestic wall possibilities, the water rate credits that you have to bring to the table,
[1:51:43] are how local are those water rights? Is it within the basin? Is it within the hillside?
[1:51:51] I guess the question of bringing water rights from the trucky river and saying that that
[1:51:56] works for a well in the Mount Rose fan is potentially challenging.
[1:52:01] Ultimately, that would be the purview of the state engineer's office, and so they would be the ones
[1:52:06] that would have to accept those. But in general terms, it would have to be within that hydra-based.
[1:52:11] But again, I want to be clear that we would be conditioning any future development for municipal water municipal sewer because we can't condition the regulatory zone amendment a master plan correct.
[1:52:26] So we have to rely on staff and their intentions here and our standards of practice when those developments come in and under the development code that's exactly right.
[1:52:36] I have a question,
[1:52:40] sir, do we when the developer goes ahead and bring sewer to the property
[1:52:46] that he wants to, and let's say it's 1,000 feet?
[1:52:53] Is it typical for the municipality to go ahead and enter into reimbursement agreement as future
[1:53:00] development takes up to the ASS that future development to sort of reimburse for a portion
[1:53:06] of that line that he put in? Do we have that? Oh no. And again, Duane Smith, county engineer.
[1:53:14] What you're speaking to, Commissioner, is if Washow County in our review process, identify
[1:53:22] the need to up size that pipe to handle future developments or other considerations.
[1:53:29] There is a mechanism that Washington could request that and enter into an over-sizing reimbursement
[1:53:36] agreement for enlarging that pipe, so we're not opening it, but just enlarging it.
[1:53:42] Correct.
[1:53:42] We would only pay that proportional share for that over-sizing if we deemed that to be a requirement.
[1:53:50] Thank you.
[1:53:50] And we do do that from time to time.
[1:53:53] Okay.
[1:53:53] Thank you.
[1:53:56] I just have a quick question regarding the traffic studies.
[1:53:59] I've been serving on this commission for a very long time, and I don't think I've ever seen a traffic study done or being requested by staff to be done when they don't meet the threshold.
[1:54:13] Can you provide any examples?
[1:54:15] When you've required that?
[1:54:17] Again, Wayne Smith County engineer, I will tell you commissioner that I have not, and the past 10 or 12 years required that for smaller developments.
[1:54:27] But one of the things that we will consider under any development is how that might let me
[1:54:35] say it this way. If previous developments are approved and they bring those levels of service
[1:54:41] thresholds to a point which they may reduce and drop below Washington standards and this
[1:54:47] development may trigger that level of service to go over that threshold. Then I would require
[1:54:53] that. But in our deliberations and our understanding and our studies associated with the...
[1:55:00] Development application. If it doesn't appear that it would reach that threshold, which would reduce that level of service to the point at which some type of mitigation would be required, then I wouldn't require that. It wouldn't be worth the effort at the time of the money if it wasn't going to substantially reduce that threshold.
[1:55:19] And the threshold you're speaking of is like a level of service of C.
[1:55:24] C is acceptable.
[1:55:25] That's correct.
[1:55:27] How do you tie that with?
[1:55:29] I know there's a lot of concern about evacuations during fire events.
[1:55:36] How has the county decided on moving forward with any increased review of developments in regards
[1:55:47] to possible evacuation plans.
[1:55:52] You're asking a very large question, Commissioner.
[1:55:54] And it involves more than just watch the county community services and planning and engineering.
[1:56:01] But let me speak to a couple of things.
[1:56:02] First of all, as you're again considering this RZA and P.A, you're not considering a development tonight.
[1:56:08] But when that development does come in, let's be real here.
[1:56:11] That's the next step in the process.
[1:56:13] That development would have to abide by the requirements, which include primary access and secondary emergency access.
[1:56:20] So, no development would be allowed if it didn't meet both of those requirements.
[1:56:25] That secondary fire emergency access or emergency ingress in egress, you know, this is certainly something and as of late,
[1:56:33] is on everybody's mind and it's on our minds as well.
[1:56:36] So, when we consider our development code, we also have to look to our partners, our emergency responders,
[1:56:43] Kelly Etcher-Varia, Washington, he's emergency manager, Chief Edwards,
[1:56:48] Trechemo's Fire Protection District, and the list goes on that these are the
[1:56:51] professionals that we talk with to understand if there would possibly be a change required.
[1:56:57] At this time, there is no change being contemplated, but if those discussions led to those changes
[1:57:04] And the development code would need to be updated as an outcome of that we would fully support that.
[1:57:10] Thank you.
[1:57:17] Further questions or discussion from the board?
[1:57:24] Chair, a couple of things I forgot to tell you that we had to
[1:57:27] Commissioner Kennedy came back on at 6.54 for the record.
[1:57:30] Also, Mr. Busby would like to do as public comment.
[1:57:36] He dropped off. He's now back out and thinks he's able to have audio,
[1:57:39] but I need to, I don't know if we could, I'd have to do as carpet as a two-lay.
[1:57:43] I'm fine to reopen public comments from you.
[1:57:45] Okay, I thought so.
[1:57:47] Mr. Busby, I've alluded to you. Go ahead and unmute.
[1:57:52] Okay, I think you can hear me now. Thank you so much.
[1:57:55] Yes, so go ahead.
[1:57:57] Okay, I'll be brief.
[1:57:59] Good evening. My name is Luke Busby. I'm an attorney.
[1:58:00] I represent Jeff Church. You did from earlier, who owns property near the subject parcel.
[1:58:07] You know, his property is on phone lane.
[1:58:08] I submitted a written objection letter before this hearing and it covers everything about
[1:58:13] the say in more detail, but it has supporting documentation and I did just ask the letter
[1:58:18] be made part of the record of both items. There are three central problems that we identify
[1:58:24] with the applications. One is a recorded seven-lot limit. Second is access and third is an
[1:58:29] open meeting law issue. On issue one, the person was already limited to seven-lots by a court settlement
[1:58:36] In Turkey, Olsen, it's a second judicial district case number CV-04-024-192, reached in
[1:58:43] 2026, and that easement settlement was recorded, and it runs with the land and it's
[1:58:50] binding all on all future owners including the applicant, and the applicant bought this
[1:58:54] property with that on the record.
[1:58:56] Now, there's something in the record from that that gets a layer of calling to limit
[1:58:59] a recital, but if you read the settlement, it clearly tops the recitals as true and makes
[1:59:04] group provision essential. It also says that any
[1:59:07] dispute over this settlement should be subject to dispute
[1:59:11] resolution before the district court, not the planning
[1:59:13] commission. So here's essentially being asked to, you
[1:59:16] know, resolve the easement dispute is relatively
[1:59:18] about court settlement through the planning commission process,
[1:59:22] which we think is improper. Issue two, the access
[1:59:25] route runs across groups of land along fallen land that are
[1:59:28] gated and are being subject to litigation right now,
[1:59:34] and
[1:59:34] in case number 2, 5, 0, 2, 8, 0, 1, that case is currently active before Judge Brezla
[1:59:39] as Mr. Church mentioned. And there's various disputes involving these access easements
[1:59:47] along fondly, and Judge Brezla recently denied motions to dismiss the case saying
[1:59:51] they're genuine issues. A fact essentially related to these easements, so those issues are
[1:59:57] that are left to the course to resolve.
[2:00:00] I hope to be resolved in the course of the planning approval. Issue 3 is open meeting law. Now, some of the information
[2:00:08] the application was redacted. And just a few days ago, in a case called Las Vegas Police
[2:00:14] Protective Association, versus Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Deportment System Review Board,
[2:00:19] it's an advanced opinion, 55, and it was decided on August 20, 26. So, they're about to
[2:00:25] can core help the clean confidentiality of this
[2:00:29] doesn't require, doesn't override disclosure requirements
[2:00:31] in the open meeting law.
[2:00:33] And I copy that decision as a touch to my letter
[2:00:35] and I just ask that you reveal with your counsel.
[2:00:38] The bottom line is we're asking you
[2:00:39] to continue these items, post the complete application
[2:00:42] without reductions as required for the open meeting law.
[2:00:46] I'll read notice the hearing,
[2:00:48] and otherwise Mr. Scherj asks you to dive
[2:00:50] both applications for the substance
[2:00:51] that you've raised in this point today.
[2:00:53] And I think it's for your time.
[2:00:54] and for allowing me back on after my Zoom crash. Thank you.
[2:01:02] All right. I will close public comment again. I do have question for council.
[2:01:13] Concerning representations of staff about future
[2:01:16] conditions of a hypothetical parcel map. We cannot condition master plan and zoning changes
[2:01:23] that's not within our authority,
[2:01:31] the staff has represented certain things about future potential
[2:01:36] conditions of a potential tentative map for development. Are those binding? You cannot
[2:01:47] condition that and that would not be binding that would be for consideration when that tentative
[2:01:51] is in front of you okay so I can 100% take staff at their word that that's their current
[2:02:02] intention but different staff different time we all get raptured someone else is sitting up here
[2:02:08] and someone else is out there representations about the future conditions of a tentative map might
[2:02:16] or might not apply they would be for consideration. Today's center representations are based on
[2:02:21] actual code language. You can rely that the code will be followed. But when a
[2:02:26] representation is being made, when the code does not specifically set forth that
[2:02:31] requirement, that is something that would have to come before you as the
[2:02:36] conditions when the tenant mappings forward. Thank you.
[2:02:42] I have a follow-up for
[2:02:43] council. Is there a deed restriction to seven parcels on this? There is a
[2:02:49] a private party settlement that the county had no involvement in is not bound by.
[2:02:59] So explain that a little bit more.
[2:03:04] The settlement agreement that has been referenced is not binding on the county.
[2:03:09] The county is not obligated to make decisions with that settlement in mind.
[2:03:14] So there's no official deeter restriction restricting this parcel to only seven possible lots.
[2:03:21] No, thank you.
[2:03:32] Any further discussion from the board?
[2:03:36] Would anyone like to make a motion?
[2:03:48] I'm going to be honest, I'm struggling with this because the availability of facilities
[2:03:53] is potentially there.
[2:03:58] But it's not clear to me that it is there specifically in terms of water.
[2:04:12] sewer access would be existing health code would enforce that five-acre minimum
[2:04:21] lot size average if there's not a sewer main to serve it but we don't have that same
[2:04:31] guarantee on domestic water service and
[2:04:46] with that in mind I don't think that I can make
[2:04:48] I'm going to pour it right now.
[2:05:00] I guess I will go ahead and make a motion if no one else wants to do. I moved that after giving reason consideration and the information contained in the staff report and the information received during the public hearing in the Washingtony planning commission reject the resolution contains a touch from the staff report.
[2:05:17] not pass the master plan amendment or the regulatory zone amendment because I cannot make
[2:05:26] finding for availability of facilities for fresh water service to this parcel at the increased
[2:05:36] density that we would be consider.
[2:05:40] Commissioner Nelson, I'll second that. I'm not being able to meet make finding number four availability of facilities.
[2:05:49] We have a motion in a second. All those in favor.
[2:05:53] Aye. Aye.
[2:05:55] Any opposed?
[2:05:58] The motion carries.
[2:06:07] That brings us to the end of our district chair.
[2:06:11] If it's okay.
[2:06:12] Can I read the appeal procedure?
[2:06:13] Please do. All right, most decisions right or by the Planning Commission are
[2:06:16] are appealable to the Board of County Commissioners if you disagree with the decision of the Planning Commission.
[2:06:20] And you qualify as a degree of person or party. You may appeal and writing within 10 calendar days from the
[2:06:24] date the decision being appealed. This reduced to writing, filed with the Secretary of the Planning Commission
[2:06:28] and mailed to the original applicant in the preceding being appealed in accordance with
[2:06:32] washer County Code. Please call the Planning staff immediately at 775-328-6100.
[2:06:37] For information on the appeal procedure and the application fee.
[2:06:43] Thank you. That brings us to the end of our public hearings as far as future agenda items or requests for information from staff.
[2:06:57] We've had a couple of times tonight from Commissioner Leonard and Commissioner Nelson that the issue of emergency evacuation and road capacity in the event of wholesale evacuation come up.
[2:07:12] I know that this has been repeated issue brought up with respect to incline village and
[2:07:19] that there is a study ongoing on it.
[2:07:26] I think that I'd like to hear more about what the standards are for road service, when it
[2:07:35] comes to evacuation, obviously day to day road service and evacuation are totally different
[2:07:41] in terms of capacity. So what are the engineering standards and what are the conditions that
[2:07:51] county staff consider adequate to serve and what is the county doing as far as emergency preparedness
[2:08:04] if the expectation is not that everybody can evacuate all at the same time in a timely
[2:08:11] manner what are alternatives that we're proposing in it. I guess I don't know what form
[2:08:20] staff thinks would be appropriate to kind of bring this back to the board. And just to
[2:08:26] to tee up off of that a little bit is I understand that you have to have a primary egress in
[2:08:34] and a secondary one for emergency, but when that leads to only one other major roadway, such as like
[2:08:47] fondling, it goes to the Mount Rose Highway, you can go east, you can go west, that's it. So you can't
[2:08:56] go south. So that is where my thinking is like sure those people have two ways to get to the
[2:09:06] mountains highway but what you get there you only have two ways to go and one way is probably
[2:09:12] going to be blocked, right? So that's kind of what I would like staff to start to look at.
[2:09:20] in regards to the evacuation, I've gotten stuck in two evacuations, and it is very unsettling.
[2:09:28] I will agree when you're stuck waiting in traffic and you have nowhere to go.
[2:09:35] It's very exciting.
[2:09:35] Yes, I would add to that.
[2:09:38] For example, there was a point where those in Palomio Valley were stuck because they
[2:09:45] that go north because of the fire by Pyramid Lake and that world was closed and Pyramid
[2:09:54] Highway was closed, so there was no way out, so...
[2:10:00] It is definitely a topic that the county really needs to take some time to really investigate.
[2:10:09] I would add on to that that our emergency services and our emergency planners do an outstanding job.
[2:10:16] And no one could foresee what happened in the recent fires. I didn't plan on being evacuated twice in two weeks.
[2:10:24] We're being under evacuation orders twice in two weeks or not being able to be let back in.
[2:10:28] However, I would like to see the planning divisions specifically actively engaged in conversations with emergency services and not just left to the side on that.
[2:10:42] I think it's very important for our future that this division become active even if you have to kind of force your way in.
[2:10:53] I will second that one.
[2:10:58] I also have another request for staff.
[2:11:02] Congressman Omede has a lands bill that's going through Congress right now.
[2:11:10] And maybe in court has mastow also has a lands bill.
[2:11:13] All of those U.S. forced service lots that are within that lands bill to be transferred to jurisdictions.
[2:11:21] could we get a map of that just so we can see where the possible growth in the future is going
[2:11:30] to happen if that plans build up.
[2:11:33] One of those lands will skip past.
[2:11:35] I will search for that map if it is available.
[2:11:38] Yeah, I will provide it to this planning commission.
[2:11:43] If I can get more clarity on the previous request because what you're talking about,
[2:11:48] Obviously this is in clearly it's the front of everyone's minds with the recent bug and a hawk fire.
[2:11:58] It's unclear what the request is or the ask is specifically planning as clearly this is multi jurisdiction.
[2:12:07] It's not just Washow County, it's multi-regional, it in fact it's quite possible.
[2:12:16] that we're going to be seeing some bills that are going to be coming forth as a result of the recent fires as well.
[2:12:25] So, if I can get more clarity so that I know what to provide this planning commission.
[2:12:32] With the understanding that yes, fires are a big deal.
[2:12:36] We rely very much on our partnering agencies.
[2:12:40] the fire departments, the emergency management team, you know, in engineering staff, it's a
[2:12:48] multi-disciplinary function. And so if there is a request of planning, I would like to
[2:12:56] fulfill that request, but I need more clarity in terms of what it is that you all are looking for.
[2:13:02] One of the things I'd like to know more about, and part of it goes to what the engineer talked about
[2:13:08] is I'd like to really understand why we don't do more actual traffic studies on all of our proposals
[2:13:21] because this is what has happened in the last couple months is a result of the growing traffic
[2:13:30] and we do not get adequate information about the proposals in terms of the traffic impact
[2:13:38] of most of the proposals that come before us?
[2:13:46] Okay, I guess I will try to now my request.
[2:13:51] One is to give a step-dition of, I mean, I think I have a sense that what we design for in terms of traffic is normal daily loads, not mass evacuation.
[2:14:04] So I guess a statement from professional staff on how we
[2:14:10] trade the concept of evacuation in terms of traffic planning.
[2:14:16] And to whatever we have in terms of evacuation plans by neighborhood.
[2:14:24] I know that they've been pursuing one in inclined village, but we have a lot of this county
[2:14:29] at fire risk.
[2:14:31] It's not just inclined.
[2:14:32] I
[2:14:37] hate to say it, but it's almost a traffic study on the main arterials of the area
[2:14:46] when you have a certain area, like the mouse highway, it's four lanes and a center lane.
[2:14:56] So obviously you're going to halt traffic and...
[2:15:00] Push, you know, five lanes of traffic in one way. But then when it gets to, like, if you have to evacuate west, that it goes to a two lane. So what is the capacity of some of these evacuation routes? And I think that would help ease people's minds, like, you know, highway 395 has the evacuation capacity of 45,000 people. Like, that's what we asked it to do, right?
[2:15:29] so can it do that? If not, does that mean that we have to start? Does the emergency group need to start having their ready set go?
[2:15:40] Actually go to a go more quickly.
[2:15:46] Or stage it in such a way that you can, you know, the past year that road is 2,000 vehicles in an hour, you know, do we know what area is that is?
[2:15:59] and how to get those people out.
[2:16:02] I'd like to add a couple months ago,
[2:16:06] when we had the report about the standard capacity of roads,
[2:16:14] based on national standards and our question them,
[2:16:18] that they use national standards to decide
[2:16:21] what our traffic patterns were.
[2:16:24] And I don't think they took the actual conditions of our community into effect when they did that.
[2:16:35] And what has happened the last few months is a good example of the fact that they can't just use a typical city of our size and use their stats for determining how we handle things.
[2:16:54] Trevor, I think that maybe a good question to ask would be, when we reach a capacity in an area,
[2:17:05] if there's a traffic capacity in an area, what's the next step? As we're taking these plans
[2:17:14] and we're adding new homes in small parts and pieces, is there anything that's going to trigger
[2:17:19] a review from planning to say, wait a second, we've reached a capacity, something else has to be done with those roads.
[2:17:27] So maybe just get, is there a guideline?
[2:17:30] Is there an overview that we can look at in specific areas for specific evacuation routes?
[2:17:37] That we could confidently say, no, this is part of the plan.
[2:17:41] We do know that this is the capacity for an evacuation
[2:17:45] and maybe that just triggers the emergency services
[2:17:48] to evacuate sooner, a little bit earlier, if they can.
[2:17:53] But is there a capacity there that would give us guidance?
[2:17:59] I have to assume that all of this has been studied,
[2:18:03] and there are certainly answers to all of these questions.
[2:18:06] We can reach out to our partners' emergency management primarily.
[2:18:13] But it will certainly involve some work on our part to track down this information and find out where this is.
[2:18:21] And again, it is multi-disciplinary.
[2:18:23] It's not certainly one division that's going to be looking into all of this.
[2:18:29] So we will certainly provide those answers to you, probably in a memo form.
[2:18:34] And then if there's follow-up questions after that, then we can proceed in that fashion.
[2:18:39] We recognize how massive this is, so thank you for looking into that.
[2:18:45] Yeah, as you've seen, this comes up all the time when a new development is proposed.
[2:18:51] People feel that the existing egress is inadequate for emergency evacuation of week.
[2:18:58] Can have anything to point to in terms of how we're meeting national best practices or whatever.
[2:19:04] I think there'll be real helpful in making findings.
[2:19:07] Thank you.
[2:19:08] Thank you.
[2:19:09] Thank you.
[2:19:11] Thank you.
[2:19:11] Thank you.
[2:19:11] All right.
[2:19:13] 11.
[2:19:13] And a report on previous planning commission.
[2:19:18] All right.
[2:19:19] All right.
[2:19:21] Yeah.
[2:19:21] There's a couple of items to report on.
[2:19:23] At the August 25th BCC meeting.
[2:19:27] They heard the first reading of the Equand Business DCA.
[2:19:30] The second reading is scheduled for September the 15th.
[2:19:34] Also at that August 25th meeting the master plan amendment for the heat mitigation amendments were heard and approved by the planning I'm sorry by the county commission and that's all I have to report on.
[2:19:49] Thank you any updates from legal.
[2:19:52] All right, do we have any public comment at this time.
[2:19:56] I have no public comment in chambers.
[2:19:59] I have no.
[2:20:00] The recording has stopped.