Accommodation: Reasonable efforts will be made to assist and accommodate physically disabled persons attending the meeting. Please contact the Community Development Department at (775) 334-2576 in advance so that arrangements can be made.
Appeal Process: Any final action (not including recommendations) or failure to take action by the Planning Commission may be appealed to the Reno City Council by the applicant, the Mayor or a City Council Member, or any person who is aggrieved by the action or inaction. An appeal (together with fees) must be filed with the City Clerk within ten calendar days starting on the day after written notice of the action is filed with the City Clerk, and if the tenth calendar day falls on a weekend or holiday when the Clerk's office is not open, the appeal may be filed on the next business day. Watch Meetings: Planning Commission meetings are streamed online when the Commission is in session in Council Chamber at http://www.reno.gov/meetings and broadcast on Charter Channel 194.
It was moved by Commissioner Weiske, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to approve the minutes. The motion carried unanimously with six (6) commissioners present. 4.1 M in ut es A cc ep ta nc e: M in ut es o f F 1, 2 6: 00 P M (A pp ro va l o f M inu tes )
Lemmon Valley Water Reclamation Facility - Effect on Swan Lake: Depth Increase to Swan Lake from this discharge is 0.47 inches. No violations in any of our processes at both plants. RSWRF Effluent Discharged to Swan Lake by month 2017.
Reno Stead Water Reclamation Facility - Tracking Major Developments - Treatment Capacity: Approved not built; Tentative Maps Pending; Planned Unit Developments Pending Review; Under Review Pending Approval. Reno Stead Water Reclamation Facility - Tracking Treatment Capacity: Current Average Use 1.6 MGD; if all approved 2.56 MGD. Reno Stead Water Reclamation Facility - Expansion Planning: Will expand the plant capacity from 2 MGD to 4 MGD. 4.1 M in ut es A cc ep ta nc e: M in ut es o f F 1, 2 6: 00 P M (A pp ro va l o f M inu tes )
Commissioner Weiske asked what is being done to protect homes from the storm water from the projects that were completed before 2009 when retention basins were not required on new projects. We are looking at developments that are now in water that have never been under water before. Is that a silt issue, did the bottom of the lake rise?
Commissioner Weiske asked what is proposed to be done for the storm water coming into the lake from the areas that were developed before the 2009 requirement for retention basins. Mr. Flansberg discussed the regional mitigation project, coming up with a location that would could actually add flood volume storage. Part of that may be through development as it comes in and part of it may be that we want to build some of that. Funding is always an issue. You might set up a special assessment district but you need to find a location that would work for that regional project. Once that is in place we could look at how we would want to pay for that whether we have new development mitigating theirs. And we have existing businesses that were not under those requirements, maybe there is some method of assessment that would go into helping to pay for that flood volume mitigation. Chair Gower discussed the elevation trend over time from 84 to present and noted that the 2017 spike is much higher than the 97-98 spike but they were pretty similar.
Mr. Flansberg confirmed yes, as it is today. Commissioner Marshall asked what we are assuming in terms of the ability to maintain at a level regarding the availability of a ground water basin to help with infiltration or are we assuming there isn't any and just relying on evaporation.
Commissioner Griffith discussed the fact that there is not so much a question of whether there is going to be more development in the North Valleys because there probably will be. She suggested looking into somewhere else in the state or in California where between development and flood plain mapping being changed this type of situation has occurred. Raising Lemmon Drive doesn't seem economically feasible. There has to be an easier way. With regard to the idea of piping to other valleys, sometimes there is an economic driver for them to take water. Mr. Flansberg discussed the difficulty of that solution with Swan Lake. It would be better if we had four feet of water all the time and then once in a while we got up to ten feet and were dealing with that but we go from no water in a dry area to this type of flooding situation. One of the challenges is having an asset that is hardly ever available. If you have a receiver on the other end, they don't want water just once every five or six or ten years, they will want water every year because they will have a use for it.
Mr. Flansberg confirmed for Commissioner Johnson that we could serve development but the purple pipe network would have to be expanded. Commissioner Johnson asked if purple pipe is allowed in private developments. Claudia Hanson, Planning Manager, confirmed that it is allowed, it's just whether it's available or not. Public Comment: Tammy Holt-Still discussed the fact that the water is still there and that the amount of storm runoff occurring is tied to development. If you pump water in, you need to pump water out. No closed basin valley can take it. She also discussed the need for code enforcement with regard to the required retention areas. Public Comment: Michael Welling discussed the trend for a major event about every ten years. He also asked about the formula for retention ponds in new developments.
Karl Hall, City Attorney, confirmed for Commissioner Weiske that staff can consider that and present it to City Council. 4.1 M in ut es A cc ep ta nc e: M in ut es o f F 1, 2 6: 00 P M (A pp ro va l o f M inu tes )
Mr. Borchardt explained for Commissioner Griffith that the hours of operation currently are only proposed for the retail marijuana stores. All of the facilities are required to have security features per state law and security provisions are stronger for retail locations. Commissioner Johnson discussed Commissioner Weiske s suggestion for the addition of Item J and whether it is already covered under current code.
It was moved by Commissioner Weiske, seconded by Commissioner Griffith, in the case of TXT18-00003 (Recreational Marijuana), based upon compliance with the applicable findings, to recommend that City Council approve the text amendment by ordinance, and including the conversations we have had this evening to be presented by staff to City Council.
Ward : 4 Case No.: LDC17-00040 (Valley Road Master Plan Amendment) Applicant: 1900 Valley Road LLC APN Number: 004-202-52 and 53, 004-202-60 through 63 Request: A request has been made for a Master Plan amendment within the Special Planning Area/University of Nevada Regional Center from Open Space to Residential on a 4.93 acre portion of an overall 5.34 acre site.
The Planning Commission will adopt this Master Plan amendment by resolution and make a recommendation to the Reno City Council to do the same. If the Reno City Council approves the Master Plan amendment by resolution, the Master Plan amendment must be found in conformance with the Truckee Meadows Regional Plan before the map amendments may take effect (City Council Consideration b). This request was submitted on January 10, 2017 and is being considered under the Master Plan in effect at the time of application. It should be noted that the ReImagine Reno Master Plan was found in conformance with the Truckee Meadows Regional Plan on March 26, 2018. It is anticipated that the Reno City Council will certify the new Master Plan on May 2, 2018. With the adoption of the ReImagine Reno Master Plan, the City will need to bring forward a Master Plan amendment modifying the ReImagine Reno land use designations for the site. Based on the ReImagine Reno Master Plan designations surrounding the site, land use designations ranging between Multifamily Neighborhood (MF) [15-30 dwelling units per acre (du/ac)] and Single Family Neighborhood (SF) (2 8 du/ac) would be consistent with the area (Exhibit D). 6.2
For the City Council: The Planning Commission s recommendation to City Council should also take into consideration the Master Plan Considerations for the City Council. As discussed in various sections of this report, this amendment request will serve as a pattern and guide for orderly physical growth and will not cause natural resource impairment (City Council Consideration a.1). This request is in conformance with the adopted population plan and may assist to provide housing supply which may include affordable housing (City Council Consideration a.2). There is no requirement for a request of this type to provide a fiscal analysis. However, it is anticipated that uses allowed within the Residential Area designation will be beneficial to the City of Reno. The site will be served by existing services and by connecting to existing infrastructure (City Council Consideration a.3).
Public Improvements: All of the parcels being proposed for a Master Plan Amendment are undeveloped, with the exception of the southwest parcel that is improved with a single family residence. There is existing City of Reno sanitary sewer infrastructure available on Valley Road adjacent to the undeveloped parcels and additional infrastructure to the east of the site to serve future development. Due to the grade of the site, future development may require sanitary sewer service connections at one or both of the existing mains. Future development or redevelopment of the parcels will be required to meet City of Reno standards for sewage disposal. The City is not aware of existing sewage capacity issues in this area. With regard to water service, the site is within the Truckee Meadows Water Authority (TMWA) retail service area.
Master Plan Considerations: For the Planning Commission: (a) Bears relation to the planning and physical development of the City; and (b) Is so prepared that it may be adopted by the City Council as a basis for the physical development of the City. For the City Council: (a) As may be applied practically to the physical development of the City for a reasonable period next ensuing will: 6.2
(a) A pattern and guide for that kind of orderly physical growth and development of the city which will cause the least amount of natural resource impairment and will conform to the adopted population plan, where required, and ensure an adequate supply of housing, including affordable housing; and
Upon motion of Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner , the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 20 , by the following vote of the Commission: APPROVED this day of , 20 . _____________________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST:
Without architecture drawings, it is difficult to determine where windows will be placed within each structure and how their placement relates to existing residences in the area. The closest residential properties are located 35 feet south of proposed Lots 1, 7, and 8 along Sandestin Drive. The first story is 10 feet higher than the adjacent properties located to the south. It is conceivable that Lots 7 and 8 could have a second story, in which the southern facing windows of the second floor would have full view into the windows of the adjacent properties. Lot 1 is proposing a walkout basement, which is nearly at the same level of the finished grade of the adjacent property. While the first floor of Lot 1 is 7 feet higher than the property to the south, the building orientation between each lot is such that there are no direct views into any windows. The applicant has voluntarily proposed large evergreen trees placed at a rate of one tree per 15 lineal feet along the south side of Lots 1, 7 and 8, in addition to deed restricting Lots 1, 7 and 8 to a single story as measured from street level. Staff is recommending these changes become conditions of approval (Condition No. 10 and 11). This will ensure that the privacy of the existing residences is maintained and the scale of any future structures are compatible with the existing residential development (SUP findings e h, Hillside SUP finding e). No project entry signs are proposed at this time. The applicant has indicated that they intend on following the standards for entry signs, street address signs, and street signs shown in the Ventana Pointe SPD handbook. Given a portion of this project falls within standard residential zoning, code has different sign standards. Since the standards within the SPD handbook are more restrictive and have design standards more consistent with the character of the project, staff recommends a condition to require all signage to follow the standards within the Ventana Pointe SPD handbook (Condition No. 12)(SUP finding g). A fencing plan was provided (Exhibit F) that is not consistent with the SPD handbook, which allows for standard six-foot wood privacy fences between residences, but reduced height elsewhere. Between the rear face of the residence and the rear property line, a four and one-half foot tall open or solid fence can be installed unless it is adjacent to open space, which is required to be open view. In order to maintain consistency with fencing throughout the development and comply with the policies within the McQueen Neighborhood Plan and the Master Plan, a condition is recommended to require the entire subdivision to follow the standards within the SPD handbook, which are stricter than code (Condition No. 13). Of the 166.8 acre project site, 149 acres (89 ) are proposed to remain undisturbed. The undisturbed portion of the site will remain as open space, will be required to be deed restricted per RMC 18.12.101(f) (Open Space), and will be maintained by the HOA (Condition No. 14). The common area within the developed core is proposed to be planted per the Ventana Pointe 6.3
There are no parkways proposed throughout the subdivision. There are a number of Master Plan Policies encouraging fully landscaped parkway strips throughout the development. Due to the topography on the site, the applicant contends it would be difficult to meet minimum lot sizes and provide a sidewalk with an associated parkway strip without causing excess grading. As such, the applicant has only proposed sidewalk on one side of the street and no parkway strips.
Native and noxious plant species are present in both draingeways including coyote willow, riparian grasses, sagebrush, bitterbrush, rabbit brush, and small localized occurrences of medusahead. A condition is recommended for the applicant to develop a noxious weed management plan prior to the issuance of a building permit to combat invasive plant species in the area (Condition No. 26). This will assist in ensuring the long-term health of the drainageway on site.
The City of Reno Fire Department staff reviewed the project and indicated that the closest fire station to the subject site is Station 11 located at 7105 Mae Anne Avenue. The current response time from Station 11 to the subject site exceeds eight minutes. The second closest fire station is Station 8 located at 3600 Kings Row with a 14 minute response time. The Fire Department s First Due Response Objective for a suburban area is an eight minute response time from the time of dispatch to the arrival of the first fire department unit at least 85 of the time. The study also set a performance goal for a travel time of six minutes and 30 seconds 85 of the time. The anticipated response time for this project does not meets the objectives outlined above. Because the response time exceeds eight minutes, housing will require the installation of fire sprinkler systems (Condition No. 30). The Fire Department noted that fire sprinklers will not mitigate the response time for medical emergencies, which will be extended for residents living in this area (TM finding 10). The proposed project is located in a high hazard Fire Wildland-Urban Interface Area. Development will need to follow requirements set forth in the Wildland-Urban Interface Code under NRS 477 and NAC 477.281, as adopted by the State of Nevada. Prior to the approval of the final map, the applicant will be required to provide a vegetation management plan to the Reno Fire Department and the State Forester Fire Warden for review and approval (Condition No. 31). All other aspects of the development will be required to follow the International Building Code and Fire Code as adopted at the time of building plan submittal. This includes water supply, hydrant locations, and fire access. Two means of access are required for more than 30 residences. This development has two points of access on the southwest and southeast corners of the project. Therefore, public safety requirements are met (TM findings 4, 9, and 10). Public Improvements: All necessary utilities to serve the project are in place or can be extended to the site (SUP finding c). Prior to the approval of any final map, all necessary easements for utilities should be shown on the map (Condition No. 32). Additionally, the final map should show any existing easements that currently encumber the site as relinquished or relocated to appropriate locations (Condition No. 33). The plans show that utilities will be tied to existing infrastructure located in Sandestin Drive, Peavine Pines Court, and the access road to the existing TMWA water tank located in the northeast corner of the site. The developer will be responsible for replacing roadway markings and striping affected or displaced by the pavement improvements prior to the approval of any certificate of occupancy (Condition No. 34). A preliminary Sanitary Sewer report was provided with the application and indicates downstream public infrastructure has sufficient capacity to serve the development while 6.3
The proposed area of the project lies entirely within a FEMA flood zone X designation, indicating the site is located in an area of minimum flood hazard. A preliminary hydrology report was provided which anticipates collection of stormwater runoff from post-development surfaces to be collected by curb and gutter, curb inlets, and catch basins that route via storm sewers to existing on-site natural drainageways passing north to south through the site. The project also anticipates design of on-site detention basins. A final hydrology report will be required for each final map (TM finding 8).
Traffic, Access, Circulation: Vehicular access to the site will be from Beaumont Parkway via Sunline Drive and Sandestin Drive and from Somersett Parkway via Logan Ridge Trail, Peavine Creek Road, and Peavine Pines Court onto a private street network. Staff is concerned with the manner of connectivity onto Peavine Pines Court. Should the Planning Commission approve the project, the applicant will need to work with staff to ensure the intersection does not cause any safety issues with the existing cul-de-sac (Condition No 40). In an effort to reduce grading on the site, the applicant has proposed streets that are narrower than a typical local street section within the PWDM. Because private streets are proposed, their size can be modified and they will be required to be maintained by an HOA (Condition No. 11). The Ventana Pointe SPD handbook requires streets to be a minimum of 24 feet in width with bump-outs to 28 feet where parking is provided. The applicant is proposing 31 foot wide streets throughout the development. The private streets through the development are not wide enough to accommodate on-street parking on both sides of the streets, but eight foot wide bump-outs are provided throughout the development in key locations that will allow for marked on-street parking within a public use easement. The SPD handbook requires one parking space per residence of on-street parking. A total of 46 lots fall within the SPD and a total of 51 parking spaces are provided within the SPD area. The entire subdivision has a total of 64 on- street parking spaces. To further ensure on-street parking will not be an issue in the subdivision, staff is recommending that the entire subdivision follow the code requirement for single family residential of one parking space per bedroom for off-street parking (Condition No. 41). As conditioned, adequate parking will be provided throughout the subdivision. Another condition is recommended to provide red-curb and no-parking signs along the portions of the streets that do not meet the minimum width to accommodate on- street parking (Condition No. 42). A 70-lot single family residential unit project is anticipated to generate approximately 666 average daily trips (ADT), 54 AM peak hour trips (PHT), and 71 PM PHT. These fall below the 100 PHT rate that would trigger a traffic study. The traffic increase from this project is considered negligible and is not anticipated to cause substantial issues with the surrounding streets. As mentioned above, staff is concerned regarding the impact of traffic on Peavine Pines Court, specifically with the location of the intersection of the west entrance to the proposed project. Should the Planning Commission approve the application, this intersection will need to 6.3
The applicant has proposed sidewalk on one side of the private streets to limit excessive grading. The addition of a sidewalk could result in excess fills, steeper slopes, or the use of larger retaining walls throughout the site. Per RMC 18.12.801 (New Sidewalks, Curbs, and Gutters), a minimum four foot wide sidewalk is required on both sides of the street unless determined unnecessary by the Administrator. Further, the SPD handbook only requires sidewalk on one side of the street. Staff supports the request for a sidewalk on one side of the street as an effort to reduce grading on the site and ensure consistency with the street design for the entire subdivision, but defers the decision to the Planning Commission as part of the approval of this project. In order to reduce conflicts with vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists, particularly in the evening, the applicant should provide sufficient street lighting at the intersections within the development (Condition No. 43).
The following Master Plan policies are not met: F-2: The City should strive for a four minute response time to 75 of the City, and not exceed a six minute response time for any area of the City without mitigation; CD-21: On residential streets, the preferred design incorporates a landscaped parkway; BD-2: Building design should respect the character of a residential area; SD-13: The City should encourage the retention of natural features of hillsides by requiring any 6.3
According to WCSD staff, both Melton Elementary and Billinghurst Middle Schools are proposed to be under capacity with the proposed project. Melton Elementary School is projected to be 530 students (73 of capacity) and Billinghurst Middle School is projected to be 933 students (86 of capacity) for the 2017/2018 school year. McQueen High School is anticipated to be 1,609 students (109 of capacity). When accounting for the 14 portable classrooms currently on the McQueen High School campus, the school is at 89 capacity. With the passage of WC-1, there is now a dedicated funding source for school improvements and the construction of new schools, which will further increase the capacity of the schools (TM findings 4 9). Neighborhood Advisory Board (NAB): This project was reviewed by the Ward 5 NAB on February 13, 2018. NAB members and members of the public were not in favor of the project. Concerns were expressed regarding fire hazards, impacts to wildlife, snow removal, visual impact to the hillsides, trail access and formal trail heads, and potential flooding impacts. A copy of their comments is attached to this report (Exhibit K).
NRS 278.349(3) Tentative Map RMC 18.06.405(e)(1) Special Use Permit RMC 18.06.405(e)(2) Special Use Permits for Hillside Development RMC 18.06.405(e)(3) Special Use Permits for Cut Slopes of 20 Feet or Greater in Depth or Fill Slopes Ten Feet or Greater in Depth. FINDINGS: Tentative Map: When issuing a decision on a tentative map, the planning commission shall consider the following:
(11) Submission by the subdivider of an affidavit stating that the subdivider will make provision for payment of the tax imposed by Chapter 375 of NRS and for compliance with the disclosure and recording requirements of subsection 5 of NRS 598.0923, if applicable, by the subdivider or any successor in interest. Special Use Permit: General special use permit findings. Except where specifically noted, all special use permit applications shall require that all of the following general findings be met, as applicable.
Monitor up to five cities and counties and get alerts when they plan to vote on topics you're passionate about.