NV - Reno: Reno City Planning Commission

Get alerted when your passions are being discussed in Reno, Washoe and more for free

Issues discussed this meeting include:

Get Alerts On New Meetings
Sign Up
When and Where is the Next Meeting?
[ See More ]

Reno City Planning Commission

Commissioners Peter Gower, Chair 326-8860

Mark Johnson, Vice Chair 326-8864 Paul Olivas 326-8861 Britton Griffith 326-8858 John Marshall 326-8863 Ed Hawkins 326-8862 Kevin Weiske 326-8859

Posting: This agenda has been physically posted in compliance with NRS 241.020(3)(notice of meetings) at Reno City Hall One East First Street, Washoe County Downtown Reno Library 301 South Center Street, Evelyn Mount Northeast Community Center 1301 Valley Road, McKinley Arts and Culture Center 925 Riverside Drive, Reno Municipal Court One South Sierra Street, Washoe County Administration Building 1001 East 9th Street and Reno-Sparks Convention and Visitors Authority 4001 South Virginia Street, Suite G. In addition, this agenda has been electronically posted in compliance with NRS 241.020(3) at http://www.reno.gov, and NRS 232.2175 at https://notice.nv.gov/.

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.

Tagged Passions:disability, compliance, legal, streets, arts, downtown, development, conventions, community center, library, Development, court, and community development

Support Materials: Staff reports and supporting material for the meeting are available at the City Clerk's Office. Please contact Ashley D. Turney, City Clerk, 1 East 1st Street, Reno, NV 89505, (775) 334-2030; turneya@reno.gov. Staff reports and supporting materials are also available on the City's website at http://www.reno.gov/meetings. Pursuant to NRS 241.020(6), supporting material is made available to the general public at the same time it is provided to the Planning Commission.

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:streets, boards and commissions, planning, and materials

Order of Agenda: A time listed next to a specific agenda item indicates that the specific item will not be heard before that time it does not indicate the time schedule of any other items. Items on the agenda may be taken out of order and the public body may combine two or more agenda items for consideration. The Planning Commission may remove an item from the agenda or delay discussion relating to an item on the agenda at any time.

Tagged Passions:boards and commissions and planning

Public Comment: A person wishing to address the Reno City Planning Commission shall submit a Request to Speak form to the Secretary. Public comment, whether on action items or general public comment, is limited to three (3) minutes per person. Unused time may not be reserved by the speaker, nor allocated to another speaker. No action may be taken on a matter raised under general public comment until the matter is included on an agenda as an item on which action may be taken. The presiding officer may prohibit comment if the content of the comments is a topic that is not relevant to, or within the authority of, the Planning Commission, or if the content is willfully disruptive of the meeting by being irrelevant, repetitious, slanderous, offensive, inflammatory, irrational or amounting to personal attacks or interfering with the rights of other speakers. Any person making willfully disruptive remarks while addressing the Reno City Planning Commission or while attending the Reno City Planning Commission meeting may be removed from the room by the presiding officer, and the person may be barred from further audience before the Reno City Planning Commission during that session of the Reno City Planning Commission. See, Nevada Attorney General Opinion No. 00-047 (April 27, 2001); Nevada Open Meeting Law Manual, 8.05.

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:legal, boards and commissions, and planning

Agenda Reno City Planning Commission April 18, 2018

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.

Tagged Passions:boards and commissions, council, Tony Taylor Custom, holiday, planning, and business

1
Pledge of Allegiance

2
Roll Call

3
Public Comment (This item is for either public comment on any action item or for any general public comment.)

4
Approval of Minutes (For Possible Action)

No additional detail provided

4.1 Reno City Planning Commission - Regular - Feb 21, 2018 6:00 PM (For Possible Action)

5 City Council Liaison Reports

Tagged Passions:boards and commissions, council, and planning

6
Public Hearings Any person who has chosen to provide his or her public comment when a Public Hearing is heard will need to so indicate on the Request to Speak form provided to the Secretary. Alternatively, you may provide your comment when Item 3, Public Comment, is heard at the beginning of this meeting.

Tagged Passions:hearing

6.1 Staff Report (For Possible Action): Case No. LDC18-00015 (Silver Dollar Estates) - A request has been made for: 1) a tentative map to develop a total of 619 lots with a mixture of attached and detached single family products; and 2) special use permits for: a) cluster development; b) attached single family residential; c) elimination of residential adjacency height to setback ratio; d) grading that results in fills greater than ten feet; and e) grading that results in disturbance of a major drainageway. The 92.2 acre site is located between Sky Vista Parkway and US 395 along Trading Post Road and Silver Dollar Lane in the Community Commercial (CC) and Single Family - 6,000 square feet (SF6) zones. The site has Master Plan land use designations of Mixed Residential and Urban Residential/Commercial. jdb [Ward 2]

This item was continued from the November 16, 2017, December 7, 2017, and March 7, 2018 Planning Commission meetings.
Tagged Passions:streets, commercial, boards and commissions, development, grading, planning, and Development

Agenda Reno City Planning Commission April 18, 2018

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:boards and commissions and planning

6.2 Staff Report (For Possible Action - Recommendation to City Council): Resolution No. 01-17 Case No. LDC17-00040 (Valley Road Master Plan Amendment) - 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 site consists of six parcels that are located on the east side of Valley Road, 480 feet north of its intersection with Winston Drive in the Mixed Use/University of Nevada Regional Center (MU/UNRC) zone. hrm [Ward 4]

Tagged Passions:university, streets, property, council, and planning

6.3 Staff Report (For Possible Action): Case No. LDC18-00041 (Ventana Ridge) - A request has been made for: 1) a tentative map to develop a total of 70 lots; and 2) special use permits for: a) cluster development; b) hillside development; c) grading resulting in cuts deeper than 20 feet and fills greater than ten feet in height; and d) grading that results in the disturbance of a major drainageway. The 166.8 acre site is located north of the terminus of Sandestin Drive and 450 north of the terminus of Peavine Pines Court within the Ventana Pointe Specific Plan District (SPD), Single Family Residential 15,000 square foot (SF15), Single Family Residential 9,000 square foot (SF9), and Open Space (OS) zones. The site has a Master Plan land use designation of Special Planning Area/McQueen Neighborhood Plan with sub-land use designations of Single Family Greater than or Equal to 1 dwelling unit/acre (du/ac) to 3 du/ac; Mixed Residential 3 du/ac to 11 du/ac; and Parks/Recreation/Open Space. jdb [Ward 5]

Tagged Passions:legal, development, grading, parks, planning, Development, recreation, neighborhood, and court

7
Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Liaison Report

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:planning

8
Staff Announcements

8.1 Report on status of Planning Division projects.

Tagged Passions:planning

8.2 Announcement of upcoming training opportunities.

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:training

8.3 Report on status of responses to staff direction received at previous meetings.

8.4 Report on actions taken by City Council on previous Planning Commission items.

Tagged Passions:boards and commissions, council, and planning

9
Commissioner's Suggestions for Future Agenda Items (For Possible Action)

No additional detail provided

10
Public Comment (This item is for either public comment on any action item or for any general public comment.)

No additional detail provided

11
Adjournment (For Possible Action)

No additional detail provided

IF THE MEETING GOES BEYOND 11:00 PM, THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY POSTPONE REMAINING ITEMS.

MINUTES Regular Meeting Reno City Planning Commission

Tagged Passions:boards and commissions and planning

Commissioners Peter Gower, Chair 326-8860

Mark Johnson, Vice Chair 326-8864 Paul Olivas 326-8861 Britton Griffith 326-8858 John Marshall 326-8863 Ed Hawkins 326-8862 Kevin Weiske 326-8859

1
Pledge of Allegiance

Commissioner Weiske led the Pledge of Allegiance.

2
Roll Call

Attendee Name Title Status Arrived Kevin Weiske Commissioner Present Mark Johnson Vice-Chairman Present Ed Hawkins Commissioner Present Paul Olivas Commissioner Present Britton Griffith Commissioner Present Peter Gower Chairman Present John Marshall Commissioner Late 6:18 PM The meeting was called to order at 6:02 PM.

3
Public Comment

Tammy Holt-Still spoke regarding flooding issues in the North Valleys.
Tagged Passions:flooding

4
Approval of Minutes (For Possible Action)

No additional detail provided

4.1 Reno City Planning Commission - Regular - Jan 3, 2018 6:00 PM (For Possible Action) 6:05 PM

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 )

Tagged Passions:boards and commissions and planning

Minutes Reno City Planning Commission February 21, 2018

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:boards and commissions and planning

RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Kevin Weiske, Commissioner SECONDER: Mark Johnson, Vice-Chairman AYES: Weiske, Johnson, Hawkins, Olivas, Griffith, Gower ABSENT: John Marshall

5 City Council Liaison Reports None
Tagged Passions:council

6
STAR Communities Presentation

Lynne Barker, Sustainability Manager, gave the STAR Communities Presentation.

(Commissioner Marshall present at 6:18 p.m.)
Tagged Passions:manager and sustainability

Chair Gower asked how the Planning Commission can help make changes to improve the STAR rating.

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:boards and commissions and planning

Ms. Barker discussed examples of things to consider in the future as the Master Plan is codified. We are going to be very threatened in terms of the progress we have made on reduction of greenhouse gas emissions if we continue to build on the edges of our community. We have seen a very significant increase over the past five years of vehicle miles traveled. If we continue to see an increase instead of a decrease, there is not going to be a path forward for us to reduce emissions related to transportation. Ms. Barker also stated that she is working with staff through an inter-departmental team to identify a way for us to start taking a look at the performance metrics and if we are measuring those every year it is much more likely that we will manage our progress toward those metrics.

Chair Gower referenced the information in the presentation regarding the low percentage of development in designated infill sites. He discussed how the Planning Commission can be involved in improving the rating by supporting their goal to promote infill. Ms. Barker stated that we should be focused on directing development in our new growth areas and connecting those by public transit. Commissioner Weiske asked about incentives that are working in other areas that could be implemented here. Ms. Barker explained that a lot of cities use increased development density as a way to incentivize development in specific areas and that she would have to do the research to figure out what types of incentives would work in our community. 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 )
Tagged Passions:boards and commissions, development, Public Transit, travel, sites, planning, Development, transportation, incentive, performance, and growth

Minutes Reno City Planning Commission February 21, 2018

Staff Presentation - STAR Communities - Presented/Distributed at Meeting

Tagged Passions:boards and commissions and planning

7
Presentation on Effluent and Stormwater in the North Valleys

John Flansberg, Director of Public Works, gave the presentation on Effluent and Stormwater in the North Valleys. The presentation included the following information.

Tagged Passions:Public Works, stormwater, and public works

Silver Lake water elevations for 2017-2018 - Highest lake level 4,967.7 feet (April 21, 2017); 100 year flood elevation 4,972 feet.

Tagged Passions:Utility, flooding, utility, and water

Swan Lake water elevations for 2017-2018 - Highest lake level 4,923.3 feet (April 21, 2017); 100 year flood elevation 4,924 feet; top of the HESCO Barrier 4,926 feet.

Swan Lake - elevations from Land Sat imagery from 1984 to 2017.
Tagged Passions:college prep, Utility, flooding, utility, and water

Reno-Stead Water Reclamation Facility - Effect on Swan Lake: 2017 Average Annual Influent to RSWRF 1.9 million gallons/day; 2017 Effluent Distributed to Systems 430 AF (lower than average); Average Annual Seasonal Effluent Distribution 600 AF/year; Swan Lake Storage at FEMA 100 year elevation 10,800 acre-feet;

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.

Tagged Passions:Utility, FEMA, plant, utility, facility, and water

Drainage Ordinance and Regulations - FEMA map was established in 2009; flooded residences were constructed prior to flood map. We participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. We were audited in 2015 and all of our ordinances met or exceeded minimum standards. Read Section 18.12.1702 and 18.12.1703. Four project locations were reviewed and it was determined that the drainage standards were met.

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 )

Tagged Passions:audit, ordinance, Utility, development, expansion, FEMA, plant, subdivision, flooding, planning, Development, program, insurance, utility, regulation, stormwater, facility, and water

Minutes Reno City Planning Commission February 21, 2018

Lemmon Valley-Stead Wastewater Facility Plan - Will include: wastewater collection system; wastewater treatment facilities; and effluent management alternatives. Nevada Water Innovations Campus.

Tagged Passions:boards and commissions, Utility, planning, utility, facility, sewer, and water

Potential Demonstrations and Projects - American Flats/Airport Property; Bedell Flat; Reservoir.

Summary and Actions: RSWRF Expansion Plan; Lemmon Valley/Stead Facility Plan; Connection Fees; Review/Update Development Code; Establish Site or Sites for Regional Mitigation Project; Raise Lemmon Drive.

Tagged Passions:property, development, expansion, sites, airport, Development, and facility

Mr. Flansberg reviewed an inundation map for Commissioner Marshall of the 100 year flood plain.

Commissioner Marshall asked if we would see significant increase in areas of inundation if we go up to the 100 flood plain.

Tagged Passions:flooding

Mr. Flansberg replied this would be the inundations of the 100 year flood plain.

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:flooding

Commissioner Marshall asked about the available capacity for future development.

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:development and Development

Mr. Flansberg explained that currently the capacity of the Reno Stead Reclamation Facility is about 2.1 million gallons. We are at 1.65 now so you have a little less than half a million gallons a day that could be added to that plant. The Lemmon Valley Plant is about a 300,000 gallon max plant and there is about 220,000 right now.

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:plant and facility

Mr. Flansberg further explained for Commissioner Marshall that if all of the Approved Not Built, Pending Tentative Maps, and Planned Unit Developments Pending Review were approved that would put us at about capacity of the Reno Stead Water Reclamation Facility and they would need to expand. Regarding effluent, we are only permitted to about 2.35 million gallons a day into Swan Lake. We would have to find additional locations for the effluent if we expanded the plant.

Commissioner Marshall asked about getting permitted to put more effluent into Swan Lake.
Tagged Passions:Utility, development, plant, subdivision, Development, utility, facility, and water

Mr. Flansberg explained that they are permitted right now based on the science that also informs where the flood plain would be located. If we were to add more than that to the area we would potentially increase the base flood elevation.

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 )

Tagged Passions:flooding

Minutes Reno City Planning Commission February 21, 2018

Commissioner Marshall stated the more water we put in, the higher we will raise Swan Lake, depending on the hydraulic conditions.

Tagged Passions:boards and commissions, Utility, planning, utility, and water

Mr. Flansberg explained that the design standard we build to is the 100 flood plain elevation and that is what basically informs us of how much water we can discharge from the plant into the lake and still have enough storage volume that if we have a 100 year storm there will be enough volume left in the lake to allow for the storm water to come in to that level.

Commissioner Marshall agreed that our regulations allow us to develop to the capacity of the plant, but the consequence of that is to inundate more area around Swan Lake. Is that correct logic?

Tagged Passions:Utility, plant, flooding, utility, regulation, stormwater, and water

Mr. Flansberg responded no and explained that the permit condition that informs us on the effluent side is that we are permitted for nothing more than 2.35 million gallons a day discharge to Swan Lake. We could build the next section of the plant but once we get up to a certain level of flow coming to that plant, we would not recommend to you to do any approval of development, we would not be able to make the findings if we did not have a place for the additional effluent to go.

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:development, plant, and Development

Commissioner Marshall stated that if we continue to authorize permit development, we will be effectively raising the level of Swan Lake by some incremental amount with each approval over time.

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:development and Development

Mr. Flansberg explained that the overall amount of effluent is only 15 of the total volume of the lake at the 100 year plain. And that 15 is not happening all at once like a storm does, it happens over time.

Commissioner Marshall stated that as we add more effluent that percentage goes up.

Mr. Flansberg responded it may go up to 17 . It is a relatively small amount.

Commissioner Marshall asked if Mr. Flansberg is saying that even though it is only 15 of the volume of the lake then in any given hydrologic condition, are you saying it's a wash as to whether or not, what percentage of the lake volume is effluent?

Mr. Flansberg responded yes, I suppose that would be a true statement in terms of just concentration or the type of water in there. Mr. Flansberg also stated that you may actually want in certain years to have more effluent going into Swan Lake. Because you have so much evaporation that occurs, when the lake is dry you may want to add more effluent in that location. And then when you start getting storms you may have a cut off and say you will start moving that effluent now to a different location that we would develop like an aquifer storage or

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 )

Tagged Passions:Utility, utility, and water

Minutes Reno City Planning Commission February 21, 2018

someplace else so you would have that flexibility with that effluent. Currently we don't have that flexibility.

Tagged Passions:boards and commissions and planning

Commissioner Marshall stated he is still struggling with his question. If we are adding to the discharge into Swan Lake by approving development, what impact does that have on an average lake elevation?

Mr. Flansberg stated the depth increase to Swan Lake from Reno Stead in 2017 was 8.5 inches. That depth did not happen all at once like a storm does, it happened over time. In addition to that the large quantity of water right now is storm water. What we are requiring in storm water in those development is that retention is built on site so we don't add to what is going on at Swan Lake with storm water, which is the larger portion of water than the effluent.
Tagged Passions:Utility, development, Development, utility, stormwater, and water

Commissioner Marshall asked if that means that in future conditions there will be less storm water going into the lake.

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:Utility, utility, stormwater, and water

Mr. Flansberg responded stating that since 2009 when we made the change in the drainage manual, we required developments to build retention on site so that they are retaining their 100 year storm. That is keeping the portion that is relative to their development from going into Swan Lake. General runoff and runoff from prior development without that requirement is occurring to Swan Lake.

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:development, Development, and stormwater

Commissioner Olivas asked if the 2009 100 year map includes impacts of effluent into the Lake.

No additional detail provided

Mr. Flansberg responded yes. He also confirmed that without the effluent going in it would be a smaller area but not much smaller because it is only 15 of the total lake volume.

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?

Tagged Passions:Utility, development, Development, utility, stormwater, and water

Mr. Flansberg responded that there could be some sedimentation. We saw a lot of erosion in ditches in Lemmon Valley. There could be some silt. Mr. Flansberg stated that he does not think that amount of silt is great although it is something that needs to be monitored. With regard to the question of what is being done for the homes that were built before the 2009 requirement for retention basins, there were homes built before the flood plain was established in the 80's that are in the flood plain. This elevation was set in the 80's and reviewed in the 90's and the elevation remained the same. But there were homes built prior to the floodplain being established that show those locations were in the flood plain.

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 )

Tagged Passions:flooding

Minutes Reno City Planning Commission February 21, 2018

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.

Tagged Passions:boards and commissions, Utility, development, flooding, funding, planning, Development, utility, stormwater, business, and water

Mr. Flansberg stated that they were not similar and explained that in 1997 we experienced a rain on snow event and in the 16-17 water year we had 20 storms. It wasn't that one of them was significantly large but the fact that there were so many back to back all through the winter.

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:Utility, snow, utility, events, and water

Chair Gower asked if that type of scenario happened again, would there be a change in the resiliency of the system. The ability to accommodate that same amount of flow will be less over time.

No additional detail provided

Mr. Flansberg stated that there are three things that need to be done: raise elevation of Lemmon Drive; volume mitigation storage (regional project); flexibility with effluent.

Chair Gower asked what we can do between now and when those strategies are in place. The word moratorium has been thrown out. As development continues to occur, what do we do during that time?

Tagged Passions:development and Development

Mr. Flansberg stated we have to answer one question first: are we going to grow anymore in the North Valleys? If we are not going to grow anymore, we don't need to double the size of the plant that is up there now. The question is what are the solutions, how are we going to raise Lemmon Drive and create a regional mitigation storage project and pay for them? Growth will help mitigate that. It is a significant cost to find another location for the effluent and I don't see us doing that if we don't have additional growth. We are well within our permit so it would be difficult to come up with justification to say why we would make that change. If we are going to grow, all these things need to go into place when development is going in. We would be bonding for an expansion of the Stead Treatment Plant and the connection fees will be helping to pay the bond back and that connection fee is going to be paid through the development that occurs.

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 )

Tagged Passions:development, expansion, plant, Development, growth, and bond

Minutes Reno City Planning Commission February 21, 2018

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:boards and commissions and planning

Commissioner Johnson asked about the timing for results and an understanding of the viability of the different solution options.

No additional detail provided

Mr. Flansberg stated they look to bring an agreement to City Council with Truckee Meadows Water Authority and with Washoe County for doing the project north of the airport and we plan to have that underway by this summer. We would expect to have infiltration rates and feasibility numbers probably within the end of the year or certainly a year from today. If the decision is to expand the treatment plant we would be looking to have that under bid and going out to bid by the end of the year.

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:rfp, RFP, council, Utility, rates, plant, airport, utility, and water

Commissioner Johnson stated you are still a year out from having a solution for the additional capacity and that solution would still require a design and additional construction period. To me what we are looking at is a more critical aspect than the expansion of the plant because until you have another place for the effluent it doesn't matter how big the plant is. Maybe the next step in terms of information that would be good for us is to start looking at aligning how future projects come online in relation to what has already been approved.

Tagged Passions:expansion, plant, and construction

Commissioner Marshall asked why they would raise the level of Lemmon Drive.

Mr. Flansberg explained that Lemmon Drive is a regionally significant roadway below the flood level.

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:flooding

Commissioner Marshall stated that it seems in order to justify that expense, the anticipation is that it will not be uncommon to have inundations of Lemmon Drive.

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.

Tagged Passions:Utility, utility, and water

Mr. Flansberg stated that evaporation is the biggest driver of the water leaving. We don't get a lot of infiltration. There is also some water moving underneath that is moving to the lake. We would have expected in a general year to have more than just 2.5 feet of evaporation in the lake. But we believe there was still probably some water coming into the lake subterranean.

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:Utility, utility, and water

Commissioner Weiske stated that even with the expansion of the sewer treatment plant we're still only talking about 15 to 20 percent of the water going into Swan Lake being effluent. There is still 80 to 85 percent of the water in that lake that is storm water. For the way that we would look at findings, it is critical for us to understand the difference between effluent discharge and

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 )

Tagged Passions:Utility, expansion, plant, utility, stormwater, sewer, and water

Minutes Reno City Planning Commission February 21, 2018

storm water discharge.

Tagged Passions:boards and commissions, Utility, planning, utility, stormwater, and water

Mr. Flansberg explained that the total amount of effluent that went to the lake for last year was 8.5 inches from Reno and .5 inches from the Lemmon Valley Plant making 9 inches total. That 9 inches is over time not all at once and we experienced 2.5 feet of evaporation in the summer.

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:plant

Commissioner Weiske stated that typically the events that cause us the most problems happen in the winter so you are not getting the evaporation. So when we don't have evaporation and we have a saturated ground area, what I see is an issue of how the storm water is dealt with and discharged as quickly as possible at a peak event when we have a lot of storm water building up. There are areas to pipe that water but we need to have the means to do it to take out the peak events.

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:Utility, utility, stormwater, events, and water

Mr. Flansberg explained that is why we required in 2009 not just the detention but the retention requirements for those projects because we need them to store their 100 year increase flows onsite.

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.

Tagged Passions:commercial, Utility, development, flooding, detention, Development, utility, and water

Commissioner Hawkins suggested that the Indian colony might be interested in the effluent water.

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:Utility, utility, and water

Mr. Flansberg confirmed they are looking into that.

No additional detail provided

Commissioner Hawkins stated that would involve federal dollars and we might be more apt to get money than going in another direction.

No additional detail provided

Chair Gower asked about other players that might be involved in a regional volume mitigation project.

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 )

Minutes Reno City Planning Commission February 21, 2018

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:boards and commissions and planning

Mr. Flansberg stated that would include Reno, Washoe County, Development and possibly some sort of an assessment district mechanism. He also confirmed that they would have some of those discussions at the Northern Nevada Water Planning Commission (NNWPC) which is overseen by the Western Regional Water Commission (WRWC).

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.

Tagged Passions:manager, boards and commissions, Utility, development, codes enforcement, planning, Development, utility, events, and water

Chair Gower asked if staff has been working with groups like the Swan Lake Recovery Committee.

Mr. Flansberg stated that he has met with Tammy Holt-Still and has addressed the issues she wanted addressed. He also stated that he will be meeting with her again on Monday.

No additional detail provided

Chair Gower suggested it might be worthwhile to use the NAB or CAB to support the dialogue.

Commissioner Weiske addressed comments made by Michael Welling. One thing we do at every meeting with every project we hear is we have Reno City Staff provide reports, we have city engineers confirming hydrology reports that are presented by planners. They do not do full hydrology reports at that time but they show enough data so they are comfortable that the design can retain and detain the water from that property. When a project is submitted for a building permit, a detailed review of detailed hydrology reports are confirmed or denied that they do work and at that point it is either approved for a permit or not approved until the numbers actually work. Then they have even gone back after a project is built to make sure these detention and retention basis are actually built to the standards shown in the calculations to make sure they work. 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 )
Tagged Passions:property, Utility, detention, utility, and water

Minutes Reno City Planning Commission February 21, 2018

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:boards and commissions and planning

(Chair Gower called for a recess at 8:01 p.m. The meeting resumed at 8:13 p.m.)

Staff Presentation - North Valleys - Presented/Distributed at Meeting

8
Public Hearings

Tagged Passions:hearing

8.1 Staff Report (For Possible Action - Recommendation to City Council): Case No. TXT18-00003 (Recreational Marijuana) - Ordinance amending the Reno Municipal Code Title 18, Annexation and Land Development , Chapter 18.08.201 Permitted Uses by Base Zone District , Chapter 18.08.202 Additional Regulations for Principal Uses , and Chapter 18.24.203 Definition of Words, Terms, and Phrases to create standards regulating facilities that grow, produce, test, distribute, and sell marijuana for adult recreational use, together with other matters properly relating thereto. jdb 8:13 PM

Jeff Borchardt, Associate Planner, presented the ordinance to the Commission.
Tagged Passions:boards and commissions, annexation, ordinance, council, development, marijuana, drugs, Development, recreation, and regulation

At this time Chair Gower opened public comment for this item.

William Adler would like hours of operation to be extended past 11:00 p.m. Hearing and seeing no further public comment requests, Chair Gower closed public comment.
Tagged Passions:hearing

Claudia Hanson, Planning Manager, responded to Commissioner Marshall's questions regarding the type of permit being used and explained that this use is not like a bar but more like a retail store similar to a liquor store which is considered general retail.

Mr. Borchardt explained for Commissioner Marshall the differences in code between medical marijuana and recreational marijuana.
Tagged Passions:commercial, manager, marijuana, alcohol, drugs, planning, and recreation

Commissioner Weiske noted that the ordinance is written in such a way that no establishment can be placed within 1,000 feet of a school and asked if there is any way that staff can write the ordinance so that no school can be allowed to open up within 1,000 feet of an existing retail marijuana establishment location so that it goes both ways. He also suggested the addition of Item J in the ordinance to read The proposed property and building shall be brought up to current code, no matter cost, before business license is issued for retail sales.

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 )

Tagged Passions:legal, property, education, license, ordinance, council, marijuana, business license, drugs, sale, and business

Minutes Reno City Planning Commission February 21, 2018

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.

Tagged Passions:commercial, boards and commissions, marijuana, drugs, planning, and security

Ms. Hanson stated that staff can rework Section I to clarify all applicable provisions of the code.

Commissioner Olivas expressed that it would be better not to include the additional condition. Commissioner Hawkins noted that leaving the hours of operation ending at 11:00 p.m. is consistent with other businesses we have seen in the past.

Tagged Passions:business

Chair Gower suggested clarifying the hours of operation are seven days a week.

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.

Tagged Passions:compliance, ordinance, council, marijuana, drugs, and recreation

Commissioner Marshall expressed disappointment that the distance between schools and facilities are only at the state minimum.

The motion carried unanimously with seven (7) commissioners present.

Tagged Passions:education

RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Kevin Weiske, Commissioner SECONDER: Britton Griffith, Commissioner AYES: Weiske, Johnson, Hawkins, Olivas, Griffith, Gower, Marshall

9
Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Liaison Report

There will be a Regional Planning Commission meeting next month.

Tagged Passions:boards and commissions and planning

10
Staff Announcements

10.1 Report on status of Planning Division projects.

Tagged Passions:planning

10.2 Announcement of upcoming training opportunities.

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 )

Tagged Passions:training

Minutes Reno City Planning Commission February 21, 2018

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:boards and commissions and planning

10.3 Report on status of responses to staff direction received at previous meetings.

10.4 Report on actions taken by City Council on previous Planning Commission items. 9:04 PM

Claudia Hanson, Planning Manager, provided an update on the following cases: Sutro Zone change continued to next week Abandonment near Sands approved StoneGate approved 6-1 Completed public outreach for accessory dwelling units Ms. Hanson explained for Commissioner Marshall that they do not set the agendas for the NABs and it would be best for City of Reno Planning Commissioners to speak under public comment at NAB meetings.
Tagged Passions:manager, boards and commissions, council, and planning

11
Commissioner's Suggestions for Future Agenda Items (For Possible Action)

Commissioner Hawkins - where are we at to allow PC to help make decisions on Annexations to the City of Reno. There are properties coming up next month that he feels shouldn't be annexed into the City of Reno

Tagged Passions:annexation

Ms. Hanson - we are addressing that in the code update.

No additional detail provided

12
Public Comment

No additional detail provided

Commissioner Weiske wished Commissioner Griffith a happy birthday.

13
Adjournment (For Possible Action)

The meeting was adjourned at 9:08 p.m. 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 )

1
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT

Tagged Passions:boards and commissions and planning

Date: April 18, 2018

No additional detail provided

To: Reno City Planning Commission

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:boards and commissions and planning

Subject: 6.1. Staff Report (For Possible Action): Case No. LDC18-00015 (Silver Dollar Estates) - A request has been made for: 1) a tentative map to develop a total of 619 lots with a mixture of attached and detached single family products; and 2) special use permits for: a) cluster development; b) attached single family residential; c) elimination of residential adjacency height to setback ratio; d) grading that results in fills greater than ten feet; and e) grading that results in disturbance of a major drainageway. The 92.2 acre site is located between Sky Vista Parkway and US 395 along Trading Post Road and Silver Dollar Lane in the Community Commercial (CC) and Single Family - 6,000 square feet (SF6) zones. The site has Master Plan land use designations of Mixed Residential and Urban Residential/Commercial. jdb This item was continued from the November 16, 2017, December 7, 2017, and March 7, 2018 Planning Commission meetings.

Tagged Passions:streets, commercial, boards and commissions, development, grading, planning, and Development

From: Jeff Borchardt, Associate Planner

This item was continued from the November 16, 2017 and December 7, 2017 Planning Commission meetings in order to hear additional information regarding Swan Lake flooding and sewer capacity from John Flansberg, Public Works Director. Mr. Flansberg gave a presentation to the Planning Commission on February 21, 2018. On March 7, 2018, City Staff requested that the Planning Commission continue the item to have additional time to analyze sewer capacity at the Reno-Stead Wastewater Reclamation Facility (RSWRF). Since the March Planning Commission meeting, City staff members have been consulting with the various developers pursing projects within the RSWRF sewer shed area in order to determine the timing and breadth of their projects. Staff is still in the process of compiling this data and requests the Planning Commission continue this item to June 7, 2018. Prior to hearing this item again, staff will schedule a presentation for the Planning Commission by Mr. Flansberg to discuss RSWRF sewer capacity.
Tagged Passions:hearing, boards and commissions, services, Utility, Public Works, flooding, planning, utility, facility, public works, and sewer

Please note that this continuance request is from City staff. Should the applicant desire to continue the project in the future, they still have one continuance available.

Proposed Motion: Based on a request from City Staff who is compiling sewer capacity data, I 6.1

Tagged Passions:Utility, utility, and sewer

2
move to continue the hearing on tentative map and special use permit to a date certain on June 7, 2018.

6.1

Tagged Passions:hearing

1
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT

Tagged Passions:boards and commissions and planning

Date: April 18, 2018

No additional detail provided

To: Reno City Planning Commission

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:boards and commissions and planning

Subject: 6.2. Staff Report (For Possible Action - Recommendation to City Council): Resolution No. 01-17 Case No. LDC17-00040 (Valley Road Master Plan Amendment) - 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 site consists of six parcels that are located on the east side of Valley Road, 480 feet north of its intersection with Winston Drive in the Mixed Use/University of Nevada Regional Center (MU/UNRC) zone. hrm

Tagged Passions:university, streets, property, council, and planning

From: Heather Manzo, Assistant Planner

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.

Tagged Passions:university, streets, and planning

Location: The site consists of six parcels that are located on the east side of Valley Road, 480 feet north of its intersection with Winston Drive in the Mixed Use/University of Nevada Regional Center (MU/UNRC) zone.

Proposed Motion: Based upon compliance with the applicable considerations, I move to adopt the Master Plan amendment by resolution and to recommend the City Council adopt the Master Plan amendment by resolution subject to conformance review by the Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency.
Tagged Passions:university, compliance, streets, property, council, and planning

Background: The 5.34 acre subject site consists of six parcels that are located on the east side of Valley Road within the University of Nevada Regional Center. A majority of the site is currently designated Open Space and a portion of the southwest parcel is designated Residential Area. The parcels are currently vacant, with the exception of the southwest parcel, 1980 Valley Road, which consists of a single family residence. The applicant has stated that the structure is anticipated to be demolished to accommodate future development of the site. It is anticipated that future development of the overall site will be designed with access from Valley Road.

A majority of the site is characterized by slopes less than 5 . Steeper slopes are located along the west and south sides of the site and along the northern portion of the site that contains the Orr 6.2
Tagged Passions:university, streets, property, development, and Development

2
Ditch (Exhibit A). The applicant has proposed to retain a 20 foot wide area that includes the Orr Ditch as Open Space. From a review of the Land Use maps for this area, it appears the Open Space designation is not necessary as the land surrounding the site has been disturbed and developed. With the exception of the Orr Ditch, there are no improvements or natural resources that have been identified on the site that need to be preserved.

The following table lists the zoning designations that conform to the existing and proposed Master Plan land use designation for the site (Exhibits B C). A summary of each of these designations is included in the Master Plan Amendment section of this report below.

Land Use Designation Conforming Zoning District Special Planning Area/University of Nevada Regional Center/Open Space

Tagged Passions:university, planning, and zoning

MU/UNRC/OS

Special Planning Area/University of Nevada Regional Center/Residential Area
Tagged Passions:university and planning

MU/UNRC/RES

This request is for a Master Plan amendment and a development proposal has not been submitted at this time. Approval of this amendment will modify the list of allowable uses to include permitted uses within the Mixed Use/University of Nevada Regional Center/Residential Area (MU/UNRC/RES) zoning overlay and application materials indicate the anticipated future use of the site will likely be a multifamily or residential project.

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

Tagged Passions:university, boards and commissions, council, development, planning, Development, zoning, neighborhood, and materials

3
Analysis:

Land Use Compatibility: Land uses surrounding the site consist of single family residences to the north, residential uses and an elementary school to the west, vacant land to the east and Wolf Run Village II, a multifamily development, to the south. From a Master Plan Land Use perspective, the surrounding area is characterized by Special Planning Area/University of Nevada Regional Center with lands immediately adjacent to the site having Sub Land Use designations of Residential Area and Open Space (Exhibit B).
Tagged Passions:university, education, development, planning, and Development

Master Plan Amendment: Application of the Special Planning Area/University of Nevada Regional Center/Residential Area land use designation, as requested by this application, is consistent with the vision of all applicable elements of the Master Plan. Future development of the site will need to conform to the MU/UNRC/RES zoning overlay that was adopted to implement the policies of the University of Nevada Regional Center.

Master Plan: As proposed and with recommended conditions, the project appears to be consistent with the following applicable Master Plan goals, policies and objectives: The City should encourage the development of affordable and workforce housing throughout the community (H-1); Affordable and workforce housing should be encouraged near transportation routes, schools and employment areas (H-5); New housing development should provide pedestrian, bicycle and transit access to facilitate reduction of automobile use (H-13); Site access and circulation should be safe, convenient, logical and minimize impacts on adjoining roads (P-1); and The City should encourage new development with intense activities in areas that are served by public transit (CD-1).
Tagged Passions:university, education, development, Bicycles, Public Transit, Pedestrian, strategic, employment, bicycles, planning, Development, workforce, transportation, zoning, and housing

University of Nevada Regional Center Plan: The existing Master Plan land use designation of Special Planning Area/University of Nevada Regional Center/Open Space is appropriate for land devoted to parks or recreational activity, available for public access, use or enjoyment, containing significant environmental resources, or that pose safety hazards and/or extreme development constraints and may be appropriate for joint use with public schools or other public facilities. As noted in the Background section of this report, there are no significant natural resources within the area of the requested Master Plan land use change to Residential Area. Additionally, the site is privately owned and there are no plans to develop the subject property as a future park site.

The proposed Master Plan land use of Special Planning Area/University of Nevada Regional Center/Residential Area is characterized by areas located to the east and west of the University of Reno, Nevada campus. Development within this designation should have a minimum residential density of 14 du/ac and commercial or mixed use development with a floor area ratio (FAR) of at least 0.5. 6.2
Tagged Passions:university, commercial, property, education, development, parks, planning, environment, Development, and recreation

4
Master Plan Amendment Considerations: In order to approve a Master Plan amendment, certain considerations must be found (please see the Master Plan Considerations section of this report for the specific wording of each finding).

No additional detail provided

For Planning Commission: Changing the land use designation from Special Planning Area/University of Nevada Regional Center/Open Space to Special Planning Area/University of Nevada Regional Center/Residential Area is consistent with adopted Master Plan policies and placement criteria and bears relation to the planning and physical development of the City (Planning Commission Considerations a b).

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).

Tagged Passions:university, boards and commissions, services, council, development, planning, Development, housing, and growth

Public Safety: This request was reviewed by the Reno Police and Fire Departments and no issues or concerns were identified.

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.

Tagged Passions:streets, property, public safety, Utility, development, Development, utility, fire departments and districts, sewer, and water

Access, Traffic, and Circulation: A traffic access and circulation study was provided with the application materials that assumed the development of 210 residential dwelling units. This level of development would generate approximately 107 AM peak hour trips (PHT), 130 PM

6.2

Tagged Passions:development, Development, traffic, and materials

5
PHT and 1,397 Average Daily Trips (ADT) per the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation manual and meets the minimum number of infill development PHT for that will require a traffic impact study be presented with a future development application. The traffic access and circulation study provided with this application indicate this level of development can be accommodated by the current roadway network.

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:development, Development, transportation, and traffic

Future development or redevelopment of the site will require Regional Road Impact Fees (RRIF) to be collected to address the development s proportional impact on the regional roadway network. From the existing application materials presented, there is no indication that the requested Master Plan amendment will have any adverse effect/impact to City infrastructure facilities beyond existing use.

Tagged Passions:streets, development, Development, and materials

Neighborhood Meeting: In accordance with NRS 278.210, the applicant noticed and held a neighborhood meeting at the Evelyn Mount Northeast Community Center on February 21, 2017 to explain the Master Plan amendment to area neighbors. Approximately eight citizens attended the meeting. Comments were related to project specifics such as traffic and building height. Since there are not currently plans to develop the site, the information provided at the neighborhood meeting related to the requested Master Plan amendment.

General Code Compliance: Project related code compliance will be addressed when development is proposed for the site.

Tagged Passions:compliance, development, community center, Development, traffic, and neighborhood

Other Reviewing Bodies (Exhibit E):

Regional Transportation Commission (RTC): RTC comments related to this request were provided in a letter dated January 23, 2017. Recommendations included coordination with RTC regarding transit facilities and opportunities at the time that development is proposed for the site. Additionally, it was recommended that new development be encouraged to construct pedestrian and bicycle facilities as well as designing improvements that are in conformance with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) specifications. Neighborhood Advisory Board (NAB): This project was reviewed by the Ward 4 NAB on February 16, 2017. Comments received were generally in support of the request and are attached to this report (Exhibit F). 6.2
Tagged Passions:disability, boards and commissions, development, Bicycles, Pedestrian, bicycles, Development, transportation, and neighborhood

6
AREA DESCRIPTION LAND USE MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION ZONING

NORTH Single Family Residential Special Planning Area/University of Nevada Regional Center/Open Space Residential Area MU/UNRC/Open Space Residential Area SOUTH Wolf Run East Special Planning Area/University of Nevada Regional Center/Residential Area
Tagged Passions:university, planning, and zoning

MU/UNRC/Residential Area

EAST Vacant Special Planning Area/University of Nevada Regional Center/Open Space
Tagged Passions:university and planning

MU/UNRC/ Open Space

WEST Residential Sierra Vista Elementary School Special Planning Area/University of Nevada Regional Center/Recreation
Tagged Passions:university, education, planning, and recreation

MU/UNRC/Recreation

Legal Requirements:
Tagged Passions:legal and recreation

RMC 18.05 Master Plan Amendments NRS 278.150 Master Plan

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

Tagged Passions:boards and commissions, council, development, planning, and Development

7
1. Serve as 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;

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:development, Development, and growth

2.
Conform to the adopted population plan and ensure an adequate supply of housing, including affordable housing; and

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:housing

3.
Form a basis for the efficient expenditure of funds relating to the subjects of the City of Reno Master Plan.

(b) Master plan amendments shall not be in effect prior to the Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Commission finding the master plan amendments conform to the Truckee Meadows Regional Plan.

Tagged Passions:boards and commissions, funding, and planning

Attachments: Display Maps (PDF) Exhibit A - Slope Map (PDF) Exhibit B - Existing Master Plan Land Use (PDF) Exhibit C - Proposed Master Plan Land Use (PDF) Exhibit D - ReImagine Reno Master Plan Land Use (PDF) Exhibit E - Agency Comments (PDF) Exhibit F - NAB Comments (PDF)

6.2

8
Resolution No. 01-17

RESOLUTION ADOPTING AMENDMENT TO MASTER PLAN, PLANNING CASE NO. LDC17-00040, 4.93 ACRES OF PROPERTY, FROM SPECIAL PLANNING AREA/UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA REGIONAL CENTER/OPEN SPACE TO SPECIAL PLANNING AREA/UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA REGIONAL CENTER/RESIDENTIAL LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF VALLEY ROAD, 480 FEET NORTH OF ITS INTERSECTION WITH WINSTON DRIVE, AND FURTHER DESCRIBED IN PLANNING CASE NO. LDC17- 00040, AS A PART OF THE LAND USE PLAN, AND RECOMMENDING THE SAME TO THE RENO CITY COUNCIL.

WHEREAS,
Tagged Passions:university, streets, property, council, and planning

A.
In accordance with NRS 278.150, the City of Reno Master Plan was adopted by the Reno City Planning Commission and the Reno City Council as a long-term general plan for the physical development of the City;

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:boards and commissions, council, development, planning, and Development

B.
In accordance with NRS 278.210 through 278.320 amendments to that plan are to be adopted by the Planning Commission who also makes certain recommendations to the City Council, and based on the recommendations of the Planning Commission, the City Council makes certain determinations (set out in NRS 278.320) and adopts such parts of the Master Plan as may practicably be applied to the development of the city for a reasonable period of time next ensuing (NRS 278.220);

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:boards and commissions, council, development, planning, and Development

C.
In the above referenced Planning Case, the Planning Commission has been asked to consider a change to the Land Use Plan of the City Master Plan as described above;

D. Following a public hearing on April 18 2018, in compliance with NRS 278.210 through 278.230, the Planning Commission has considered all evidence before it, including documents and testimony; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE RENO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION:
Tagged Passions:hearing, compliance, boards and commissions, and planning

1.
That the maps, documents and descriptive material in Planning Case No. LDC17-00040 (hereafter referred to as the Amendments ) are related to the planning and physical development of the City and are hereby ADOPTED as Amendments to the City of Reno Master Plan; and

6.2

Tagged Passions:development, planning, and Development

9
2. That the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council make the determination that with the Amendments, the City of Reno Master Plan will continue to serve as:

(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

Tagged Passions:boards and commissions, council, development, planning, Development, housing, and growth

(b) A basis for the efficient expenditure of funds thereof relating to the subjects in the master plan.

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:funding

3.
That the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt such parts of the Amendments as may practicably applied to the development of the city for a reasonable period of time next ensuing, subject to conformance review of the Regional Planning Commission.

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:

Tagged Passions:boards and commissions, council, development, planning, and Development

PLANNING MANAGER RECORDING SECRETARY

Tagged Passions:manager and planning

AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT:

6.2

10
6.2

6.2.a A tta ch m en t: D is pl ay M ap s (7 LD C1 7-0 00

40
(V

all ey R oa d M as ter P lan A me nd me nt )) 6.2.a A tta ch m en t: D is pl ay M ap s (7 LD C1 7-0 00

40
(V

all ey R oa d M as ter P lan A me nd me nt )) 6.2.a A tta ch m en t: D is pl ay M ap s (7 LD C1 7-0 00

40
(V

all ey R oa d M as ter P lan A me nd me nt )) 6.2.b A tta ch m en t: Ex hi

bi t A

- Sl op e M ap (7 73

5
: LD

C1 7-0

00 40 (V all ey R oa d M as ter P lan A me nd me nt )) 6.2.c A tta ch m en t: Ex hi bi t B - Ex is tin g M as te r P la n La nd U se (7 LD C1 7-0 00

40
(V

all ey R oa d M as ter P lan A me nd me nt )) 6.2.d A tta ch m en t: Ex hi bi t C - Pr op os ed M as te r P la n La nd U se (7 LD C1 7-0 00

40
(V

all ey R oa d M as ter P lan A me nd me nt )) 6.2.e A tta ch m en t: Ex hi bi t D - Re Im ag in e Re no M as te r P la n La nd U se (7 73

5
: LD

C1 7-0

00 40 (V all ey R oa d M as ter P lan A me nd me nt )) 6.2.f A tta ch m en t: Ex hi bi t E - Ag en cy C om m en ts (7 LD C1 7-0 00

40
(V

all ey R oa d M as ter P lan A me nd me nt )) 6.2.f A tta ch m en t: Ex hi bi t E - Ag en cy C om m en ts (7 LD C1 7-0 00

40
(V

all ey R oa d M as ter P lan A me nd me nt )) 6.2.f A tta ch m en t: Ex hi bi t E - Ag en cy C om m en ts (7 LD C1 7-0 00

40
(V

all ey R oa d M as ter P lan A me nd me nt )) 6.2.f A tta ch m en t: Ex hi bi t E - Ag en cy C om m en ts (7 LD C1 7-0 00

40
(V

all ey R oa d M as ter P lan A me nd me nt )) 6.2.g A tta ch m en t: Ex hi bi t F - NA B Co m m en ts (7 73

5
: LD

C1 7-0

00 40 (V all ey R oa d M as ter P lan A me nd me nt )) 6.2.g A tta ch m en t: Ex hi bi t F - NA B Co m m en ts (7 73

5
: LD

C1 7-0

00 40 (V all ey R oa d M as ter P lan A me nd me nt ))

1
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT

Tagged Passions:boards and commissions and planning

Date: April 18, 2018

No additional detail provided

To: Reno City Planning Commission

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:boards and commissions and planning

Subject: 6.3. Staff Report (For Possible Action): Case No. LDC18-00041 (Ventana Ridge) - A request has been made for: 1) a tentative map to develop a total of 70 lots; and 2) special use permits for: a) cluster development; b) hillside development; c) grading resulting in cuts deeper than 20 feet and fills greater than ten feet in height; and d) grading that results in the disturbance of a major drainageway. The 166.8 acre site is located north of the terminus of Sandestin Drive and 450 north of the terminus of Peavine Pines Court within the Ventana Pointe Specific Plan District (SPD), Single Family Residential 15,000 square foot (SF15), Single Family Residential 9,000 square foot (SF9), and Open Space (OS) zones. The site has a Master Plan land use designation of Special Planning Area/McQueen Neighborhood Plan with sub-land use designations of Single Family Greater than or Equal to 1 dwelling unit/acre (du/ac) to 3 du/ac; Mixed Residential 3 du/ac to 11 du/ac; and Parks/Recreation/Open Space. jdb

Tagged Passions:legal, development, grading, parks, planning, Development, recreation, neighborhood, and court

From: Jeff Borchardt, Associate Planner

Ward : 5 Case No.: LDC18-00041 (Ventana Ridge) Applicant: Ventana Pointe LLC APN Number: 081-160-17, -18, -19, -34, and 208-510-10 Request: A request has been made for: 1) a tentative map to develop a total of 70 lots; and 2) special use permits for: a) cluster development; b) hillside development; c) grading resulting in cuts deeper than 20 feet and fills greater than ten feet in height; and d) grading that results in the disturbance of a major drainageway.
Tagged Passions:development, grading, and Development

Location: The 166.8 acre site is located north of the terminus of Sandestin Drive and 450 north of the terminus of Peavine Pines Court within the Ventana Pointe Specific Plan District (SPD), Single Family Residential 15,000 square foot (SF15), Single Family Residential 9,000 square foot (SF9), and Open Space (OS) zones. The site has a Master Plan land use designation of Special Planning Area/McQueen Neighborhood Plan with sub-land use designations of Single Family Greater than or Equal to 1

6.3
Tagged Passions:legal, planning, neighborhood, and court

2
dwelling unit/acre (du/ac) to 3 du/ac; Mixed Residential 3 du/ac to 11 du/ac; and Parks/Recreation/Open Space.

Proposed Motion: Based upon non-compliance with the applicable findings, I move to deny the tentative map and special use permits.
Tagged Passions:compliance, parks, and recreation

Background: The subject site is comprised of five parcels that can be grouped into three areas with different histories and zoning designations (Exhibit A).

Tagged Passions:property and zoning

Area 1 This area is comprised of three parcels (APN 081-160-17; -18; and -19) that fall within the Ventana Pointe Specific Plan District (SPD). These parcels totaling 132.19 acres were annexed into the City on May 12, 1998 (Ordinance 4872). They were originally zoned Large Lot Residential 2.5 acres (LLR2.5) upon annexation, but were changed to SPD as part of a proposal to develop a 70 lot single family residential subdivision (LDC04-00175 Ventana Pointe). This project was ultimately approved by the City Council on June 13, 2007, after several years of revisions, the creation of a development standards handbook, and the reduction of 22 lots from the original proposal of 92 lots.

Tagged Passions:property, annexation, ordinance, council, development, subdivision, Development, and zoning

Area 2 This is area is comprised of a single 33.4 acre parcel (APN 081-160-34) located to the east of the Ventana Pointe SPD. The entire parcel has a zoning designation of Single Family Residential 15,000 square feet (SF15). This site was annexed into the City on June 22, 2005 (Ordinance 5713). The annexation was part of a larger development proposal including a zoning map amendment from LLR2.5 to SF15 and a 24 lot single family residential subdivision (LDC05-00228 Peavine Ridge Estates). A final map was never approved and the tentative map and associated special use permits expired.

Tagged Passions:property, annexation, ordinance, development, subdivision, Development, and zoning

Area 3 This area contains a single 1.2 acre parcel (APN 208-510-10) located between the existing subdivision (Northgate 11) to the south and the parcel in Area 2 to the north. This area has zoning designations of Single Family Residential 9,000 square feet (SF9) and Open Space (OS). This parcel was originally annexed into the City on April 23, 1996 (Ordinance 4624) and zoned SF9 as part of a 145 lot single family residential subdivision (Case No. 99-96 Northgate 11). This small parcel was not originally contemplated during the tentative map process, but was created as part of the final map for Northgate 11D as a remainder parcel. On September 8, 2004 (Ordinance 5592), a portion of the property was rezoned to Open Space in an effort to conform to the underlying land use designations within the McQueen Neighborhood Plan. This parcel was proposed to be used as a buffer from the Northgate 11 subdivision to the Peavine Ridge Estates project originally proposed in Area 2.

6.3
Tagged Passions:property, annexation, ordinance, subdivision, zoning, and neighborhood

3
Between all three areas a total of 94 units were originally approved. The applicant is currently proposing 70 single family homes across the same area ( 166.8 acres). The subject site is located on the southern slopes of Peavine Mountain and contains significant topographical changes. Approximately 91.6 percent of the site has slopes greater than 15 percent. In order to accommodate the proposed development, cuts greater than 20 feet and fills greater than ten feet in height are proposed. Additionally, two major drainageways traverse the site from north to south. The project is proposing to disturb both drainageways with road crossings and a number of retaining walls. In order to reduce the impact on the drainageways and the significant slopes in the site, the applicant is also proposing to cluster the homes. Therefore, special use permits for: 1) cluster development; 2) hillside development; 3) grading resulting in cuts deeper than 20 feet and fills greater than ten feet in height; and 4) grading resulting in the disturbance of a major drainageway are proposed in addition to the proposed tentative map for 70 lots.

Analysis:
Tagged Passions:streets, development, grading, and Development

Key Issues: Staff is recommending denial because of the issues related to proposed lots with split zoning and grading that could be reduced if lots were created for custom homes. Staff is unable to make Tentative Map findings 5 and 8; SUP findings b and e; Hillside findings b, d, and e; and Grading findings a and b.

This staff report provides a detailed analysis of the project and how it meets the various development standards within the Reno Municipal Code (RMC) and the Ventana Pointe Specific Plan District (SPD) handbook. While the project may meet many of the standards for the underlying zoning designations, staff is concerned with the appropriateness of standard rectangular lots given the topography of the site. Staff believes that there would be less of an impact by creating lots for custom homes. Should the Planning Commission approve the project, staff has prepared a list of recommended conditions, which are included at the end of the staff report. Land Use Compatibility: The proposed development of single family residences is compatible with the existing single family residential uses located to the south of the subject site. The zoning designations for the properties located south of the site are a combination of Single Family Residential 6,000 (SF6), SF9, and OS, which have allowed a combination of clustered single family residential development and the preservation of major drainageways, steep slopes, and recreation areas. The project proposes clustered development to preserve open space, which is consistent with the surrounding development pattern (SUP finding a). The proposed single family residential use is low intensity and its ongoing presence will not create an adverse impact due to smoke, noise, glare, dust, vibrations, fumes, pollution or odor which would be detrimental to, or constitute a nuisance to area properties. It is likely that some of these impacts would occur during the process of construction. Dust mitigation will be required by the Washoe County 6.3
Tagged Passions:boards and commissions, development, grading, noise, parks, planning, Development, recreation, preservation, zoning, and construction

4
Health District during construction. Further, Condition No. 5 restricting construction hours to limit disturbance of surrounding residents is recommended should the Planning Commission decide to approve the project (SUP finding f).

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:boards and commissions, health, planning, and construction

Urban/Environmental Design: The applicant is proposing a total of 70 lots across all three areas (Exhibit B). The Ventana Pointe SPD (Area 1) allows a maximum of 70 lots on 132.19 acres that could result in a density of 0.53 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). A total of 46 lots are proposed within the SPD, including lots 23 and 28, which are split between the SPD and the SF15 zoning. This is a reduction of 24 lots from what is allowed and a density of 0.35 du/ac. The remaining 34.61 acres (Areas 2 3) fall within the SF9, SF15, and OS zoning designations. The gross density for the remaining portion of the site is 0.75 du/ac, which is below the allowed density of 0.84 du/ac that accounts for the hillside density reductions. As such, the project is consistent with the allowed density in the underlying zones.

Tagged Passions:environment and zoning

Lot sizes across all the areas range from 7,000 square feet to 11,661 square feet with an average lot size of 8,131 square feet. A SUP for cluster development is proposed for Areas 2 and 3 to allow for the use of small lot standards. Reno Municipal Code (RMC) 18.08.202(a)(1) (Cluster Development) allows for alternative development standards to be used when protecting sensitive areas and allowing for open space provided the total density is not increased above what is allowed per the underlying zone. Open space must also occupy more than ten percent of the site. Cluster development is not proposed for Area 1 since the minimum lot size in Area 1 meets the minimum requirements in the Ventana Pointe SPD handbook. Of the 34.61 acres in Areas 2 3, 26 acres (75 ) will be preserved as open space, which exceeds the ten percent required. The open space area helps preserve the larger slopes as well as the drainageways through the site. The table below compares the requirements in the SPD handbook and the small lot development standards with what is proposed in Areas 2 and 3.

Development Standard Ventana Pointe SPD

Tagged Passions:development and Development

Small Lot Standards

Proposed

Lot Size 7,000 sq. ft. 2,400 sq. ft. Minimum 7,000 sq. ft. Lot Width 70 feet 30 feet 70 feet Front Yard Setback 20 feet 10 feet 20 feet Side Yard Setback 10 feet;

No additional detail provided

15
feet (street side) 5 feet 10 feet;

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:streets

15
feet (street side) Rear Yard Setback 20 feet

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:streets

15
feet (against open space)

No additional detail provided

10
feet 20 feet 15 feet (against open space)

Maximum Stories 2 stories 2 stories 2 stories (walk-out basement) Maximum Height 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet 6.3 5 As shown, the lot standards proposed for Areas 2 and 3 are more aligned with the standards in the SPD handbook than the small lot development standards. Should the Planning Commission approve the project, staff believes the larger lot sizes are more consistent with the development located to the south of the subject site. As such, Conditions No. 6 and 7 are recommended to adopt the more restrictive development standards related to lot size and setbacks in the SPD handbook to ensure the lower density character is maintained. These standards should also be clearly placed on the final map for future development. The subject site falls within four different zoning designations (OS, SF6, SF15, and the Ventana Pointe SPD). A number of proposed lots fall within multiple zoning designations (Lots No. 1, 7, 8, 23, and 28). Split zoning through lots results in conflicts between various zoning provisions. During initial review, staff requested that the applicant place lots within a single zoning designation to avoid conflicts. The applicant contends the lots have been designed to meet the more stringent requirements of each zoning designation. Per RMC 18.08.103(e) - (Property with More Than One Zoning Designation), a property is allowed to have multiple zoning designations. However, development on that parcel shall be in conformance with all applicable zoning districts for each portion of the parcel. Currently, the parcel size does not meet the minimum size for each portion of the lot that falls in a different zoning designation. Staff also believes the two zoning designations will cause difficulties with the ongoing application of zoning regulations following the development of the project (e.g. installation of patio covers, room additions, etc.). These concerns primarily relate to Lots 23 and 28 with differing standards in the SF15 zone and SPD handbook. Due to the split zoning issue, staff cannot make Tentative Map finding 5. Should the Planning Commission approve the project, a condition is recommended to require that each parcel to fall within a single zoning designation (Condition No. 8). No conceptual elevations were provided with project materials. The Ventana Pointe SPD handbook contains architectural standards that discuss massing, form, articulation, materials and colors, garage orientation, and use of features such as dormers, bay windows, covered front porches, etc. The handbook requires the architecture to be Tuscan or traditional in character. All residences in Area 1 will be required to be approved by an Architectural Control Committee prior to being submitted to the City of Reno. Architectural standards in RMC 18.12.302(e) - (Street Image Standards for New Single Family Residential Structures) are required for all properties proposed in Areas 2 and 3. While hillside adaptive architecture is proposed throughout the project as a method to reduce grading through the use of walk out basements on the down-slopes, staff believes lots for custom homes will result in a development that is more suited for the topography on the site. Staff does not believe the project as proposed meets SUP finding e. Should the Planning Commission approve the project as proposed, staff recommends a condition to require the architecture standards from both code and the SPD handbook be 6.3
Tagged Passions:property, boards and commissions, development, grading, planning, Development, regulation, zoning, and materials

6
applicable to the entire project (Condition No. 9). This condition will ensure a consistent architectural character is provided throughout the development.

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

Tagged Passions:property, development, advertising, signage, plant, subdivision, privacy, Development, zoning, and neighborhood

7
SPD Handbook (Exhibit G). The SPD handbook significantly exceeds code with regards to landscape planting. A minimum of one tree per 30 lineal feet and six shrubs per tree are proposed along each bench between rockery walls. The standards dictate the placement, sizes, and quantities of each type of tree to ensure landscaping will soften the appearance of the large walls. All disturbed slopes and other common areas on the site are required to be planted at a rate of one tree per 500 square feet with 70 of the trees as evergreen trees and 30 of the trees as deciduous trees. A minimum of 75 of the trees are required to be large and all shrubs are required to be large. The SPD standards are more restrictive than code. Given the topography of the site, the tiered series of large rockery walls, and the adjacent wildland on Peavine Mountain, staff is recommending a condition to continue the landscaping requirements from the SPD throughout the entire subdivision (Condition No. 15).

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.

Tagged Passions:buildings and grounds, streets, development, Pedestrian, grading, plant, subdivision, and Development

No standard landscaping plan for lots was provided. The SPD handbook indicates typical landscape plans will be provided with the final map. To ensure consistency between handbook standards and code minimums, staff is recommending a condition that trees be planted at a minimum rate of one tree per 30 lineal feet of lot frontage with not less than two trees. All tree species types and standards should follow the standards within the SPD handbook (Condition No. 16).

Tagged Passions:buildings and grounds, trees, plant, and zoning

There are a number of mature, natural evergreen trees on the west side of the site. As part of the proposed project, the applicant has indicated that 22 trees will be required to be removed from their existing location and relocated elsewhere on site (Exhibit H). Staff believes the relocation of these trees may have a detrimental impact to their root system, ultimately resulting in their death. As mentioned in the grading section below, staff supports the use of lots for custom homes. Custom homes would allow for development that is more sensitive to the natural environment that protects more of the mature trees on the site. As such, staff does not believe that Tentative Map findings 5 and 8, SUP findings b and e can be made without the use of custom lots. Should the Planning Commission approve this request, a condition is recommended to require a tree preservation and mitigation plan prepared by an arborist in coordination with the City s Urban Forester. The first order of preference will be to preserve the existing mature trees in place with plans on how the trees will be protected during construction. A tree can only be removed or relocated after being determined impossible to remain on the site by City staff. If a tree will be relocated, details about the removal and relocation methods will need to be provided to ensure the health of the tree (Condition 17).

6.3
Tagged Passions:boards and commissions, development, trees, grading, health, Conservation, planning, environment, Development, preservation, and construction

8
Grading and Hillside Development: The natural grade of the site slopes down from the north to the south. Topography on the site is challenging given that a majority of the site has slopes that exceed 30 percent. Topography on the site is summarized in the table below and shown visually in Exhibit D:

Tagged Passions:development, grading, and Development

Slope Percent Area (acres) Percent Total 0-15 13.9 8.4 15.1-20 11.8 7.1 20.1-25 19.1 11.4 25.1-30 23.8 14.3 30+ 98.1 58.8

No additional detail provided

Slopes less than 30 percent are located on the southern portion of the site with valleys of flatter areas extending to the north that follow the paths of drainageways. Generally, the lots are clustered in the flatter areas of the site with most of the disturbances to the 30 percent slopes occurring with the installation of roads (Exhibit C). However, there are some lots that are proposed that will disturb slopes in excess of 30 percent (Lots 3-6, 9-12, 15, 25-26, 30-32, 54-55, 62, and 65-69). Overall 5.8 acres of slopes greater than 30 percent are proposed to be disturbed. This disturbance is justified in small areas that are completely surrounded by flatter areas, but may lead to excess use of retaining walls or visual scarring from cuts in other areas on the site. Staff is generally concerned with overall visual impact of grading on the site, which could be reduced with the development of custom lots tailored to each specific site. The Ventana Pointe SPD handbook does not explicitly exempt the project from an SUP for grading or hillside development. Therefore, the entire project site is subject to both hillside development and grading SUPs. The sections below analyze the various findings for each SUP.

The SPD handbook limits development within the handbook area to a maximum of 70 lots in Area 1. Based on the density reduction standards in RMC 18.12.1605 (Calculation of Density), 29 lots are allowed on Areas 2 and 3. Therefore, a total of 99 lots are allowed and 70 are proposed. The applicant is required to provide 2:1 mitigation for all slopes in excess of 30 that are disturbed in which dedicated open space is provided at a rate double what is disturbed. This requirement is in addition to the open space required based solely on the topography. Since 5.8 acres of slopes in excess of 30 are being disturbed, an additional 11.6 acres of open space are required. As such, the total required amount of open space for the project is 140.1 acres and 149 acres are proposed to remain undisturbed (Hillside SUP finding c). 6.3
Tagged Passions:streets, development, grading, and Development

9
Cuts in excess of 20 feet in depth and fills greater than ten feet in height are proposed throughout the site. While some of these cuts and fills are triggered by the need for safe access, much of the grading on the site is triggered by trying to fit rectangular lots that are graded in a manner to support standard tract development. If custom home sites were proposed, the applicant would have the ability to design lots that required significantly less grading and allowed each individual property owner to design a home that was generally consistent with the land on which it would be located. Given the topography of the site, staff believes that a SUP would be required for most developments of the site, but lots for custom homes would result in a design that would be more characteristic of the surrounding natural environment (Grading SUP finding b).

The Ventana Pointe SPD handbook contains a number of standards addressing grading that are more detailed than the standards in code. These standards ensure all disturbed areas will be revegetated or restored and that property erosion control techniques will be used. The applicant has proposed landscaping on most of the disturbed slopes on the site with the exception of the road extension from Peavine Pines Court and the maintenance access road to the proposed TMWA water storage tank. With the use of retaining walls, erosion control best management practices, landscaping, slope stabilization, and revegetation, the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed project mitigates environmental degradation, including slope failure, erosion, sedimentation, and stormwater run-off (Hillside SUP finding a). The applicant has made attempts to reduce the visual impacts of grading by using rockery walls and heavily landscaping slopes. Hillside adaptive architecture is also proposed to build slope changes on the site into homes. Further, the reduction of the lots below the 99 units that are allowed provides for the preservation of prominent ridgelines (Exhibit E) and reduces overall grading (Hillside SUP finding e). While the applicant has made an attempt to reduce the overall grading impacts, staff believes that the conventional rectangular lots proposed will lead to grading that results in significant use of rockery retaining walls and numerous 2:1 slopes. While the SPD handbook allows 2:1 slopes and the use of up to four tiers of eight-foot-tall rockery walls, it states that 3:1 slopes are preferred in order to reduce visual impacts and rockery walls should be used to reduce the visual impact from cut slopes. Staff believes that lots for custom homes tailored to the unique topography of each lot would result in less rockery walls and steep slopes. Therefore, staff cannot make Hillside SUP findings b, d, and e, and Grading SUP findings a and b. Should the Planning Commission approve the project, staff recommends a number of conditions regarding landscaping (Condition No. 18), slope treatment (Conditions No. 19 and 20), and wall treatment (Condition No. 21). In an effort to ensure cultural resources are protected, the applicant should work with the State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO) to determine if an archeological inventory is necessary. A letter from SHPO will be required prior to the approval of a final map (Condition No. 22). 6.3
Tagged Passions:legal, streets, property, boards and commissions, Utility, development, grading, sites, Conservation, historic, planning, environment, Development, utility, preservation, stormwater, court, and water

10
Major Drainageways: As defined in the Drainageway Protection section of the code (RMC 18.12 Article XIX), a major drainageway drains an area of 100 acres or more and comprises the area containing the 100 year flood plain plus a 15 foot setback from the 100 year flood line. Although the RMC does not define specific findings for major drainageways, it does contain a number of drainageway protection standards. Furthermore, the Master Plan contains numerous objectives related to drainageway protection. Per finding b of the general special use permit findings, the project must be in substantial conformance with the Master Plan. Staff generally has concerns with the appearance of the proposed detention basins within the drainageway.

The goal of the Master Plan is to achieve Major Drainageway Enhancement, which is defined as the improvement of a major drainageway resulting in a treatment that is better than the existing major drainageway. The objectives within the Master Plan and the standards within RMC seek to preserve and improve existing major drainageways within the City. The objectives within the Master Plan are to ensure the safety of people and property; maintain, preserve, and enhance the water quality in the Truckee River watershed; maintain wildlife habitat and native vegetation; and to reduce erosion. There are two major drainageways that traverse the site: one on the western portion of the site and one on the eastern portion of the site. The west drainageway was originally analyzed with the original approval of the Ventana Pointe SPD and the standards were incorporated into the SPD handbook. This drainageway drains 128.81 acres and runs a total of 1,835 linear feet through the subject site. With the exception of several dirt crossings, there are no other current disturbances on this drainageway. Proposed project disturbances to the drainageway include the proposed road crossing and detention basin. There is an existing trail that follows the west drainageway that will be perpetuated with this development and will fall under the maintenance responsibility of the HOA. The SPD handbook requires a 20 foot by 12 foot conspan arched culvert to convey water, people, and wildlife. Slopes are also designed with a 3:1 slope, which provides an opportunity for wildlife to cross over the roadway crossing as well. The arched culvert is required to be faced with a decorative rock headwall. The east drainageway drains 827.33 acres and is a total of 19,227 linear feet with 1,550 linear feet running through the subject site. The majority of the drainageway runs through public land and currently is only disturbed by recreational roads, trails, and old mining tailings. A majority of the proposed disturbance arises from a proposed roadway crossing, but there are some locations with retaining walls that are proposed to encroach into the 15-foot setback area. A condition is recommended to move the walls that encroach into the major drainageway area (Condition No. 23). In order to maintain visual consistency with the rest of the development, staff is also recommending that the proposed arched culvert on the east drainageway be treated with the same rock facing required in the SPD handbook (Condition No. 24). Staff also 6.3
Tagged Passions:streets, property, Utility, development, trails, flooding, watershed, detention, Development, recreation, utility, stormwater, and water

11
recommends a condition to ensure that roadway crossing designs will not contribute to an increase in erosion of the drainageway (Condition No. 25).

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.

Tagged Passions:plant and health

Wildlife on the site consists of mule deer, red-tailed hawk, bald eagle, osprey, snowy owl, golden eagle, sharp-shinned hawk, and other raptor species. Raptor species are protected under State and Federal laws. A number of the raptor species observed in the area have known nests within a ten mile radius of the area and are species of special concern per the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) Nevada Wildlife Action Plan. The site is also within the Truckee River watershed, and development may impact the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) provided preliminary comments on the project stating a formal request for a biological opinion was not warranted. The applicant will be preparing a number of best management practices throughout the site in coordination with the Engineering Division and the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection (NDEP) to ensure downstream water will remain clean and not impact the wildlife within the Truckee River. Staff is requesting a letter from NDOW and USFW stating that they have reviewed the plans and all necessary mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project design prior to the approval of the final map (Condition No. 27).

The SPD handbook contains a number of design standards related to landscaping and drainageway restoration. A condition is recommended to apply the standards within the SPD handbook for the entire project (Condition No. 28). A condition is also recommended to require a bond for the proper reconstruction of the drainageway, which should be provided before the issuance of any grading permit (Condition No. 29).
Tagged Passions:public safety, Utility, development, grading, watershed, environment, Development, utility, bond, and water

A
trail system is proposed along the west drainageway offering a recreational amenity and pedestrian access throughout the site (Exhibit I). As discussed in the fencing section above, open view fencing will be required along all open space areas, which include the drainageways. Staff is concerned that no landscaping is associated with the detention basin and this will create an adverse visual impact. Should the Planning Commission consider approving this request, staff suggests requiring landscaping at the common area rates listed in the SPD handbook (General SUP finding b).

6.3
Tagged Passions:boards and commissions, Pedestrian, rates, trails, detention, planning, and recreation

12
Public Safety: The City of Reno Police Department reviewed the initial application and did not express any concerns regarding the provision of police services to the project 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

Tagged Passions:legal, streets, public safety, services, Utility, development, travel, building codes, easement, Development, utility, performance, housing, 911, fire departments and districts, court, sewer, and water

13
meeting all Public Works Design Manual (PWDM) criteria. The sanitary sewer mains should be constructed within the private street section and designated as public (Condition No. 35). Water service to the project will be provided by Truckee Meadows Water Authority (TMWA). Prior to approval of each final map the applicant is required to provide proof that water rights necessary to serve the project have been obtained and have plans approved to construct all necessary water infrastructure to serve the project (TM findings 1, 2 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).

Tagged Passions:streets, Utility, Public Works, development, FEMA, flooding, detention, Development, utility, stormwater, public works, sewer, and water

Privately maintained storm drain infrastructure located within the development (e.g. drainage swales, storm drainage pipes, detention ponds) should be clearly identified on the final subdivision map and improvement plans. These items should also be subject to an operations and maintenance manual which details all operations and maintenance tasks, frequency of maintenance, access for maintenance, and a detailed description of the types of equipment that are anticipated to be necessary for the operations and maintenance. This manual should be adopted as policy by the HOA or equivalent (Condition No. 36). Additionally, the applicant should be required to design appropriate access to the project site that complies with City storm water pollution standards and that will mitigate potential dirt track out issues onto public rights- of-way (Condition No. 37). The applicant should also be required to provide plans that demonstrate the project has been designed to provide adequate gravity flow and overland escape routes for all roof tops and surface storm water collection and conveyance facilities in accordance with the PWDM (Condition No. 38).

The geotechnical summary provided by the applicant is based on geologic and soil survey maps from the Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology and the Natural Resources Conservation service. Minor recommendations were included regarding seismic design parameters, grading considerations, foundation alternatives and pavement considerations. The proposed street sections are required by the PWDM to consider the presence of potentially expansive materials and bedrock, the steepness of slopes and the corrosive nature of the native materials, as well as the City of Reno minimum R-Value for subgrade on streets. A final geotechnical report and street section design that meets or exceeds the requirements of the PWDM will be required prior to the approval of the final map (TM Finding 8). 6.3
Tagged Passions:streets, policy, Utility, development, grading, subdivision, equipment, detention, Conservation, Development, utility, stormwater, materials, and water

14
Given the scale of this project, it may be phased over time. A condition is recommended to ensure that each final map and related subdivision improvements can be constructed as a standalone project meeting all applicable City standards. Future phase improvements required to serve the preceding phase must be constructed with the preceding phase. These improvements may include extension of utilities for future phases or construction of roadways that serve as emergency access for the preceding phases (Condition No. 39).

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

Tagged Passions:legal, streets, boards and commissions, Utility, development, grading, subdivision, trails, parking, planning, easement, Development, utility, traffic, construction, emergency, and court

15
be further evaluated to ensure the increased traffic from the subdivision will not cause any safety issues with the intersection. Any other potential development impacts from increased traffic will be mitigated through participation in the Regional Road Impact Fee (RRIF) program (SUP finding d) (TM Finding 7).

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).

Tagged Passions:administrator, streets, boards and commissions, development, Pedestrian, grading, subdivision, planning, Development, program, traffic, and streetscape

There are a number of existing trails throughout the site. The applicant is proposing to maintain a majority of the existing established trails, in addition to providing further connectivity through the proposed drainage culverts, along proposed sidewalks within the subdivision, and from dead-end trails (Exhibit I).

Tagged Passions:streets, Pedestrian, subdivision, trails, drugs, and stormwater

Sandestin Drive and Peavine Pines Court are currently used by surrounding residents and provide the main point of access for the development. Therefore, the developer should provide a construction management and access plan for the project prior to beginning construction in order to ensure the surrounding uses will not be impacted (Condition No. 44). Additionally, construction hours of operation are recommended from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. No construction should be allowed on Sundays. This restriction does not include dust control activities (Condition No. 5). This will help ensure that construction traffic and impacts occur in a matter that will reduce the impact on the surrounding property owners/tenants (TM findings 4, 6 10).

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:legal, property, development, rental, Development, traffic, construction, and court

Master Plan: The proposed project was submitted in December 2017 and must be reviewed in accordance with the Master Plan in place at that time. As proposed and with recommended conditions, the project appears to be consistent with the following applicable Master Plan policies and objectives: E-2: City should require a special use permit for activities that disturb drainage courses; E-3: Natural drainage courses should not be channelized; E-5: The City recognizes the importance of significant fish and wildlife habitats, especially in areas adjacent to wildlands, and should work to mitigate the adverse effects of development; E-11: All natural drainageways, even those with limited riparian vegetation and those that are disturbed, should be

6.3
Tagged Passions:recognition, development, Development, and stormwater

16
retained and restored to function as infiltration basins to allow for groundwater recharge; E-15: The City should evaluate water features in development projects for their habitat value and potential hazards created by water fowl; E-16: The City should ensure that development applications that may impact threatened or endangered species and/or wildlife migration corridors are submitted to and reviewed by the appropriate agency for review and comment; E- 22: The City should endeavor to minimize the impact of development on archeological resources through investigation, avoidance, capping, recordation, and/or excavation as appropriate; E-31: The City should promote the protection, conservation, and acquisition of significant wildlife habitats, environmentally significant lands, prominent ridgelines, and other natural and scenic resources for the purposes of wildlife survival, community education, research, recreation, and aesthetics; E-22: The City should protect from encroachment significant trails now enjoyed by residents; OS-8: The City should review development applications for potential open space areas, corridors, and buffers identified in this plan and require those areas be protected as a condition of approval; GI-7: The City should require that new development pay the full cost of all public improvements required by the development within the boundaries that are directly attributed to that development; P-1: Site access should be safe, convenient, logical, and minimize impacts onto adjoining roads; P-2: The City should ensure that access to all new individual residential lots is provided only from local streets; P-10: The city should reduce the impact and disruption of development on adjacent residential neighborhoods by requiring every project to provide sufficient parking within reasonable walking distance; P-12: The City should encourage new subdivision design which establishes a clear circulation pattern and incorporates an integrated street pattern or a hierarchy of streets; F-6: the City should encourage the installation of sprinkler systems in new single family units; F-7: The City should develop and implement measures to minimize fire hazards in open and sagebrush areas; F-8: The City should review development plans for urban/wildland interface issues; S-2: Applications should be forwarded to the school district whether involved in a concurrency evaluation or not; CD-4: The City should encourage cluster development when the resulting open space protects significant environmental or cultural resources, provides a continuous and usable open space corridor, or links existing and/or proposed open space or parks; SD-4: The City should require residential developments to create varied and interesting residential streetscapes through design and architectural features, building and garage placement on site, and by providing a landscaped parkway strip between the curb and sidewalk, in addition to a semipublic edge treatment; SD-16: New development should be designed to allow public access through to adjoining public open space; Objective 5: Percent in Natural State; and Objective 8: Wind and Solar Orientation.

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

Tagged Passions:buildings and grounds, streets, education, Utility, development, corridor, Pedestrian, encroachment, endangered species, subdivision, trails, Conservation, parking, environment, Development, recreation, utility, neighborhood, streetscape, and water

17
grading to achieve an undulating, natural appearance, and require densities to decrease as slope increases; SD-14: The City should encourage landscaping over other forms of stabilizing mechanisms to maintain cut and fill slopes, areas of difficult soils or erosion hazards; Objective 1 (Site Analysis); 2 (Significant Natural Features); 3 (Platting Lots); 4 (Grading); 6: Cut and fill slopes; and 7: Ridgelines.

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:grading

Neighborhood Plan: The proposed project is located within the McQueen Neighborhood plan. With a density of 0.42 dwelling units per acre, the proposed project falls below the density of 1 dwelling unit per acre. Trails are provided throughout the project to continue access to the existing trails along the slopes of Peavine Mountain. The applicant has used retaining walls throughout the site and hillside adaptive architecture in order to reduce grading. The contours of proposed grades have been feathered into existing contours. While the applicant has incorporated the policies listed within the McQueen Neighborhood plan for grading, staff believes that the visual impact from proposed grading will be reduced, as will the total number of necessary retaining walls if lots were created for custom homes. The McQueen Neighborhood Plan also requires open view fencing along all open space areas. This is proposed throughout the subdivision.

Tagged Passions:grading, subdivision, trails, and neighborhood

General Code Compliance: As conditioned, the project generally meets the code requirements and the standards within the Ventana Pointe SPD. Staff is concerned that the use of standard rectangular lots will result in unnecessary grading and that custom lots would significantly reduce the number of walls and 2:1 slopes currently proposed. Additionally, staff has concerns regarding lots that are split by two zones. With all conditions of approval, the project is in compliance with code, but could be improved with the use of lots for custom homes that are each constructed with natural topography in mind (Tentative Map Finding 5). Staff is not recommending a condition to construct custom houses because lots designed for custom homes would significantly change all aspects of the project. If the Planning Commission agrees with staff that lots for custom houses should be used, then the project should be denied. If the Planning Commission believes standard rectangular lots and mass grading meets all the findings, then staff has included a number of recommended conditions at the bottom of the staff report.

Tagged Passions:compliance, boards and commissions, grading, and planning

Other Reviewing Bodies:

Washoe County Health District (WCHD): The applicant is required to comply with WCHD regulations regarding: domestic water supply; water system design; mass grading permit timing; dust control; sewage disposal; solid waste; vector control; water quality; and air quality management. The applicant will also be required to comply with WCHD regulations regarding: use of low impact methods for landscape design and utilization of wind sensors to irrigate areas with turf (TM findings 1, 2 8).

18
Washoe County School District (WCSD): Comments received from WCSD (Exhibit J) indicate this project is anticipated to generate approximately 28 new K-12 students. This project is located within the attendance zone area of Melton Elementary (15 new students), Billinghurst Middle (five new students) and McQueen High Schools (eight new students).

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).

Tagged Passions:education, snow, trails, flooding, students, NewSchools, funding, construction, and neighborhood

AREA DESCRIPTION LAND USE MASTER PLAN DESIGNATION ZONING

NORTH Vacant Rural (Washoe County) GR (Washoe County) SOUTH Open Space, Single Family Residential Special Planning Area/McQueen Neighborhood Plan/ SF9 OS EAST Vacant Special Planning Area/McQueen Neighborhood Plan/Single Family Greater than or Equal to 1 du/acre to 3 du/acre Rural (Washoe County) PF, SF15, OS, GR (Washoe County) WEST Vacant Special Planning Area/McQueen Neighborhood Plan/ Single Family Greater than or Equal to 1 du/acre to 3 du/acre Rural (Washoe County) Somersett PUD GR (Washoe County) 6.3
Tagged Passions:planning, zoning, rural, and neighborhood

19
Legal Requirements:

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:

Tagged Passions:legal, boards and commissions, development, planning, and Development

(1) Environmental and health laws and regulations concerning water and air pollution, solid waste disposal, water supply facilities, community or public sewage disposal and, where applicable, individual systems for sewage disposal;

(2) Availability of water which meets applicable health standards and is sufficient for the reasonably foreseeable needs of the subdivision;

Tagged Passions:Utility, subdivision, health, environment, utility, regulation, solid waste, and water

(3) Availability and accessibility of utilities;

Tagged Passions:Utility and utility

(4) Availability and accessibility of public services such as schools, police and fire protection transportation, recreation and parks;

(5) Conformity with the zoning ordinances, master plan, and elements thereof, except that if any existing zoning ordinance is inconsistent with the master plan, the zoning ordinance takes precedence;
Tagged Passions:education, public safety, services, ordinance, Public Works, parks, recreation, transportation, zoning, and public works

(6) General conformity with the governing body s master plan of streets and highways.

(7) Effect of the proposed subdivision on existing public streets and the need for new streets or highways to serve the subdivision;

Tagged Passions:streets and subdivision

(8) Physical land characteristics such as flood plain, slope, soil; and

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:flooding

(9) Recommendations and comments of those entities reviewing the tentative map pursuant to NRS 278.330 and 278.348.

6.3

20
(10) Availability and accessibility of fire protection, including, but not limited to, the availability and accessibility of water and services for the prevention and containment of fires, including fires in wild lands; and

(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.

Tagged Passions:compliance, taxes, Taxes, services, Utility, utility, and water

a.
The proposed use is compatible with existing surrounding land uses and development.

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:development and Development

b.
The project is in substantial conformance with the master plan.

No additional detail provided

c.
There are or will be adequate services and infrastructure to support the proposed development.

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:services, development, and Development

d.
The proposal adequately mitigates traffic impacts of the project and provides a safe pedestrian environment.

No additional detail provided

Tagged Passions:Pedestrian, Conservation, environment, and traffic

[ See More ]
Council Map

Welcome!

Monitor up to five cities and counties and get alerts when they plan to vote on topics you're passionate about.