City of Reno
Nevada

Staff Report - Planning Commission
11813

Staff Report (For Possible Action): Case No. LDC20-00003 (Stan Lucas' Mortensen Ranch) – A request has been made for: 1) a tentative map for a 676 lot single family residential subdivision; and 2) special use permits for: a) grading that results in cuts greater than 20 feet in depth and fills greater than ten feet in height; b) hillside development; and c) disturbance of major drainageways. The ±955 acre site is located north of Highway 40 West and to the west of Del Webb Parkway and has base zoning designations of Single Family Residential – 6,000 Square Feet (SF6) and Open Space (OS) within the Mortensen Garson Overlay District (MGOD). The site has Master Plan land use designations of Single Family Neighborhood (SF) and Parks, Greenways, and Open Space (PGOS) and is within the Mortensen-Garson Neighborhood Plan. af

Information

Department:Community Development - PlanningSponsors:
Category:Tentative MapWards:Ward 5

Recommendation and Proposed Motion

Based upon compliance with the applicable findings, I move to approve the tentative map and special use permits, subject to the following conditions.

 

Staff Report Formal Body

Ward #:

Ward 5

Case No.:

LDC20-00003 (Stan Lucas’ Mortensen Ranch)

Applicant:

D. Fred Altmann

APN:

038-830-02 and 038-010-05

Request:

A request has been made for: 1) a tentative map for a 676 lot single family residential subdivision; and 2) special use permits for: a) grading that results in cuts greater than 20 feet in depth and fills greater than ten feet in height; b) hillside development; and c) disturbance of major drainageways.

Location:

The ±955 acre site is located north of Highway 40 West and to the west of Del Webb Parkway and has base zoning designations of Single Family Residential – 6,000 Square Feet (SF6) and Open Space (OS) within the Mortensen Garson Overlay District (MGOD).  The site has Master Plan land use designations of Single Family Neighborhood (SF) and Parks, Greenways, and Open Space (PGOS) and is within the Mortensen-Garson Neighborhood Plan.

Proposed Motion:

Based upon compliance with the applicable findings I move to approve the tentative map and special use permits, subject to conditions.

 

Recommended Conditions of Approval:

 

All conditions shall be met to the satisfaction of Community Development Department staff, unless otherwise noted.

 

1.                   The project shall comply with all applicable City codes, plans, reports, materials, etc., as submitted.  In the event of a conflict between said plans, reports, materials, and City codes, City Codes shall prevail.  Where not specifically addressed in this application, City codes in effect at the time the application is submitted shall prevail.

2.                   The applicant shall record the final map(s) in accordance with the time limit contained in state law or this approval shall be null and void.

3.                   Prior to the approval of any final map or the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall attach a copy of the final approval letter.  The approval letter shall accompany a narrative provided by the applicant that describes how the requested permit addresses each of the approved conditions of approval.

4.                   Prior to the issuance of each building permit to construct a residential unit, a per unit contribution for fire facilities in the amount of $1,608 shall be required. This contribution will be set aside by the City to be applied toward improvements associated with fire facilities to serve the project. Contribution shall be spent on fire facilities to serve the project within ten years of the date of issuance of the building permit for a contributing property within the contribution area, or the City shall return the fire facilities fee to the owner of the contributing property, or their successors in interest. In the event another mechanism to construct fire facilities is instituted for the contributing properties in the future, the new per unit rate shall be applied to all permits in lieu of the $1,608 per unit contribution.

5.                   The project site is located in a High Hazard Wildland-Urban Interface Area. Per the State’s adoption of the Wildland-Urban Interface Code under NRS 477 and NAC 477.281, a vegetation management plan must be submitted to the Reno Fire Department and the State Forester Firewarden for review and approval.

6.                   Construction hours shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday.  There shall be no construction on Sundays, excluding dust control and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan measures.  Large concrete pours may be allowed outside of standard construction hours with a plan to minimize impacts on existing residences, subject to the Administrator approval.

7.                   Prior to the approval of any building permits for residences, the applicant shall demonstrate that residences located on lots 378-399 and lots 445-448 are limited to a single story, as measured from the street level.  This does not preclude daylight basements.  

8.                   Lots 532-557 shall be removed and the density may be transferred to other locations within Planning Area 1.  The density may only be transferred to areas that are not located within 400 feet from the adjacent eastern property boundary.

9.                   New development adjacent to existing development shall provide an edge density and lot size for edge lots equal to or less dense than the Somersett PUD development, or shall provide an open space buffer equal to at least one lot depth of the adjacent Somersett PUD development.

10.              For a distance of 50 feet from the shared common property line with the existing Somersett PUD residences, fills shall not differ from the natural grade by more than 48 inches.  In addition, any fill slopes within 150 feet of existing Somersett PUD residences may not exceed a slope of 3:1 measured from the shared property line with existing Somersett PUD residences.

11.              Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall have final grading plans approved demonstrating that the edges of all created cut and fill slopes will be feathered and rounded to properly transition into the adjacent undisturbed slopes.  Talus slopes, embedded boulders, rockery walls or other similar methods can also be used to break up these slopes.  All areas disturbed by project grading shall be revegetated with a seed mix consistent with the adjacent undisturbed slopes and the revegetation standards of the MGOD.  A note shall be added to each grading sheet as follows:

GRADING NOTE: UPON COMPLETION OF THE GRADING AND PRIOR TO APPLICATION OF REVEGETATION MATERIALS, REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE DEVELOPER, THE CONTRACTOR, THE ENGINEER OF RECORD AND THE CITY OF RENO SHALL MEET ON THE SITE TO DETERMINE THE FINAL SLOPE GRADING AND SLOPE TREATEMENTS.

12.              Prior to the issuance of any building permit for retaining walls on the site, the applicant shall have plans approved demonstrating the walls will be contoured to match the surrounding topography and provide visual interest.  No standard concrete masonry unit (CMU) block wall shall be permitted. 

13.              A minimum of 50 trees (based on two trees per lot for areas adjacent to Sierra Canyon PUD) shall be planted in the open space common area behind lots 445-448 and lots 378-399 for the screening of structures, subject to approval by the Reno Fire Department and in accordance with Wildland-Urban Interface standards.

14.              With the first final map within Planning Area 1, a minimum of five acres shall be dedicated to the City of Reno for a park.  The size of the park may be reduced to a minimum of three acres if the additional acreage is shown to be dedicated as part of Planning Area 2 or 3.

15.              Parcels 038-100-10, -11 and -12 shall be offered for dedication to either the City of Reno, Washoe County or included as common open space within an HOA, with the first final map associated with Planning Area 1.

16.              Prior to the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for the lots listed below, the developer shall demonstrate that flow monitoring devices have been installed along the sewer system at the below specified locations regardless of the phase that the lots are included in:

a)      After construction of the 90th lot contributing to sanitary sewer POC “A”, the developer will be required to install a flow  monitoring device at the sanitary sewer manhole (SSMH) located along Fenhollow Drive, east of Waterville Drive (structure ID 350501).

b)     After construction of the 318th lot contributing to sanitary sewer POC “B”, the developer will be required to install a flow monitoring device at the SSMH where West Meadows Estates sewer system connects to the City of Reno sewer interceptor (structure ID 302470).

c)      Before commencement of any construction for the 1st lot contributing to sanitary sewer POC “C”, the developer will be required to install flow monitoring devices at the SSMH located at the intersection of Meridian Ranch Drive/Falls Run Way (structure ID 140230004) and at the SSMH at the lower end of Somersett Ridge Parkway, just before the sewer main crosses of I-80 (structure ID 140215105) where the system is running near or above capacity. 

17.              Prior to the approval of any final map, a final sanitary sewer report shall be provided demonstrating that adequate capacity is available in the existing and proposed sanitary sewer system to adequately convey the anticipated sanitary sewer flows from the project site to the closest sewer interceptor.

18.              Fencing adjacent to open space shall be open view fencing. 

19.              Prior to the approval of each final map, a traffic study shall be submitted that includes an analysis of the ramp termini at I-80 Exit 5 (both on/off ramps). 

20.              The project will be constructed in 16 phases.  As such, each final map and related subdivision improvement plans shall be constructed as a stand-alone project meeting all City of Reno standards.  Phased 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 gated emergency access for the preceding phases.

21.              Prior to the approval of the first final map, the applicant shall coordinate with the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) to: a) identify wildlife corridor planning for all of Planning Area 1 consistent with RMC 18.08.406(i)(11)(e) “Wildlife Corridors;” b) provide a noxious and invasive plant species plan to help avoid introduction and spreading of further detrimental species to surrounding areas; c) implement a wildlife interface plan and HOA management responsibilities. All mitigations shall be subject to the satisfaction of staff in coordination with applicable agencies and subject experts.

22.              Prior to the approval of a final map, the applicant shall provide a vegetation management plan to the Reno Fire Department and State Forester Fire Warden for approval.

Background:   The majority of future development in the Verdi area is planned to occur on ±2,724 acres located within the boundaries of the Mortensen‐Garson Overlay District (MGOD). The properties were annexed into the City of Reno in 2001, and ultimately implemented through an approved Settlement Agreement between the City of Reno and Washoe County. This agreement resulted in a detailed Development Handbook allowing for up to ±3,000 homes and ±300 acres of commercial and industrial development, with standards including hillside development, dark sky lighting, traffic design, ridgeline design standards, wildland interface, grading and drainage standards, and tentative locations of future fire stations and schools, etc.  While this agreement expired in 2012 and is no longer applicable, the Mortensen-Garson Overlay District was adopted into City policy and code through the MGOD standards and corresponding base zoning. As such, this project is subject to certain additional requirements discussed throughout this report, referred to as the Mortensen-Garson Overlay District.  In areas where the MGOD is unclear, the Development Standards Handbook is referred to for background history and intent.

 

The Stan Lucas’ Mortensen Ranch project consists of ±955 acres comprised of two parcels (APN’s 038-830-02 and 038-010-05).  The site is located north of U.S Highway 40 and west of Somersett.  The site is surrounded by single family development to the east and south and vacant land to the north and west.  This request is for a tentative map to develop a 676 single-family unit residential development.  In conjunction with the requested tentative map, three special use permits (SUP’s) are also required to allow: a) grading that results in cuts greater than 20 feet in depth and fills greater than ten feet in heights; b) hillside development; and c) disturbance of major drainageways.

 

The MGOD identifies the project site as Planning Area 1, which allows for a maximum of 676 dwelling units.  Zoning for the site is identified within the MGOD as Single Family Residential – 6,000 (SF6) and Open Space (OS).  Zoning for the property was never established through a formal legal description process, and instead, was approved as a conceptual bubble diagram or zoning map.  The conceptual zoning map was included throughout all of the Mortensen-Garson approval documents (i.e. Handbook, Overlay District, etc.) and has been identified as future development located within Planning Area 1. 

 

Based on review of historical documents, including the expired Handbook, staff has determined that RMC 18.08.406(i)(15) (Administration/amendments) allows the specific zoning boundaries within the MDOG to be modified at the time of the tentative map, special use permit or parcel map to reflect design refinements consistent with the MGOD standards.  The zoning boundaries are proposed to be modified through this tentative map/special use permit application and include an overall reduction in SF6 zoning and an increase in Open Space zoning of 27 acres.

Zoning Comparison

 

SF6

Open Space

Total

Existing Mapped Acreage

218.83 acres

735.9 acres

954.73 acres

Proposed Acreage

191.81 acres

762.92 acres

954.73 acres

-27 acres of SF6 zoning

+27 acres of OS zoning

 

Development within the MGOD requires a developable area map that identifies total land area suitable for development including, but not limited to slopes over 30%, ridgelines, faults, drainageways, wetlands, and major rock outcroppings.  This analysis is used as a basis for assessing the opportunities and constraints for development.  The MGOD also identifies site development standards that allow for development in certain constrained areas, including hillsides and ridgelines. 

 

Figure 18.08.47 within the MGOD identifies one significant ridgeline within Planning Area 1, located on the southeast corner of the property and adjacent to the Somersett Del Webb community.   The project has been designed and appropriate conditions added to conform to the specific MGOD ridgeline standards, including single story building height limitations and landscape treatments for screening of structures.  An additional ridgeline runs north of this area, along the eastern site boundary. While the MGOD does not identify this ridgeline as significant, development within this area was not previously identified in planning documents, including the conceptual zoning map.  Given the close proximity and potential negative impacts on adjacent homeowners to the east, staff is recommending lots 532-557 be removed and transferred to other locations within Planning Area 1.  These lots should not be relocated within 400 feet of the shared boundary with Somersett PUD residences. The tentative map identifies other areas proposed for development that were not previously identified as such on the conceptual zoning map, however, those areas are not located adjacent to existing development and do not create the same negative impacts.

 

The proposed cut and fill areas are necessary to meet the standards for street grades, while minimizing the impacts of grading throughout the site. Maximum cuts of 70 feet in depth and fills of 55 feet in height are proposed.  As proposed and with conditions, the greater cut depths and fill heights are located in areas not impacting the existing Somersett PUD development to the east.  Over the course of the tentative map review process, staff worked with the applicant to lower the grades adjacent to existing homes and incorporate daylight/walkout basements as part of the site designConditions have been added to ensure the adjacent homes within Somersett PUD are protected, including requirements for edge matching, lot buffering, grade matching and hillside architecture

 

Analysis:

 

Tentative Map Findings AnalysisPer Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 278.349(3), all tentative map findings a through k must be made in order to approve this request.  The following is an analysis of each of the required tentative map findings as they relate to the request.

 

(a)              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; 

 

The subject site is vacant and services necessary to serve future development can be extended to the site.  Truckee Meadows Water Authority (TMWA) is identified to provide water service, Waste Management for solid waste disposal, and City of Reno sewer for wastewater service.  The TMWA water services will include new backbone facility improvements including a pipeline connecting to existing TMWA water infrastructure, storage tank and a pump station.

 

Sewer shed analysis and calculations demonstrate that the existing and proposed sewer flows will exceed maximum allowable design capacity at various pipe segments of the existing sewer before project buildout.  In order to establish actual sewer flows and maintain the flows below the 50% maximum capacity allowed in the sewer system, the project will be conditioned to install flow monitors at various critical points of the sewer system. 

 

Capacity of the existing water facilities is managed by TMWA.  The applicant will be required to annex into TMWA’s service territory and include the dedication of water resources, approval of the water supply plan by the local health authority, the execution of a Water Service Agreement, payment of fees, and the construction and dedication of infrastructure in accordance with TMWA’s rules and tariffs. 

 

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

 

The applicant is required to comply with Washoe County District Health Department (WCHD) regulations regarding dust control, sewage disposal, domestic water supply, water system design, solid waste, vector control, water quality, and air quality management.

 

(c)              Availability and accessibility of utilities;

 

Water and sewer service have been addressed in the narrative for findings (a) and (b) above. Application materials demonstrate that the subdivision will be constructed in phases.  As such, each final map and related subdivision improvement plan shall be constructed as a stand-alone project meeting 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 gated emergency access for the preceding phases.

 

The proposed on-site storm drain system consists of streets, curb and gutter and catch basins that intercept sheet flow runoff from drainage areas and direct the flows to an on-site storm drain system designed to detain and conveys the flows to the Truckee River through natural drainage ways located on the site and through West Meadows Estates.  All on-site stormwater management facilities shall be privately owned and maintained and adequate easements and maintenance access shall be provided for all storm water management improvements.

 

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

 

Public Safety:  Comments received from the Fire Department note that the closest fire station to the subject site is Station 11 located at 7105 Mae Anne Ave. The current response time from Station 11 would be 9 minutes. The second closest fire station is Station 19 located at 2015 Hawk Meadow Trail. The response time would be 11 minutes.  To mitigate fire response times that exceed six minutes, the installation of fire sprinkler systems is required.  In order to address Fire Department’s ability to serve the westernmost portion of the City, RMC 18.08.406(i) (MGOD) standards require the implementation of construction and site design elements to further reduce the risk of fire. Additionally, the MGOD standards require the dedication of a ±2.9 acre public facility site with the first final map within Planning Area 3. The applicant is required to contribute a per door contribution toward the City’s construction of future fire facilities to serve the project. The per door contribution was calculated as the proportional amount needed to construct new fire facilities to serve planned development that is located outside the response times from existing fire stations.

 

The project site is located in a High Hazard Wildland-Urban Interface Area. Per the State’s adoption of the Wildland-Urban Interface Code under NRS 477 and NAC 477.281, a vegetation management plan must be submitted to the Reno Fire Department and the State Forester Firewarden for review and approval.

 

The requested 676 lot subdivision has been designed with two points of access through West Meadows to the south.  Access from Planning Area 1 to the east is limited to a 20’ wide gated emergency access road that connects to Del Webb Parkway. 

 

Washoe County School District (WCSD): RMC 18.08.406(i) (MGOD) requires an elementary school site that will meet the needs of WCSD to be located within Planning Area 3. WCSD has been working closely with staff in an effort to provide a comprehensive look at anticipated future WCSD needs for schools to support the MGOD and overall west Reno area at buildout. At buildout and based on current modeling, WCSD will need a new ten acre elementary school site that will be located within Planning Area 3, however is not being requested in association with this request. It is noted that middle and high school facilities will need to be upgraded or expanded over time to accommodate growth within the area, however comments did not note a need for a new middle school nor high school at this time. The WCSD has also noted their ability to review school zoning districts when necessary to accommodate student numbers and individual school capacities.

 

Parks and Recreation: Standards contained within the MGOD call for a variety of trail and park elements located within Planning Area 1.  In addition to improvements to the trail network, three park sites, approximately three to five acres in size, are required to be located within the MGOD and are required to total a minimum of 15 acres. The park sites shall be dedicated to the City of Reno.  A park and trail plan has been included with the tentative map application and includes a three acre park plus a trail network.  A condition has been added requiring a minimum of five acres to be dedicated to the City of Reno for a park.  The size of the park may be reduced to a minimum of three acres if the additional acreage is shown to be dedicated as part of Planning Area 2 or 3. Another condition has been added requiring that parcels 038-100-10, -11 and -12 be offered for dedication to either the City of Reno, Washoe County or included as common open space within an HOA, with the first final map associated with Planning Area 1.

 

(e)              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;

 

Land Use Compatibility: As shown in the table below, land use surrounding the site consists of single family residential development to the east and south and vacant land to the north and west.  As conditioned, the project is consistent with planned land uses in the MGOD area. Master Plan designations and zoning districts for properties surrounding the project site are shown below.


AREA DESCRIPTION

 

Land Use

Master Plan Designation

Zoning

North

Vacant land

Rural (R)

Washoe County

General Rural (GR) (Washoe County)

South

Detached single family

Special Planning Area (SPA)

PUD - West Meadows Estates

East

Detached single family

Single Family Neighborhood (SF)

PUD - Somersett

West

Vacant land

Rural (R)

(Washoe County)

General Rural (GR) (Washoe County)

 

Master Plan: The subject site is located within a Foothill Neighborhood, as identified in the Structure Plan portion of the Reno Master Plan. The site has Master Plan land use designations of Single Family Neighborhood (SF) and Parks, Greenways, and Open Space (PGOS), and is within the Mortensen-Garson Neighborhood Plan. As proposed and with recommended conditions, the project appears to support the following applicable Master Plan goals and policies:

·         Goal 2.1: Support a fiscally-responsible growth pattern and annexation policy to maintain and improve existing levels of service…;

·         Policy 4.5A: Connectivity and Access - Promote safe, clear, and direct pedestrian and bicycle connections within neighborhoods, as well as to adjacent trails, greenways or other publicly accessible drainageways, open space areas, schools, parks, neighborhood centers, employment centers, and to the broader regional system;

·         Policy 7.3B: Access Points - public access points to existing/planned trails;

·         Policy N-G.14: Neighborhood Amenities – Provide a variety of easily accessible amenities targeted to the specific context of the neighborhood, such as parks, trails, open space, recreational facilities, and community gardens;

·         Policy N-G.17: Open Space – Incorporate permanently protected open space into the design of new neighborhoods;

·         N-FN.9: Access to Public Lands – Where applicable, provide access to public lands and recreational amenities;

 

General Code Compliance:  As proposed and with recommended conditions, the project is consistent with the standards contained in Reno Municipal Code (RMC).

 

(f)              General conformity with the governing body’s master plan of streets and highways;

 

The City of Reno Master Plan includes Guiding Principle 5, which focuses on the creation of a well-connected city and region, and includes an emphasis on the efficient use of existing transportation facilities, increasing transit usage and coverage, improved safety and access for all modes of travel (auto, bike, pedestrians, and transit), and an integrated approach to land use and transportation.  The Stan Lucas’ Mortensen Ranch project does not trigger improvements to the surrounding regional roadways and the Regional Transportation Commission’s (RTC) 2040 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) does not currently include any projects within the immediate project area. 

Access to the site will be provided from U.S. Highway 40 through Waterville Drive and Edinburgh Drive, which are part of the West Meadows subdivision.  Additionally, a gated emergency access connection will be provided that will tie into Del Webb Parkway to the east. 

An NDOT approved roundabout was installed with the West Meadows Estates PUD at the intersection of U.S. Highway 40 and Edinburgh Drive.  The roundabout has enhanced traffic operations and enabled the intersection to maintain adequate Levels of Service (LOS), per RMC 18.08.406 (i)(4) of the Mortensen-Garson Overlay District (MGOD).  The Stan Lucas’ Mortensen Ranch project also proposes off-site improvements to vehicular facilities.  The site plans show that the intersection of U.S. Highway 40/Waterville Drive/Summerset Drive will be improved to include exclusive left turn lanes with 450’ minimum of storage/deceleration length at the east and west approaches.  As U.S. Highway 40 is owned and maintained by NDOT, the applicant will be required to obtain an encroachment and excavation permit from prior to any work within the NDOT right-of-way.   With the submittal of each final map that includes a connection to the existing street network, the applicant must submit the traffic report to NDOT for approval of proposed intersection improvements. 

All proposed on-site improvements and interior circulation will be via dedicated public streets.  The project will include the construction of collector and residential streets wide enough to accommodate parking and travel lanes in each direction.  The collector streets will have sidewalk on both sides of the street and the residential streets will have sidewalk along one side of the street.  The project will tie into the existing portion of sidewalk already constructed by the West Meadows Estates PUD.  All construction of sidewalks shall meet City of Reno and ADA standards and have associated easements for public use. These improvements will enhance pedestrian connectivity to the major arterial roadways and transit facilities surrounding the project site.

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

 

The project is estimated to generate 6,065 Average Daily Trips (ADT), 488 A.M. Peak Hour Trips (PHT), and 640 P.M. PHT.  The traffic report reveals that the Level of Service (LOS) will not fall below LOS “C” including the U.S. Highway 40/I-80 on-ramp, as specified in the MGOD and  recommends that any required signing, striping or traffic control improvements comply with the City of Reno and NDOT requirements.  The study also recommends that the U.S. Highway 40/Waterville Drive/Summerset Drive intersection be improved to include exclusive left turns at the east and west approaches.  No roadway or intersection capacity improvements are necessitated by this project. Regional Road Impact Fees (RRIF) will be assessed for the 676 units of the development to mitigate impacts to the adjacent street network.

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

 

The northern portion of the site slopes to the southeast, while the southern portion slopes southwest to existing major drainage channels.  The project contains slopes sufficient to qualify as hillside development under the RMC, however, the project was analyzed under the MGOD code.  Approximately, 84% of the site (836 acres) contain slopes in excess of 15% and the remainder 16% (159 acres) contain slopes less than 15%.  The project proposes cuts deeper than 20 feet and fills greater than 10 feet in height.  The proposed cut and fill areas are necessary to meet the standards for street grades while minimizing the impacts of grading throughout the site. The project will utilize the flatter areas to the greatest extent possible in order to maximize the areas of development and minimize grading.  The proposed grading indicates that the slopes will be ranging from 0% to 12% to facilitate and enable the construction of pads for homes, infrastructure and provide safe and adequate access to and within the site.  All disturbed areas will be revegetated and stabilized per the PWDM and the slopes will be treated in a manner that does not create a negative visual impact. 

 

The project area lies entirely within a FEMA unshaded flood zone X designation indicating the site is outside of the 500-year flood zone.  Drainage from the site will ultimately discharge to the Truckee River via existing on-site natural drainageways. The project site is traversed by four major drainage ways.  The project has been designed to minimize disturbance of the drainageways and limit encroachment into the drainageways only at the roadway crossings.  The project will include nine drainageway crossings and two road crossings over wetland areas.  Avoidance of the drainage ways as proposed by the project is in alignment with the City major drainageways policies. 

 

The preliminary geotechnical report identified evidence of faults on the subject property.  Additional Surface Fault Rupture Assessments were conducted by Axion Geotecnical, LLC whom performed a site reconnaissance and subsurface exploration by excavating trenches.  The assessment concluded that the features mapped across the property are not surface faults, they may be deep faults and structures may be built across them as they are considered inactive and construction offsets are not warranted; however, one of fault was identified as active.  The geotechnical report recommended a 50 foot setback from all occupied structures, which is in line with the Nevada Earthquake Safety Council’s “Guidelines for Evaluating Potential Surface Fault Rupture/Land Subsidence Threats”.  Public improvements as proposed per the application materials shall be allowed to construct (roadway, sidewalk, utilities, etc.) over the active fault; however, no critical facilities shall be placed directly over the active fault. 

(i)              Recommendations and comments of those entities and persons reviewing the tentative map pursuant to NRS 278.330 to 278.3485, inclusive;

Agency comments provided in relation to this request have been incorporated into the findings narrative above.

(j)              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

 

All future development will be required to comply with the adopted edition of the International Fire Code as amended and adopted by the City of Reno at the time development is proposed.  Such compliance includes, but is not be limited to, fire department access, fire sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems and fire hydrant placement.

 

(k)              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.

 

The applicant has noted that all taxes will be paid prior to obtaining the Washoe County Treasurer’s signature of the Tax Certificate on the final map.

 

Special Use Permit Findings Analysis:  Reno Municipal Code (RMC) requires that all SUP findings (a) through (h), as well as the SUP findings related to Hillside Development and cuts and fills must be made in order to approve this request.  The following is an analysis of each of the required SUP findings as they relate to the proposal:

 

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

The 676 dwelling units is within the allowable density noted in Planning Area 1 of the MGOD.  Compatibility of this request with surrounding development has been analyzed under tentative map finding e above. The applicant has provided conceptual building elevations that meet RMC standards, including split pad and stepped foundations.  However, the applicant will submit final building design drawings during the permitting stages. Consistency of proposed building elevations with RMC standards will be evaluated at the time permit requests are submitted.  The proposed site plan preserves the major drainageways, steep slopes, and recreation areas.  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.  The site plan has been designed and conditioned to protect the adjacent residential developments to the east and south with open space buffers and landscape for screening.  

 

b.              The project is in substantial conformance with the Master Plan.

An analysis of the request as it relates to Master Plan policies is discussed under tentative map finding e above.

 

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

Services and infrastructure to support this request have been analyzed in tentative map findings a through d, f, and g above.

 

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

 

Traffic impacts have been analyzed in the tentative map finding f and g above. 

 

e.              The proposed site location and scale, intensity, density, height, layout, setbacks, and architectural and overall design of the development and the uses proposed, is appropriate to the area in which it is located.

 

As noted in previous sections of this report, the proposed request is consistent with RMC standards. The site is separated from existing residences by currently vacant land and future design of the subject site is not anticipated to have a negative impact on existing developed areas. Any impacts related to traffic generated by this request have been discussed in the tentative map findings analysis section of this report.

 

The applicant has designed the project to minimize the amount of grading necessary in order to ensure the overall design is consistent with the MGOD and in a manner that will contribute to the character of the area.  The applicant has incorporated walls, grading, site layout, and hillside adaptive architecture to reduce the amount of grading at the project edges and to improve the overall visual appearance of the development once constructed. 

 

f.              The project does not create adverse environmental impacts such as smoke, noise, glare, dust, vibrations, fumes, pollution or odor which would be detrimental to, or constitute a nuisance to area properties.

 

Approval of this request is consistent with the allowed uses and established standards contained in RMC and more specifically in the MGOD.  A condition on limited construction hours is recommended to limit construction hours to minimize the impacts of development construction on nearby residents.

 

g.              Project signage is in character with project architecture and is compatible with or complementary to surrounding uses.

 

The applicant will be required to meet the sign standards for residential zones. 

 

h.              The structure has been designed such that the window placement and height do not adversely affect the privacy of existing residential uses.

 

Open space buffers physically separate the proposed development from adjacent homes.  The minimum open space buffer provides approximately 110 feet between lots.  In addition, adjacent lots are limited to a single story as measured from the street level.  This does not preclude daylight basements.  

 

Special Use Permits for Hillside Development Analysis:  In order to approve a special use permit for hillside development according to Article XVI (Hillside Development) of Chapter 18.12, the decision-making body shall make the general special use permit findings and the following additional findings:

 

a.       The proposed project mitigates environmental degradation, including slope failure, erosion, sedimentation, and stormwater run-off;

The project proposes using hillside grading techniques to minimize overall impacts on existing slopes. Roadways have generally been designed to align with existing contours to minimize grading. Open space areas and the associated detention facility provide opportunities for grade changes and management of sedimentation and stormwater. Slopes will be contoured and revegetated to minimize erosion potential, stabilize slopes and prevent environmental degradation.

The proposed on-site storm drain system consists of streets, curb and gutter and catch basins that intercept sheet flow runoff from drainage areas and direct the flows to an on-site storm drain system designed to detain and conveys the flows to the Truckee River through natural drainage ways located on the site and through West Meadows Estates.  All on-site stormwater management facilities shall be privately owned and maintained and adequate easements and maintenance access shall be provided for all storm water management improvements.

Refer to Tentative Map findings (c) and (h) for additional support of stormwater runoff, erosion and sedimentation.

 

b.      The proposed project utilizes grading practices that are appropriate for hillsides and designed to minimize the visibility of unsightly scarring;

The proposed cut and fill areas are necessary to meet the standards for street grades, while minimizing the impacts of grading throughout the site. Maximum cuts of 70 feet in depth and fills of 55 feet in height are proposed.  As proposed and with recommended conditions, the greater cut depths and fill heights will be located in areas significantly removed from the existing Somersett PUD development to the east.  Conditions have been added to ensure edge matching, lot buffering, grade matching and hillside architecture is incorporated in the site design, and protects the adjacent Somersett PUD development.

 

c.       The proposed project provides open space based on hillside constraints;

Approximately, 84% of the site (836 acres) contain slopes in excess of 15% and the remainder 16% (159 acres) contain slopes less than 15%.  The project proposes cuts deeper than 20 feet and fills greater than 10 feet in height.  The proposed cut and fill areas are necessary to meet the standards for street grades while minimizing the impacts of grading throughout the site. The project will utilize the flatter areas to the greatest extent possible in order to maximize the areas of development and minimize grading.  The proposed grading indicates that the slopes will be ranging from 0% to 12% to facilitate and enable the construction of pads for homes, infrastructure and provide safe and adequate access to and within the site.  All disturbed areas will be revegetated and stabilized per the PWDM and the slopes will be treated in a manner which does not create a negative visual impact.  The site has been designed with ±762 acres or 80 percent Open Space.

 

d.      The proposed project adheres to applicable hillside development design standards and to master plan provisions related to development in sloped areas; and

The proposed cut and fill areas are necessary to meet the standards for street grades while minimizing the impacts of grading throughout the site. The project will utilize the flatter areas to the greatest extent possible in order to maximize the areas of development and minimize grading.  The proposed grading indicates that the slopes will be ranging from 0% to 12% to facilitate and enable the construction of pads for homes, infrastructure and provide safe and adequate access to and within the site. 

Refer to Tentative Map finding (e) for analysis of applicable foothill policies that demonstrates adherence to the Master Plan.

 

e.       The proposed project's site layout and design features adequately mitigate potential visual impacts of development near prominent ridgelines and within other visually prominent areas.

Figure 18.08.47 within the MGOD identifies one significant ridgeline within Planning Area 1, located on the southeast corner of the property and adjacent to the Somersett Del Webb community.   The project has been designed and appropriate conditions added to conform to the specific MGOD ridgeline standards, including single story building height limitations and landscape treatments for screening of structures.  An additional ridgeline runs north of this area, along the eastern site boundary. While the MGOD does not identify this ridgeline as significant, development within this area was not previously identified in planning documents, including the conceptual zoning map.  Given the close proximity and potential negative impacts on adjacent homeowners to the east, staff is recommending lots 532-557 be removed and transferred to other locations within Planning Area 1. These lots should not be relocated within 400 feet of the shared boundary with Somersett PUD residences.

 

SUP for Cuts and/or Fills:  In addition to the general findings outlined above, special use permits for cut slopes of 20 feet or greater in depth or a fill slope ten feet or greater in height shall require that one of the following findings be made:

 

a.              The slopes can be treated in a manner which does not create negative visual impacts.

 

Slopes required as part of the grading activities to support the proposed development will be treated with either formal landscaping or will be revegetated with native seed mix.  The applicant has proposed a combination of rockery walls, landscaping and natural revegetation to minimize the visual and impacts of the development.  Additionally, the applicant has proposed hillside adaptive building elevations that further reduce the amount of grading necessary for the site beyond that which was identified in the MGOD.

 

b.              The grading is necessary to provide safe and adequate access to the development.

 

The applicant has proposed grading of the site in a manner that will offer safe pedestrian and vehicle access and circulation to the site.

 

Neighborhood Advisory Board (NAB): This project was reviewed by the Ward 5 NAB on September 9, 2019. Comments included concerns related to the potential impact of development within the area on the rural character of Verdi. Also noted were concerns related to impacts on traffic, schools, wildlife and water services. The staff report outlines how each of these concerns have been addressed and where necessary, conditions of approval have been recommended.

 

West Truckee Meadows/Verdi Township Citizens Advisory Board:  As required by the MGOD, this item was presented by the applicant to the West Truckee Meadows/Verdi Township Citizens Advisory Board on September 19, 2019.

 

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:

 

(a)              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;

 

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

 

(c)              Availability and accessibility of utilities;

 

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

 

(e)              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;

 

(f)              General conformity with the governing body’s master plan of streets and highways;

 

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

 

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

 

(i)              Recommendations and comments of those entities and persons reviewing the tentative map pursuant to NRS 278.330 to 278.3485, inclusive;

 

(j)              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

 

(k)              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 PermitGeneral 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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

e.              The proposed site location and scale, intensity, density, height, layout, setbacks, and architectural and overall design of the development and the uses proposed, is appropriate to the area in which it is located.

 

f.              The project does not create adverse environmental impacts such as smoke, noise, glare, dust, vibrations, fumes, pollution or odor which would be detrimental to, or constitute a nuisance to area properties.

 

g.              Project signage is in character with project architecture and is compatible with or complementary to surrounding uses.

 

h.              The structure has been designed such that the window placement and height do not adversely affect the privacy of existing residential uses.

 

Special Use PermitSpecial use permits for hillside development.  In order to approve a special use permit for hillside development according to Article XVI (Hillside Development) of Chapter 18.12, the decision-making body shall make the general special use permit findings and the following additional findings:

 

                1. The proposed project mitigates environmental degradation, including slope failure, erosion, sedimentation, and stormwater run-off;

 

                1. The proposed project utilizes grading practices that are appropriate for hillsides and designed to minimize the visibility of unsightly scarring;

 

                1. The proposed project provides open space based on hillside constraints;

 

                1. The proposed project adheres to applicable hillside development design standards and to master plan provisions related to development in sloped areas; and

 

                1. The proposed project's site layout and design features adequately mitigate potential visual impacts of development near prominent ridgelines and within other visually prominent areas.

 

Special Use PermitSpecial use permits for cut slopes of 20 feet or greater in depth or a fill slope ten feet or greater in height.  In addition to the general findings in subsection (1) above, special use permits for cut slopes of 20 feet or greater in depth or a fill slope ten feet or greater in height shall require that one of the following findings be made:

 

a.              The slopes can be treated in a manner which does not create negative visual impacts.

 

b.              The grading is necessary to provide safe and adequate access to the development.

 

Attachments:

·         Display Maps (PDF)

·         Exhibit A – Site and Development Area Maps (PDF)

·         Exhibit B - Agency Comments (PDF)

·         Exhibit C - NAB Comments & CAB Minutes (PDF)

 

Meeting History

Dec 18, 2019 6:00 PM Video Reno City Planning Commission Regular

Derek Wilson, Rubicon Design Group, gave an overview of the project and proposed changes to Condition No. 8 to remove only some of the lots listed in that condition.

Angela Fuss, Planning Manager, presented the staff report including a history of the Mortensen-Garson Overlay District (MGOD). The project location is bound by Somersett on the east and by West Meadows on the south so it is surrounded by city development and services. She also reviewed the conceptual zoning boundaries. The applicant feels the proposed zoning meets the design criteria. The staff presentation includes information on discussion items brought up as areas of concern by the public.

Disclosures:

The commissioners present disclosed that they visited the site, met with adjacent homeowners, received and read emails, spoke with the applicant’s representative, and/or are familiar with the site.

Public Comment:

The following people expressed concerns and spoke in opposition of the project: Parry Theriot; Pam McNeil; Dennis Kuhns; Colleen Cassidy; Ken McNeil; Jeanette Lynn; Charles Fasso; Frank Leto; Martin Markee; Jean Graham; Heidi Evans; Dennis Grabb; Gideon Caplovitz; Emanuela Heller-MacNeilage; Susan Alesevich; Addie Argyris; Joan Hjerpe; Joseph Callahan; Vernon Anderson; Carly Borchard; Chance Reading; Alice House; Erika White. Dee Ann Radcliff submitted a comment card in opposition but was not present to speak.

Comment cards in opposition were submitted by 37 people who did not wish to speak.

(Chair Johnson called a recess at 8:09 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 8:21 p.m.)

Chair Johnson stated two more comment cards in opposition were received during the recess. All comment cards will be scanned and will be available for public record.

Commissioner Velto stated he understands the explanation of going to the expired handbook when there is ambiguity in code, but requested clarification regarding what part of code staff feels is ambiguous.

Ms. Fuss explained the zoning boundary is not clearly defined. Going back to the history and intent of the handbook, staff found the boundaries were supposed to be delineate and defined at the time of tentative map.

Commissioner Marshall asked if there was anything in the record when the master plan was adopted indicating the zoning boundaries were just conceptual.

Ms. Fuss responded no, and explained the MGOD is the guiding zoning document while the master plan is the policy level document. At a policy level we do not get into discussion regarding boundaries, it is more of a big picture policy document and the detail is in the MGOD.

Commissioner Marshall stated the zoning boundary map is attached to the neighborhood plan supplement of the master plan. The city adopted that without any distinction that this was anything but straight up zoning. He asked if there was any distinction made at the time of adoption that these zones could be changed without going through the zoning map or land use designation process.

Ms. Fuss responded that goes back to the history of this project. When the zoning boundaries were identified in the MGOD, they referenced the handbook.

Commissioner Marshall summarized the answer is no, there was nothing to indicate that this was anything but standard zoning. He also asked where the ambiguity is that would cause staff to treat this differently than any other map or zone change.

Arlo Stockham, Community Development Director, explained the ambiguity is specifically the section that talks about the “maximum density for each property may only exceed or change from those shown consistent with the following”. It doesn't call out the edge of the zoning map like the handbook does but at the same time the MGOD references the handbook, which was clear in its intent that the changes should be done through the tentative map process.

Commissioner Marshall state if there was a change in density proposed then he could see maybe there is some ambiguity about densities, but they are not proposing a change in density. There is nothing that would trigger an amendment based on wanting to change the density within the MGOD, that's not what's happening. He expressed concern regarding setting a precedent. What's happening here is we are being asked to allow a change in zoning to a tentative map not because of anything actually in the assigned zone but because of some prior document that wasn't adopted.

Mr. Stockham clarified this is an interpretation of existing code and the MGOD.

Derek Wilson, Rubicon Design Group, stated they designed their plan to use the accessible areas of the property.

Commissioner Taylor asked legal counsel what their intent was in providing direction on this instead of going to a master plan amendment.

Mr. McKean, Deputy City Attorney, explained staff was looking to resolve the question of are these boundaries in the MGOD exact locations or are they intended to be changed. One interpretation is the yellow area actually is the zoning; another interpretation is it really isn't telling you lots so it is not final zoning. When you look at the handbook you see that it was expressly contemplated that the locations will be made exact at the time of tentative map.

Commissioner Gower explained the concern of the Planning Commission is not that the development needs to be constrained to the yellow areas, the concern is that we are missing a piece of the puzzle in a process we normally go through. He asked staff if they considered an option that included going through a zoning map amendment and if that was considered, why did they decide not to go through that process.

Mr. Stockham confirmed staff did consider it. It was a difficult issue, there was confusion on the language and it could be easily interpreted in different ways so staff talked it over and part of that research was looking at the legislative history that Mr. McKean mentioned. That history was clear on the intent being for these to be refined, and that really is consistent with sound master planning on large projects like this. Because of the grey area in the current language, the legislative history, and to some extent that this is a preferable plan compared to where the land use bubbles are now, that is where the team collectively interpreted that it would appropriately be addressed through the tentative map process and public hearing we are having now.

Commissioner Gower expressed concern that when we typically see developments like this, we want to be transparent in our process, and when we look at these sizes of developments we look at if there is going to be a change. He asked why we did not take the transparent, public facing route and go through the zone change request process in addition to what we are looking at tonight.

Mr. Stockham responded either option is for the decision to be made at a public hearing through a public process like we are having today. Staff has a range of discretion as planners. What the documents say and what is required is what establishes our range of discretion. It became clear upon review the intent was to refine it through the tentative map or special use process and we had to pick one or the other and this is what the team decided the documents called for.

Commissioner Gower asked if it has to be one or the other or if it can be zoning map plus tentative map.

Mr. Stockham explained if the city decides differently, that this language does not allow the adjustment through the tentative map process, it would be both a master plan amendment process and zoning map amendment process; and a secondary process for the tentative map like we are doing right now. It would necessarily be both if the city ends up interpreting it the other way.

Commissioner Velto asked if it is possible for the allotment in this area to fit within the yellow area.

Mr. Wilson stated they have not done that study. He also stated they felt their mandate was to design to the code and use the most accessible, developable area of the property.

Commissioner Velto explained he is trying to see if there is another reason it was ambiguous and if it is impossible to fit the maximum allotment within that area.

Tom Gallagher, Summit Engineering, stated the simple answer is yes. This area did not have legal descriptions around the zoning bubbles. With the flexibility built into the handbook we knew we could adjust the zoning bubbles.

Commissioner Velto stated it is clear in the MGOD handbook that locations of the zoning boundaries will be defined in subsequent tentative maps so why did that not follow through to code.

Mr. Stockham explained this was at the depth of the recession and Reno had just laid off a third of its staff. It may have been an over site and more clear language probably should have been put in the code. It is no fault of the applicant.

Stephen Mollath, attorney for the developer, responded to Commissioner Velto's question providing a history of the settlement agreement and the MGOD.

Commissioner Taylor asked how so many people have 470 lots in their mind.

Mr. Mollath explained 470 was not part of what was going on in 2004. The first time he heard about it was a week ago.

Mr. Gallagher explained 470 came from a conceptual layout that was done during the whole process but he does not know how it got to be the number everyone has in their head. A former planner on the project and one of my staff members and the current owner went through numerous iterations on this property because it is a very difficult site and that was probably one of them. The actual density for the MGOD has always been the number that is in the design standards.

Paul Solaegui explained for Commissioner Marshall the calculations for the two access roads through West Meadows.

Mike Mischel, Engineering Manager, explained for Commissioner Marshall the reason for Condition No. 16. He confirmed if the flow guages hit a certain percent they are obligated to upsize the interceptors.

Ms. Fuss explained for Commissioner Velto how the fire services fee was calculated. The fee is not to be used for manpower but to build a fire station. She also confirmed that the fee can be recalculated if needed. If development does not come to full fruition within ten years and the fire station does not get built, the money can go back to the developer.

Mr. Stockham confirmed for Commissioner Velto from staff's perspective it is workable to include some sort of periodic check-in to monitor how the area is building out and if we are not getting the full amount of development to raise funds for a fire station, the fee can be adjusted.

Ms. Fuss confirmed the applicant is agreeable to that.

Tray Palmer, Fire Marshal, explained for Commissioner Hawkins in the case of a fire people would use one of three access points to get out. He also explained the slopes of the roads have to fall in line with the International Fire Code or we would not approve it during the building phase.

Mr. Palmer demonstrated for Chair Johnson the access routes from the proposed fire station location to this development. He explained the response time from that site has not been calculated. It would most likely be over six minutes and that is why we are requiring fire sprinklers in the development.

Mr. Palmer explained for Commissioner Gower the city will pay for infrastructure and staffing of a fire station through the normal budget cycle with funds from tax revenue. He also explained Station 19 in Somersett is a first response for medical not fire. He confirmed the minimum staffing there is due to a funding issue. The Somersett station currently has wild land fire infrastructure and the proposed new station would have similar equipment.

Ms. Fuss confirmed for Commissioner Hawkins there is an existing pipeline and an easement for that pipeline extending into the Somersett property.

Mr. Mischel explained for Commissioner Hawkins the condition for a developer to have a sewer flow test done to determine what upgrades need to take place. He confirmed the same condition would apply for any development to the west.

Ms. Fuss explained for Commissioner Taylor the MGOD is unique in that it came to be through a court settlement agreement. Typically a big development is done through a Planned Unit Development (PUD).

Ms. Fuss explained code for the drainageways and crossings for Commissioner Taylor. She confirmed that the applicant let staff know yesterday about their request to modify Condition No. 8 hoping to keep the lots on the west side of the ridgeline. Staff is still recommending the current condition language.

Ms. Fuss explained for Commissioner Taylor the ridgeline map was part of the handbook and identifies two ridgelines as being significant in planning area one.

Ms. Fuss confirmed for Commissioner Taylor that if the handbook identified a different definition of ridgelines or identified them on a different map, that would give us the ability to go back and look at intent. The MGOD specifically identifies this map and it identifies standards that have to be maintained if developing on a significant ridgeline. Staff came up with conditions that we feel meets the intent of the code and that would protect the neighbors to the adjacent east. She also confirmed we have a clear map that identifies significant ridgelines.

Ms. Angela explained for Commissioner Gower that staff has a map that was developed in 2005 that identifies city-wide ridgelines.

Mr. Stockham explained for Commissioner Gower the multilevel analysis that was used in identifying which ridgelines are considered significant. Ultimately, what is adopted in code city-wide is a specific map and standard talking about ridgeline protection referencing this map. It does not strictly prohibit development on ridgelines. Due to the combination of factors of site analysis and sensitivity to neighbors, staff felt it was appropriate in this tentative map to recommend protection of ridgelines a little above and beyond what is strictly required by code.

Robert Gelu, Summit Engineering, demonstrated for Commissioner Taylor the areas with slopes over 30% on the site. There are only around 20 lots planned in those areas.

Mr. Wilson answered questions from Chair Johnson regarding emergency access points.

Mr. Gelu confirmed for Chair Johnson the grades are per City Design Manual.

John Enloe, Truckee Meadows Water Authority (TMWA), explained for Chair Johnson the applicant requested a discovery process where we identify what facilities are required and the estimated cost. The infrastructure required to extend water service to this development is significant. There is not capacity available today to serve this project. If we started today it would be 2-3 years to get any water service to this area. He also answered questions regarding a future line route.

Mr. Enloe confirmed for Commissioner Gower there is a small waterline improvement that comes in from Somersett but the majority of the capacity is coming out US40.

Mr. Enloe explained for Chair Johnson they provide as much connectivity as they can to the existing system for redundancy. He also clarified it is surface water the applicant is proposing to dedicate for service.

Ms. Fuss explained for Commissioner Hawkins the applicant cannot get a final map unless they have a will serve letter from TMWA. She confirmed construction cannot begin unless they have the ability to provide water.

Ms. Fuss confirmed for Commissioner Taylor the applicant is conditioned to submit and get approval on a wildlife mitigation plan through NDOW.

Tara Smaltz, NDOT, confirmed for Chair Johnson that a traffic impact study was provided to NDOT by Paul Solaegui. The study did include analysis of the existing roundabout and in the year 2039 it is projected to meet adequate level of service.

Ms. Smaltz confirmed for Chair Johnson NDOT recognizes the bike path as being a well-used bike path. She believes there were accommodations made for bicyclists but they would have to look back at the existing permit for the roundabout. NDOT is expecting that the proposed developer would mitigate any impacts to the NDOT road network.

Ms. Fuss explained for Chair Johnson the traffic report does recommend changes to the intersection to add left turn lanes.

Commissioner Taylor asked about a Summit Engineering map referencing 470 lots that was submitted with Ward 5 NAB comments.

Ms. Fuss noted that map was not submitted to the City and no application was made for 470 lots.

Mr. Gallagher explained the map was probably one of the original iterations between when the zoning bubbles were drawn and the map we have submitted for approval.

Commissioner Taylor asked how the number of lots went from 470 to 676.

Fred Altmann, representing Mr. Lucas, explained the preliminary process and explained there have been several different maps and the one referencing 470 lots happened to be the one used as a starting point at that particular NAB meeting. When Mr. Lucas had the property he eventually decided he wanted to have the maximum amount of lots allowed at the time of the settlement agreement.

Ms. Fuss explained for Commissioner Gower which lots are referenced in Condition No. 13 requiring a minimum of 50 trees to be planted in a buffer area.

(Commissioner Marshall absent at 10:03 p.m. Commissioner Marshall present at 10:04 p.m.)

Commissioner Velto expressed concern regarding an appearance of dishonesty when the applicant's team acted like they had no idea about where the number of 470 lots came from.

Mr. Wilson explained it would have been more advantageous if Mr. Altmann spoke first as he did work on the map referencing the 470 lots and others on the team who spoke first did not.

Commissioner Gower expressed appreciation for the work done by city staff. He expressed concern that we have a zoning map that is part of our master plan that was adopted and there was no disclaimer associated with it. He was also concerned we didn't take the extra step to go through the process of a master plan and zoning map amendment. The findings are different for a zoning map and a master plan amendment than they are for a tentative map and an SUP so they have different considerations.

Commissioner Taylor stated she respects the City of Reno and staff but she cannot make some of the findings for the tentative map and SUP. A lot more time needs to go into this.

Commissioner Olivas stated the applicant is trying to stick with 676 lots and flexing the bubbles and it is too much to reconcile. He cannot make the finding e.

Commissioner Marshall stated we can't sidestep the standard zone change process. If we accept the staff recommendation, that means the entire MGOD can be rezoned via tentative map and that is a significant deviation from standard practice.

Commissioner Velto stated he struggles to get to ambiguity which means it's difficult to look to any other documents.

Commissioner Hawkins stated he agrees with fellow commissioners. He cannot make tentative map findings b, c, d, and j; special use permit finding c; and special use permit for hillside development findings a and c.

Chair Johnson stated he cannot make findings c, h and j.

It was moved by Commissioner Hawkins, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, in the case of LDC20-00003 (Stan Lucas' Mortensen Ranch), based upon non-compliance with the applicable findings, to deny the tentative map and special use permits. The motion carried unanimously with seven (7) commissioners present.

Chair Johnson read the appeal process into the record.

RESULT:APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER:Ed Hawkins, Commissioner
SECONDER:John Marshall, Commissioner
AYES:Mark Johnson, Kathleen Taylor, Peter Gower, Ed Hawkins, John Marshall, Paul Olivas, Alex Velto