"Neighbors Talking With Neighbors"
|
|
|
Home
Featured Local Blogs
www.flickr.com
This is a Flickr badge showing photos in a set called
Washoe Valley. Make your own badge
here.
10 Things You Can Do To be involved in washoevalley.org 1. Send in a WV story or quip.
The county cable channel 17 has the county commissioner meetings, a news show, and various public info segments.
|
Washoe County SVAP page This page has not been updated in a year but does give some information. Existing South Valleys Area Plan This is the actual document in PDF format. Washoe County North Valleys Area Plan This plan update is just ahead of ours in completion and you can check it out to see what to expect. South Valley's Area Plan Draft This is the text of the proposed plan. Update December 11, 2007
Area Plan Update – Dave Harrison reported that they met with staff to work on a
timeline for discussion of Update October 9, 2007 From the minutes of the East WV CAB Meeting: 5. Area Plan Update – Dave Harrison reported that Adrian Freund, Director, Department of Community Development will be meeting with Bob Rusk to discuss the Weston/Lowden property. Bob Rusk has met with Mr. Weston and has not reached any agreement at this time. County Commission Meeting Wrap-Up Last night's meeting of the Washoe County
Board of County Commissioners was a positive move forward for Washoe Valley
residents. At 5:30 the commissioners took up the topic of the South Valleys Area
Plan once more in front of a packed house. Previously, the commissioners sent
the flawed plan back to the regional planning commission to address residents
discontent with several points. The planning commission sent it back to the
commissioners with no changes. The members of the Washoe Specific plans, the county planning staff argues, gives the county a way to steer a parcel into a particular kind of development before any plans have been submitted by the developer. Residents argued that specific plans give developers tacit approval to develop before they have even proved, through the availability of water, utilities, roads, etc. that their development is even viable, or at the least, in the best interests of the community. They argue that developers should use the current system of applying for a "comprehensive plan amendment" like everyone else. This controversy has less to do about individual landowners and their property rights than it has to do with Washoe County procedures and policies. After all, the owners of the Weston/Lowden development are our neighbors and like most of us, want to maximize their property value. What we need from the county is a system that is fair, predictable and the same for everybody. It is a rare family such as the Greils in the southwest corner of the valley that have entered some of their land into a conservation easement to keep it from being developed in the future. In the end, once again, the commissioners
and the county planning staff acknowledged the valley residents involvement in
the process-those members that have worked for 3 years, meeting nearly every
Thursday and those who have supported their efforts through meeting attendance,
phone calls and emails to the county. The county commissioners voted to
bifurcate the SVAP and approve the section for Steamboat-Pleasant Valley and
send the Washoe Valley portion back to the planners for repair. This from a correspondent: "I found out at the SV Working Group meeting last night that the Specific Plan part of the plan referring to the Weston/Lowden property is gone, but the instructions were for valley residents east and west to work with the planning dept. and come up with mutually acceptable solutions to the big issues – Weston/Lowden (& others like them), and no new commercial areas." Stay tuned for further developments!
SVAP/Commissioners Meeting Tuesday Night Residents Urged To Attend Last time, because of our protests, the County Commissioners sent the SVAP back to the Regional Planning Commission (see the wrap-up here) where they rubber stamped the original document "No Change" and sent it back to the Commissioners for their approval this coming Tuesday, the 28th at 5:30 PM at the County offices on E. 9th, Reno. The meeting will be held in Building B, Conference Room A. That failure was due, in part, because of our success in having such a large turnout. That created many different points that the Commission had to boil down into a "short list" of concerns for the planning commission to consider. Somehow, many minor concerns got placed on the list, diluting the impact of the larger points. This time around, lets all try to concentrate on these larger points to show that the community is united against this plan. If we can convince them to halt the process, address these points, perhaps other issues can be looked at also. The Main Topics To Speak On (2 minute limit)
Here's a note on the meeting from our county community coordinator:
Update on
On the August 28 Board of County
Commissioners meeting, staff is recommending that item 14 (Request to amend the
boundaries of the Washoe County Truckee Meadows Service Area) be heard after
item 22 (Public Hearing of the South Valley`s Area Plan). Item 22
is 5:30p.m. time certain,
which means item 22, will be heard on or after 5:30p.m. To review the agenda
please visit the Board of County Commissioners webpage
www.washoecounty.us/bcc.
Make That August 28th! In all the excitement around here, the meeting date for the SVAP
agenda got screwed up and I didn't double check my sources and now we know that
our item will be brought up at the August 28th meeting of the county
commissioners. We apologize! Hold Yer Horses! Commission Meeting Rescheduled Due to a meeting set to start at 10am with our agenda item set
to start at 5:30pm, the county commissioners are continuing the SVAP agenda item
to Saturday, July 28. It was decided there were just too many items for one
meeting. I don't know what that will do to our attendance, being on a Saturday,
it may mean that we can have a bigger showing of community concern. Spread the
word and see you then.
Attend The Commissioners Meeting
Tuesday! Yes, the theme of last May's meeting was "Last Chance". Well, we get one more chance this Tuesday, July 24th. Due to the large and effective turnout at that meeting the Commissioners referred the matter back to the planning commission with the instructions "fix it". Although, what was presented to the planning commission last week was a lame list of seemingly random points that the public spoke on in opposition to the South Valleys Area Plan and the instructions were to "review" the issues, not to change the SVAP in regard to the issues. So predictably, the planning staff just reviewed the issues, asserted their views and methods were correct and the planning commission supported them by voting for "no change" in the SVAP. That lapse needs to be addressed in the upcoming meeting of the commissioners where they again, like in May, will hear public testimony and vote on whether to send it back for changes or give final approval of it. Please review the information on the SVAP page regarding the May 22nd meeting and stress that these items must be changed, not just dicussed. Meeting: County Commissioners, July 24th, starts at 10am but our item is scheduled at 5:30 but they can change the time at will (sneaky). Where: County offices at 1001 E 9th, Reno in building B this time (Health and Welfare building on the Wells Ave. side although the gate there might be locked by 5:30 so go in the 9th street gate.) conference room. If you can't make the meeting, send them an
email.
Planning Commission Predictable Report on Meeting of July 11, 2007 The meeting was held in the Health Dept conference room and was attended by 7 members of the planning commission and a fair-sized crowd of citizens. Thankfully, the SVAP was the first item on the agenda. First, the public gave testimony and our familiar and able usual speakers spoke on the 10 points specific to Washoe Valley (testimony was limited to the 10 points below). Ginger Pierce of Pleasant Valley stated that the sewer extension for Sierra Reflections development at the top of Washoe Hill will be only a 12 inch pipe and therefore will never be adequate for anything else. Later, Eric Young of the Planning Staff stated that this was true and that the only way to increase the capacity was to replace the whole thing from Reno and that would never be affordable for the scale of development Washoe Valley is capable of. A major topic of comment is the parcel shown below that the planners want to convert from residential to commercial as they think a business beside the road might be less obtrusive than 5 houses on the hills. They are also negotiating with the owners to acquire the portion of the property to the west that includes Pagni canyon and the V&T RR route for open space. Residents express fear that the whole parcel could then be developed with commercial structures of every type. Eric Young, the lead planner, assured the audience that commercial in Old Washoe City had to conform to strict guidelines and plan review which made some in the audience chuckle. It was mentioned that NDOT was freaked out about the public stopping on the freeway to access the Pagni Canyon historical site now and how was it going to work with a business?
Richard Williamson, representative for Mr. Serpa, large landowner in the valley, protested the county's presumption to try to regulate water development as well as land development. Mr Young later discussed this question and assured the audience and the planning commission that the previous state supreme court ruling against Mr. Serpa and subsequent talks with the Dept. Of Water Resources and state legal staff does, in fact, give the county authority to regulate water (and water rights) importation or exportation from the valley. Jane Countryman of the west side CAB said that the TMSA is a tool for development and that allowing the TMSA into the Weston/Lowden property would make all the valley eligible to be in the TMSA. She also warned that we do not have as much water as it appears in drought years and that additional large-scale development could hurt the viability of all water supplies in the valley. Jeff Lowden, of the Weston/Lowden development thanked the planning staff for all their wonderful work over the last couple of years and said they wanted to do a Caughlin Ranch type of development but they have compromised many times and are down to 140 clustered units and still the community is not satisfied. Eric Young stated later that the "special status of Weston /Lowden actually places more restrictions on the parcel than if the owner did the normal thing and went to the planning commission for a "plan amendment" later to allow a subdivision. Both the public speakers and the staff noted, at different times, that sewer and water restrictions and slopes will probably work to limit the development of the parcel. Debi Sheltra of the West side CAB noted that there is no need to expand or otherwise encourage the commercial area in Old Washoe City as there is plentiful shopping and services directly to the north and south of the valley. In fact, the current commercial area is struggling and so why make it bigger? Staff said later that the vision of 14 residential units per acre above retail shops probably would never happen due to the need for on-site sewer and water. Eric Holland of the Citizens for Responsible Growth in Reno asked why the county was proposing expanding the commercial area in Old Washoe City when the urban residents of Reno can't even get a supermarket in downtown. Another big question was all the discrepancies with the rules according to the Regional Plan. The staff said that would not be answered until the Regional Planning Agency reviewed the plan but that most of the same was done in the recent North Valleys plan and it passed. At several items on the list the planning commission and staff voiced frustration that these were points they thought were settled at the very beginning of the process and that the residents were bringing up dead issues. Mr. Young admitted that there seems to be a general distrust that all the promises made in the plan are made in thin air and developers could change them at their will later. I don't recall him really rebutting that assertion but he did say , in another statement, that planning documents are dynamic instruments subject to change. He also said the TMSA in the valley is for the expressed purpose of Weston/Lowden and would only be extended for health or safety purposes. Mr Young was very sincere-sounding about his concern over the Pacific Flyway and Washoe Valleys role in that international responsibility. A member of the planning commission questioned the county's responsibility to an international treaty and Mr. Young said he didn't know legally but it was the right thing to do and that the SVAP protected the flyway. It wasn't answered though, if the 140 families at the W/L development would see Little Washoe Lake and Scripps Wildlife Refuge as their adjacent "city park". I had a little chuckle myself at the irony as I noticed a wealthy developer from Incline Village had arrived at 6:30 for his agenda item and was still squirming in his chair at 9:30 for his turn. I know his builder so I went over to say goodbye when I left and he said, "So, now that you've got yours, you don't want anybody else in the valley?" I just said, "Yes." I teased him back by saying that "Ranches used to mean cows, but now we have Caughlin Ranch, Double Diamond Ranch and Damonte Ranch". He chuckled and nodded his acknowledgement as I think, as a custom home builder, he doesn't think much of tract home developments either. In the end, the staff and the planning commission decided that none of the concerns were valid and chose to keep the SVAP unchanged. They will send it back to the County Commissioners on July 24th where we will be able, once again, to voice our concerns. I admit the account is kinda sketchy as I'm headed out the door,
so if any other attendees want to expand on it, correct it or comment, send it
in! July 11, 2007 Washoe Valley Working Groups Answers to the 11 Points to be covered in Tonights Meeting Use this as a guide to your comments 1). Special treatment for the
Weston/Lowden properties in the Specific Plan. July 8, 2007 Staff Report for Planning Commission Meeting of July 11 Review Concerning the Weston/Lowden
Development The property owners are requesting that the Truckee Meadows Service Area (TMSA) be extended to include the parcels commonly known as the Weston/Lowden development at the corners of 395/Eastlake/Skinner. The planning staff says this is necessary to allow for small lot "clustering" of homes as the Regional Plan will only allow 5 acre lots in this area and is recommending to the planning commission that this be approved. Part of the rationale for approving this is that the land is adjacent to the existing TMSA border. If this is the criteria for extending the TMSA then there does not seem to be any limit to where the TMSA can be extended to. If this is approved, New Washoe City will be adjacent to the TMSA and thus subject to inclusion. This opens the door for municipal services and therefore high density development and possible future annexation everywhere.
July 8, 2007 Staff Report for Planning Commission Meeting of July 11 Review Concerning the SVAP In May the County Commissioners referred the matter of the SVAP back to the planning commission in response to the many concerns of the residents expressed at their meeting. They did this in the form of 11 concerns they garnered from the public testimony. I don't know what criteria they used to choose these concerns from the many expressed- there seems to be several major ones that are missing. Be that as it may, here is my review of the staff's responses to the Commission in their "staff report":
May 19, 2007 Commissioner Humke and County Planning Respond COMMENTS: __________________ Thank-you for your e-mail. It will be included in the agenda for the May 22nd meeting; so all commissioners will be made aware of your concerns. Included below is a response to some of the concerns by residents about the South Valleys Area Plan from Adrian Freund, director of Washoe County's community development department. While this does not necessarily reflect my official opinion, it may provide you with some useful information. Sincerely, David Humke _______________________ The South Valleys Area Plan is being completely misrepresented in the e-mails that are circulating in the Washoe Valley Area. The plan seeks to clearly articulate the rural heritage and character of the area, and contains a series of goals and policies specifically designed to ensure that Washoe Valley retains its place as a scenic corridor between Reno and Carson City. The conservation of the area's natural resources, including habitat and water, can be considered a foundation of the plan. The plan does not allow the types of uses mentioned in a letter recently circulated by the supporters of the Scripps WMA. In addition, the plan does not allow the small lot development that now exists in much of East Washoe Valley and in Washoe City (minimum lot sizes on septic tanks are now 5 acres). The plan generally limits new residential development to individuals that own legal lots and can construct a residence by right. The Weston property will have densities of less than one unit per 5 acres and will go through an extensive public hearing process before any development is approved. That property is now zoned General Rural and entitled to one residence per 40 acres. The property will be required to conform to the Regional Plan. I encourage you to obtain a copy of the proposed plan so you can see the extensive treatment given to the concerns you articulate. I would encourage your neighbors to do the same so that they can be fully informed on the plan. You can obtain a copy of the plan by stopping by the office and picking up a paper copy, or you can download a copy at: http://www/comdev/proposed_south_valleys_area_plan_update.htm <http://www/comdev/proposed_south_valleys_area_plan_update.htm> If you have any further concerns please contact staff planner Eric Young at 775-328-3613 or eyoung@washoecounty.us <mailto:eyoung@washoecounty.us> . Thank you, Adrian P. Freund, AICP, Director Washoe County Community Development
Note: The following three articles are related to the County Commissioners Meeting of May 22nd, 2007 and will provide a good review of the issues. Read the articles below them for the history of the SVAP. May 18, 2007 Letter to the County Commissioners Washoe County Board of County Commissioners May 22, 2007 meeting Regarding the South Valley Area Plan: We are sending this important information to you in the hope that you will have time to look it over and better understand our position before the May 22nd meeting. EXPLANATORY INITIAL POINTS There are a few important points that must initially be made. Washoe Valley is defined in the current 2002 Truckee Meadows Regional Plan & the latest update of the 2007 TMRP as a Rural Development Area (RDA). WV is designated a Rural Development Area on the TMRP map. WV is the only part of the SVAP that is a Rural Development Area (RDA). WV is outside the Truckee Meadows Service Area and receives limited services. WV is outside the Future Service Area & Reno’s Sphere of Influence. HISTORY: The negotiated Settlement Agreement required a land use change from tourist commercial to residential for Sierra Reflections development, (located just north of Washoe Valley). The required WC TMSA extension runs south to Pleasant Valley’s Pagni Lane and has capacity only for Sierra Reflections and those landowners in Steamboat & Pleasant Valley who request services. Staff from WC Water Resources & Sierra Reflections representative, Kenneth Krater, have repeatedly and publicly informed the EWV & WWV CABs that the TMSA for Sierra Reflections does NOT have the capacity for Washoe Valley. * On Feb. 20, 2007 Mike Harper told the Washoe County Planning Commission, “Sierra Reflections is a non-conforming use”. As such, it must not be used to set a precedent to introduce the TMSA into Washoe Valley.Before the Settlement Agreement, Reno =s SOI included parts of the SVAP, specifically Steamboat & Pleasant Valley and ended at the top of Washoe Hill, the entrance to Washoe Valley. As a result of the Settlement Agreement, Reno agreed to roll back the SOI from Washoe Hill to Rhodes Road in northern Steamboat for which we, the residents of Washoe Valley, are very grateful to the WC Commissioners.At the Feb. 20th meeting of the WC Planning Commission, Steamboat resident John Rhodes spoke on behalf of himself, his family and the property they own at Rhodes Road, and spoke in favor of the SVAP. The issue we, the SVAP working group, would like to clarify and emphasize is that the Steamboat area, is identified as an Unincorporated Area within the TMSA, which differs greatly from Washoe Valley, a Rural Development Area outside the TMSA. Mr. Rhodes spoke specifically of the family property in Steamboat, and did not address Washoe Valley =s very different situation as a Rural Development Area.SVAP NON-CONFORMANCE ISSUES There are three main points on the enclosed SVAP NON-CONFORMANCE ISSUES which include examples of multiple problems within the Washoe Valley sections of the SVAP; therefore we would like those and all other non-conforming sections of the SVAP changed to conform with the intent and the policies found in the Truckee Meadows Regional Plan. We would request the Board of County Commissioners to direct the following changes as they apply to Washoe Valley; The SVAP must be in full compliance with the TMRP, meaning Washoe Valley will be given; no increase in land use of more than 1 unit per 5 acres in either density or intensity; no residential, commercial and other uses that will require municipal services, i.e. the TMSA, or water/wastewater facilities; no proposed subdivisions that will require municipal services, water/wastewater facilities or TMSA; no Mixed-use District of compact commercial & urban/suburban residential development; no lots of less than 5 acres in density or intensity & no municipal services for the Weston/Lowden Specific Plan; and no TMSA or water/sewer facilities within Washoe Valley; In addition, we request, compliance with the WC Development Code as it relates to land uses proposed for the Old Washoe City Historic Mixed-use Commercial District; no Neighborhood Commercial/Office Regulatory Zone for the Old Washoe City Historic Mixed-use Commercial District; and the opportunity for the land-owners and citizens of Washoe Valley to (once again) choose appropriate commercial and residential land uses for our rural area. (The SVAP working group I apologize for the large amount of information in this back-up packet, but we witnessed many inaccuracies and lies of omission in staff’s public testimony before the WC Planning Commission, Feb. 20th meeting. Therefore we feel it necessary for you to have access to the true situation, and the documentation. Our rural areas, once lost are lost forever.
May 18, 2007 SVAP NON-CONFORMANCE ISSUES with TM Regional Plan, WC Development Code, and Nevada State Water Engineer
Three main points on the issue of non-conformance of the SVAP with; (a) the 2002 Truckee Meadows Regional Plan; (b) the proposed 2007 TMRP, Draft H; (c) the Washoe County Development Code; and (d) the Nevada State Water Engineer. (1) Rural Development Area TMSA-Municipal Services The South Valleys Area Plan is not in conformance with the TMRP in at least the following areas. The TMRP map designates Washoe Valley a Rural Development Area (RDA), and defines the Rural Development Areas (RDA) as outside the TMSA and receiving limited public services. In order to conform to the TMRP and or to protect water quality & quantity, Washoe County; must not allow additional development that requires the provision of municipal services, must not allow new divisions of land that create a parcel of less than 5 acres, and must prohibit amendments that increase the density or intensity to parcels less than 5 acres. (See Documentation # 1through #9) (2 ) Mixed-use TMSA-Municipal Services Mixed-use is used In the TMRP 13 times, 12 in reference to downtown, regional centers, and transit corridors, and 1 time in unincorporated WC within the TMSA, (unincorporated WC is Steamboat and Pleasant Valley, Washoe Valley is a RDA). Mixed-use development creates a more compact pattern of moderate and high-density residential and employment centers. It is used in along the Transit Oriented Development Corridors shown on Map 4, Centers and Corridors. The majority of mixed-use development is in the cities downtown areas. Increased densities of 14 units per acre and inappropriate land uses; condominiums, duplexes, mixed-use (apartments over shops) in the Old Washoe City area could double the population of Washoe Valley, require municipal services, and could jeopardize existing domestic wells. If the same uses expand to the entire Mixed-use District, the population could increase by far more. (See Documentation #10 through #24) (3) Specific Plan Water and Sewer Facilities Specific Plans in the South Truckee Meadows Area Plan and the Spanish Springs Area Plan are used for Industrial Parks, not to increase residential density for one landowner s property. The Specific Plan for the Weston Lowden is not in compliance with the TMRP. The proposed subdivision of 140 units will have half acre lots, Washoe Valley a Rural Development Area requires a 5 acre minimum parcel size. Densities awarded did not take into account Development Constraint Areas within the boundaries of the proposed development. The Specific Plan does not address major infrastructure systems that will be required. Municipal services will be required to serve 140 units. Well and septic systems are not a viable solution for the property. The owners do not own sufficient water rights. The property is in east WV, and in order to protect the quality and quantity of water for domestic wells and the lakes in east Washoe Valley, water rights cannot be transferred from west to east. There are no water rights available in east WV, and those water rights available in west WV cannot be transferred to the eastside, but the water could be piped across the valley. Both the cost of water rights in Washoe Valley and the expense of a pipeline to the Weston/Lowden property, across private land and Hwy 395, and uphill from the proposed development for water pressure would be an extremely expensive proposition. This proposed subdivision is not financially feasible for 140 units, it would need much higher density. In 2005, Mr. Weston planned 480 units on his property, 2005 CPA for Weston/Lowden.(See Documentation #25 through #33) IN ADDITION, the following examples of Goals & Policies in the SVAP update are not in conformance with TMRP intent or policies. To be in conformance with the 2002 TMRP & the 2007 TMRP update; Washoe County must not allow parcels of less than 5 acres, and must prohibit amendments that increase the density and intensity to less than 5 acres in the Washoe Valley area, yet SVAP policies; Increase density to 14 units per acre in the neighborhood commercial areas of old Washoe City, and Allow clustering of 1 unit per half acre for the Specific Plan in east WV, Allow parcels of less than 5 acres when a new water source or more efficient water and wastewater systems is available in east WV, Allow a minimum parcel size of 1 unit per 4 acres in west WV. Washoe County must not allow development that requires municipal service in the Washoe Valley area, yet SVAP policies; Allow water and waste water facilities for the Specific Plan in east WV, Allow community water and sewer service old Washoe City, Allow land uses in the Mixed-use area of old Washoe City that will require municipal services of water and sewer. The mix of land uses includes large shopping malls, schools, hotels with convention facilities, movie theaters, RV parks, gun clubs, condominiums, apartments, heliports, airports, and jails. (all this and more could be allowed within an area of little more than one square mile). (See Documentation #34 through #41) May 18, 2007 Documentation for the Letter To the Commissioners DOCUMENTATION for Three SVAP Non-conformance Issues, and SVAP Goals & Policies
Complete documentation of Non-Conformance Issues (color coded), from the 2002 & 2007 TMRPs, the WC Development Code, the South Valleys Area Plan update, and other sources.ISSUES (1) Rural Development Area/TMSA-Municipal Services 15534. “The Rural Development Area (RDA): The RDA is outside the Truckee Meadows Service Areas, and contains dispersed development and employment on large parcels of land. The RDA will only receive limited public services and facilities.” 15535. TMRP Map 2 designates Washoe Valley a RDA. (TMRP, Map 2: Rural Development Area.)15536. “Rural Development Area: Area within the region lying outside the Truckee Meadows Service Areas.” (TMRP: Glossary: pg III.B.10)15537. “Cities: Main economic drivers; service providers. Home to downtowns and the preponderance of residential, nonresidential, and mixed-use development. County: Service provider. Home to cities and rural area. May include unincorporated communities, which are primarily residential.” (Introduction, Institutional Rolls chart, pg I.13)15538. “The Rural Development Area (RDA) consists of dispersed residential, employment and other uses that do not require the provision of municipal services. To be in conformance with the Regional Plan, Master Plans of Local Governments must not allow additional development within the RDA that requires the provision of municipal service, and must not allow new divisions of land that would create a parcel less than 5 acres in size.” (TMRP: Goal 1, Policy 1.1.5, pg II.B.9)15539. “To be found in conformance with the Regional Plan, and in accordance with the water quality protection policies of the Washoe County District Health Department (WCDHD) and the State Engineer, Master Plans of Local Governments must prohibit amendments to zoning that increase the density or intensity to allow division of parcels to less than 5 acres in size within the rural development area (RDA).” (TMRP: Goal 2.4, Policy 2.4.3, pg II.C.6, (WC District Health, NV State Water Engineer)15540. “Proposed parcel maps and tentative subdivision maps in the East Lake area of the Washoe Valley Hydrographic Basin shall not create parcels of less than five acres until a new imported surface or groundwater water source from a different hydrographic basin is available and approved by the County.” (WC Dev’l Code: Section 110.210.05 (a)(1), pg 210.1)15541. The source of the WC Water Resources map is the Nevada State Water Engineer which identifies the East Washoe Valley 5 acre parcel limitation boundary. (WC Dev’l Code: Section 110.210.05.1, Water Resources Map, pg 210.2, NV State Water Engineer map,)15542. “RDAs: outside the TMSA, and contains dispersed development and employment on large parcels of land. The RDA receives only limited public service and facilities. Ranches; agriculture; forestry; scattered residences, business and commercial services; and certain industrial and recreational uses not compatible with urban or suburban development characterize the rural area.” (TMRP: Goal 1, Policy 1.1.8 pg II.B.10, TMRP, Map 3, Development Constraints Area, TM Regional Planning Agency - Fact Sheet)-1- (2) Mixed-use/TMSA-Municipal Services 15543. “Commercial and mixed-use development will be directed to centers and transit corridors.” (TMRP: Planning Principals - Centers and Corridors, pg II.B.6)15544. “Downtown Centers: Mixed-use areas that contain developments, services and facilities that provide the primary social, cultural, civic and economic focal points of the region. The Downtown Centers will contain high-density residential developments and will have the highest level and range of activities in the region including shopping, recreation, dining and entertainment, gaming and accommodation, employment and education, cultural or community events and public services and facilities. Downtown Centers will be multi-modal and/or transit hubs and be sited along automobile or transit corridors.” (TMRP: Glossary, pg III.B.3)15545. “Regional Centers: Mixed-use areas that contain development and services that provide regional benefit. Regional Centers will have a primary specialized focus and will be substantially self-contained. Regional Centers may contain high-density residential developments and will have a high level and range of activities including shopping, recreation, dining and entertainment, gaming and accommodation, employment and education, cultural or community events and public services and facilities. Regional Centers will include a high level of pedestrian activity. Regional Centers will be multi-modal and/or transit hubs and be sited along automobile or transit corridors.” (TMRP: Glossary, pg III.B.8)15546. “Create a more compact mixed pattern of residential units and employment locations, served by a region-wide multi-modal transportation system, to reduce levels of travel demand, facilitate efficient service provision, and promote a jobs/housing balance;“ (TMRP: Planning Principal 1, pg II.B.1)15547. “Transit-oriented development (TOD): Moderate and high-density housing concentrated in mixed-use developments located along transit routes. The location, design, and mix of uses in a TOD emphasize pedestrian-oriented environments and encourages the use of public transportation.” (TMRP: Glossary, pg III.B.11)15548. “Downtown Centers, Regional Centers and TOD Corridors will be mixed-use, visually attractive and will entice both local residents and visitors to the area, day and night. These Centers and TOD Corridors will promote multi-modal transportation and may support a range of activities including shopping, recreation, dining and entertainment, gaming and accommodation, employment, cultural or community events, as well as providing high density residential opportunities.” (TMRP: Centers & Corridors, pg 6)15549. “Mixed-use and commercial areas will be directed to downtown & regional centers located along transit-oriented development (TOD) corridors, Map 4. (TMRP: pgs II.B.6, III.B.3)15550. Centers and TOD Corridors: Require mixed uses through amendments of zoning code and development of Best Practices development guidelines for centers and corridors;” (TMRP: Centers & Corridors, Policy 1.2.9.(4))15551. In the TMRP mixed use is mentioned 13 times, 12 in reference to downtown, regional centers, and transit corridors, and once in unincorporated WC within the TMSA. (Unincorporated WC includes Steamboat & Pleasant Valley, not the Washoe Valley RDA.) (TMRP: pgs II.B.3, 6, 17, 18, & 22)15552. “The preponderance of residential, nonresidential, and mixed-use development will be in the Cities downtown areas.” (TMRP: pg I.13)
-2- 15553. Regional Centers, Map 4,areas defined as “mixed-use areas that contain development and services that provide regional benefit.” (TMRP: pg III.B.8)15554. Transit-oriented development (TOD), Map 4, is defined as “moderate and high-density housing concentrated in mixed-use developments located along transit routes.” (TMRP: pg III.B.11)15555. “Downtown Centers: Mixed-use areas that contain developments, services and facilities that provide the primary social, cultural, civic and economic focal points of the region. The Downtown Centers will contain high-density residential developments and will have the highest level and range of activities in the region - including shopping, recreation, dining and entertainment, gaming and accommodation, employment and education, cultural or community events and public services and facilities. Downtown Centers will be multi-modal and/or transit hubs and be sited along automobile or transit corridors.” (TMRP: Glossary, pg III.B.3)15556. “The Regional Plan provides direction and standards for how and where development occurs in the Truckee Meadows and nearby areas in Washoe County.” “TMSAs: the zone within which municipal services and infrastructure will be provided. The TMSA promotes a more compact form of future development. It includes the high-intensity core areas and existing and planned urban and suburban uses. The Regional Plan seeks to limit the spread of the urban footprint and direct a portion of development of homes and jobs toward the traditional core of the region - it’s downtowns, regional centers, and transportation corridors.” “This strategy will redirect some growth that might otherwise occur at the urban fringe make a more efficient use of land, natural resources and community services; save money on infrastructure, reduce dependence on the private automobile; promote multi-modal transportation choices; protect air quality; conserve energy; preserve open space; and create more affordable communities.” (TMRP: Goal 1, Policy 1.1.8 pg II.B.10, TMRP, Map 3, Development Constraints Area, TM Regional Planning Agency - Fact Sheet)15557. “Mixed-use development and redevelopment in certain portions of the Old Washoe City Historic Commercial District Management Area are encouraged. In order to facilitate a more efficient and community-oriented land use pattern, to influence average daily trips on local roadways, to ensure the social and economic viability of this important area, and to provide for necessary community services, the following bonuses and design standards may be applied: a. In NC regulatory zones, in conjunction with a primary use allowed under that designation, uses allowed under a residential regulatory zone can be established at densities not to exceed 14 units per acre. b. Mixed-use developments must be proposed as a unified project. c. Mixed-use developments must integrate architectural and pedestrian features, landscaping and buffering so as to create a unified design. d. Development proposals in the OWCHCD should provide for future or demonstrate current pedestrian integration with neighboring parcels.” (SVAP: Policy 8.1, pg 24)(3) Specific Plan/Water & Sewer Facilities 15558. Specific Plan: The minimum residential lot size is half an acre. Twenty percent of the total residential lots may be less than 1 acre. 15559. Specific Plan: Any necessary public infrastructure such as water or waste water facilities shall be located, landscaped and designed in a manner such that the impact on any existing residential development is minimized. (SVAP: East Washoe Valley, Goal 5, SV.5.1 (j), pg 19)-3- 15560. Specific Plan: W//L property has insufficient water rights. The property is located on a hill of Basalt bedrock with few water bearing fractures, and is covered by a shallow 1-2 feet of soil. According to well reports from the State Water Engineer’s office and an opinion from the District Health Department, well and traditional septic systems are problematic. (Well reports, Weston/Lowden 2006 CPA, WC District Health letter)15561. “All specific plans shall include, as a minimum, the subjects set forth in this section. (c) The distribution, location and extent of major infrastructure systems to address transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste and other essential services (including a Streets and Highways System Plan map and associated text and a Public Services and Facilities Plan map and associated text).” (WC Dev’l Code: Section 110.816.10, Contents)15562. Specific Plans require the distributions, location and extent of major infrastructure systems to address sewage, water, drainage, and other essential services. (WC Dev’l Code: Section 110.816.10 Contents)15563. Specific Plan: Waste water disposal from a private system is problematic due to shallow soil and volcanic bedrock with few fractures. (Well reports, WC Dept of Health letter)15564. Specific Plan: Water rights may not be transferred from west to east WV, by WC code and the State Water Engineer s office, due to a lack of water in east WV and water quality concerns. There are few water rights in east WV and those are not for sale being held by the owners for their own use. (Conversation with Vahid Behmaram, Water Resources; David Vhay, landowner east WV, agricultural fields)15565. Specific Plan: Water rights may not be transferred, but well water could be piped from the west to the east side of the valley for the W/L property. Water rights are very costly and will be sold to the highest bidder. To pipe the water across the valley, across Hwy 395 and uphill from the development, 1½ to 2 miles, would require access & right of way across private and public lands and would be very expensive. The water would need to be stored uphill from the development to create the necessary water pressure. It would not be financially feasible to serve 140 units. (Conversation with Vahid Behmaram, Water Resources)15566. Weston/Lowden 2005 CPA; Question 8, “Do you own sufficient water rights?, No”; 8(f) “Adequate water rights will be purchased prior to recordation of any subdivision maps. @; Question 9(a) “Water System Type: Public water, Provider: Washoe County,” 9(d) “Water facility improvements including water lines, pumps and tanks will be funded by the development.”; Question 10(a) “Sewer System Type: Public system, Provider: Washoe County;” 10(d) “Extension of a sewer main to the property will be funded by the development.” (State Water Engineer Well reports, CPA For Weston / Lowden - 2005, WC Dept of Health letter)SVAP UPDATE Goals and Policies 15567. Low Density Suburban, 1 unit per acre is allowed in Old Washoe City Historic Mixed-use District. 15568. Weston/Lowden property: The minimum residential lot size is half an acre. Twenty percent of the total residential lots may be less than 1 acre. (SVAP: East Washoe Valley, Goal 5, SV.5.1 (g), pg 19)
-4- 15569. Weston/Lowden property: Any necessary public infrastructure such as water or waste water facilities shall be located, landscaped and designed in a manner such that the impact on any existing residential development is minimized. (SVAP: East Washoe Valley, Goal 5, SV.5.1 (j), pg 19)15570. “No new parcels or subdivisions of less than five acres will be created in the East Lake area of the Washoe Valley Hydrographic Basin until a new imported water source is available or a water and wastewater system is approved that does not adversely affect the basin’s water balance and sustainable yield.” (See Area Plan and Hydrobasins map) (SVAP: East Washoe Valley, Goal 23, SV.23.7, pg 35)15571. “Minimum lot size and maximum densities for private open space developments are as follows: Low Density Rural (LDR): One unit per 8 acres, minimum parcel size - 8 acres. Medium Density Rural (MDR): One unit per 4 acres, minimum parcel size 4 acres.” (SVAP: West Washoe Valley, Goal 6, SV.6.2 (a), pg 22)15572. Old Washoe City Historic Mixed-use Character Management Area is designated a Suburban Community Water and Sanitary Sewer Service Area on the map. (SVAP: Public Services & Facilities Plan Map)15573. New Land Uses being introduced to Washoe Valley; ALL mixed together in the Neighborhood Commercial & General Rural (agricultural use) area of Old Washoe City. (a) Mixed-use: (apartments over shops); (b) Neighborhood Commercial: Community Centers (strip malls), Commercial Educational Services, Indoor Entertainment, Indoor Sports and Recreation, Convention and Meeting Facilities (in conjunction with another primary permitted use only), Hotels and Motels, Outdoor Sports Club (rifle ranges, skeet club); (c) General Rural: Duplex, Multi-Family, Single Family Attached, Education, Major Public Facilities, Automotive Sales, Commercial Campground Facilities/RV Park, Outdoor Sports Club, Helicopter Services; (d) Residential: Duplex, Multi-Family (condominiums), Single Family Attached (townhouse/apartments); (e) Civic Uses: Education (elementary, high schools), Major Public Facilities (airport, detention/correction facilities, landfill; “major public facilities use type refers to public facilities that provide a significant service and have a substantial impact on the community”). (SVAP: Appendix A, Table 2, Allowed Uses, (definitions are from WC Dev’l Code, Article 304 Use Classification System))15574. Commercial: Community Centers Definition. “Community centers refers to shopping establishments containing some services of the neighborhood center plus other services providing a greater depth and range of merchandise than contained in the neighborhood center. A community center may be built around a department store or a variety store as the major tenant. A community center generally serves a trade area population of 40,000 to 50,000 people, typically has a service area radius of one to three miles, and has a typical range of 50,000 to 150000 sq ft of gross leaseable area.” (WC Dev’l Code: 110.304.25 (f)(2))May 18, 2007 Write A Letter, Attend a Meeting For Your "Quality of Life" Dear Friends of Washoe Valley, outdoor
recreation, and wildlife;
May 5, 2007 Look Out! Houses Instead of Horses Did you know that the Washoe County Planning Commission has decided that the
best way to minimize the development of Washoe Valley is to build houses? March 18, 2007 SVAP Approved...Unfortunately From a correspondent: On Tuesday, February 20th, the Washoe County Planning Commission voted to accept the highly flawed South Valleys Area Plan. I can't say what happened was the Planning Commissions fault. They depend upon Community Development staff, whose job it is to inform the with complete and accurate facts in order for them to make fully informed decisions. The commission members asked the right questions, but the staff planner, a master of deceit, answered with lies of omission, obfuscation, and word games meant to misinform. The planning commission believed staff's misinformation and voted to accept a plan that will introduce suburbia to rural Washoe Valley. My thanks go out to Neal Cobb, the one commission member able to see through the smoke screen and vote against this plan. The SVAP, as written, will bring suburban housing and commercial uses into Washoe Valley. It changes zoning in old Washoe City to "Mixed Use" allowing high density condominiums, and apartments over shops. It introduces hotel/motels with convention facilities. It introduces utility services, water and sewer to serve all this development. It approves inappropriate housing density for the Weston/Lowden property which will require water/sewer even though the owner's have no water rights. The Department of Community Development carries the ethical
responsibility of seeing that staff perform their duties to Commission and and
Board members, if not the public, with the utmost honesty. The sad truth is,
when it serves their purpose, ethics are the last thing on their mind: it's all
about development and not at all about community. Our last chance is the Board of County Commissioner's April meeting. If they fail us, I'm very sorry to say Washoe Valley will change from a rural community to a suburb of Reno (and look like south Reno-ed).
February 25, 2007 The minutes of the February 3rd joint meeting of the Steamboat/Pleasant Valley/Washoe Valley CABs and the county planning dept. along with public comment is here. Your editor went to the meeting and my review is here. January 30, 2007 Several meetings of the SVAP Working Group and EWCAB are underway behind the scenes to try to provide input on the finishing touches to the Plan are underway in preparation for the big Joint Meeting on Saturday. SVAP Draft Update Released. Find the latest version of the update here with clarifications, changes and photos.
January 22, 2007 NOTICE OF JOINT MEETING
December 3rd, 2006: Proposed Area Plan on County Website for Review. Comments will be collected until January 15th. Staff Report: County Planners Report to the Planning Commission on SVAP Progress as of September 19, 2006 Planner Eric Young sent this invitation to the next planning commission meeting and the staff report to be presented to washoevalley.org on September 13, 2006. It is characterized this way: "This item is agendized as a non-action item. However, staff intends to use the planning commission’s discussion of this item as guidance in the development of the final draft that will come before the commission for adoption at a later public hearing. |
.jpg)
.JPG)
.JPG)
