The Reno City Council voted unanimously not to annex the Evans Creek property into the City of Reno. The parcels are within the City of Reno’s “Sphere of Influence”. There are four parcels (1019 acres total) owned by the Evans Creek LLC (Stillwater, MN). The property is also known as Ballardini Ranch.
Angela Fuss, Reno Planning Manager
- This is a petition for voluntary annexation meaning that it is requested by the developer rather than being selected by the city.
- The number of homes is not yet determined. One proposal was for 203 homes while the later one was for 1256 homes (the maximum allowable under expected zoning). The terrain will not allow the maximum number to be built. The final count is likely to be closer to 600.
- There is no development plan or master plan amendment at this time. It is not a requirement for annexation.
- The property has two entrances. From the North, it can be accessed from McCarran Blvd. From the South, it can be accessed by Lonetree Lane which is not paved.
- The majority of the homes would be built on the northern parcel which has slopes of roughly 15% while the southern parcels have slopes around 30%.
- A 2016 study revealed excess supply in expensive single family homes with more demand for multi-family and affordable homes. “Reno needs a balance of different types of housing.”
- The list of properties that Reno wants to annex has not been updated since 2010.
Nathan Gilbert, representing the developer
- The Reno planning staff has twice submitted reports recommending “unconditional approval”.
- The development would feature “high end” homes on large lots that would be a fiscal benefit to Reno.
- The zoning on the southern properties would indicate a total of 40 residential units. These would be 5-40 acre lots. There is an excess supply of such homes according to the 2016 study.
- This has been categorized as a “Tier-2” property for annexation. That means it is lower priority than “Tier-0” or “Tier-1”.
- The city committed to do an inventory of properties that could be developed within Reno’s Sphere of Influence in 2018. This has not been done.
- The developer did not provide detail required for the slope requested nor did they provide a concurrent master plan to relate back to the Reno master plan (Re-Imagine Reno).
- Residents are concerned what the development will look like, and the council needs to understand the purpose.
- The two access points are insufficient for a 1,000 acre development.
- Sewer service would be provided by the Truckee Meadows Water Reclamation Facility which is already operating at capacity.
- There are conflicting claims of water rights and water easements. These should be resolved before annexation.
- Following annexation, Reno will be responsible for sewer, water, fire protection and police protection.
- A number of fires have started on this property and have grown to damage homes on neighboring properties.
Trey Palmer, Fire Marshall
- The closest Reno Fire Department station to the property is #7 on Skyline which could get to the property’s northern entrance in 2-4 minutes. The response to any home would be longer given that it is such a large property.
- The fire engine response from the South would be problematic. The nearest station is #12 and it is not close. Fire response would further be hindered by the state of Lonetree Lane.
- This property is at the Urban/Wildland interface and is considered a high fire hazard area. There is a history of fires originating on the property.
Public comment messages received:
1 letter in support; 55 letters in opposition; 30 letters expressing concern
Public Comment by remote phone:
The attorney for the Pines property to the west of the Evans Creek wants to see the city annex the Evans Creek property. He wants to see the planning be coordinated with the Pines property for roadway, utilities and trails.
Duerr moved not to annex at this time for the following reasons.
- Inadequate access
- Housing type not needed now
- High fire hazard and poor fire fighting access
- Water issues unresolved
- Number of homes undetermined
Councilmember Reese seconded
Brekhus, Duerr, Reese, Delgado, Schieve, Weber, and Jardon voted “aye” remotely.