The Washoe County Planning Commission unanimously denied the proposal from the Washoe County Planning Department to include a new higher-density zoning category in the Washoe County Master Plan for the Southwest Area Plan (WMPA22-0004) on Tuesday, March 1. Given that the planning department operates under the supervision of the county commissioners, it is likely that the county commissioners favor this change.

There were 15 residents in attendance (or remote) who expressed the following concerns during public comment. In addition, there were 27 e-mails sent to the commissioners in opposition.

• The proposal does not include a consideration of the impact of the zoning change on traffic, schools, public safety, and sewer services. It does not consider the impact on the character of the neighborhoods.
• This proposed change is to favor a specific development project at the top of Zolezzi Rd on a property donated to the Reno Christian Fellowship (12.55 acres).
• Homeowners intentionally bought homes in areas with low-density zoning. The county should not change the zoning requirements after the residents have invested there.
• Concern that the area will run out of water with increased density.
• Schools will not be able to handle higher population densities.
• The Master Plan is a strategic document and should not be changed without compelling justification.
• Allowing this change would set a precedent that such a change could be incorporated in other parts of the county.
• The existing area plan indicates that the area is mature and largely developed. The emphasis should be on maintaining the existing communities rather than allowing additional growth.
• No study has been done that indicates this zoning change is needed.
• There are many undeveloped properties that allow for growth with no zoning change.
• Any changes should be incorporated in the new “Envision Washoe 2040” master plan.

Julie Olander made a presentation from the staff describing the change.

Planning Commissioner questions and discussion

• Patricia Phillips: “Is there some kind of emergency that makes this necessary?” Olander “This did come out of the discussion of the Christian Fellowship Property request. That is what is motivating this change at this time.” Trevor Lloyd (planner) “This is a correction to the area plan to include LDS-2 that was not available at the time the Southwest Area Plan was written, but would have been included if it had been available.” Phillips would like to know where the lots are located that would be affected by this zoning change. She is concerned that higher density zoning near the Reno boundary could encourage Reno to extend their sphere-of-influence or to consider annexation. Olander “This is not a blanket permission. Any property to be rezoned would come before the Planning Commission for approval.” Phillips “Changing the density changes the character of the area. It sets a precedent. It does not conform to the existing plan.” “I’ve been on CAB’s and the Planning Commission since 2006, and I’ve seen a growing mistrust on the part of the public about what is pushed down their throats.”
• Kate Nelson expressed concern that with the policy change you can get one parcel at a time applying for a zoning change. Such changes would not require a study of the road and school impacts. Olander countered that any zoning change still requires review and approval and that the impacts would be considered even if the changes were piecemeal. Olander went on to say that Medium Density Suburban zoning (3 homes per acre) is already available in the area. Nelson said that the wildfire evacuation last year left all the major roads completely choked indicating that they were already inadequate with the existing zoning.
• Michael Flick asked why the minimum lot size for LDS-2 is 17,500 sqft when a half an acre is over 21,000 sqft. Lloyd answered that the density and lot sizes are not quite the same thing. The minimum lot size allows for some variation in lot sizes where some lots in a development will be slightly over the nominal size and some will be slightly under. The density defines the average lot size for the development.
• Sarah Chvilicek “The staff report indicates that this is an amendment. It is not just a policy change.” “The change would affect the character.” Lloyd responded that the area plans were never intended to become regulatory documents at a detail level. Chvilicek is concerned that such zoning changes erode public trust in the process.
• Larry Chesney “Because we have an ongoing revision of the master plan, I see no urgency here to move on this tonight. I can’t support it at all. I can’t make four of the findings. Something just isn’t right with this in my mind.” “Contrary to Lloyd’s statement about the area plans being too regulatory, I find that if it wasn’t for the area plans, all hell would break loose in this county worse than it has already from the development standpoint.”
• Francine Donshick “I have some uncomfortable feelings about this myself.”
• Larry Peyton “I don’t see the point of this since a zoning change would require approval of the Planning Commission anyway. They could apply now for a Special Use Permit to achieve the same result.” Lloyd said this was incorrect: an applicant could only apply for LDS (1 per acre) or MDS (3 per acre).

Commissioner Chesney moved to deny the master plan amendment. The vote was unanimous.

The following commissioners couldn’t make the following findings.

• Chesney; 2, 3, 4, 5
• Nelson; 1, 3, 4, 5
• Chvilicek; 1, 3, 4, 5
• Donshick; 1, 3, 4, 5
• Nelson; 1, 3, 4, 5
• Peyton; 2, 4, 5
• Phillips; 1, 2, 3, 4
• Flick; 1, 2, 4

Washoe County Planning Commission Findings

• #1 Consistency with the Master Plan
• #2 Compatible land uses
• #3 Response to changing conditions
• #4 Availability of facilities
• #5 Desired pattern of growth

The meeting highlighted an absence of trust. This was referenced repeatedly by the commissioners. The residents don’t trust the county process to protect the character of their neighborhoods and maintain their quality of life. It was evident from the meeting that there was also a lack of trust between the planning commissioners and the planning staff members.

This decision by the planning commission is subject to appeal. Given that no applicant (eg developer) requested this change, it is not clear who might appeal it. Can the planning department appeal a planning commission decision regarding a policy change?

Agenda

News-4

Planning Commission Staff Report

The Washoe County Planning Commission will consider amending the zoning categories in the unincorporated county master plan to include a category for 2 homes per acre (LDS-2). Currently, 1-home-per-acre is the highest density zoning allowed for master plan amendments. This change favors developers for whom higher densities allow for greater profit. This runs counter to the original intent of the county’s area plans that specify a rural or pastoral setting outside the City of Reno where higher housing densities are expected. Many residents of the unincorporated county live there specifically because they don’t want the urban-density development. The proposal is originating from the Washoe County Planning Department under the direction of the Board of County Commissioners.

Residents can attend the meeting on Tuesday, 3/1/2022 at 6:00 PM via Zoom with this LINK.

Residents can also contact any of the planning commissioners to let them know their opinions. Comments will be tallied as “for” or “against”. Some of them may be read in the meeting. You are not limited to contacting only the planning commissioner for your district.

Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 3/1/2022

Zoning Proposal for LDS-2

Washoe County is seeking public input on a new proposal to add “Low Density Suburban -2” zoning to the Southwest Area Plan which would allow 2 homes per acre. Presently, the county requires 1 acre residential lots (minimum) except for areas originally identified as “Medium Density Suburban” (3 homes per acre). This is a broad attempt at increasing residential density in the unincorporated county. This change is not needed to support area growth. The existing zoning will support growth beyond the next 20 years according to the Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Authority. Higher density zoning will favor the development interests while undermining the quality of life of existing homeowners.

You can attend this meeting at 5:00 PM via Zoom

The contact in the county planning department is Julee Olander. You can send her an e-mail at jolander@washoecounty.gov or call her at 775.328.3627.

Here is my e-mail to Ms. Olander.

“Ms. Olander,
Please record and report my opposition to the proposal to amend the Southwest Area Plan to add a zoning designation of “Low Density Suburban 2”. I have the following concerns.

• Higher density zoning will detract from the quality of life for existing residents and may affect property values.
• The county has been irresponsible in the approval of developments to the detriment of the character of this area. Some of these developments undermine public safety to a scandalous degree. Adding a higher-density zoning category will only enable an expansion of the county’s malfeasance.
• Under existing zoning, there are buildable lots to support more than 20 years of anticipated growth in Washoe County. The addition of the LDS-2 zoning category is not needed.

I ask you to relay my opposition to WMPA22-0004.

 Steve Wolgast"

>>> UPDATE:
There will be a second meeting on Thursday 2/3 noon - 1:00 PM with Washoe County Senior Planner, Eric Young, and planning consultants from the firm Logan and Simpson at the Washoe Lake State Park Equestrian Area.  
Washoe County 2040 
Flyer https://washoerap.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/envision-washoe-flier.pdf
Envision Plan

Please take 10 minutes to support your neighbors opposing this irresponsible new development on the Evans Ranch property. The Rancho-IV development was denied by the Reno Planning Commission, but it was appealed to the City Council by the developer. It will be heard on January 26, 2022. You can conveniently write your City Councilmember based on your ward, or you can write all of them since they all get a vote on the project. I would copy the City Clerk too. It is very effective to call as well. The agenda is not yet posted for this meeting to indicate the order of agenda items to know when this appeal will be considered. With the pandemic conditions changing, the meeting could be remote.

Rancho-IV concerns:

• Road access is dangerously inadequate especially for evacuation in case of a wildfire.
• This is a popular area for hiking and recreation.
• This property is a wildlife corridor.
• The property is steep: grading and filling will despoil the hillsides and the wetland area.
• It is not consistent with the Reno master plan.

Contact your City Councilmember