February 20, 2003
Washoe County Commissioners
Washoe County Planning Commission
Southwest Truckee Meadows Citizen Advisory Board
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I wish to express my concern regarding the Legacy Farms proposal to
develop the old Elcano Ranch located at the corner of Lakeside Drive
and Holcomb Lane. I have lived in the Southwest Truckee Meadows for
over 30 years, and I own over 30 acres adjacent to Legacy Farms, bisected
only by a portion of Holcomb Lane.
As I understand it, Legacy Farms proposes a development, on 2.5 acre
parcels, on the Elcano Ranch that would significantly restrict the exterior
appearance of structures, making the same a pre-approved color, and
requiring pre-approved architecture, all of which is alien to the longstanding
culture of the center of the country atmosphere that has existed in
this part of the Truckee Meadows. As I understand it, the there will
also be limits on rural uses that have been otherwise generally a part
of this rural community.
Immediately upon learning of this development, I called the developers
and was told that there were no changes that would be made. I am deeply
concerned about this because it will disrupt the character of the area
and attract future developers to build similar types of subdivisions
in this area. When this begins, the uniqueness of this area will be
lost, and the property values diminished.
It is this kind of development that should not be permitted. All of
the parcels in this area are basically free from restrictions for rural
use. There have been no restrictions on appearance of subdivisions requiring
similar construction or exterior appearing buildings in the heart of
this rural residential area. In the early 1980's the County adopted
a plan, with the help of this Advisory Board, to permanently protect
the rural residential spirit of this informal community. To date this
has been respected. I hope you will continue to respect the same.
There was a time that the parcel that I now own housed a guest ranch.
When the guest ranch went out of business, it was my thought to propose
a tennis club in the area. I was relatively new to the area at that
time. I then learned of the strong desire on the part of the residents
to retain the rural culture that has been in existence for such a long.
I immediately rejected the plan, sending a letter to the neighbors in
the area, expressing my regrets for having made the proposal, unaware
of the longstanding character of the area, with which I now completely
agree.
Should Legacy Farms refuse to do so, I hope you will respect the efforts
and the culture of the individuals who have built up this wonderful
unique country environment. Please, therefore, deny the Legacy Farms
application should it come before you prior to any such voluntary withdrawal
on their part.
Sincerely,
Warren
Nelson
3535 Fairview Road
Reno, NV 89511
February
20, 2003
Elaine Steiner, Chair
and Members of the Southwest Truckee Meadow Citizens Advisory Board
Dear Members of the Advisory Board:
I have lived in the Southwest Truckee Meadows ever since I was a young
girl. My parents, Harry and Ethel Frost, had a ranch, a portion of which
is now known as the Frost Ranch on Lakeside Drive, where I grew up.
My family has been in this area for over 50 years.
My sister and I lived on horses. We roamed the hills from Lakeside Drive
to Thomas Creek. We knew the members of the Ballardini family, and the
home in which they now reside is on a portion of the old Ballardini
Ranch. Katy Ballardini Lombardi, a member of the Ballardini family,
ranched and farmed on our place for nearly all of her later years. The
property on which we now reside is only a couple of hundred yards from
the Legacy Farms property, previously owned by Paul and Alice Elcano.
I am particularly concerned with the development in a number of respects.
I believe it should be denied for the following reasons:
First, I believe that the effort on the part of the developers to construct
a number of homes clustered on that parcel which are to have similar
architecture and exterior appearance will dramatically change the ìlookî
of our area. It will also encourage other developers to come into the
area to do the same. While I am aware that the architecture will be
ìcountryî in style, the similarity in appearance, the similarity
of exterior, on the Elcano property, will permanently change what over
the decades has been considered an informal country atmosphere with
no architectural restrictions. A very important and strong attribute
of this whole area for many years has been the informality and country
nature of the lifestyle we have. To inject into the center of this area
a subdivision on 2.5 acre lots, all with similar architecture and appearance,
will completely change the quiet, informal nature of the area, and run
totally contrary to the character and culture which has been respected
by those of us who have lived here for several decades, and those of
us who are new in the area but who still respect and desire this lifestyle.
Second, I am aware that the developers of this subdivision propose to
prohibit or limit ownership of horses and other farm animals, except
with the possible consent of the developers. While this may be acceptable
in the ìfringeî areas leading from urban to suburban lifestyle,
to attempt this restriction in the center of this truly rural area will
encourage a transition to urban use and will, I believe, add to the
downfall of this informality and truly rural lifestyle that exists here.
Third, there has been no plan which has surfaced to date which proposes
to assure the protection of Dry Creek (a portion of which runs through
my property), and that a number of lots infringe on or traverse Dry
Creek. If this kind of development were to occur up and down Dry Creek
on lots that small (as mentioned, one of the tributaries of Dry Creek
runs through my property and then travels down through the Elcano property),
it would lose its purity and character. I believe that protections should
exist that there are no uses that would detract from the purity of this
spring-fed creek and that those protections should be enforceable by
all parcels on the subdivision and should be embedded in the CC&R's.
I should mention that we are presently selling three lots of our ranch,
one lot approximately six acres in size, another approximately seven
acres in size, another approximately 25 acres in size. We would never
attempt to restrict the architecture, appearance or use on these lots,
since it would be determined to be inconsistent with the area. Moreover,
to attempt to do so would cause us, I believe, to lose money. In fact,
I believe the value of all parcels will be reduced if this development
should occur. People move to this area because it is uniquely informal
and rural in lifestyle. The culture would be seriously eroded if there
began to be look-alike subdivisions in this area. In this entire area,
restrictions have not been needed and the people in this area have not
tried to impose those restrictions on others. I believe that the owners
and developers of Legacy Farms should respect this informality, as we
have over the years, and as we are presently doing with our own parcels
that are available for sale.
I should note that Warren and Pat Nelson, who own a large parcel of
property next to the Legacy Farms (and which also has a tributary of
Dry Creek running through it, the same one that runs through my property
and then down to the Elcano property), once considered using a portion
of their property for a tennis club. It was their intent to convert
an old guest ranch that had been on their property to a tennis environment
when the guest ranch went out of business. When it became apparent to
the Nelsons that this would interfere with the atmosphere that has been
enjoyed over the years, they quickly retracted those plans to do so
and sent letters to all around them that they also believed this culture
should be respected now and in the future. This is the kind of informal
understanding that exists out here.
For these reasons I believe the Legacy Farms application for development
should be denied.
While we all recognize that an owner of property in this area should
have the general right to sell lots 2.5 acres in size. However, the
configuration of these lots, the lack of protection of the wetlands
and Dry Creek, the uncertainties regarding the use of underground water
and wells, the effort to constrict what has been typical rural activity
and uses, and the desire to restrict the appearance and architecture
of the buildings, makes the proposed development, considered in total,
quite unacceptable.
Accordingly, please deny the Legacy Farms application.
Sincerely,
Odile
Frost Brady
8990 Lomardi Road
Reno, Nevada
Back to Legacy Farms Index Page