LEGACY FARMS
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP CASE NO. TM02-007
SPECIAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. SW02-021
WASHOE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
-o0o-

1001 EAST NINTH STREET
RENO, NEVADA

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2003 9:50 P.M.
Reno, Nevada

A P P E A R A N C E S

Commissioners Present:
Stephen Rogers, Chair
Robert M. Doxey, Vice Chair
Florence M. Frandsen
Daniel N. Salerno
Mary Sanada
Mark Sullivan
Commissioner Absent:Robert Fink

Other County Representatives Present:
James Barnes, Deputy District Attorney
Adrian Freund, AICP, Director, Community Development
Sharon Kvas, AICP, Planning Manager
Roger Pelham, Assistant Planner

MR. ROGER PELHAM: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. Let me see if I can work through a series of notes that I have used this evening and come up with the correct set for this project.

The case for your consideration at this time is the Legacy Farms [application for approval of Tentative] Subdivision [Map] and Special Use Permit.

This project has been a long time in coming to the Commission for a variety of reasons. The project has evolved over time since it was originally submitted, and so we're going to talk about some of those differences this evening.

The project is located on the northeast corner of Holcomb Ranch Lane and Lakeside Drive. (Mr. Pelham showing items on an overhead projector.) This is obviously an overhead photograph of the site. The subject property is actually two parcels, and it is outlined in yellow. The white lines you see here are topography. It is at the corner of Holcomb and Lakeside, approximately one mile west of the intersection of Holcomb Ranch Lane and Thomas Creek Road.

The two subject parcels total just over 34 acres and are designated high density rural. That land use designation allows one dwelling unit per two and a half acres. Thus, the land use designation creates the right to develop up to 13 residential lots on the two subject parcels. The Washoe County development code allows those residential lots to be as small as 2.0 acres. Dry Creek, or the north middle fork of Dry Creek, flows east-west across the subject parcel approximately in this area, (indicating with pointer).

Dry Creek is a Significant Hydrologic Resource, identified in the Washoe County Development Code. Thus, development within 30 feet of the centerline of the stream is within what we call the Critical Stream Zone and within 150 feet is the Sensitive Stream Zone, and subject to the provisions of Article 418 of the Development Code, and that's a Significant Hydrologic Resource.

The Applicant has proposed to develop the subject parcels to their full development potential based on the current land use designation. As can be seen, the land use designation, many of the surrounding -- or I should say all of the surrounding parcels is also HDR, high density rural, and here in the southwest a couple of parcels away is some Low Density Suburban, which is one dwelling unit per acre, and General Rural, which is one dwelling [unit] per 40 acres.

This is the proposed lot configuration for the 13 parcels that are proposed to be created. The Applicant has made many changes to the design of the proposed subdivision, in great measure due to concerns and criticisms of the project that were expressed at the [Southwest Truckee Meadows] Citizen Advisory Board meeting. Due to a number of delays and additional information, that was actually heard in November 2002, January and February 2003, by the Southwest Truckee Meadows Citizen Advisory Board.

These changes are as follows: The minimum lot size originally was 2.0 acres which is allowed in a High Density Rural, and that was up to the 2.5 which is the same as the density. The Applicant has modified the project so that Legacy land no longer will be gated, but simply a private road.

There was a sewer lift station proposed to be placed approximately here in an easement within Parcel 9 within the Critical Stream Zone that has been entirely removed from the project. The Applicant is now proposing to use individual pumps on each one of the houses to move the effluent to the sewer line.

The Applicant has also removed a pond that was proposed to be placed approximately here within the Critical Stream [Zone].

Concern was expressed about the possible impact in terms of traffic and sight distance at the intersection of Holcomb and Lakeside, this area. The Applicant will be required to meet all standards set by the Washoe County Engineering Division.

Concerns were expressed by the CAB [Southwest Truckee Meadows Citizen Advisory Board] and by the public at the meetings regarding the availability and deliverability of surface water rights for irrigation of landscaping on each parcel. The Applicant responded that the water rights will be conveyed with each parcel, and staff has conditioned that the delivery system will be designed prior to the recordation of a final map, and that would be Condition No. 12 in your staff report.

Concern was expressed over the architectural control proposed for the subdivision. The draft conditions, covenants and restrictions required that all houses are required to be painted white and include either brick or stone elements. The Applicant stated that these may be relaxed in the final CC&Rs, but they do retain the right for architectural control. But essentially each one of these homes will be a custom home. It won't be a matter of coming in and building the same floor plan over and over, but they will be required to share design elements.

Concern was also expressed over the addition of 13 domestic wells within the subdivision, [and] the negative effects that it may have on the surrounding wells. The Applicant owns or will purchase the groundwater rights from the basin for the proposed wells.

And at this point I'm going to depart from my prepared comments. This Monday we did receive a letter -- Monday morning -- received a letter from District Health recommending denial of this project based on those 13 wells, they were quoting state regulations. In the few days following, the Applicant has done considerable work in getting with the state, and then with the Health Department, and I was delivered a letter today at just past 5:00 this evening that is now recommending approval of the subdivision from the District Health Department with nine conditions, and then this is recommending approval with the domestic wells, and that letter dated March 13, 2003, was included in the packet that I handed out to each one of you this evening, and it will actually be the first one right past -- I have a sheet that says Legacy Farms, Additional Information, it should be the first one to follow that.

And back to my prepared notes. Concern was expressed over the intersection of Legacy Lane, Lakeside and a driveway that does exist at this point. I will allow the Applicant to address that concern.

The Nevada Department of Transportation has included a number of conditions that must be met. And my understanding is that the current location of that driveway in relationship to Legacy Lane is not going to be acceptable, that essentially they have been instructed to work something out amicably.

Legacy Lane is going essentially on top of the existing access to the farm that has been there, the existing residence is approximately in this area, and this is an access that has been used for many years.

Concerns were also expressed over reference in the draft CC&Rs to multi-family dwellings and parcels. Staff has conditioned all references to multi-family dwellings and parcels be removed, and that none of the parcels be further subdivided at any point in the future. Staff concerns for this project centered primarily around the request to grade within the Critical Stream Zone of Dry Creek. This is a photograph essentially looking east across the subject parcel, and this is Dry Creek in this area. The Applicant has removed the lift station and the pond within the Critical Stream Zone. Most of staff's concerns have been addressed by the Applicant.

From the beginning the Applicant presented building envelopes that are outside of the Critical Stream Zone. And it should be noted that single family dwellings are allowed as a right within the Sensitive Stream Zones; in other words, within the Critical Stream Zone -- that is 30 feet on either side -- there's very, very little that you can do. Within -- between that 30 feet and 150 feet on either side single family dwellings are allowed. That is what we call a Sensitive Stream Zone.

It was requested at the CAB [Southwest Truckee Meadows Citizen Advisory Board meeting] that the Applicant span the Critical Stream Zone [instead of] by grading and using culverts, and Staff has included a condition to require that or to modify the alignment of Legacy Lane such that it does not cross the Critical Stream Zone.

Essentially what that creates is a bifurcation of Legacy Lane in two cul-de-sacs, one ending essentially here, the other essentially here, leaving this area completely undisturbed by a roadway.

Staff received a number of letters in regard to this project and has included those in the packet that I handed out to you this evening. As is my understanding, the Applicant will be required to meet Washoe County traffic and Nevada Department of Transportation requirements, as one of the letters was essentially concerned about the sight distance at Holcomb and Lakeside.

Based upon the information provided by the Applicant in response to the many concerns that were addressed, Staff recommends approval of the Tentative [Subdivision] Map and the Special Use Permit with the findings and conditions listed. And this brings me to the end of my prepared comments, and I'm available to address any questions you might have.

COMMISSION CHAIR STEPHEN ROGERS: Anybody have any questions?

COMMISSIONER ROBERT M. DOXEY: I have two. I have two letters, one of -- actually, both I got this evening, one from the District Health approves this, and one from the State disapproves it. Have you come to a solution to that? How you are going to bring those together?

MR. ROGER PELHAM: I will defer that to Sharon [Kvas], because I was not aware of the State letter until the break in between the cases, and needless to say, I didn't have that much time to read it.

MS. SHARON KVAS: We are very fortunate in that at the break Doug Coulter brought the letter from Water Resources. He had used this letter as the foundation for the letter that he wrote which we received at 5:04, so all of this has happened in the last -- well, after the workday -- so I'm sure that Doug can answer any questions you may have, and perhaps give us a little background.

MR. DOUG COULTER: Hello, I'm Doug Coulter from District Health. What is your question?

COMMISSIONER DOXEY: We have two letters, both addressed to us on the 13th, which is today. One approves and one disapproves. The state disapproves, and the County approves. You're not aware of these?

MR.COULTER: I'm aware of both of them. From the State you're referring to the State Engineer's Office?

COMMISSIONER DOXEY: Yes.

MR. COULTER: I should explain the roles of each agency. Some of you probably know this, and bear with me. The State Engineer needs to sign the map and needs to make sure the water rights are in order and everything that goes along with that. We, the Health Department, stay out of that part of the operation or the approval of the subdivision map, but we do issue well permits for the construction of individual wells, among other things.

And so we didn't want to -- well, we didn't want to get the subdivision going on individual wells, and then the State Engineer come in later and say, well, they can economically supply water from a public water supply; therefore, you can issue a well permit, and we left these parcels kind of in the lurch. So we wanted to resolve this at this point.

One of the things that was a little bit of confusion on the Health Department standpoint is, we weren't sure where the end of the water line was when we originally looked at it, and it wasn't until we saw a map that TMWA [Truckee Meadows Water Authority] produced for a service area in the end of the line we found it was within a half mile, which could be close enough to consider economically feasible to connect to the public water supply. There was a letter, a cost estimate from TMWA that said it will cost a million-one [$1.1 million] to connect this property to the public water system, their public water system, it's their service area.

And that the State Engineer, the second page, the first paragraph, the key sentence for us is, "Presently neither TMWA or Washoe County have infrastructure in place to economically supply water to the Legacy Farms." With that sentence right there that means that we can conceptually approve the construction of individual wells when the lot is created, and therefore we can conceptually approve that subdivision based on individual wells. And that answered the question for us.

And they explained why they have a letter of denial is partly -- actually, that's a standard sentence for this early in the process -- because the water rights to serve that property have not been properly filed. The Applicant has those printed, presented that information to the State Engineer, but they haven't been properly filed yet. So that's a standard condition.

COMMISSIONER DOXEY: So now you are going to have 13 individual wells?

MR. DOUG COULTER: Right.

COMMISSIONER DOXEY: In the picture that he showed, what was that pipe going across the creek [Dry Creek]? I guess it's a pipe.

MR. PELHAM: I don't know what that is. Perhaps the Applicant can address that.

COMMISSIONER MARGE FRANDSEN: I saw it today, and I don't know what it is either.

COMMISSION CHAIR ROGERS: Any more questions?

COMMISSIONER MARK SULLIVAN: Something that I have heard somebody else testify to in the past, and I think it was Water Resources, somebody from the Water Resources, was about expense of that infrastructure and Washoe County paying for up to something like 1750 feet from the property. Is that correct?

If you're not aware of it, maybe it was sewer that I am thinking of then, but there was some kind of extension of some infrastructure. Anyway, it doesn't apply if it doesn't apply to what you are talking about.

When you are talking about the property filed water rights, there's a process that they go through, and they are not at this stage, and that's why they have this boilerplate language?

MR. COULTER: That's correct.

COMMISSION CHAIR ROGERS: Any other questions? Thank you. Any more questions for Roger?

I guess it's your turn, Mr. Thomas. I guess I have one question. What's the stenographer doing here, for whose benefit?

MR. BILL THOMAS: It's not ours, and hopefully it won't be necessary from our standpoint. It's not a stenographer that we hired or retained.

COMMISSION CHAIR ROGERS: Does the Commission get a copy of the transcript?

MR. THOMAS: We did not retain the stenographer.

COMMISSION CHAIR ROGERS: Who are you here on behalf of, ma'am?

THE STENOGRAPHER: For Steven Walther.

COMMISSION CHAIR ROGERS: Do we get a copy of that transcript?

MR. THOMAS: I suppose you can.

COMMISSION CHAIR ROGERS: It's a public meeting. I'll leave that to my legal advisor.

MR. THOMAS: For the record, Bill Thomas from Summit Engineering Corporation. I'm here tonight representing the property owners who also happen, in this case, to be the Applicant for the project. Roger did a very thorough job in presenting the application, there are just a few points I want to make.

First, I do want to introduce also with me is Steve Mollath, counsel for the property owners, and Paul Solaegui, a traffic engineer we've retained to deal with the traffic issue.

We agree with the Staff Report, its conclusions, as well as all the conditions. I also wanted to reference, for the record, a letter which was provided by Mr. Mollath to you dated March 6 which included specific information that dealt with traffic, water, sewer, hydrology, wetlands, appraisal and property value impacts, and then, lastly, an analysis and comparison of other lots and other projects that have been recently approved in the area.

To reiterate briefly, the application is for a tentative [subdivision] map for 13 lots. In addition, there is a Special Use Permit, and the purpose for the Special Use Permit is primarily because of the crossing of the Significant Hydrological Resource, Dry Creek. We are not asking for any land use change, we are not asking for any variances, we are simply asking to subdivide the property according to the land use designation placed on the property by Washoe County as part of the public process.

The opposition that we found on this project, I think, can simply boil down, to our minds, to two things.

One of them is the fact that we were developing a project as we went along; in other words, we knew what we wanted conceptually, and we have addressed and changed the project to deal with people's concerns. Some people have perceived that as uncertainty in terms of what the project is, and I think all the Commission understands that's the nature of that process.

The second problem is one, I think, of people misunderstanding what, in fact, the process is. In other words, the distinction between a tentative subdivision map and a final one where all the detail is known. We clearly cannot and do not know the final details until we have an approved tentative [subdivision] map that we can go through the full-blown engineering design. And I think the issue is related to a subdivision map, particularly a tentative one -- to define what those concerns are and to describe them and deal with them through conditions and modifications. That's the process we're using.

So I believe there are some people concerned because of uncertainty, and I think that uncertainty can and has been addressed by meeting the conditions that are in the Staff Report, as well as the modifications we have made.

I want to go right to the issues that came up on this project as we went through our five public meetings, three at the CAB [Southwest Truckee Meadows Citizen Advisory Board], and two neighborhood meetings. [The meetings of Protect Our Washoe held January 30, 2003 and the meeting held by Legacy Farms on February 1, 2003.]

First, and probably most important, is the issue of water which is obviously prevalent for the [Washoe County Planning] Commission and often comes up in cases where you're dealing with groundwater.

In this particular case my clients have purchased and dedicated, permitted and certificated water rights to a total of 22.2 acre feet which meets the County Code requirement of 2.02 acre feet per lot. The discrepancy in the issue that Doug [Coulter] mentioned -- as far as the State Engineer -- is that those water rights were dedicated to Washoe County, but they weren't dedicated properly. In other words, the form that was used to dedicate them didn't include a signature and wasn't on a standard Washoe County form. So what we are going to have to do is go back and amend the deed and change it into the proper form that Washoe County desires. But the record clearly shows on the information that we supplied that the water rights have been dedicated.

It's a matter of record, you can go down to the [Washoe County] Recorder's office and see the water is dedicated to Washoe County, although improperly dedicated.

The second point about water is that there are 133.96 acre feet of surface water rights appurtenant to the property. This water is not only appurtenant on paper, but it's also been put to beneficial use since 1878. In other words, the water, in part, that we're using for this project has been there and been used since 1878.

Much of the concern that came up in our public process was the statement we had in our draft CC&Rs that said each of the homes would be required to have an irrigation system. That was translated into the idea that somehow these two and a half acre lots would be irrigated in total by an irrigation system, thereby leading to concern that the limitation of state law of 1800 gallons per minute would be violated, because we had a very large area that was going to be irrigated. That was never the intent, never the plan for the property.

What, in fact, will be happening is the 2.02 acre feet for the well will be tied to the domestic use inside the house as well as defined areas of landscaping, improved landscaping, around the homes. The additional water, the 133 acre feet, will be used, as it has been historically, to irrigate the balance of the property. And that particular system, how we're going to deliver that to each of the properties, is not known now, and typically isn't in the [Tentative Subdivision] Map stage.

What we will do as a condition is specifically address it which is in your conditions of approval is that we will come back with a final map and show how that irrigation systems works -- be it a pond, and pipes to each of the lots or individual lots having ponds -- we don't know yet and won't know until we actually know how the homes are placed on the lot. However, there is enough water to provide for four acre feet, that's the plan per lot, from surface irrigation provided to the property.

There is a letter in the information that we provided to you from Mr. Bob Firth who is a water expert that talks about the fact that these ground water rights we are using are actually from are in use and in this Basin. In other words, the water we are using for these new wells is not new water being taken out of the aquifer, it's just relocated.

In addition, that substantial amount of water right that's being applied to the property now, and will be applied to the individual lots, benefits in the fact that there is recharge occurring. So there's sufficient water rights to the property both for the wells as well as the surface irrigation of the property.

One of the questions in Caucus [Caucus of the Washoe County Planning Commission on March 12, 2003, the day before the hearing] was the impact that the wells had on the aquifer. And I think, to be honest with yourself, there is nobody, regardless of their expertise or technical skill, that could guarantee to anybody what will happen with an individual well. That's the nature of wells going into the ground where there is not a system controlled like a water tank or a water reservoir.

However, I think it's important to keep in mind that as we move forward with this project -- you will see in the State Engineer's letter -- it will be required to test pump on the property to see what happens as a result of wells on the property. In addition, we will, as I said, be using water rights that are already being used in the Basin.

One of the concerns that Doug dealt with was this issue of community water service to the property. And the confusion that was created resulting in the letter you just received tonight is that there was uncertainty among the various agencies that control this issue about what would be the situation where you are required to connect to the community water system. In this case we are actually, according to a letter we got from TMWA, about 3,000 feet from the existing water system. And the State Engineer's letter, I think, makes it very clear that they think that's an unreasonable distance to be required to connect to the water system.

My clients on their own initially were the ones that generated that cost estimate, because they did approach the idea of being connected to the system, but we are too far removed from the system to be able to use it. And, in fact, the only existing requirement for connection to wells has to do with the Las Vegas state law that says if you are within 180 feet you have to connect. Obviously, we're well beyond that.

So I think not only do the rules not exist that say you need to be connected, but the reasonableness test can't be met either in terms of the requirement to extend the community water system.

The last point I will make is that we understand the concern of people in the area, and we understand that these new wells are an issue for the [Washoe County] Planning Commission and the community. I think the best thing that we can do -- and my clients have authorized me to commit to -- is to put meters on each of these wells. This is not a requirement, it is not typical, but it shows our good faith and the fact that we're going to deal with the issue of how much water is drawn out of these wells. So we would commit to that being part of the approval and would accept that as a condition, even though there is no law requiring that.

The second matter that came up, and Roger [Pelham] touched on, was the Significant Hydrological Resources. And the Commission had asked us to prepare, and I've got a copy here, a map which explains the Significant Hydrological Resources and the requirements that are related to that as they come out of Washoe County Code Ordinance 110.418. What I presented to you is a map which shows four different things. The first one is the dashed green line here are the wetlands. The U.S. Corps of Army Engineers preliminary designation -- actually, it's the actual designation for wetlands.

The second area, which is the solid red line, is the Critical Stream Environment. The third, this green line here, is the Sensitive Stream Environment.

And the last one, which is difficult to see here, but you can see on your maps, is the yellow line, which is the flood plain.

And I think what you'll see when you look at that closely is each and every one of the building pads which are denoted in this fashion are clear of the Sensitive Stream Environment, the flood plain, as well as the wetlands. The only area where homes or any development would encroach in the Significant Hydrological Resource area is, in fact, the single family homes. I gave to you a copy of the rule which Roger mentioned on the second page which says very specifically that allowed uses in these areas are single family residences and their related accessory uses.

One of the things we heard was the suggestion that perhaps the density ought to be reduced on this property because of the stream. And the first page of what I gave to you, Section 110.418.05, deals with the impact of land use designation in this particular Ordinance. I'm going to read this, because I think it's very relevant to that particular request.

It says, and I read verbatim, "The provisions of this article shall neither be used as justification for changing the land use designation, nor be used to reduce the development density or intensity otherwise allowed by land use designation of the property."

In other words, when this ordinance was adopted, it was designed to protect the stream corridor, not to say to somebody, "Since you have a stream, you have less development potential." It's really about how it's developed -- not how much.

In this case we made sure that all of the building envelopes are outside of the area that they need to be. And, in fact, there is no permit required, nor is there anything contrary to the ordinance about putting buildings or placing homes in the Sensitive Stream environment. In fact, if you track the streams running through this neighborhood I think you would find in many cases homes that are very close to ponds and very close to creeks.

The third important issue is traffic, and I would like Paul Solaegui to briefly touch on that, then I have some closing remarks to finish up our presentation. So if I may, I am going to call Paul to come up.

COMMISSION CHAIR ROGERS: Thank you.

MR. PAUL SOLAEGUI: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. For the record, I'm Paul Solaegui.

This project has only 13 lot units on it, generating only 13 peak hour trips. The most sensitive threshold to trigger the need for a traffic study is 80 peak hour trips, so we're only one-sixth of that. And so in normal circumstances this development would not trigger the need for a traffic study. One was done, however. I have been asked by the developers, and hired by the developers to do one to ensure that traffic issues are adequately addressed.

My starting point in this analysis was to speak to both County and NDOT [Nevada Department of Transportation] staff to get their input regarding what should be looked at. Both Holcomb Lane and Lakeside Drive are NDOT roadways in this area, so NDOT ultimately has control of the roadways. The primary issues that I looked at -- the project will take ac cess off the Lakeside Drive in this area and off the Holcomb Lane in this area.

The things that I looked at was stopping sight distance, which is: If an object rolled out into the road, or was in the road at those intersections, could a vehicle stop coming around the curve or approaching in the various directions, stop in time to avoid that object? My analysis showed that there is safe stopping sight distance at both of those intersections.

The next criteria is intersection sight distance. If a car was cued here, and he wanted to get out into Lakeside Drive, can he see far enough back towards this curb to wait for a gap, get out into the gap, and then accelerate up to an appropriate speed approaching the speed limit? What I found was both of these driveways can function -- and also this Lot 8 would have a driveway down in this area -- all of these accesses can function with proper intersection sight distance.

The next criteria that I looked at, as the Agency suggested, was to look to determine if auxiliary lanes were needed. Would it be appropriate to construct a left-turn lane for folks going south on Lakeside left-turning into the side, or a left turn movement here? In both cases the volumes are not large enough to trigger that need, and the same is true with right-turn lanes, they are not required.

I did calculations previously. There was thought for a time that these would be gated entries. And we found that the design as previously shown had sufficient room for cars to cue, that that was a safe access, but now I hear tonight that has been eliminated from the project. The final issue that was of some concern was driveway spacing issues, and there is one location where there's a driveway spacing issue. Right now this residence exists right here. Bill Thomas told me tonight his research reveals that that home was built in 1932, and their access has been right along this property line here, and they take access right here.

Our roadway is proposed right on that alignment. In 2002 this home [the home of James Sanford at 8770 Lakeside Drive] was constructed, and they built their driveway that comes out and intersects just a few feet away. So at that location we don't fully comply with NDOT driveway spacing issues. However, I feel that we have substantial strength in our position -- our driveway has been there for 70 years -- and they built theirs too close last year. However, we are committed to work with NDOT to try to find a cooperative solution.

That summarizes the traffic issues that I have addressed, and at the appropriate time I will be happy to answer any questions.

MR. BILL THOMAS: Just a couple concluding comments. I think it's important for the Planning Commission to understand a good job's been done with the changes we've made to the project over the several months it's taken to get to this point.

We've eliminated the gates, we've eliminated the pond, we've eliminated the sewer lift station. We've increased the lot size above two acres, even though we're allowed to have a minimum of two acres. We've agreed to allow agricultural uses of the project, reference a letter that I gave to you to our commitment to do that. We have agreed to require additional architectural variation; in other words, we've dropped the requirement that all the homes are white, and that really was an attempt to create a rural character that I think was misconstrued in terms of what the objective was. But we will commit that each of the homes will look different -- they will not all be the same.

And lastly, the last two things we have agreed to limit, the landscaped area of each of the homes, and probably most importantly on water, we now agree to meter each one of those wells.

The last point I wanted to make is that technically these 13 lots could have been done by parcel maps. We could have done it outside the public review process and outside the public scrutiny. We chose to expose ourselves to a public process because we felt this was a quality project, and I would hope that making that decision and bringing forward a project, we don't get punished for doing that. There was a separate process we could have done, and again we didn't.

In conclusion, this does meet all your codes and all your policies, and we would request that you support the staff and approve our subdivision. Thank you.

COMMISSION CHAIR ROGERS: Any questions for Mr. Thomas?

MS. MARY SANADA: Yes. Mr. Thomas, you say you're going to meter the wells. Who is going to monitor these meters? What is going to happen? Is somebody going to go out and read these meters every month? Are the owners going to be charged for use of their wells? I don't understand meters on a well.

MR. THOMAS: The state law says you can use a maximum of 1800 gallons per minute on a well. However, there is no mechanism to control that. That's the law, but there is no procedure. What we are saying is we're willing to put in a method that could assure if somebody believes someone is violating it, there's a method to measure it.

COMMISSIONER MARY SANADA: Like one day I say, gee, you know, I ran by here the other morning and it looks like that person's using too much water, I can go read their meter?

MR. THOMAS: Well, I don't know. You may have difficulty walking on their property without their consent. But the point would be a public agency, be it the State Engineer, Washoe County, or someone else who received a complaint would have a method to verify what's actually been going on.

It puts in place a means, it's a commitment to show that we believe that we can make sure each of the lots meet their commitment. And realistically in terms of the project it works for the project itself. It's not to anybody's benefit to have a person who is within the development that exceeds their allotted amount of water. That's why we're saying we're willing to go the extra step, and put that measuring device in there. Will they be checked regularly, probably not, but they will be available if there is some issue.

COMMISSIONER MARY SANADA: Thank you.

COMMISSION CHAIR ROGERS: Any more questions?

COMMISSIONER DOXEY: Mr. Thomas, the picture, what was that thing going across -- what was that line going across the creek?

MR. THOMAS: That was an irrigation line. As I said, the property is currently irrigated, flood irrigated, and that's one of the irrigation lines that brings water from one side of the creek to the other.

COMMISSIONER DOXEY: Thank you.

MR. THOMAS: You're welcome.

COMMISSION CHAIR ROGERS: Any more questions? Thank you, Mr. Thomas.
I'm going to give everybody here three minutes, except for one here which is the CAB Chairman. As I call your names, would you please come up and do your three minutes. Jeff Jesch. Ms. Steiner will get ten minutes because she's CAB chairman.

MR. JEFF JESCH: Hi. My name is Jeff Jesch, and I have been associated with the development of the Watershed Protection and Management Plan that was commissioned by the Regional Water Planning Commission, and I also co-authored the Watershed Assessment Report with Mike Widmer, and I've been somewhat following this project.
First of all, the Watershed Protection Plan shows the commitment the Regional Water Planning Commission has to maintaining good water quality in this valley, and the Watershed Assessment Report backed that up with observations that were made along the stream channel.

So I would like to start off by saying that some of the highest impact on that drainage include impacts from livestock and impacts from construction and encroachment from roadways and other development. So how that applies to this project.

First of all, the things that Bill Thomas pointed out that I think are very good and that I really approve of are, first, the incorporation of building envelopes that are outside of the Critical Stream Zone, I think that is a good thing. Another condition that I believe was recommended was that either the crossing span the creek or it doesn't cross the creek. I think those are two very good proposals for the project.

Problematic elements of this project are that the drainage flows through a number of property lines -- right through the middle of those property lines -- and this can encourage or may promote development of fencing that could impact the stream, and that's not allowed in the Critical [Stream] Zone, but it may be hard to police. Also, it may promote soil disturbances in that area, and structures. And most of all is impacts from animals, from livestock.

So what I would recommend is that some sort of delineation, either fencing or something be established to control those impacts within that Zone. This could also help Washoe County enforce those elements of the critical -- the requirements of the Critical [Stream] Zone and protection of that Zone.

I think that's about all I have. Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (Holding map.) Just relate it to the map and show the use.

MR. JESCH: I'm not sure what you're referring to. I think that's all I have to say.

COMMISSION CHAIR ROGERS: You have 21 seconds.

MR. JESCH: I think that's all I have to say. But mainly I think it's important to protect the Critical [Stream] Zone from encroachment by development, ensure proper storm water controls are placed on the developers as they develop, and control animal impacts in the critical [stream] zone along the stream. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER DANIEL N. SALERNO: What kind of animals are you talking about?

MR. JESCH: Horses, cows, things like that.

COMMISSION CHAIR ROGERS: Next is Elaine Steiner. She is representing the Southwest Truckee Meadows CAB Advisory Board, and she's the District Chairman [actually, Chair of the Southwest Truckee Meadows Citizen Advisory Board].

MS. ELAINE STEINER: Good evening, once again. My name is Elaine Steiner, and I'm here tonight as Chairman of the Southwest Truckee Meadows CAB.

As indicated, the CAB held three public hearings related to the Legacy Farms application [November 21, 2002, January 16,2003 and February 20, 2003]. In addition, I attended a public presentation sponsored by the Applicant [February 1, 2003]. My remarks are intended to summarize the concerns of the CAB with regard to this project.

Our hearings were always very well attended, and we heard hours of public comment, much of it highly technical as regards water, sewer, and flood issues. At our last meeting more than 80 people were present to express their opinions.

In the early stages of the hearing process the CAB dealt with two applications, one for a Tentative [Subdivision] Map, and one for a Special Use Permit. Those applications have since been merged. The original SUP [Special Use Permit] Application included a request to a lift station; however, that portion of the request has since been withdrawn with only the greater request remaining, at least as far as we can tell.

Notwithstanding these changes, the CAB continues to be concerned that the SUP [Application for Special Use Permit] did not, and still does not, meet the criteria for approval by the Planning Commission as delineated in Section 110.810-30. The CAB has strong concerns based in part upon public testimony that the issuance of the SUP would result in significant injury to the property improvements of adjacent properties, and would definitely be detrimental to the character of the surrounding area. In addition, there remain many questions related to the issue of the site suitability and improvements.

On the questions of the Tentative [Subdivision] Map application, the CAB also continues its concerns that the Planning Commission would have difficulty in making sufficient finding for approval, especially we felt the development is not appropriate for the physical site, Finding C, and that the design of the project and proposed improvements as currently proposed are likely to cause substantial environmental damage, Finding E.

Obviously, we disagree with the Staff Report which recommends approval of the application. However, the same Report has listed some 80-plus conditions for a proposed project that's 13 homes which gives you a fairly good indication of the problems involved with the application. While some of the conditions are the kind of ordinary stipulations which are required of all subdivisions, there are a sufficient number of others which will guarantee full employment for the County Engineer and Community Development for a long time to come. Although the Applicant has testified previously that they have responded to the concerns of the CAB by omitting the gating, by elimination of the proposed pond and the sewer lift station within the Critical Stream Zone, all but the first item probably would not have been permitted in any event.

Our suggestions with regard to the protection of the Critical Stream Zone by dedication to open space or conservation easements, prohibition in the use of domestic well water for irrigation purposes, corrections to the CC&Rs, changes in the intercirculation system and access points and concomitant reduction in the number of proposed lots. All have been ignored.

As I indicated earlier, there are so many problems with this relatively small -- but very premature -- development that the CAB feels that the appropriate findings cannot be made at this time. Thank you.

I'm now going to read a letter I was given earlier this evening. That gentleman [Steven T. Walther] had to leave. [The portion of the following letter which is in brackets and italics was not read in the interest of time, but was made a part of the record of the proceedings.]

" Ladies and Gentlemen:

"Please accept these comments in lieu of my personal appearance at the hearing this evening. I am unable to attend the meeting because I must depart on a 9:30 plane this evening.

"This process involving Legacy Farms has been very tortured and in the 27 years I have been involved in the process of planning in the Southwest Truckee Meadows, unprecedented. I served as an Advisory Board member of the first Southwest Truckee Meadows Citizens Advisory Board in the early 1980's. This process is unprecedented in the difficulty that has occurred in having adequate information to consider the merits in a timely manner. As a result, three meetings of the Southwest Truckee Meadows Citizens Advisory Board have been held, all attended by numerous citizens, when normally only one Advisory Board meeting is required to be held. In each instance, the Southwest Truckee Meadows Citizen Advisory Board recommended denial of the application. Then, the matter was scheduled before the Washoe County Planning Commission a short time ago, but shortly before the actual hearing, it was postponed until tonight. Also, while at the last hearing this matter was set to be first on the agenda, now it is not set to commence until 9:00 p.m. Additionally, as most of you know, last Friday the Washoe County Health Department made a recommendation which caused most of us to think the application would probably postponed. We thereafter learned on Tuesday that an application had been made to the State Water Engineer to essentially overturn the Health Department recommendation, thus suggesting the hearing may go forward. All of this has made it very difficult for both the Advisory Board and the citizens to give meaningful input not only to the Advisory Board, but also to this body.

"Historically, there has not been a problem with a proposed development that included 2.5 acres. This has been the first time to my knowledge there has been a problem with a development of this kind. It has been fraught with insufficient information that is critically needed, lack of safeguards for protecting valuable areas of the property, as well as the historical culture of the area, and lack of communication with immediately adjacent property owners. It is also the first time that any developer in this area has sought to impose his or her concept of appearance on this number of buildings, and, in addition attempted to make the property so highly restrictive that only those who wish to live in a truly urban area, with only urban responsibilities, would be interested in acquiring those lots. It proposes a significant change in culture in the entire area built up over many years. Having lived within a few hundred yards of the area in question since 1948, I can attest that everyone within this area has, in the past, respected the character, the minimum density requirements and the quiet country culture of the area. This proposal seeks to permanently change the concept of country living that has been respected by the citizens of the area for all of this time.

"The CC&R's that have been represented to both the public and the County have been filled with vagueness, inappropriate content, and concepts quite at odds with oral promises. The developers say it is only a draft, but the oral promises from the developers vary so dramatically from the actual written contents of the CC&R's that it gives the appearance the CC&R's were not given serious consideration at the time of filing. Examples are as follows:

     "A. Invalid Control Procedures. The developers are so insistent to ensure a single uniform concept in appearance and usage they have constructed in their CC&R's a restriction which allows the homebuilder portion of the Legacy Farms investment [we are advised Brunsonbuilt owns one-half (1/2) of the interest in the limited liability company] to permanently control over the construction of all units on all lots. It is only after all lots have been sold that any control over architecture or other issues has been relinquished. Not only does this prove the intent of the developers to impose a truly single -- and many think military -- look on the landscape appearance and architecture. As discussed below, it also a departure from the legal requirements under Chapter 116 of the Nevada Revised Statutes which requires property owners to obtain incremental representation on the homeownersí committee board, and necessarily, the committees that are formed. Despite this clear infraction the developers would propose, the staff does not object to, this deficiency. Although the staff recognizes the existence of a Homeowners Association in paragraph 12(C) of the staff report that says, 'there shall be provisions for maintenance of public and private access easements, drainage and streetlights shall be the responsibility of the homeowners association,' control over the homeowners association as proposed by the developers is invalid. Further, staff does not also mention the sewage effluent maintenance requirement.

["The following statutory provisions are relevant:

NRS (Nevada Revised Statutes) 116.1201 Applicability; regulations.    1. Except as otherwise provided in this section and  HYPERLINK NRS 116.1203, this chapter applies to all common-interest communities created within this state.     2. This chapter does not apply to:        (a) Associations created for the limited purpose of maintaining:              (1) The landscape of the common elements of a common-interest community;              (2) Facilities for flood control; or              (3) A rural agricultural residential common-interest community.        (b) A planned community in which all units are restricted exclusively to nonresidential use unless the declaration provides that the chapter does apply to that planned community. This chapter applies to a planned community containing both units that are restricted exclusively to nonresidential use and other units that are not so restricted, only if the declaration so provides or the real estate comprising the units that may be used for residential purposes would be a planned community in the absence of the units that may not be used for residential purposes.         (c) Common-interest communities or units located outside of this state, but the provisions of NRS116.4102, NRS116Sec4108, inclusive, apply to all contracts for the disposition thereof signed in this state by any party unless exempt under subsection 2 of NRS116Sec4101         (d) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, time shares governed by the provisions of chapter 119A of NRS.     3. The provisions of this chapter do not:         (a) Prohibit a common-interest community created before January 1, 1992, from providing for separate classes of voting for the units' owners of the association;         (b) Require a common-interest community created before January 1, 1992, to comply with the provisions NRS116.2101 to 116.2122, inclusive;         (c) Invalidate any assessments that were imposed on or before October 1, 1999, by a common-interest community created before January 1, 1992; or         (d) Prohibit a common-interest community created before January 1, 1992, from providing for a representative form of government.      4. The provisions of chapters 117 and 278A of NRS do not apply to common- interest communities.       5. For the purposes of this section, the administrator shall establish, by regulation, the criteria for determining whether an association is created for the limited purpose of maintaining the landscape of the common elements of a common-interest community, maintaining facilities for flood control or maintaining a rural agricultural residential common-interest community. NRS 116.110323 "Common-interest community" defined.      "Common-interest community" means real estate with respect to which a person, by virtue of his ownership of a unit, is obligated to pay for real estate other than that unit.      "Ownership of a unit" does not include holding a leasehold interest of less than 20 years in a unit, including options to renew. NRS 116.31032 Period of declarant's control of association; representation of units' owners on executive board.       1. Except as otherwise provided in this section, the declaration may provide for a period of declarant's control of the association, during which a declarant, or persons designated by him, may appoint and remove the officers of the association and members of the executive board. Regardless of the period provided in the declaration, a period of declarant's control terminates no later than:          (a) Sixty days after conveyance of 75 percent of the units that may be created to units' owners other than a declarant or, if the association exercises powers over a common-interest community pursuant to this chapter and a time-share plan pursuant to chapter 119A of NRS, 120 days after conveyance of 80 percent of the units that may be created to unit'í owners other than a declarant;         (b) Five years after all declarants have ceased to offer units for sale in the ordinary course of business; or          (c) Five years after any right to add new units was last exercised, whichever occurs earlier.      2. A declarant may voluntarily surrender the right to appoint and remove officers and members of the executive board before termination of that period, but in that event the declarant may require, for the duration of the period of declarantís control, that specified actions of the association or executive board, as described in a recorded instrument executed by the declarant, be approved by the declarant before they become effective.]       3. Not later than 60 days after conveyance of 25 percent of the units that may be created to units' owners other than a declarant, at least one member and not less than 25 percent of the members of the executive board must be elected by units' owners other than the declarant. Not later than 60 days after conveyance of 50 percent of the units that may be created to units' owners other than a declarant, not less than 33 1/3 percent of the members of the executive board must be elected by units' owners other than the declarant. [Emphasis added.] [The underlined portion was also underlined in the letter. The underlined portion was also read out loud to the members of the Washoe County Planning Commission at the hearing.]

"As can be seen, the CC&R's would attempt to eliminate any incremental control by the owners of the units occurring with the acquisition of lots. This deficiency makes their total plan illegal, and the staff has not objected in its staff report, to this legal deficiency.

   "B. Critical Stream Zone. While the developers have said publicly they intend to protect the critical stream zone, they have not said publicly how this will be done. The CC&R's are silent with respect to any protection of the critical stream zone. Although the staff suggests that a special use permit must first be acquired, there is no method for individual enforcement, advance approval by the homeowners association, or the homeowners.

   "C. Sensitive Stream Zone. While the developers have said they intend to respect the requirements of the sensitive stream zone, there has been no public discussion of how this would be accomplished. The CC&R's are silent with respect to protecting areas in the sensitive stream zone.

   "D. Wetlands. With respect to the wetlands, the developers have said publicly that the wetlands all will be fenced, yet the CC&R's do not require it, nor does the staff. Accordingly, the developer has made no concrete plans to protect the so-called wetlands and the staff has not required any condition that would require protection to be placed in the CC&R's. Most of us recognize that the conditions under section 4.04 permits are likely to ignored, and not enforced, unless requirements are made. We have a situation where three separate requirements are legally imposed on the property (two from the County), but the neither the developer nor staff has suggested an enforcement mechanism. Although paragraph 10(H) under "Operating Conditions" indicates they shall be left undisturbed, this essentially deals with the time of construction, but does not properly address the issue of protecting the wetlands on a permanent basis, enforceable on the lot owners under the CC&R's.

   "E. Steamboat Ditch Water Allocation. Initially the developer suggested no surface rights from Steamboat Canal be allocated to any of the parcels. It was only after Jack Quade wrote a letter to the Planning Commission, and pointed out this deficiency, that the developer agreed to confer four acre-feet per parcel, although this has not yet been done. However, four acre-feet, we are informed, is insufficient to irrigate a 2.5-acre parcel. Neither the developer nor the staff has made any commitment in writing, nor has the staff recommended, that adequate surface water be transferred to each lot for irrigation purposes. As discussed below, the developer plans to use wells to irrigate each of the entire 2.5-acre parcels.

   "F. Proposed Groundwater Uses. The developer has proposed a well on each lot, and since there are two wells existing already, 11 will be drilled. The developer has not denied (and has in fact confirmed on February 1, 2002 at a meeting held by the developer) that they intend to require each lot owner to hook up an automatic sprinkler system for the entire 2.5-acre parcel, using ground water. If this were to become the practice, this would eliminate any need from Steamboat or Last Chance ditches, thus attempting to irrigate the entire Southwest Truckee Meadows through well water. This of course would lower the water table, allow fertile areas to become arid, and truly urbanize the entire area unnecessarily.

     "On Friday, March 7, 2003, the County Health Department recommended denial of this application and recommended that, in lieu of wells, water be supplied by a public water system commencing less than one-half (1/2) mile away at the intersection of Lakeside Drive and Kinney Lane. As this letter was being prepared, the Department of Water Resources issued a letter dated March 13, 2003, recommending 'tentative disapproval to water quantity as required by statutes for the Legacy Farms subdivision based on water service by an individual domestic well on each lot for the reasons/conditions referenced above.'

       "Accordingly, while a number of conditions have been set forth for possible ultimate approval, it is entirely possible those conditions will never be met, in which instance the Washoe County Health Department recommendation would be the only remaining alternative -- namely, the connection to public water sources. Accordingly, the entire issue with respect to ground water availability and usage is in a significant state of flux. It is premature to consider this application without more information and the application should be denied based upon the recommendation of denial by the Washoe County District Health Department.

    ["G. Inconsistent CC&R Statements. The CC&R's are replete with discussions of 'ponds,' 'piers,' and lakes. Yet nothing is shown on the maps to suggest this. Either they are part of a hidden agenda, or the developer did not seriously intend the CC&R's to be an instrument of guidance for the County, the Citizen Advisory Board, the public, and perhaps this body. In addition, the staff report is inconsistent since at one point it points out there will be no 'pond' (i.e. suggesting it was removed by the developer recently -- although no map has been presented to date showing its removal), and yet in the staff report it refers to the existence of a pond (item no. 29).

   "H. Gated Community Issue. Although the developer says it will not be 'gated,' and the staff makes that point in its report the staff also has, inconsistently in its report, given recognition to two gates at the two main entrances.

   "I. Multi-Family Residence Issue. The CC&R's also make reference to 'multi-family' homes on the property. This is not a single reference, several references are made. This is either intentional, or again, a situation where the CC&R's were not taken seriously by the developer, thus causing substantial confusion.

   "J. Common Area Ignored. No matter how much the developer intends to delegate responsibility to each individual land owner, there will be common area responsibilities among the various owners of the lots. These will include (a) common usage, common maintenance obligations, for the road traveling through the area between Lakeside Drive and Holcomb Lane (a portion of which is owned by each of the owners of lots contiguous to that road; (b) common maintenance (or ultimate replacement) of the sewage effluent system designed to remove sewage from each of the lots to a common collector traveling thereafter in a northerly direction to the terminus at Lakeside Drive and Kinney Lane; (c) common fencing around the 'wetlands,' if the oral commitment of the developers is to be met; and (d) probable common issues with respect to water transportation. In any event, the developer, orally or in the CC&R's, nor the staff report, address these critical issues.

   "K. Dead Man's Curve. All recognize that an exceptionally dangerous situation exists with respect to those traveling around the curve constitutes the dogleg connecting Lakeside Drive and Holcomb Lane. Yet the CC&R's provide for no protection with respect to preventing sight obstruction for those about to make the curve, or to those about to anticipate someone else taking the curve in the opposite direction. The landscaping plan shown on February 1st at the meeting held by the developer (those landscaping plans have never been shown to the Southwest Truckee Meadows Citizen Advisory Board) did not appear to be sensitive to this dangerous issue.

   "L. Easement Issues -- Last Chance Ditch. The parcels abut and in some instances cross Last Chance Ditch, but nothing is mentioned regarding obtaining an easement from the ditch company that maintains and operates Last Chance Ditch, which traditionally insists upon an easement for ingress and egress, and for maintenance, throughout the entire alignment. There is nothing in the CC&R's which propose to protect this easement, or that any easement requirements have been waived by the ditch company.

   "M. Bridge Crossing Over Dry Creek. A suggestion has been made that a bridge span Dry Creek (item no. 29) to eliminate any uncertainty as to whether or not the culverts (which are unsightly) will properly carry sufficient water during any flood within the hundred year flood plane. Although the staff report makes the recommendation for a span bridge, it is conditioned upon cost. (See item no. 11, 'Operating Conditions'). The cost condition is arbitrary and should be removed. The span bridge should not be conditioned upon any cost, in the view of the citizens who have addressed this issue.

   "N. Sewer Lift Station. Although we have been told the sewer lift station is going to be removed, and the 'grindage' system installed, the staff report still assumes the existence of a sewer lift station (see paragraph 9 under 'Operating Conditions').

   "O. Fire Hydrants. The staff requires information with respect to fire hydrants (item no. 54), but there is no reference with respect to the water source for all those fire hydrants. There is no reference to common usage of water in the CC&R's at this time, or any information as to the course of the water.]

"As can be seen from the foregoing, this application is premature to be considered at this time, even in the tentative subdivision map stage.

" The bottom line is that this is an unprecedented attempt to impose a culture foreign to the area in the heart of this informal rural area. It is also fraught with issues that could potentially desecrate Dry Creek, the wetlands, and consequently, violative of the spirit, if not the letter, of the current requirements for the protection of those areas.

"For those reasons, and many others previously mentioned by the citizens of the Southwest Truckee Meadows, we respectfully request this application be denied, to return only after more serious consideration is given to the historical culture of the area, and existing legal obligations for protection of Dry Creek and the wetlands, and on the usage of the water in the area.

"Thank you for considering these thoughts.

"Sincerely yours,

"Steven T. Walther"

MS. STEINER: Thank you for the extra time. I appreciate it.

COMMISSION CHAIR ROGERS: Odile Brady.

MS. LILI TRINCHERO: Good evening. My name is Lily Trinchero, I'm reading the letter from Odile Brady since she is not here tonight. [The entire letter was not read because of time constraints, but was made a part of the record of the proceeding. The part that was not read is in italics and bracketed.]

"Dear Commissioners:

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 look 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 country 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 fringe 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"]

COMMISSION CHAIR ROGERS: Thank you. The next one is Lyn Mundt and Jack Quade, then Herbert Rubenstein.

MS. LYN MUNDT: My name is Lyn Mundt, and some of you may remember I was here before you when we tried to pass the stream ordinance, the Article 418. It got passed, and it's here before you tonight too.

I only have one problem with this, I'm really pleased with a lot of the changes that have been made by the developer and some conditions that were put in by staff. My one problem with this project concerns lots number 1, 2, 5, and 8, all of which are bisected by a stream, and the stream corridor. And as Bill Thomas mentioned, the stream corridor is defined by the Critical Stream Zone, the Sensitive Stream Zone, the flood plain, and also the jurisdictional wetlands. However, none of those lines are drawn or put on these lots.

The person who buys this house and lives in this envelope, building envelope here, he is constrained from getting from his back doorstep literally to the rest of his yard. And I think setting up a subdivision where you're selling four lots with such constraints on them when, in fact, the developer has 34 acres, that's enough to have 13 lots of two acres each and still provide a stream corridor of open space of eight acres, which may be more than necessary. I'm just giving you a quick thumbnail.

The problem with drawing these lines on the map is those lines aren't drawn in the property owner's mind every day. When they go out their back door, they want to go out and use their yard.

If you will look, a good example is Lot No. 2. More than three-quarters of this lot is constrained by jurisdictional wetlands, which is enforced by the Army Corps of Engineers, by Article 418 Critical [Stream] Zone, by FEMA flood plain, and the significant [should be Sensitive]Stream Zone we are not talking about here, we are just working on those three issues. I don't think lots should be set up as a Tentative [Subdivision] Map phase which have such a myriad of problems for the future.

If the neighbors complain that somebody's fertilizing their yard, and it's draining into the creek, that's in violation of several laws. Why set it up so a property owner doing a normal thing in their yard is automatically in violation of federal Army Corps regulations, water quality regulations, and zoning 418 regulations.

COMMISSION CHAIR ROGERS: Thank you very much.

Mr. Jack Quade, then Mr. Warren Nelson.

MR. JACK QUADE: My name is Jack Quade. I live at 8690 Lakeside Drive which borders the western boundary of Legacy Farms. We have lived there for over 40 years. Along with our neighbors we have had our Truckee River water rights delivered by the Steamboat and Last Chance ditch. These irrigation waters are disbursed to individual parcels by gates, ditches, and sometimes a holding pond which can be pumped as irrigation is needed. Over the years this policy has had the effect of adding to rather than detracting from the groundwater system. The Legacy Farms application would reverse these irrigation policies by pumping the groundwater to provide for irrigation water.

Their application mandates, and their CC&Rs landscape plans for each two and a half acre parcel that includes an automatic irrigation system that will use as its water resource a domestic well. The domestic well is drilled on each two and a half acre parcel will have an allocation of 1800 gallons a day. An 1800 gallon a day allotment is historically provided with the residence in a small area around the house, but it has never been mandated as an irrigation source for two and a half acres.

Further, the proposed domestic irrigation system will be operated without the use of a metering device, so there will be no way to measure the water usage making any enforcement of the use of the allotment impossible.

This property has as a part of its deed 134 acre feet of Truckee River water rights. The original plan did not provide for the sharing of these rights with any of the 13 parcels, but as amended in January to get four acre feet of the irrigation rights to each parcel, and that's -- they shared 52 acre feet with the new parcel owner and retained 82 acre feet.

First of all, the Water Master's Office assured me four acre feet was enough to water -- to irrigate only one acre of the land, not two and a half acres. Secondly, there was no plan in place to disburse the water from the 13 individual parcels once it reaches the western boundary of this property.

And most importantly, there is no plan to interface the ditch water with the mandated irrigation system which will operate solely from domestic wells. Clearly the individual parcel owners could ignore the annual cost of assessments and the hassle of using ditch water in favor of using the unmetered wells. By using more of the available water that they didn't extend to these people, the Truckee River water could be brought to lakes and ponds on the property and drawn from to provide irrigation for individual parcels, but no such plan has been presented.

The more likely scenario appears to be the majority of the surface water rights would be sold off, and the shortfall of water will be made up by pumping groundwater.

COMMISSION CHAIR ROGERS: Thank you. Mr. Rubenstein, then Mr. Warren Nelson.

MR. HERBERT RUBENSTEIN: My name is Herbert Rubenstein living at 4005 Odile Court. Six years ago I moved here from suburban Milwaukee. I bought a house in the country less than a mile from the proposed subdivision. Farms and ranches out here have unique character. Every one of them is completely different. From my new friends and neighbors I soon learned about the value of water and the stream like Dry Creek has tremendous value, and that water availability is critical around here. That was ever so significant to me, because where I come from, Southern Wisconsin that is, water is so plentiful that I would never have given this a second thought.

Property owners most certainly have a right to develop their land, but not at the expense of others who are already there. Legacy Farms, as proposed, has three major problems, all of which could be solved if the owners would be flexible and have some vision. Legacy Farms must protect the stream, honor the neighborhood and conserve the water, and at the same time make a profit. But instead from the very beginning their attitude is that of "my way or the highway." I personally attended three Legacy CABs [three meetings of the Southwest Truckee Meadows Citizen Advisory Board at which the Legacy Farms application was considered, namely November 21, 2002, January 16,2003 and February 20, 2003, and one Legacy open house [February 1, 2003].

On every occasion the neighborhood message was consistent: "Keep the stream out of the neighborhoods and conserve the water."

The owners and representatives of Legacy Farms made strong statements about how these homes would be different. According to their own published map pictures and CC&Rs they intend to build 13 look-alike homes smack dab in the heart of the countryside. They say one could buy a lot and use their own architect and builder. The fact is the 50 percent owner of Legacy is a builder of look-alike homes. They tell us the homes will be different colors, but the CC&Rs say they must be white. They say horses will be allowed, but the CC&Rs say otherwise. They go on to say that the CC&Rs are merely a draft and will be adjusted later. They've racked up a long list of promises but only a few details have changed; for example, the removal of the main community gate.

I believe there are clearly viable alternatives for Legacy Farms. They could protect the stream, honor the neighborhood, and conserve the water by dividing the property into fewer parcels and dedicating a stream corridor down the middle. The changeable nature of the CC&Rs just can't offer lasting protection for a stream running through private property, but having fewer parcels would also work if each were marketed for more money. Eliminating the road would protect the stream and at the same time lower the cost, and with fewer lots the 13 wells would not be needed, and the water could be saved. With a vision like this, the project could be a win-win for everyone.

It takes creativity and vision and hard work to develop a successful project. This first draft of the Legacy proposal on its own accord is just that -- it's a draft. It's not acceptable planning to say that this is only a draft, and major revisions will be made prior to actual development. I ask that you step aside all the nice talk and instead carefully assess what is the real essence of the proposal. Your approval cannot be based on promises -- but rather study the map, read the transcripts, the CC&Rs and make your decision based on the facts. Thank you.

COMMISSION CHAIR ROGERS: Thank you very much.

Mr. Warren Nelson, then Leigh Ann Scott and Beth Rubenstein.

MR. BART SCOTT: My name is Bart Scott, I'm going to read a letter from Mr. Warren Nelson.

"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"

COMMISSION CHAIR ROGERS: Thank you very much.

MS. LEIGH ANN SCOTT: Hi. My name is Leigh Ann Scott. I live at 3945 Lamay Circle which overlooks the Legacy Farms development.

We moved to Reno and this area for the ruralness of it, for the beauty of the land, for the ranch land. We bought our property because you had the ability to build whatever you wanted to build there. I think the subdivision as it is would be an aesthetic abortion to our area. It completely compromises the integrity of our area. We live in a rural area. We don't want to look upon cookie-cutter homes. If we wanted that, we could have all moved over to Caughlin Ranch, but we love the beauty of where we are.

The other issue that we have is the traffic. I know they said they did a traffic study, but these people don't live in the area. They have never driven down on Holcomb with the sun burning in their eyes where you can't even see around the corner there. If you had homes there, and two entrances to a subdivision, you are just asking for more accidents to happen. An alternative would be to change the entrance off of Lakeside and maybe pull it over off of Timothy where there is not so much traffic.

The other issue -- again -- with all of us -- is the water issue. We're all concerned. We all have wells, and they want to build 11 more wells in addition to the two that are already there. And we're against this. That's all I can say.

COMMISSION CHAIR ROGERS: Thank you very much, ma'am.

MS. BETH RUBENSTEIN: My name is Beth Rubenstein, I live at 4005 Odile Court, Reno, Nevada 89511. I'm reading this letter on behalf of Dawn Gibbons, dated March 13th, 2003, to the Washoe County Commission, Washoe County Planning Commission.

"Ladies and Gentlemen:

"I write this letter to strongly oppose the proposed development of Legacy Farms, LLC on the corner of Lakeside Drive and Holcomb Lane, as it is currently being proposed.

"My husband and I have lived in this area for many years. We know the area, the people, and its character intimately.

"Under the Legacy Farms proposal, the developer would place 13 lots on approximately 33 acres on that parcel. However, the 2.5-acre traditional density exists, a number of problems exist which make this development unsupportable.

"For many decades, the entire community in this part of the Southwest Truckee Meadows has never had a problem with people who placed homes on 2.5 acres or more. This has been the traditional minimum density in that area since the very beginning. In this case, however, if the portions of the various parcels that are entitled to protection are actually protected, individuals will be buying essentially less than 2.5 acres for their respective lots. If those areas are not protected, then the development should not be approved.

"The developers propose to have the Dry Creek tributary (which is entitled to protection under the Washoe County Development Code in the Critical Stream Zone and Sensitive Stream Zone areas) bifurcate a number of the parcels. These should be protected by adequate legal documents such as CC&R's, but I understand none have been proposed to date nor has staff conditioned it as a requirement. Because Dry Creek cuts through a number of lots, the lot owners will be inclined to build bridges across Dry Creek, and perhaps engage in activities that would cause nutrients to flow into it, or otherwise deteriorate the area. The developer should require protection, but I understand none has been seriously proposed, nor has the staff made it a requirement.

"In addition, significant wetlands run through significant portions of the same parcels as well as other parcels. These wetlands are valuable. The developers have stated they will fence the wetlands, but I understand there are no provisions suggested by the developer or staff that would make this a requirement. Because the wetlands invade a number of lots, if they are fenced, they would basically be unusable to the person who owns the parcel, thus making the parcel owner purchase a 2.5-acre parcel he or she could not entirely use. These areas, considered collectively, should at least be common areas, with a consequent reduction in the number of lots.

"Significant concern, and perhaps one most telling, is that, for the first time ever in that part of the Southwest Truckee Meadows, a developer seeks to impose highly restrictive urban uses, with uniform appearance throughout the entire development.

"The developer, under current documents, is proposing uniform white color exterior on the buildings and fences throughout, with similar architecture, and highly restricted uses. No one is entitled, under this development proposal, to any more than two household pets, under the current documents provided the County and the public. With this monolithic and highly urban approach, it will permanently change the entire informal character of the area. Never before has a landowner who has sought to develop 2.5-acre lots in this area imposed these kinds of restrictions, with a look-alike appearance, throughout the entire subdivision. Many residents believe, and I fully concur, that this will permanently degrade the informal ambiance of this entire area, into a more structured urban appearance and use.

"Last, significant concerns have been raised regarding excessive use of domestic wells, insufficient availability of a plan for use of irrigation water through Steamboat Ditch or Last Chance Ditch, as well as concerns over protection of Dry Creek and potential flooding areas. These should be dealt with well in advance of approving a tentative subdivision map.

"There are many other concerns that citizens have stated regarding this subdivision, and I concur with those with which I am aware.

"I hope you will deny the application of Legacy Farms, and require Legacy Farms to come back to the development process with a realistic proposal, sensitive to the land and the people who have inhabited it since the very beginning.

"Sincerely,

"Dawn Gibbons
"2335 Kinney Lane
"Reno, Nevada."

COMMISSION CHAIR ROGERS: Thank you. Mr. James Sanford.

MR. JAMES SANFORD: Good evening to the Commissioners. My name is James Sanford. I live at 8770 Lakeside Drive which is immediately to the north of the proposed Legacy Farms project.

The driveway that you're referring to is the one right next to me. I have a lot of concerns with regard to this project, I'm just going to kind of highlight what they are so I can give you an idea.
I have a lot of concern for safety for my family with regard to having the main access to this property right next to my house. The area right in between those is my kids' bus stop, and so having what has been described as 130 to 150 cars driving back and forth there every day. That gives me some concerns.

I also have concerns with regard to the traffic study you said that you did. I do live here, and there are cars that go 60, 80 miles an hour in front of my house every day. So while you can say I've looked at it, and I think that there is enough room for distance and stopping, that's not how people act, and I think that that's what you should take into consideration.

Also, I don't know how you're going to put in effect reasonable landscape type of protections, because people are going to plant a tree in their yard, and I don't see how anyone is going to be able to go tell them to take it out because now we can't see as well.

I share everyone else's concern with regard to utilization of the wells for irrigation purposes. I think for large scale irrigation it's just irresponsible to be able to use groundwater, especially when there is surface water available. I'm concerned that really no efforts have been made with either myself or Jack Quade, whose properties would be the ones that water would effectively be taken from the Steamboat Ditch and moved back to the four parcels that are behind us to the east, no efforts have been made that way. I just don't think the developer has done a good job of trying to be able to work with people there and communicate to them.

I have a concern for property values there, particularly due to the potential for the developer to build look-alike and similar architecture type of houses there and to be able to maintain virtually 100 percent control over it. Knowing that one of the owners of the LLC [the owner of the property is Legacy Farms LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, and a 50% owner of the LLC is Brunsonbuilt, a homebuilder] is a builder, I think there's a significant potential that he wants to build these houses as opposed to sell these lots, and I think that there is going to be a lot of influence there.

I have concerns for the Dry Creek stream and the wildlife that are there, and also just a natural appearance of the creek bed. There is a family of great blue herons living there, hundreds of ducks, geese, fish. They really add a lot to the environment of the area in which we live.

I have concerns, because I think that in trying to maximize the number of lots there a number of them end up being very poorly configured. The four that are directly to the east of me are bowling alleys -- they are 150 feet wide and 500 feet long. A lot more planning could have been done, and I think this is incomplete and premature at this time to even consider approval.

COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. You say you're immediately adjacent to this, you're the northbound lot, you're the driveway that came in afterwards.

MR. SANFORD: My driveway's been there for a long time. It was just recently paved at the time since my house was constructed.

COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN: Is it a single story house?

MR. SANFORD: It's a two-story house.

COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN: Just on one level. How many square feet is that?

MR. SANFORD: 7300.

COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN: Thank you.

MS. LEIGH ANN SCOTT: I'm not Joanne Zuppan. I am Leigh Ann Scott, but I am reading Joanne Zuppan's letter. It says:

"To the Washoe County Planning Commission. For the last 13 years I've resided at 8801 Lakeside Drive located directly across from the proposed Legacy Farms development. Over the years we have remodeled and restored our home, never deviating from the rural integrity of the area.

"My utmost concerns about this project are with regard to the water and the introduction of 11 domestic wells and the misuse of these wells for irrigating 2.5-acre parcels. Our home's domestic water supply relies on the use of an artesian well. These wells function on a basis of water pressure, pressure that must be great enough to force the flow of water to the surface for our use. Over the years I've had numerous discussions with the water masters with regard to our surface and groundwater rights, and inevitably the discussions have led to the vulnerability of our artesian water and the probability of its failure should an inordinate number of wells, such as the proposed Legacy Farms, ever be permitted in the area. Who will be responsible for the thousands of dollars for the restructure of my water system and home should my well fail?

"The safety issue with regard to increased traffic and blind spots on the corner of Lakeside and Holcomb is also a concern. I cannot begin to tell you how many times I have heard the screeching of brakes and subsequent crash of cars and trucks on that corner. I have two teenage drivers in my home, and I have a major concern for their safety each time they pull out of our driveway due to the dogleg curve and excessive speeds that most cars presently travel at. What will happen when their line of sight is obstructed with this new project?

"Over the last 13 years the hundred year flood has cursed me on three occasions. With each flood we had to sandbag our property when Dry Creek swelled and claimed 50 additional feet of my property. During the February '95 flood my front pasture filled with water, and Dry Creek eventually flowed over Lakeside Drive. Inches of water cascaded over Lakeside Drive into the proposed development area, causing a hazardous condition for drivers and the possibility of cars hydroplaning and going off road into the nine feet of water that had accumulated in my front pasture. Where will this water end up should adverse conditions conjure up another flood? Maybe in the living area of the 13 proposed homes. "Each and every time the developers have come before the Citizen Advisory Board the Board has voted against it, and I respectfully ask that the Washoe County Planning Commission do the same.

"Thank you."

COMMISSION CHAIR ROGERS: Thank you very much. Mr. Bob March, then Mary Dugan.

MR. BOB MARCH: I live at 3003 Holcomb Ranch Lane. The Southwest area in which Legacy Farms is located began developing about the time of the Civil War. The area has evolved and will continue to evolve. Some of the significant events the developers catered to are the Comstock provisioning of Chinese construction of the ditch system, University Farms, and Protect our Washoe's vision and dedication to the preservation of the area's unique character. The opportunity we have is to creatively preserve and enhance a part of our legacy by preventing more boilerplate CC&Rs which will create a tract-like development in an area unburdened by this type of construction.

I have lived downstream from Legacy Farms on the Dry Creek since '85. My family and I have enjoyed the uniqueness, tranquility and beauty of the forest. Wildlife regularly travel this pathway between lower wetland areas and the foothills. We regularly have visits from coyotes, raccoons, blue heron, even daylight visits from bear and mountain lion are not unheard of.

When I purchased this property, it included a barn and the county allowed it to be built approximately 30 feet from the centerline of Dry Creek. During the flood of '86 I saw a generally docile waterway become a raging torrent, trapping horses in paddocks with water up to their chests, depositing about 300 yards of boulders and debris that clogged the waterway, changing the direction of flow. Damage was so severe that the barn had to be taken down, and a disaster loan was arranged through FEMA [Federal Emergency Management Act] for the reconstruction.

The downstream bridge at Timothy [Lane] and the upstream crossing at Lakeside [Drive] have seen water backed up and spilling over the roadway. Any unlikely vehicle traveling the roadways under these conditions could easily hydroplane off the pavement and find itself at the bottom of a newly created lake.

My experience tells me that nothing can safely be built or placed in the flood zone that will not be inundated, become debris or block the creek's natural flow. It appears that a building scheme that allows or requires construction in sensitive areas of the flood zone should be eliminated. There should also be provisions in the CC&Rs for protection of our one of a kind wetlands.

I have no doubt that the owner-developers have the resources to make the project a legacy. I hope it is a legacy we can all be proud of that connects with the existing community, wildlife, and expands on the spectacular nature of the property.

COMMISSION CHAIR ROGERS: Thank you very much.

MS. MARY DUGAN: Good evening. A long one. My name is Mary Dugan, and I live at 5935 Sierra Vista Way, and I've attended each of the CAB meetings that were held [November 21, 2002, January 16,2003 and February 20, 2003], I think one other public meeting [January 30, 2003], and there's been only one meeting held by the developers [February 1, 2003] that I wasn't able to attend.

One of the huge problems that -- one of the things that has caused huge problems for the people in the community in considering this project are some of the materials that the developer provided. They have referred several times to their CC&Rs and said that they were draft CC&Rs, but the first page says, "This declaration is made on 12-12-2002 by Legacy Farms, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Corporation, the declarant." And, guess what, on the final page they're signed, and the signatures are notarized. So it's very concerning to us citizens to hear them say one thing and say, "Oh, those CC&Rs are draft," when nowhere on this document does it say it's a draft -- and normally that's what's done -- and a draft isn't signed. So we've been very frustrated because the CC&Rs don't make a lot of sense.

One of the things that makes the Southwest Truckee Meadows area so beautiful is the fact that we don't have cookie-cutter homes, and we don't have the exact same fences all over the place. And the application says, "The fencing for the project will be four-rail vinyl fencing -- white -- that will define the perimeter of the property as well as all property boundaries. The painting scheme will be all white homes with either brick or stone elements on every home."

The nice thing about the country is that all the homes are different. They go every which way. The fences are all different. You have barbed wire. You have brown fences. You have pink fences that need painting, and that's part of its charm. And this is very concerning to us, because it looks like they're trying to built a city, a teeny tiny 13 home city, in the middle of the beautiful country.

If you consider approving this, please stick something in your conditions that addresses these sorts of things.

Similarly, they don't want normal country uses of the property. This is the land of the horses and the llamas, and the chickens, and the cows, and the sheep. We have everything living out there.

But at Legacy Farms, "No animal shall be kept or maintained on any lot," and I'm reading from the CC&Rs, "except the usual household pets not kept for commercial purposes which shall be kept reasonably confined so as not to become a nuisance. No lot shall have more than two such household pets."

At one of CAB meetings Mr. Thomas said, "Oh, that can be changed, they can have horses." But that's not what this says. This says, "The declarant may file a supplemental declaration allowing horses and/or 4H animals limited to cattle and sheep on specific lots."

Now they're discriminating against llamas. Now there's a possibility that you may be able to have other animals, but the only other animals besides household pets that would be allowed would be horses and cattle.

(Bell signaling time allotment sounding.)

The biggest problem is that the CC&Rs violate NRS116.310.32 where they try to keep control of the homeowners association up until the year 2028. So please, if you have any inkling to approve this project, take all these concerns and considerations and fit them into the conditions somehow. Thank you.

COMMISSION CHAIR ROGERS: Thank you very much.

MS. MARY DUGAN: I really admire your stamina. I don't know how you do it.

COMMISSION CHAIR ROGERS: Mr. Elrod.

MR. GARY ELROD: Gary Elrod, I live at 2740 Holcomb Ranch Lane, and I'll keep my comments brief, because many of them have been gone over.

As you face the map up here in the lower right corner, which I believe is lot number 8, a great concern of mine, because I drive that every day going to work and other things, you've got a low area there, and the fellow who owns the property has a lake that you could see as you drive along Holcomb there. But there is a tremendous amount of vegetation and big willow trees and stuff as you're heading toward Dead Man's Curve [the intersection of Lakeside Drive and Holcomb Ranch Road] where people have actually gotten killed, and even Steve Walther's kids have crashed their cars there. You can't see there. And where the developer is suggesting the egress from lot 8, I think that -- as well as the Dead Man's Curve lot -- which I think is lot number 3 -- I would be gravely concerned about those two things. And I'm going to limit my comments to that.

COMMISSION CHAIR ROGERS: Thank you very much. Mr. Mike O'Brien.

MR. MICHAEL O'BRIEN: Good evening. Thanks for letting me speak. My name is Michael O'Brien, I live at 10865 Dryden Drive.

You've heard from a lot of these long-time residents tonight with a vested interest in investment in the area and lifestyle where we live. These good folks have lived through many changes in South Reno and have stated their concerns related to this project on several occasions as well as tonight. I certainly cannot state our concerns more clearly.

Legacy Farms say they understand our concerns and are willing to work with us and come to amicable solutions to the issues of concern. However, the private talk and the arrogance from Legacy continues, and without action or commitment in writing.

With all due respect to this Board [Washoe County Planning Commission], I would encourage you to apply an element of your self-imposed and honorable vision statement to the Legacy Farms Development Group. In particular, item number 3 referencing accountability in whatever responsible decision you eventually come to. I would ask that this decision be continued as there are significant issues to resolve. I would also request that a follow-up hearing be set at a reasonable time that provides for better representation from our residents. Thank you.

COMMISSION CHAIR ROGERS: Thank you very much. That's all the requests I have to speak. Is there anybody in the audience that wants to speak before I close the public hearing? I see none. I'm closing the public hearing, bringing it back to the board.

COMMISSIONER MARY SANADA: I guess I'll start the comment. I think it's very instructive that, of the people who came to speak tonight, there was not a single resident in the area that spoke in favor of the project -- and I think this is important. And a lot of the comments that were made ring very true for me. I mean, when the sun is going down, in the winter especially, the glare is so bad there are times you can't see on that road. It's great to talk about sight distance, but sometimes it isn't there.

I think someone brought up some very good points about the stream zone. I don't know how you can have half your lot in a Critical Stream Zone and protect it. That is a concern to me. And I'm looking at the configuration of the lots. And, I mean, look at that lot number 8. Where did anybody come up with a lot that looks like a piece of a jigsaw puzzle? And the flag lot on Dead Man's Curve is really strange. I just think that there is probably a better design, and we ought to send the developers back to the drawing board, because I am concerned about the stream zone, I am concerned about the water issues.

All of the property out there, we all have irrigation water, and we use the irrigation water to irrigate our lots. We don't use our wells -- our wells are used for the houses. They say they are going to put meters on the wells, but as far as I know there is no enforcement. The County isn't going to go out there and read those meters, are they?

MS. SHARON KVAS: There is this adaptation to a well called a Total License Meter. We have on occasion tried to put one on a detached accessory dwelling at the Board of Adjustment. And the last time we did that I was severely -- well, I was criticized by the Utility Services Division because they asked me who was going to go out to monitor it. I don't know who would go out.

COMMISSIONER SANADA: I think that might be a nice gesture, but in practicality I don't think it's going to do anything. If you are going to have CC&Rs that require the people to have these sprinklers on timers, then these people are right. These people are going to be using their well water. To set your -- to use your irrigation water you've got to go out and set your gates on the ditch, let it flow over your land, and that takes some work. And I don't know. I understand the community's concern, and I can't support the subdivision map or the Special Use Permit which is currently before us.

COMMISSIONER SALERNO: I would like to ask staff a question. It's been said, I think by the Applicant, that instead of doing this they could have gone right ahead and done a normal subdivision and chopped it up into 13 squares. Is that true?

MR. ROGER PELHAM: I believe what the Applicant was indicating was instead of the public tentative map process they could have done this as a series of parcel maps that would not have gone to the [Southwest Truckee Meadows] Citizen Advisory Board. It would not have come before this Board [Washoe County Planning Commission], but rather would have gone to the Parcel Map Review Committee, and that is correct. They could have done the same configuration of lots. It simply would have been a series of essentially parcel maps.

MS. SHARON KVAS: There is a caveat to that. We still need to deal with the Significant Hydrologic Resources. There is a requirement for a Special Use Permit, so that portion would always have to come to the [Washoe County] Planning Commission. But this could be developed as a series of parcel maps.

COMMISSIONER SALERNO: One other question, if I may. Had you considered the possibility of providing some kind of attractive fence? I'm thinking of a low, very low fence, to protect the Sensitive Stream Zone buffer. Maybe it could be located somewhere between the jurisdictional wetlands and the Sensitive Stream Zone buffer. Would you consider that in your possibility?

MR. ROGER PELHAM: I'm going to defer to the Applicant. I believe that they are required to fence the jurisdictional wetlands, but I'm going to defer to Mr. Thomas. Is that the case?

MR. THOMAS: The answer is that ìyes,î we would have fenced those off. We were waiting for a 404 Permit [federal wetlands permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers] which would have dictated where the fences are placed. That's why it's difficult for us to turn in to you a fencing plan, because we are not finished with all the permits we have to get.

The answer is, and we would agree to -- that's ultimately what's going to be is -- fences between the sensitive area and the wetlands and the homes. I think it's important to realize that every one of those homes out there has a creek on it. It couldn't be built if the standard that you're talking about here for the wetlands was applied. Those streams, those creeks, those wetlands are there running through people's homes and through their lots. That's the way that area is developed.

COMMISSION CHAIR ROGERS: Thank you. Any more questions?

COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN: Actually, I want to know what the square footage -- and this is probably for Mr. Thomas -- the square footage of the building envelopes on 1, 2 and 5, I think would probably be the smaller ones when I heard people talking about and actually brought that up, and you were discussing it with regard to the Sensitive Stream buffer, which actually our staff testified that residences are allowed to be built in there, which we are aware of. But comparing it to the house immediately to the north, we have a 70 some odd hundred square foot house, in relationship to those lot sizes. It looks like that size of a house would fit in there. I mean, on lot 2, no question -- it's two or three times the size. Lot 5 doesn't look like it would be a restriction of getting a 7,000-plus square foot house in there. Do you know the square footage available in there?

MR. THOMAS: I do. Lot number 1 has a building envelope of 13,073 square feet. Lot number 2 has a building envelope of 20,674 square feet. Lot number 5 has two building envelopes, the first being 10,190 square feet, the second being 2400 square feet. Lot number 3 has a building envelope of 59,828 square feet.

COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER DOXEY: Mr. Thomas, I was wondering, one of the speakers came up and said that lots 1, 2 and 3 look like they are divided by the stream [Dry Creek]. And you say that you're going to put a small wall or some kind of a dividing line along the jurisdictional wetlands?

MR. THOMAS: That's correct.

COMMISSIONER DOXEY: How would they get to the other side of the creek?

MR. THOMAS: Obviously, for maintenance purposes, those fences could have gates in them. What is different about these lots from all the ones around us on both sides -- if you look immediately to the west of this property there are homes that sit almost adjacent to the creek, and the creek runs right through the middle of it.

The difference here is that we are being required, because of the current standards -- and we're agreeing -- to take the areas that would normally be seamless, part of the lot, the way the other properties have been developed, and fence it off, which we have agreed to. It's no different from a person who buys a piece of property that has river frontage or has a steep slope or some other part of the property that they can't technically use, but they still have the right, and the separation from adjacent properties.

In this particular case what you're talking about is -- there will be a barrier put in place that will be used as a demarcation to make sure people understand where the boundaries of the sensitive area is. On top of that there will be restrictions placed in the CC&Rs -- and this is part of the conditions of Article 408 [should be Article 418], I believe -- that will limit what can be done in these areas.

Now, practically speaking, getting over to the other side, there will be a way to do that. We'll simply put a gate in, you allow people to do it. This is going to be a restricted area that would be limited in terms of what can be done there based on the ordinances and the 404 Permit [wetlands permit].

It's not dissimilar to Lakeside Ranch Estates, which is actually up the road several thousand feet. They did exactly the same thing. They are custom homes. Where the wetlands are part of the lots, they fenced it off. If you go to the corner of Huffaker and Lakeside you will see that subdivision, and you will see what they have done. But it's the same exact thing we're talking about here. And that subdivision was approved, I believe three years ago.

COMMISSIONER DOXEY: The owners don't complain about having two fences and having go across the stream to get to the other part of their lot?

MR. BILL THOMAS: No. Obviously, the persons who purchase will know what they are getting, it will be spelled out to them, and they will know the restrictions. What the people are buying is a lot size of two and a half acres that -- some people would prefer to be on the stream for the aesthetic value, other people may prefer to have a very large lot which is offered over here. It's not dissimilar to the different array of lots in the area. If somebody wanted significant agricultural animals, they would probably be on a lot like this.

One of the things we've been accused of is eliminating agricultural animals, but at the same time we're also being ridiculed because they might get into the stream. We're kind of in, using Sharon's [Sharon Kvas'] word, a conundrum. We can't have it both ways. If we're going to allow animals, then obviously we have to restrict them. Our intent -- and we have committed in writing -- is that we would allow agricultural animals on the property, but we reserve a right to limit perhaps where they can go. Obviously we're going to have to in these areas, because the Board and the county ordinance is going to say we can't put it in there, and we won't.

COMMISSIONER DOXEY: The CC&Rs the lady spoke to, the one that she had -- whatever one that is -- is that the CC&Rs or is that a draft?

MR. THOMAS: When you turn in a subdivision map -- let me give you an answer to understand how we got the restrictions. When you turn in a subdivision map to Washoe County, you're required to provide the CC&Rs. The sole purpose for the public to be concerned about CC&Rs is to assure that if there's common area that there is a mechanism to enforce it. Everything else that is in there goes above and beyond what is necessarily a legitimate public review.

In this particular case we gave detail based on the concept of what we wanted to do on the property. The concerns that were raised were draft on CC&Rs that were perhaps improperly signed, but clearly were not recorded. We were trying to meet the obligations to turn in the CC&Rs and probably put more detail than we needed to. You could very well go out here and subdivide this property into lots and say nothing about what can happen -- sell the lot off. That's what I think some of the people are saying here.

But I would suggest to you that probably all your recent subdivisions in this area have CC&Rs that include things like architectural controls. It varies probably from development to development, but I don't think you will find in the last probably ten, 15 years a lot of projects or developments that don't have some -- they may be minimal -- but some control of architecture. That's not to necessarily change the rural character, but to protect the value of the property for the person who's going in and investing. That's really the reason. It's not to destroy the character -- if anything, it's to make sure it's enhanced.

COMMISSIONER DOXEY: I personally, the problem I had was the control. The developer controls the 20, 25 or 28. It is usually, when 50 percent of the lots are sold, the developer is out.

MR. THOMAS: We cannot violate state law. That's understood. If we violate, the CC&Rs will be changed. We don't have that option.

COMMISSIONER DOXEY: That's correct. But it's in the one she had, I guess. I haven't read it.
MR. THOMAS: I haven't read that particular section, but if it was an error, then it would have to be corrected.

The purpose of the draft is to present -- again I think you can ask your District Attorney and your Staff -- is really for the public purpose to make sure there's some mechanism to enforce whatever rules are there for the common area, as well as anything the County might want to add as a restriction. Other than that, we have added more things than would typically be required.

COMMISSIONER DOXEY: So I understand: You are going to change the CC&Rs that she had, whatever that is?

MR. THOMAS: Absolutely. You have a letter in your documents that show our commitment to change the CC&Rs to address that concern. If you want to put those as a condition, we agree to that. They are there. They are in the record. We will accept that as a condition.

MS. KVAS: Just to give you an idea of how our process works to deal with condition number 15. There are certain issues that we as a county need to have put in the CC&Rs. And we have listed here A through M of what we want to see in the CC&Rs when the CC&Rs are crafted. And so we got draft one, we'll call them draft.

But when the CC&Rs are finally crafted, and they address each one of these issues, that set of CC&Rs is sent over to Mr. Jim Barnes [of the office of the Washoe County District Attorney]. Mr. Jim Barnes takes a copy of the final action order. He looks at all the things that Washoe County finds that we need to have in the CC&Rs. He reads them, he calls me, and he calls the -- or the Staff Planner, he calls the Engineering Department, he says "I've reviewed the CC&Rs." The final map cannot be recorded without the approval of the District Attorney's Office.

So what has been submitted probably doesn't address all these items, and certainly they'll be other items to be addressed that were presented to the Commission tonight. But that's the process.

COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN: Actually, that was my question. On the letter that you submitted dated March 12th, that's a part of the record now -- and the commitment that you guys have made. Some of the -- actually, the majority -- of the testimony that I heard tonight -- these issues address it. So I guess there is a miscommunication between some of the public and what you guys have agreed to do. I mean, it allows animals, and, you know, the Army Corps of Engineers -- I can't even speak at this time of night -- hydrological resources and the requirements of the Corps and the surface water, and the way the houses are going to appear.

I really don't see what the opposition is. I really can't. I don't think it's going to have a detrimental impact on the nature of the area out there, I don't think. I'm not a traffic expert. I'm not a sewer or water expert or anything else. All of those people have told us that there is not a problem with any of that stuff.

I don't disagree with the road glare, you know, when you're driving east or west. I get it on McCarran when I drive east or west, I get it on the street that I live on when I drive east or west. If the sun is going down you can't avoid it -- it's not specific to this area -- no matter where you are at, I imagine, on the planet.

MR. BILL THOMAS: The purpose of that letter -- you heard people say that we made statements -- but there was nothing in writing. That was the purpose -- to get in the record our commitments based on the testimony and the comments we have been making to people at those meetings.

COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN: I think the Staff has done an adequate job of conditioning the project, adequate provisions with the conditions in the Staff Report of the considerations that are necessary to approve the project.

COMMISSION CHAIR ROGERS: Any more comments?

COMMISSIONER FRANDSEN: I have a question. Mr. Pelham, could you come up, please. It's been a long time ago, but I think I heard you say something about a reconfiguration of this project, and you talked about two cul-de-sacs, did you not?

MR. ROGER PELHAM: I did. The idea has been put forward and has been conditioned as one way of protecting the Critical Stream Zone that the Applicant will be required to either span that 30 feet on either side of the centerline or to reconfigure Legacy Lane such that it does not enter that stream zone.

And essentially what that would require is splitting Legacy Lane such that it does not cross -- I'm sorry, on this map I believe this line and this line, no, this one here, I'm sorry -- this line and this line are the Critical Stream Zone, and Staff has included that condition to allow some flexibility as to -- you know -- to choose one of those ways to protect that Critical Stream Zone.

COMMISSIONER FRANDSEN: It is terribly late. So what you are saying is you are giving the developer the opportunity to do that?

MR. PELHAM: Correct.

COMMISSIONER FRANDSEN: What would be the ramifications of changing that condition to require them to do the cul-de-sacs?

MR. PELHAM: That would be a minor rewording, as far as Staff is concerned. I would have to defer to the Applicant to see whether they would be amenable to that change.

MR. BILL THOMAS: We will accept that.

COMMISSIONER FRANDSEN: I would like to make that part of the conditions of approval, should we approve this.

MR. PELHAM: If I may. When you make your motion, I would please ask that -- if you choose to move -- to approve it, you will include the nine conditions included in the District Health Department letter that we received this evening. Those are not included in the Staff Report, because it was not received until this evening.

COMMISSIONER FRANDSEN: Can you lead me to the condition that speaks to the cul-de-sac and/or spans the creek?

MR. PELHAM: "Developer shall construct a bridge across a Critical Stream Zone for entry for Legacy Lane rather than grading a culvert within the Critical Stream Zone."

COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN: Which number is that?

COMMISSIONER FRANDSEN: That's not number 10.

MR. PELHAM: I'm sorry, that's a previous --

MS. KVAS: Number 12, the developer shall -- it's on Page 18, bottom of Page 18, number 12.

COMMISSIONER FRANDSEN: I've got it. Thank you. Did you finish your statement about bringing in the first nine -- I think you said --

MR. PELHAM: I believe I did. Simply to in your motion, should you move to approve, that the nine conditions provided to us by District Health this evening be included.

COMMISSIONER FRANDSEN: I would like to hear more discussion from some of the Planning Commissioners; however, I do have, in my mind anyway, a serious problem, notwithstanding what Mr. Solaegui had to say about the traffic. Because I have traveled down that road many times, and most recently within the past week two or three times -- just to sort of check it out and to see how -- to get set in my mind anyway -- where this property is so that I can visualize it while I'm sitting here, and that is a very, very dangerous curve [the curve referred to as "Dead Man's Curve", a curve resulting from the intersection of Lakeside Drive and Holcomb Ranch Lane].

And notwithstanding that anywhere in the world you can have glare at a certain time of the day or night, I think that to deliberately approve something that we know would cause severe problems or could cause a severe problem is not a good thing to do.

I also have a problem with the Critical Stream Zone and the Sensitive Stream Zone. A lot of people spend a lot of time doing -- the ordinance, whatever it is, I can't think now. What is it called?

MS. KVAS: Significant hydrologic.

COMMISSIONER FRANDSEN: And I think that that, coupled with the fact that there is a hundred year flood plain there, and there is always disagreement as to where FEMA put the flood plain at any given moment of the day. But I think that we can't move forward with this without taking that into serious consideration.

And I recognize what Commissioner Sullivan said. What he was indicating anyway, I think, is as far as building pads are concerned, and perhaps they could be configured in such a way that it would take them out of even the Sensitive Stream Zone.

But then you also have, I believe it was Commissioner Doxey who brought it up, the fact that you have people who have 2.5 acres, and they are going to have to get a pogo stick to jump across, because they are in danger, I believe, of doing. We have a letter here from the Cooperative Extension Service where they bring up all of these concerns in reference to the sediment in the stream beds and repairing the vegetation, all of those things.

As I suggested, the cul-de-sac, I'm having a little bit of difficulty at this time of night trying to visualize that. But if that cul-de-sac somehow eliminates at least a portion of that problem, I think that it's certainly something that we should consider.

Quite frankly, I don't have a big problem with the fencing, because in my driving around that area I find that most all of the large lots with the large homes have replaced their wooden fences with vinyl fencing. And I agree that part of the charm of the area is the fact that some of the fences are wooden fences, and they are in disrepair, and there's barbed wire, and there is wire fencing. But in this area I noticed a lot of these properties had vinyl fencing, at least on a portion of their property.

I did have a problem -- a definite problem -- with the constant nature of how you were going to construct the homes, having them all with white fronts and brick and rock. And obviously that's not the kind of area this is. There is not one house that I saw out there that looks like any other house in any way in that particular area. They go from ranch style long houses, a V-shaped, and two stories, and wooden houses, and brick houses, and mansions almost. So I think to have a subdivision that has houses of even different sizes, but with a facade that gives them the appearance of a tract development within the city -- I think is not appropriate in that particular area.

So basically those are my major concerns, valid or not. And I will stop now and allow someone else to speak.

COMMISSIONER SALERNO: I think there are several concerns that we all have. I don't believe that we can solve those things as we sit here tonight. And I think that I agree with the comments of my other colleagues. Perhaps a cul-de-sac on each side of the Sensitive Stream [Zone]. Perhaps a rewording of the conditions and restrictions that would direct the design away from the all white masonry structures, some of the concerns that were brought up.

I think that really it would be a good idea to bring this back to us with some of those modifications, from what we have heard tonight. Is it possible to do it in that fashion, to simply not take an action on it tonight?

MS. KVAS: Remember that we have the law to deal with, so we certainly cannot do that. It's up to the Applicant.

COMMISSIONER SALERNO: I know the Applicant would have to request it.

MS. KVAS: Yes, he would.

COMMISSION CHAIR ROGERS: Mr. Thomas.

MR. THOMAS: We certainly would be willing to go back and make the change with the cul-de-sacs, make the modifications to the CC&Rs, and I guess more formally put into writing some of the commitments we have made.

COMMISSIONER SALERNO: Perhaps provide some protection to the stream environment, indicate what kind of fencing would be used and where it would be located.

MR. THOMAS: Yes.

COMMISSION CHAIR ROGERS: Mr. Thomas, you said you would like to continue this? Would you continue this?

MR. THOMAS: Yes -- to address the concerns that Commissioner Salerno made.

COMMISSION CHAIR ROGERS: What I would really like to see -- if you can continue -- I would like to see you get with the homeowners. And the homeowners have got to also give, and they've got to take, you can't have it one way, and work this thing out to where we don't have to sit here and make someone unhappy. I do not want to make anybody unhappy here. But I do like the concept in a lot of ways, but there are a lot of things that I don't like on this project. And my biggest problem is water. To this day there is nobody in this room -- other than God Almighty -- that can tell me you have enough water to supply all the people. You may have the water rights, but I don't think you have the water, especially when you are going into the fifth year of official drought -- you probably have the 12th year of drought.

So I would like to see the people and you people work together and come up with something. And I really mean it for the homeowners. You have got to give -- because these people have a right to develop their lots -- and you can't keep them from doing it. You can't make it so astronomically expensive it's not feasible. I would love to see this come back at your request and work this out so we can do this in about five minutes.

MR. THOMAS: We'll certainly try on our part.

COMMISSIONER SALERNO: Mr. Chairman, I think the comments you made were very valuable. I would also say -- to that in working it out -- I think you ought to keep in mind that they could come back with just a parcel map, and you'd have absolutely no say about whatever happens. That would be the last thing that they could do. So I think it is in everybody's interest to come up with a good solution.

COMMISSIONER DOXEY: Would you consider when you're redoing it to put the sewer in the 13th lot?

MR. THOMAS: Sewer to the 13th lot?

COMMISSIONER DOXEY: In here it says you're going to have a lift station and 12 lots, the 13th is going to be on a septic tank. That was one of my questions. Is it 12, 13, or is it this one here?

MR. THOMAS: What we're talking about is the existing residence here.

COMMISSIONER DOXEY: Is this it here?

MR. THOMAS: Right here. Certainly we can look at that.

COMMISSIONER FRANDSEN: All night long I've been going back and forth to the first letter in reference to the water issue. And I have a lot of respect for Mr. Frost, and I trust that he has done due diligence in putting this together. The one thing that he mentions in the last paragraph on the first page of this letter -- and this is a letter that was provided by Mr. Mollath, I believe -- is that he said "I assume each lot will also be provided with a pro rata share of the spring and underground water rights, thereby ensuring that each lot will have an irrigation water supply adequate to properly irrigate the land during any type of water supply situation."
Is that a true statement? Is his assumption true?

MR. THOMAS: Yes. What he is saying -- there are actually three sources of water for this property. One is the groundwater rights. The second is the supplemental water rights which historically are tied to the property, which means when the surface water -- which is the third one -- dries up, the property has a right to use additional groundwater to supplement, which is typically the way agricultural properties are handled.

So his point is there's three methods to do it in order of priority that are available. And certainly we can explain that a little better and maybe have him show how that would work. It is clear one of our objectives is -- we need to show how the lots of the two and a half acres are not going to be in total irrigated by a sprinkler system. That's a confusion we created and haven't been able to overcome for some reason, but it's not going to be a two and a half acre sprinkler system on each of those lots.

COMMISSIONER FRANDSEN: I think that if you agree to a continuance or bringing this back before us, I think it might be a wise idea to have Mr. Firth come, if he is willing to do that, and maybe explain it to not only us but others who may be ignorant of the facts as I was.

MR. THOMAS: Can I ask something, too? Hopefully it's not too much of a burden on the Staff. One of the difficulties we have, there's been a lot of accusations about us, but also there's been information sent out that's unsigned about our project that misrepresents what's really going on. I would like, if we can, to maybe have the Staff participate in these meetings. You might get a view, and if there's not an ability to reach common ground -- we're certainly going to try -- that they could perhaps present to you what happened in this dialogue between us. I think that's the only way to make sure it's not a "he-said/she-said" kind of pointing fingers.

COMMISSIONER FRANDSEN: I guess we would have to bow to our Community Development Director, his budget.

MR. ADRIAN FREUND: We can do that. I'd suggest that our role is as observers, perhaps better opportunities when we might have some middle ground.

MR. THOMAS: That's all we're asking is an impartial third party to watch what's going on.

COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN: Are we looking for a time certain and a date?

MS. KVAS: I hesitate saying time certain on April 1st, because we have Burning Man coming back. We have three other subdivisions --

COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN: I just wanted to know if that's what you wanted. I'm willing to make a motion that we continue it.

MS. KVAS: I think we're going to have to continue it, and we'll renotice, because I don't see that happening.

COMMISSIONER DOXEY: I will second.

COMMISSION CHAIR ROGERS: It's been moved and seconded we continue this at a time uncertain to be determined by Staff. Any discussion?

COMMISSIONER FRANDSEN: The only discussion I would have is -- in deference to the Applicant, and also to the public -- if we could have this as maybe right out of the chute instead of last on the agenda.

MS. KVAS: I'm thinking hopefully we can get it on May 6th right out of the chute.

COMMISSION CHAIR ROGERS: Any more discussion? I would like to say again, I would like to see the CAB [Southwest Truckee Meadows Citizen Advisory Board] and the people work with Mr. Thomas' staff and give and take and come up with something that we don't have to make someone unhappy.

All in favor?

(Commissioners say aye.)

COMMISSION CHAIR ROGERS: Sir?

MR. MOLLATH: Mr. Chairman, Steve Mollath representing the developer. I think this working with Staff to identify what issues we need to come back to the Board [Washoe County Planning Commission] with is a very excellent idea. There are legal issues involved, and there are planning issues involved, and I think it's very important that a dialogue occur in this process before the next hearing between legal counsel and myself relative to the CC&Rs and those issues, and also with Planning Staff with Bill Thomas.

I think it would be -- this whole process would be better served if the information -- that is, the concerns of homeowners -- have come through Staff filtered to us, we respond, Staff looks at it, then that filters back to the people out there. There is really no identifiable person out there we can deal with, so I think Staff needs to be the contact where they gather up all the concerns that they have heard tonight, give that to us, we work that out, Staff communicate with some of the people, I communicate with the District Attorney's Office, then we get a very clear and concise listing of what we need to consider at our next meeting and hopefully come to a solution for everybody, because I think we are very close to getting it resolved and having a good project.

COMMISSION CHAIR ROGERS: I think that would be a good idea.

MS. SHARON KVAS: My boss told me that I can set this for April 15th at a time certain of 6:35.

COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN: I amend my motion that we set it for April 15 at 6:35.

MS. KVAS: First thing out of the chute on your second meeting in April.

COMMISSION CHAIR ROGERS: There's been a motion made that we --

MS. ELAINE STEINER [of the Southwest Truckee Meadows Citizen Advisory Board]: Is that a Thursday?

MS. KVAS: No, it's a Tuesday.

COMMISSION CHAIR ROGERS: -- to April 15th at 6:30 time certain. All in favor.

(Commissioners vote aye.)

COMMISSION CHAIR ROGERS: Thank you very much for your patience.

MR. MOLLATH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(Proceedings concluded at 12:10 a.m.)

Back to Legacy Farms main page

---

Back to Protect Our Washoe Home Page

E-mail info@protectourwashoe.org

Site designed and maintained by Deciding Factors
Please direct comments and suggestions to webmaster