TRANSCRIPT
OF PROCEEDINGS
Thursday, January 16, 2003
Reno, Nevada
A P P E A R A N C E S
BOARD MEMBERS:
Elaine Steiner - Chair
Ellen Steiner
Robbin Palmer
Joe Bachman
Matt Taormina
Klark Staffan
Mary Dugan
Faith Fessenden
Walter Lamp
SPEAKERS:
Roger Pelham — Washoe County Community Development
Steve Walther
Karen Boldi — Summit Engineering (on behalf of Legacy Farms, the
applicant)
Robert Gelu — Summit Engineering (on behalf of Legacy Farms, the
applicant)
Lynn Mundt
Herb Rubenstein
RENO, NEVADA, THURSDAY, JANUARY 16, 2003, 9:25 P.M.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: Case number SW02-021, Legacy Farms Lift Station.
Roger Pelham isthe staff representative.
MS. ELLEN STEINER: He's here as Roger Pelham.
MR. PELHAM: I'm here as myself, Roger Pelham, this time. You will all
recall a couple of months ago we looked at this tentative map with the
attached Special Use Permit for a lift station.
Since that time a Special Use Permit has been revised to include a couple
of other things. One thing that we haven't had is a complete application.
Engineering reviewed this and they found a number of deficiencies and
all sorts of technical things that I'm not competent to explain, but
we now have a complete application from Summit.
We have accepted that. This is going to go forward to Planning Commission
in March which, of course, gives us plenty of time to come back here
this evening and so the Special Use Permit is for the sewer lift station
and to cross Dry Creek in the sensitive and critical stream buffer zones.
Again, I am here for code and policy questions. From Summit we do have
Karen [Boldi] who will be presenting the project itself, and did I see
a question?
MS. ELAINE STEINER: We're just talking about once again the lift station?
MR. PELHAM: Yes, the Special Use Permit proposal for the sewer lift
station and the grading within the sensitive and critical stream buffer
zones, and actually as well as creating an on-site retention pond.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: Is this coming in under SW02-021?
MR. PELHAM: Yes, it is. They have revised the submittal of the Special
Use Permit.
MS. ELLEN STEINER: So both the --
MS. ELAINE STEINER: Just for the lift station portion?
MS. ELLEN STEINER: Both the Special Use Permit for the subdivision and
the lift station are now one?
MR. PELHAM: The subdivision requires a tentative map. It doesn't require
a Special Use Permit, and that you all considered and made your recommendation
I guess two months ago.
MR. LAMP: Is that the one we rejected?
MR. PELHAM: Yes.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: And we did ask them to come back, but they said
they would not. We did request them to come back for --
MR. LAMP: Was the subdivision approved by the Planning --
MR. PELHAM: No, it doesn't go until March.
MR. TAORMINA: So this is for a subdivision that hasn't really been --
the boundaries aren't in place or anything, this is --
MR. PELHAM: Okay. The tentative map, that is to say about where it's
going to go, has not yet been approved. It is going forward concurrently
with the Special Use Permit.
The Special Use Permit is to facilitate the construction necessary to
serve those lots that they are proposing to create.
MS. FESSENDEN: The reason it was two different things, does it have
to do with the Health Department at all because of the sewage issue?
Why weren't they put together as one?
MR. PELHAM: It doesn't have to do with the Health Department. Simply
they're making two requests under the Development Code.
One request was for subdividing the land, the tentative map. The second
request is a different type of request for the sewer lift station. That
requires a Special Use Permit. The division of land requires a tentative
map. It's two separate processes, separate requests.
MS. FESSENDEN: And that's normal?
MR. PELHAM: Yes.
MR. LAMP: The way this is written, it seems to me that we kind of reconsidered
the subdivision. What we did last time is the subdivision?
MR. TAORMINA: Will this be coming forth?
MR. PELHAM: It already did.
MS. ELLEN STEINER: I don't see how we can discuss one without discussing
the other, so I intend to do that. I don't know whether we're right
or wrong or in between, but I don't think you can talk about the lift
station and the rest of this without talking about the subdivision itself.
MR. TAORMINA: Wasn't there a question on lot sizes?
MS. ELAINE STEINER: Why don't we have the presenter present her case
and we can go from there.
MS. BOLDI: Karen Boldi here on behalf of Brunsonbuilt Construction,
Ladies of Arms, LLC, and the way the agenda is written, I have to agree,
I wasn't sure what to prepare for actually, if you were going to be
hearing about the tentative map again as well, but there has been changes,
so I'll go ahead and let you know that we have made some changes to
the tentative map at this time.
All parcels are at least two-and-a-half acres. The minimum lot size
is two-and-a-half acres. They range from two-and-half acres up to approximately
just barely over three acres is the largest lot size.
The Special Use Permit, this application actually governs two items,
if you will. One is the Special Use Permit for a sanitary sewer lift
station which the location -- actually, the location is shown a little
bit better on the site plan, but it's proposed to be located here off
of lot nine.
This is Last Chance Ditch and the proposed private road here. It's approximately
an eighth of an acre and under. It will be an underground sewer lift
station, and I apologize for the lack of my displays. This display was
prepared for another project and it's a much larger lift station than
this project will require. This is actually a dry lift station.
What this project requires, it will be a wet pump lift station. It will
be underground. This is your ground surface here. You will have an existing
vent pipe that will sit above ground and actually there will be an access
located at the same place.
On a dry pump station you would actually have an access and entrance,
too, which would be a manhole to climb down. However, both pumps will
be on two rails inside this system. This system will be all contained
within this site. All pumps -- the whole system is waterproof. It will
be in a waterproof encasement, so it's actually self-contained.
It's a dual pump system, so one pump will be on while the other one
is off and it will fluctuate back and forth. There is an alarm system
located on the pump system which triggers a number of different events.
If one pump fails, the alarm system will trigger. It will actually be
self-contained, so if there is a failure, it has a 24-hour fill period,
basically 24 hours before somebody can get in there and replace the
other pump.
If the high wire elevation is actually untied, this alarm will also
trigger. There's a number of conditions the alarm will trigger under.
Other than that, the pump station, it's all self-contained. It will
be underground, like I said, and it also will lie on under, I believe,
an eighth of an acre.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: But that's not the pump station, it's just similar
to?
MS. BOLDI: This is similar to. This contains all of the dry pump over
here. It's all contained in here and your lines will exit from here,
also.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: I'm sorry to interrupt, but why when you come before
us we never have anything that's going to be exactly as you want it
to be?
MS. BOLDI: Unfortunately, it's actually in design as we speak. They
are just beginning design on it.
We were informed when we applied to the county that the lift station
actually has to be submitted in the county's name, so the developer
has to apply to the county to build a lift station and the county has
to either go ahead and build it or design and build it themselves, or
if they do not have the time to do so, they will contract an outside
company which they actually have done.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: So we don't know if this is complete then?
MS. KAREN BOLDI: No, they haven't entered the design phase. It will
be a wet pump system, though, so it will be this system, if you will.
It will work the same way. We are working with the county to design
the actual system.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: Does that end that part of your presentation? We
would like to take that part out to the public then.
MS. MUNDT: Is the lift station within the sensitive stream zone?
MS. BOLDI: No, actually it will be outside our sensitive. Our sensitive
stream zone lies right here and actually the lift station will sit outside.
It will sit beneath this driveway and outside.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: Are you sure?
MS. BOLDI: Excuse me, no, I apologize. It's outside the critical stream
buffer zone. It lies just on the outskirts of the sensitive, the very
outskirts.
The other part of the Special Use Permit is for grading within the sensitive
and critical stream drainage which involves a building across the roadway
crossing in the same location that the lift station will be in, and
it will be actually outside of -- there's a couple of rock walls that
we're using for support of that roadway, so that will also help.
MR. RUBENSTEIN: My name is Herb Rubenstein and I would simply ask the
Board to stop this process because it's very clear that the information
is not complete as they said it was and there's nothing to talk about
at this point. It's a waste of everybody's time.
MS. BOLDI: If I can, I'll try to answer that for you.
MR. RUBENSTEIN: I'm asking the Board.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: Roger, is this -- we asked that when this came before
us that this would be complete.
MR. PELHAM: To the best of my knowledge and understanding, this information
has been deemed complete by the county.
MS. DUGAN: So even if the lift station isn't yet designed, the application
can be complete?
MR. PELHAM: Yes.
MS. STEINER: Does anyone else from the audience wish to speak?
MR. STEVEN WALTHER: The question I have regarding this is, first of
all, regarding the application, when I saw Mr. Pelham on Monday morning,
I went down to the City and on Friday [January 10, 2003] the application,
which is about two inches thick, had been delivered on the previous
Friday [January 10, 2003], this last week, so what we have is a vision.
Again, this would be the third map that we see of the project, neither
one of which, or the last two of which, have been given to this body
and the other documents have not yet been given to this body yet, either.
You may recall at the last hearing we had asked that they come back
and meet with the people. That has yet to happen, even though after
that meeting I talked to one of the people who said it was a big mistake,
we'll come back, we'll talk to you and it's never happened. It's never
happened, and here it does say that the Special Use Permit which may
also be constructed across Dry Creek intersects both the sensitive and
the critical stream zone buffer areas.
Where are the plans that let us take a look at what that means? Not
just now, but before a hearing so people can actually begin to understand
the impact of this?
It is now my understanding that they plan to build a pond on one of
the lots. Now, that particular pond would have some serious implications.
Where does that water come from? Is it from Dry Creek? If it is, you're
going to have to get approval from downstream. Dry Creek is a 24-month
stream that runs down through there. It's a very pretty and pristine
area.
There's been no discussion about how they intend to take that Dry Creek
and build their pond for their own purposes which you can't do. If it's
going to be from a pump, that hasn't been discussed, either.
In the CC&R's [Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions
dated December 12, 2002, delivered to the County on January 10, 2003]
that they have done [and which I received] Monday morning [January 13,
2003] from Mr. Pelham, it suggests things that the number of lots may
have ponds and they have lakes and city views.
If you're going to build 12, as I understand it, 11 or 12 wells on this
area, and those wells typically should be only for residential use and
minor auxiliary uses outside the home, certainly not for a lake, so
where would the water come from unless they're going to suck it out
of the Dry Creek?
Those are major implications that this is a critical stream and my concern
is the gravity of some of the implications, and once again, the fact
is that none of this data has been provided to this body and they have
not yet talked to the people about this.
There are some other issues regarding the other map, regarding the other
issue of the tentative subdivision map, but that's not before the body
tonight as I understand it. They were requested to come back. It should
be a separate agenda item.
However, if they're not going before Planning until March, in theory
they could come back in February.
MR. RUBENSTEIN: One more thing about the information being complete.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it need to be complete at the time
that the agenda is published, not on the day that we're having this
meeting? You tell me.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: It should be.
MR. RUBENSTEIN: You folks should have time to look at the complete information
and --
MS. ELAINE STEINER: We have not received any of this to study ahead
of time, and I'm not quite sure what the problem is. This has been held
over since November. You had all of December and part of January.
MS. BOLDI: I'm not familiar with how the county gives you all your information.
I know with the city we submit to the city.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: But 60 days is 60 days and you just gave it to the
county when?
MS. BOLDI: It's been a week-and-a-half, so --
MS. ELAINE STEINER: To me this is a very critical issue and my little
brain takes a lot of time to absorb these things.
MS. BOLDI: I agree. Do you normally receive full submittal packets before
we submit it to the county?
MS. ELAINE STEINER: Yes, always.
MS. BOLDI: Then I can't speak for the county on that. I know a lot of
the things that were submitted, I submitted them myself actually, were
well samples.
In order for the Health Department to approve the project, we have to
submit four samples from four different wells with a number of actual
constituents that comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act and other
acts, so I know a large volume of the paperwork that was submitted to
the county was actually those well samples.
They were a huge bulk of that paperwork, and I know from looking at
the well samples, there were two wells on site that were tested and
I believe two other wells which were very close that were tested.
All the water samples were within the water quality that the Health
Department requires. All elements and all compounds tested were either
non-detect or within the limitations according to the Safe Drinking
Water standards.
There's also -- we submitted a revised Special Use Permit to include
-- it was actually addressed in the county's name for the lift station
and to address this within both the critical and sensitive stream buffer
zones and we submitted a whole set of revised plans, civil engineering
plans.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: Lynn [Mundt], you had your hand up.
MS. LYNN MUNDT: Actually, let me ask you, were you going to talk about
the Special Use Permit then?
MS. BOLDI: Yes, that's one thing -- one other thing we have going against
us is it is a beautiful area, very pristine. This whole swath going
around Dry Creek and everything around the boundary has been deemed
jurisdictional by the Water Corps of Engineers.
Their applications and requirements are much more strict than either
the city or the county's requirements right now, so we also have to
comply with all Army Corps of Engineer requirements to do any grading
within the actual critical or stream buffer zone.
They actually have -- their wetlands actually stand farther outside.
We also submitted stormwater pollution prevention plans along with our
revisions which will address any erosion control and any drainage abatement
that will go along with construction activities which will include fencing.
Normally also fencing will be established a certain distance outside
of the wetlands and straw bales will also be incorporated and a number
of other construction practices so that we do not have any drainage
entering Dry Creek itself.
We will also have to go for a nationwide permit for any draining and
grading, so that will also be done as we approach the final stages.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: How much are you planning to move?
MS. BOLDI: In that area we're not planning very much. It's only actually
to put in this roadway across -- this pond sits here and it acts more
like a detention pond. It won't be filled by water. It will be filled
by any excess water from Dry Creek.
There's also, I believe, 133 acre-feet per year of water rights, surface
water rights that exist on the property right now. Those will be allotted
four acre-feet per lot for irrigation purposes.
MR. JOE BACHMAN: Where does that water come from?
MS. BOLDI: It will come from Last Chance Ditch or the irrigation channels.
The idea is to keep the water within those irrigation channels. We don’t
really want to move those. However, if the homeowner comes in and they
want to build their house there, they may have to consider that. They
will actually take -- I believe all the surface water rights come from
Last Chance Ditch.
MR. WALTHER: No. I don't mean to interrupt you, but I can correct you
on that.
MS. BOLDI: Okay. I would like to actually -- I'm not familiar exactly
with how the owner wants to address that. I know he does plan to keep
the irrigation open to the homeowners who purchase these lots.
The county, when I spoke to the county Health Department regarding this,
this is a private well subdivision. Each lot will be on a private well.
They saw that as very favorable since a lot of times people will try
to use their well for irrigation which makes the groundwater source
even better, so they were very favorable to keeping the existing water
rights, and the developers also entered into an agreement with the current
property owner as they go through escrow to purchase --
MS. ELAINE STEINER: The property is not through escrow?
MS. BOLDI: No, actually Brunsonbuilt/Legacy Farms owns it now. They
have entered into an agreement to purchase the amount of groundwater
rights necessary to provide wells per lot.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: Walter [Lamp], you had your hand up?
MR. LAMP: In my own mind I want to make a list of the issues before
the CAB [Southwest Truckee Meadows Citizen Advisory Board], because
this thing is starting to bloom.
At the last meeting [November 21, 2002], we addressed acreage. The question
was whether it was 2.45 instead of 2.5, so we played around with that
one and we played around with the internal roads and exits, so we still
have those issues, or maybe we don't.
Maybe you said now it's a minimum of 2.5, so all the size issues have
disappeared, so maybe we still have a road issue in terms of the plot,
but now we're talking about other issues. What are specifically the
other issues to come to this Board?
Are you going to ask us -- can anybody address this? Are we just talking
about the lift station, is that the only issue here? Are we talking
about water rights? Are we talking about wells? I just want to -- I
want the population of issues. Can anybody give that to me?
MS. ELAINE STEINER: I have a feeling we're being asked to bake a pie
a slice at a time.
MS. BOLDI: Part of the application is a Special Use Permit which has
two different items and that's grading within the critical and sensitive
stream buffer zones and the actual use of a sanitary sewer lift station,
so this Special Use Permit would be a dual-purpose.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: Of which we've seen nothing ahead of time.
MR. BACHMAN: I don't see how we can just act on the lift station.
MR. LAMP: We have one other plot that we discussed last time. Now you
say Special Use Permit. What else do we have? What else is on the table
here?
MS. BOLDI: That's it. Actually, just the Special Use Permit.
MR. WALTHER: What they have before you is the lift station [Special
Use Permit issue]. The only thing is -- to try and decide these issues
in a vacuum without considering the whole thing wouldn't make any sense.
What they've asked you to approve here is the lift station [Special
Use Permit] for sewage for 13 lots -- which they’re going to take
this road, they're going to take the sewage line from Huffaker and bring
it down half or a quarter mile -- or whatever the distance is -- clear
down to Holcomb through Lakeside, and then take it all the way along
Lakeside, inject it into this property for sewage for 13 lots before
the subdivision is even recommended for approval by this Board. So,
to approve the sewage program without the lots [the application for
Tentative Subdivision Map Approval] themselves seems premature, but
the implications of this is very strong.
Here this is a wetlands area, a federal wetlands area, but what they've
done is -- they've set up -- you can build right here, right here. You
can do anything you want in the wetlands area. There are no restrictions
in there at all in the CC&R's or anywhere restricting what they
can do once they get in there, so in theory the landowner has no restrictions
on that as to what they want to do with it at this point.
The wetlands should be wetlands. Those are the ideas of the -- here
they've intersected it all the way through with lots, which is unusual.
MS. BOLDI: Actually, they are restricted. They're restricted by the
county code and they're also restricted by the Army Corps of Engineers.
MR. LAMP: How does that come before the Board other than this Special
Use Permit?
MS. BOLDI: The Special Use Permit governs the lift station and grading.
MR. LAMP: I'm talking about what Steve [Walther] just said. Can we put
restrictions on wetlands? How do we react to that?
MS. BOLDI: I don't know if Roger can back me up on this, but the wetlands
are restricted by county code. Even the homeowner, they are not restricted
just by CC&R's. They are still restricted by county code and Army
Corps of Engineers.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: Roger, are we hearing things that are true? I mean,
I'm so confused now. I don't know what's right and what's wrong.
MR. PELHAM: Yes. Article 418, significant hydrologic resources limits
greatly the activities that can go on in the critical stream buffer
zone.
Residential activities are not restricted in the sensitive stream buffer
zone. The critical is the 30 feet from the center line, sensitive is
the 150.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: Why would it be 30 feet and not 100 feet?
MR. PELHAM: That's the critical. There's two sort of -- one lies inside
the other. The one is 30 feet on either side, that's the critical, and
then the sensitive is 100.
MS. MUNDT: 100, you're right.
MR. TAORMINA: From midstream, either side?
MR. PELHAM: Yes, the midpoint of the stream.
MS. MUNDT: I'd like to just make one point that I think is really important
here and that is, the trigger for the Significant Hydrologic Resource
Ordinance is the fact that they have a tentative map and then that triggers
the Special Use Permit that's here.
The fact that the lift station is going to be in the sensitive stream
zone, that's not an allowed use. That is one reason -- I mean, you have
the right to say whether you want to allow a lift station in the sensitive
stream zone.
That's one of the reasons for the Special Use Permit is to give you
an opportunity to comment on what you want in basically the wetland
area.
One of the problems, and I never thought of it as a problem when we
were creating this ordinance, but in a situation like this, if you approve
the tentative map with these lots and building envelopes in the sensitive
stream zone, then when the individual homeowners go to build, the stream
ordinance is no longer in effect, and we did this because there's multiple
individual residential homes on creeks that we didn't want to have to
go look at each one.
The Army Corps is a one-man office here in Reno, and believe me, after
this subdivision is built out, they're not going to go look on each
individual lot to see what people are doing in the wetlands, but they're
going to be doing things in the wetlands because that's their property,
and so I feel that this Special Use Permit is very, very important and
it's important to understand the implication of what they're asking.
First of all, they're asking for the Special Use Permit for the sewage
lift plant. Well, that's in the sensitive stream zone. You have the
right to say we don't want it in the sensitive stream zone. That's over
and above the approval for it.
The next thing is the lot lines go right in. These people are going
to own part of that wetland. Once that is approved, then we no longer
have any control over what they do in those wetlands and the Army Corps
in effect is too busy, so you're giving up those wetlands once you approve
it.
Normally what they do with a situation like this would be to set aside
a common area that is open and then we know that that's protected open
space and that wetlands will be protected. In this situation, there's
no way to protect it.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: But they can do that if they had fewer lots and
--
MS. MUNDT: They would need fewer lots to maintain.
MS. MARY DUGAN: The question I have is at the last meeting we attended
here in November, we understood, I did anyway, that the developer was
going to come back with a new tentative map that we could consider and
approve or not, and it seems now that we're getting the cart before
the horse and that if we were to approve this, then it sounds like we've
approved a tentative map and we haven't, so my question to you, Karen
[Boldi], is -- were you given any instructions about presenting a tentative
map to us?
MS. BOLDI: No, I wasn't.
MS. DUGAN: Do you know why that didn't happen?
MS. BOLDI: I'm not certain, to tell you the truth. All I know is that
Roger notified us that the Special Use Permit last month would be on
last month's agenda due to the fact that it was tabled in the November
meeting, so having last month's meeting canceled, it was automatically
carried over to this meeting.
I do not know as to why the tentative map hasn't come back. I don't
know if the county intended to put it back on the agenda.
MR. ROGER PELHAM: I believe the reason the tentative map is not up for
your consideration this evening is that you took action on that and
moved to deny that.
MR. LAMP: But I'd like to know, Roger, why these issues didn't come
up when we were discussing it. In other words, when we were discussing
that tentative map, even though we denied it, it was for other reasons.
These wetland issues, nothing else, and where were you?
MR. PELHAM: These are issues that are addressed under the Special Use
Permit. That's where these are rightly considered.
MR. LAMP: Not from what I understand here. It seems to me that you're
asking us to approve a plot and even though --
MR. PELHAM: I'm not asking you to approve or deny anything.
MR. LAMP: Even though we denied it, at least you should make sure all
the issues are on the table and I don't remember any of these discussions
when we denied it.
MS. BOLDI: I believe the Special Use Permit was following the tentative
map on November's agenda, but it was tabled having taken action on it.
MR. LAMP: I understand that, but these issues are beyond the Special
Use Permit. It seems to me we're back to the plot.
MR. JOE BACHMAN: Madam Chair, I think we should just shoot this down
right now and go home.
MS. FAITH FESSENDEN: Because there were still issues with just the plot
map. We denied moving forward -- we denied moving forward and moved
this up because there was still unresolved issues on the original plot
map.
We were told by the owners, the developers, everybody, they would bring
it back. We didn't even have information that they were presenting that
night. We said we cannot go forward until we receive complete information
and that was the basis for denial at that moment. It was not denied
as a plan.
MS. BOLDI: I see. I had no idea.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: It was denied because we didn't have an updated
tentative map.
MS. FESSENDEN: We had nothing, so to now do a leap frog and say that's
over here on the fast track, this is now in front of us and we're going,
wait, we still have the unresolved issues that they never gave us the
information on.
MS. BOLDI: I apologize for that. My deepest apologies. I do have our
engineer here --
MS. ELAINE STEINER: I would like to ask a question. Time is getting
late. I'm not sure -- the fact that he's an engineer, that's fine, but
you can see the problems that we are having.
Do you have the authority, either one of you, [the representatives of
the developers from Summit Engineering], to go back to whoever these
owners are -- who we've never met -- come back to us with something
that we can understand that is 100 percent complete so that we may discuss
this project?
MS. BOLDI: Certainly.
MS. DUGAN: Prior to the meeting. We want it before the meeting.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: Right, we have always gotten information sent to
us in the mail at least two weeks prior sent to each CAB member individually
and we sit down in our own individual homes and go through it and then
we come and discuss it, but you, not you personally, but this application
is such a mish-mosh. This has been “How Not to Submit an Application
101.” Do you have the authority to do that for us?
MS. BOLDI: I should not just jump up and say yes. Given the fact that
we will not be going to the Planning Commission until March, we have
the time to come back, no problem -- next month -- and we could bring
this project back.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: I want to see a complete application, everything.
MS. BOLDI: That's for Roger to answer because we don't submit to you
guys, unfortunately.
MR. ROGER PELHAM: I'll tell you what. This is the whole thing right
here (holding up a thick bound volume).
MS. ELAINE STEINER: That's just the sewer and lot and blah blah blah?
MR. PELHAM: The whole nine yards. If you like, we can certainly request
11 additional copies.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: We have nine members.
MR. PELHAM: And a few extras for the public.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: So we would need 12, from A to Z.
MR. LAMP: Can you assure us this will not go before the Planning Commission
before March?
MS. DUGAN: I have another question for Roger. If we voted to deny this
Special Use Permit now, what does that do to the application? Are they
able to move forward elsewhere?
MR. PELHAM: Certainly they would be able to move forward. Staff and
the Planning Commission take those recommendations very, very seriously
and that would play a very large part in my analysis. Not only mine,
but the Planning Commission when I make my recommendation.
MR. LAMP: But there would be no hearing before March, there's no way?
MR. PELHAM: No.
MR. LAMP: There's no way it will be heard before March?
MR. PELHAM: No.
MS. ELLEN STEINER: Roger, what we denied, we denied something that doesn't
look anything like this. They even changed the lot sizes since we issued
our denial, so how appropriate is our denial to the consideration of
these applications by the Planning Commission? In other words, what
we denied was the map that was given to us which wasn't really even
a map, and we denied that, but it was very different than what we are
seeing here, so --
MS. ELAINE STEINER: We're mixing apples and oranges.
MS. ELLEN STEINER: So can they bring it back and can we deny it again?
MR. PELHAM: If the applicant is willing to come back next month, you
certainly have the opportunity to consider whatever you would like.
The applicant can certainly bring both the tentative map and the Special
Use Permit before you. Certainly we can do that, and the other way I
would sort of address that is minor changes take place all the time.
MS. ELLEN STEINER: Minor?
MR. PELHAM: I'm saying in generic terms. A lot of times when we get
comments from the CAB that the applicant -- I can incorporate that before
I go to the Planning Commission.
MR. LAMP: I think we definitely ought to put all of it on the agenda
for next month because I don't like the grounds on which we denied it
last time.
It seems to me that we were talking about silly things last time. In
other words, we didn't get to the core of the issues. We did not get
to the core of the issues. We were talking about lot sizes of 2.45.
In other words, we weren't really talking about the nub of the issue
and I think we've set a very bad record and I think we just ought to
have the whole thing taken all over again from scratch at the next meeting
and put it on the agenda.
MS. STEINER: Mr. Walther?
MR. WALTHER: The only thing is, there were reasons set out in the minutes
for the denial [at the meeting of the Southwest Truckee Meadows Citizen
Advisory Board on November 21, 2002] and you also requested that they
come back on that application -- which they have not yet done. My thought
is that if they decide -- as they have so far -- not to come back on
that issue and not to talk to the people, then I think the denial should
stand. Likewise with this [Special Use Permit on the proposed Lift Station],
you can always move to reconsider. If you come back next month, that's
great, you will be here -- but to table it -- and then if they don't
-- and it goes on to County Planning --
MR. LAMP: If I remember correctly, the denial was based on we didn't
have this piece of paper, we didn't have that piece of paper. Denial
was nothing that would convince the Planning Commission that we really
addressed the issues.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: No, we denied it for several reasons if you want
to go back and read your minutes.
MR. MATT TAORMINA: I think Lynn brought up a real good point about that
station being in the sensitive zone, and I don't think we should ignore
that. When they come back I think that will also be an issue.
MS. DUGAN: I move to deny the Special Use Permit.
MR. BACHMAN: Because it's in a sensitive zone.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: Do we have a second?
MR. ROBERT GELU: I'm sorry, I was trying to say something. My name is
Robert Gelu. I'm with Summit Engineering. I was trying to say something
earlier in the process regarding these wetlands and sensitive buffer
zone and the critical buffer zone and I didn’t really get the chance
because we were stepping back and looking at “should we even address
this at this time?” I think it would be good to go over this wetland
issue because it's not as dark as it may sound.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: I've been there.
MS. GELU: The Dry Creek has a jurisdictional wetland which is this gray
boundary here which is governed by the Army Corps of Engineers pretty
much.
Now, there's a requirement for fencing this wetland, even if it's in
somebody's property. I don't know if you're aware of this, but we will
have to do that.
The envelopes are -- the building envelopes along the stream are at
the 50-foot setback from this area on this limit which is pretty significant
I would say considering the fact that the critical zone is 30 feet.
MR. TAORMINA: But the sensitive is 150 feet, correct?
MR. GELU: Yes, that is correct, and being a residential development,
we are allowed to build.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: But it isn't a development yet.
MR. GELU: That is correct. That's what we're trying to do, so we have
the 30-foot offset for the critical zone. We have the wetlands which
are far more further away from the floor line. We do have the sensitive
buffer here, and we also have the 100-year which would be the technical
limit, the 100 year limit here, and we have been very conservative in
setbacks.
There is no requirement for setback from a wetland. We gave -- we went
back 50 feet to make sure that the building time no gets in the wetlands
and there is a way to prevent that, so we are grading through all these
zones with a road crossing and the reason we have the lift station here,
the sewer lift station is because it's the low point of the subdivision.
The sensitive stream [zone] is here. The critical stream [zone] will
be here. The wetlands are pretty far away, plus we have the walls and
the pump station is self-contained.
MS. BOLDI: If I also might add, the utility is allowed the sensitive
stream [zone].
MS. MUNDT: I just want to make it clear that they have the right --
the Planning Commission has the right whether they allow it and it's
not automatically allowed.
MR. JOE BACHMAN: I'll second that motion.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: My understanding is -- if we vote in favor of Mary's
motion to deny the Lift Station [application for Special Use Permit]
– now -- should we wish to reconsider it, it will have to be brought
up again by someone who votes for the measure, correct?
MS. ELLEN STEINER: Yes.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: But if we also vote against it tonight, will they
have to come back to us in February, or do you want to make part of
that? I want them to come back I think, or do you just want them to
fight the fight someplace else?
MS. FESSENDEN: We would like it resolved within the neighborhood.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: If we say no to them tonight, we will not see them
again, period?
MS. DUGAN: No, last time we asked them to come back and we didn't see
them on that issue again anyway.
MR. WALTHER: If you deny it, you can always move to reconsider at your
next meeting, if they show up. And you can also ask them to come back
at the next meeting as you proceed tonight, as you did last time. They
haven't done it yet on the other one [tentative map application], and
it's been 60 days.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: When we go to ask to reconsider, it has to be agendized
and then they [Legacy Farms, the applicant] would have to come back.
Say we voted to deny right now and then someone else can make another
motion that we can reconsider this next month and if that motion passes,
then --
MR. BACHMAN: We can put it on the agenda and take a vote before we consider
the agenda item.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: I have a hearing problem. I can only hear one person
at a time.
MR. WALTHER: You can always move to undo what you've done, and generally
under the parliamentary rules, if you move and pass something and you
want to undo it, one of the people who voted for that has to move to
reconsider and then it comes back and then you vote and see if a majority
says “Yes, we'll come back and reconsider it,” and then you
do whatever you want with it. You may undo it or you may keep everything
as it is.
MR. BACHMAN: I say we just deny it now. Now if we want to come back
next month and put it on the agenda, I think all Steve is saying is
that all we have to do is if we want to consider this again, we take
a vote before they even start their presentation whether or not we want
to consider it again.
MR. LAMP: We have to agendize it --
MS. DUGAN: I'd like to amend my motion. I'd like to move to deny the
Special Use Permit because the lift station is in a sensitive stream
area and I'm also concerned about the grading that goes along with the
Special Use Permit, but I'd like to ask them to come back to answer
the questions that have been raised tonight on the issue of the Special
Use Permit because we still like to have all the information available.
We've never had all the information, and they've asked us to make decisions
without providing us with the information on which we can make those
decisions. That's my motion.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: I have a question on your motion. You're asking
them to come back for the entire development, not just the lift station;
is that correct?
MS. DUGAN: Yes, that's what I'd like. We'd like to have them come back
and talk to us about it.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: You'd like to hear something from A to Z?
MS. DUGAN: The first time they were here in November -- what I'd like
the record to reflect is when we were here in November, we asked them
to come back regarding the tentative map because we had more questions
for them.
They chose not to do that, and I'm concerned that despite our request
that you all come back next month, you won't do that, either, and I
think it's important for the County Commission and Planning Commission
and anybody else who considers this to know that we keep asking for
information and we don't get it.
MS. ELLEN STEINER: I second.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: Everybody have that clear in their mind? A yes vote
will mean that we agree with Mary to deny.
MS. ELLEN STEINER: To deny and to return.
MS. STEINER: All those in favor?
MR. LAMP: Can I have the motion, please?
SECRETARY: Mary Dugan moves to recommend denial of the Special Use Permit
since it is a violation of Article 418 to locate the Sewer Lift Station
in the sensitive stream zone, and Mary Dugan amended her motion to ask
the applicant to bring the complete development application, including
the Tentative Map and Special Use Permit, back to the CAB [Southwest
Truckee Meadows Citizen Advisory Board] in February for further review.
Ellen Steiner seconded the amended motion. Mary Dugan asked the record
reflect that the applicant has been asked in November to bring the full
application back or tentative map back and they did not do that. I'm
just winging it because I'm going to have to listen to the tape.
MS. ELAINE STEINER: Does that sound right? All those in favor?
(Everybody says aye.)
MS. ELAINE STEINER: Opposed? Motion carries.
Minutes
of November 21, 2002, SWTMCAB meeting.
Washoe
County Development Code
Article 418 SIGNIFICANT HYDROLOGIC RESOURCES
Back to Legacy Farms main page