The developer hosted an on-line community meeting to review the project and explain why they feel the zoning amendment would benefit Incline Village. They learned that in town center designated areas around the basin, the Tahoe Area Plan does not include single family dwellings, but instead is limited to affordable and/or multi-residential housing. Condominium units, like what is planned for the 947 project, are considered single family and therefore require a zoning amendment. They are specifically requesting a zoning amendment to the Tahoe Area Plan for the Incline Village Commercial Regulatory Zone Special Area 1, limited to condominiums.
They highlighted how the Tahoe Area Plan outlines the guidelines for development and growth encouraging redevelopment in town centers and the aging urban cores around the basin.
The developer stated multiple times that affordable and multi-residential housing aren’t economically viable residential projects. They also identified the Tahoe Area Plan allows for amendments to remove barriers for redevelopment. They also stated there is no incentive for the higher density projects.
They identified what they believe are the benefits of their project:
- Increased density in town centers in support of the Tahoe Area Plan.
- Promoting walking/biking and reducing the dependency on automobiles. Public comment at the end of the meeting highlighted the ‘F’ rating for the eastern intersection of Southwood/Northwood at SR 28 and repeated the request for a traffic light at the intersection. The developer clarified this is an NDOT issue, not something the developer has the ability/requirement to change.
- Improved stormwater management.
- A reduction of vehicle miles travels (VMT) and parking demand. IV/CB Community 1st has inquired for a clarification on this benefit and has not yet received a response.
Most public comment focused on a desire for restricting the condos from becoming short term rentals, the need for a traffic light at the intersection, the need for affordable/workforce housing, property rights, and the potential impact of this amendment setting a basin-wide precedent that will continue to reduce the likelihood of affordable/multi-residential housing development. Multiple questions were raised as to why this amendment requirement wasn’t identified at the project’s inception in 2021. Click here to view a transcript of the public comments.
It became clear that if TRPA and Washoe County desire affordable or multi-resident developments in town centers, financial incentives are needed.
The next steps include obtaining the Washoe County Planning Commission decision at their meeting on October 4th and then moving to the Washoe County Commissioners. If this is approved, it will then go move to TRPA where it will need to move from the Advisory Planning Commission to the Governing Board. If you are interested in writing the Washoe County Planning Commission, the emails are below along with the email address for all Washoe County Commissioners, the Tahoe Area Plan author, and a senior planner for the project:
Washoe County Commissioners: commissioners@washoecounty.gov
Planning Commission District 1: dlazzareschi@gmail.com (The Incline Village/Crystal Bay District)
Planning Commission District 2: KateNelsonPE@gmail.com (she will need to recuse herself due to her IVGID involvement)
Planning Commission District 3: f.donshick@att.net
Planning Commission District 4: rmflick@washoecounty.us
Planning Commission District 5: chviliceks@unce.unr.edu
At-Large Planning Commission Member: rpierce@washoecounty.gov
At-Large Planning Commission Member: pataphillips@yahoo.com
Senior Planner Washoe County and author of the Washoe County Area Plan: eyoung@washoecounty.gov
Senior Planner Washoe County: tlloyd@washoecounty.gov
0 Comments