2020 Vision of the Andersen Estates Development or Is It? (opinion)

The Board of Supervisors will review the Andersen Ranch Estates Tentative Map this Thursday, January 16th.  The special session starts at 5:30pm at the Sierra Room of the Community Center at 851 Williams Street, Carson City.


If you were involved with the Vintage project, you will know that the same players under a different owner, Christy Corp., will be presenting their application at the Board of Supervisors’ meeting.

You could say that they have learned their lessons well on the Vintage experience, and have submitted an application that sounds too good to be true.


According to the application - “The proposed density complements existing housing in the area and will not change the overall development style of the neighborhood”. “The project will be complementary to surrounding development in terms of height, [and] setbacks”. “The project is designed to be consistent with adjoining neighborhoods”. “Proposed density is comparable to the existing neighborhoods”.

 
I live in the east side of the development.  I am not a “no development” proponent.  After all, the development will mean less clearing of tumbleweed for me, the 4th time to-date. I ask myself, why are the existing neighbors so upset if this application actually achieved their stated objectives?


The underlying zoning of Andersen Ranch is Title 18 which was predominantly 12000 sq. ft lots. Their proposal is to convert to 5,000 sq. ft lots.

To reach the desired price point of $400K to $500K home prices, Christy Corp. wants to build 2-storey houses of 3,000 sq. ft size. The 2-storey homes are not in the application. I asked the question as the November Community meeting.

Where in the existing neighborhood do you see 2 storey houses back-to-back on 5,000 sq. ft. lots? The smallest sized lots are those facing the Andersen Ranch on Mountain Street at 7,000 sq. ft lots.  By the way, they are single storey houses only.

Per Mike Railey of Christy Corp., 2-storey houses will be 24-34 ft.  Kiley Ranch in Spanish Springs was an example given by Christy Corp. as a similar development.  This neighborhood of Carson City has nothing in common with the Kiley Ranch location or stage of development of the City. Kiley Ranch is also not an INFILL development.
The 34 ft 2-storey houses will completely eliminate much of the hill view from the existing houses around Andersen Ranch, particularly when they are closer together on smaller 5,000 lots.  This is a transfer of value from existing homes to the newer houses. 

While we respect the property rights of Andersen Ranch to sell their property, the property rights of existing home owners should be considered as well since owners have paid a premium to purchase homes on the West Side of Carson City and have paid for that privilege over many years.  We request the Board to impose a single-storey and max. height limitation on the Development.


By the letter of the law, the Reno Developers can do this conversion and still say they are satisfying the density requirements because Title 17:10 enables them to set aside 250 sq ft per lots to private or common use land.  It is up to the Developer to decide how this set-aside land is to be used.  In this case, there are two massive retention basins at the north side of the development.  The rest is in the buffer between the existing neighbors and the development. But is this a great project for Carson City?


Title 17:10 was enacted in 2007 by the Board of Supervisors to protect Open Space.  Residents, neighbors and recreationists were equally happy when it was applied to larger projects such as the Longview Ranch Estates.  But is Title 17:10 applicable in an infill situation surrounded by long-term residents in houses which are compliant with the original zoning under Title 18?


Not being a long-term resident of Carson City, I was curious about the intent of Title 17:10.  Why did the Board of Supervisors think it was important to implement this Ordinance?

 
The purpose of Title 17:10 is to set forth regulations to permit variation of lot size, including density transfer (cluster) subdivisions, in order to preserve or provide open space, protect natural, cultural and scenic resources, achieve a more efficient use of land, minimize road building and encourage stable, cohesive neighborhoods offering a mix of housing types.

Does this application provide open space? Protect natural, cultural and scenic resources?  How about minimize road building?  Encourage stable cohesive neighborhoods?  If the purpose of the ordinance is not satisfied, why are we even engaged in the process to see if this application meets its individual conditions?

 
The “purpose” is a GO – NO GO tollgate decision.  This tollgate decision belongs to the Board of Supervisors.  The taxpayers of Carson City elected this official body to make this important decision.  After all, they enacted Title 17:10 for a very specific purpose.


Even though this application was submitted to the Planning Commission during the busy holiday season when families are inwardly focused, they have participated fully to state their concerns.  I expect a big turnout at the Board of Supervisors to restate their concerns and yield an outcome that is consistent with the charm and beauty of Carson City, a decision which the neighbors would be proud to be part of in years to come.  Implementing “row houses” is backward planning to use the residual space after retention basins and buffer zones.


My recommendation to the Board would be to create a taskforce of neighbors, developer and City officials to create a plan that is indeed consistent with the assertions of this application as stated above.


“The proposed density complements existing housing in the area and will not change the overall development style of the neighborhood”. “The project will be complementary to surrounding development in terms of height, [and] setbacks”. “The project is designed to be consistent with adjoining neighborhoods”. “Proposed density is comparable to the existing neighborhoods”.

I hope the Board of Supervisors will look after the interests of the Carson City taxpayers and not relinquish this development decision to the whims of Developers.