Carson City Supervisors move to suspend Open Space Development; what it means for city, developers
Submitted by Kelsey Penrose on Wed, 03/08/2023 - 1:30pm
On Friday, Carson City Supervisors held a joint meeting with the Carson City Planning Commission, during which they directed staff to begin the process of suspending Title 17.10, which deals with Open Space Development.
Let’s dig into what Open Space Development means, and how this decision will effect the city, as well as future developments.
The term Open Space has a few terminologies within Carson City. There is Open Space as a part of Carson City Parks, Recreation and Open Space, such as the city-owned open space properties of Silver Saddle Ranch and areas near Timberline, and then there is Open Space which is privately owned and can be developed into subdivisions.
When it comes to the discussion of development, we will be dealing with the latter.
According to Carson City Community Development Director Hope Sullivan, when private land owners wish to subdivide and develop their acreage, there are currently three avenues to do so: through 17.05: Tentative Map, 17.09 Planned Unit Development (PUD), and 17.10: Common Open Space Development.
By Nevada state law, cities and counties must have local subdivision ordinances to deal with development regulations. Out of that law, Carson City chose the above three options from which developers could choose from.
However, the choice between those ordinances can have vastly different effects on neighborhoods.
17.05 is the traditional subdivision that can be found all over Carson City, which involves dividing all property into lots that are privately owned. So a homeowner will have their house, with or without a yard, and nothing more; no HOA owned club houses or public spaces. All density and minimum lot area requirements are set by zoning.
17.09 the Planned Unit Development, has specific requirements and regulations that allow flexibility within developments. While lot size under 17.05 is strict, 17.09 lot sizes can be flexible, which could allow for more units in a development, but it also carries an additional requirement: Open Space requirements.
Under a PUD, 30 percent of the gross land area must be Open Space, which includes yards as well as areas like parks and trail systems, with no more than 25 percent being private (yards vs. common areas).
A PUD also allows for a 10 percent bonus in density.
Under 17.10, Open Space Development, the option that Supervisors are seeking to suspend, some confusion might stem from the name. Open Space Development could signal to members of the public that 17.10 develops areas with open space in mind, but in practice, the opposite is true.
Under 17.10, density is set per zoning, but minimum lot areas remain flexible. However, as opposed to the 30 percent Open Space Requirement found in the PUD, only 250 sqft per unit is required — and there is no requirement at all for common open space.
The differences between 17.05 and 17.09 are simple: one is traditional, in which a homeowner is only responsible for their privately owned parcel, as opposed to the PUD in which homeowners share responsibility for common space such as trails, parks and club houses.
However, some members of the public argued that 17.10 only benefitted developers, which allowed them flexibility in lot sizes without the additional public advantage of common open space.
During the meeting, Supervisor Stacey Giomi moved to direct the District Attorney’s Office to begin the legal process of suspending 17.10, which will allow developers to choose between 17.05 and 17.09 alone, which was unanimously approved by the board.
The final decision will come before the Board of Supervisors at a later date.
