Council moves forward with Stonegate Hines Ranch master plan amendment; zoning change to return site to industrial mix draws debate

The City Council approved a master plan amendment on May 21 to change land‑use plans for the 1,767‑acre Stonegate / Hines Ranch site north of U.S. 395 in Cold Springs, endorsing a revised mix that reduces residential build‑out and re‑emphasizes industrial and commercial acreage. The proposed revision replaces the 2018 Stonegate PUD approach — which had shifted much of the property toward homes — with a plan that the developer says will be economically feasible and will deliver infrastructure, jobs and public open space sooner.

What the council approved: Council voted to overturn the Planning Commission’s technical denial recommendation and adopt the master plan amendment. The City subsequently referred the accompanying zoning map amendment ordinance for second reading and adoption (a separate legislative step). The change would dissolve the Stonegate PUD and map most of the property back to conventional zones: roughly 923 acres for industrial uses, about 386 acres for single‑family (SF‑5) neighborhoods, 55 acres of general commercial, and approximately 404 acres designated parks/greenways/open space in the applicant’s proposal shared with council.

Why the change was proposed: Stonegate’s development team told council the original PUD residential plan has become economically infeasible because infrastructure costs and construction prices made the earlier home‑heavy plan uneconomic. The developer said switching to a jobs‑heavy mix (industrial and commercial) combined with targeted housing in later phases will stimulate early infrastructure investments (roads, sewer, water) and create near‑term employment and tax base in the North Valleys.

Key issues and council debate: Council and public discussion focused on several recurring concerns: - Water availability: The city, Great Basin Water Company and Tomah (TMWA) staff explained complex local groundwater conditions and the developer’s claim to 1,700 acre‑feet of perfected water rights. Council members and residents pressed for clearer assurances on long‑term water supply, interties, and whether potable supplies could sustain later phases. Staff noted that any future development will require service commitments and permits from water purveyors and building permits; the city does not have authority to promise water beyond the purveyor’s will‑serve process. - Traffic and evacuation: Staff and the developer said traffic modeling and regional transportation investments (projects included in the regional transportation plan) would address congestion; the applicant and staff emphasized off‑site improvements (e.g., White Lake Parkway interchange, culvert upgrades under US‑395). Council members asked that the project’s phases align with transportation improvements and evacuation planning underway for the valley. - Compatibility and buffers: The developer proposes a 100‑foot park/open space buffer between industrial uses and adjacent residential zoning; council members pressed for stricter transitions in places where industrial abuts current residences and for guarantees on landscaping and noise mitigation. - Jobs and housing balance: Supporters — including the Economic Development Authority of Western Nevada and local builders — argued the plan restores regional industrial land needed to attract high‑paying employers and keep jobs in the Truckee Meadows; they said the mixed plan would create thousands of construction and permanent jobs. Opponents — including several Cold Springs residents and community groups — said the plan would reduce promised housing, intensify industrial uses near homes, and risk water and quality‑of‑life impacts.

Planning Commission and public outreach: The Planning Commission initially voted a technical denial and recommended denial to the council after public testimony and commissioner concerns about quality‑of‑life and compatibility. City staff and the applicant provided multiple rounds of outreach and revised materials during the months‑long review; staff maintained that the proposed plan is substantially consistent with the city’s master plan goals for employment, infrastructure, safety, and open space, and can meet required findings.

Outcome and next steps: The council-approved master plan amendment moves the proposal forward; the zoning map amendment was referred for a second reading and adoption, which requires a separate ordinance vote. Staff noted that any specific development — industrial buildings, residential subdivisions, or mixed‑use parcels — will still require entitlement reviews, environmental and drainage reviews, and separate permits to address site‑specific traffic, water service, grading, and buffers before construction can proceed. The council also asked staff to keep the public informed about water and evacuation studies referenced during the hearing.