all right thank you all for attending the Reno City Planning Commission meeting of Wednesday January 18th thank you all for coming uh we'll start it off with the Pledge of Allegiance commissioner Munoz would you like to lead us I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God and visible with liberty and justice for all and before we start roll call looks like we have chair velto here online Michelle would you like to kick off a roll call for item number two please okay JD draculic here here Armstrong here Peter Gower here Mark Johnson Arthur Munoz Sylvia Villanueva it looks like she's absent Alex felto here we have a quorum all right thank you very much moving on to item number three uh for general public comment uh this item is for either public comment on any action item or for any general public comment tonight I do have one request of speak form uh Danny cleus if you'd like to come up thank you and you'll have three minutes more this is a report from dri this is the newest one quad can off already told you guys in 2007 what would happen if you guys kept building out there you guys didn't listen to that one dri basically mimic mimics it except a little bit more extreme it actually shows you where all the water points are that come in it shows you how Silver Lake goes right into Swan Lake you guys need to knock it off the three weather storms that we've had this year is filled that Lake up it's moved that Lake over 150 yards guess what that leads you guys to another lawsuit if I flood again I started the last one and one against you guys and I will do it again and now I got more ammo against you guys we have lawyers more than one to come after you guys for this stuff you guys need to knock it off building in floodplains building on top of flood Plains it's not good we had a warehouse that got shut down guess what covet came and it got built they got flooded two years ago then they got it got to raise their warehouse out of the flood plain how does that happen right smack dab in the middle of it two of you guys have been here that know me the rest of you guys are new I came here every meeting for three years trying to get you guys to knock it off and you guys don't I don't know who pulls your strings but it's not fun for me to make the City of Reno residents pay for your guys's mistakes doesn't come out of your pocket it comes out of the city of Reno's residence pocket you guys keep doing this I don't know why there's reports that tell you not to do it I can dig back clear to the 70s that has reports saying don't do it that used to be country living when I moved here in 1973 now this became California our highways aren't suited for it the sewers aren't suited suited for it they keep asking for more room in the flow pipe that goes all the way into town and we already know that spark sewer plant Tome morph doesn't have the room for it but you guys continue to do it another thing emergency you can't get a cop out there and you can't get the fire department to respond within time thank you for your comments Mr Vice chair I just need to read these comments into the record before we start sorry I was a little unorganized so we'll do this it should be noted for those in the audience that comments are to be addressed to the Planning Commission as a whole comments heard under this item will be limited to three minutes per person and may pertain to matters both on and off the Planning Commission agenda please note that the Planning Commission may not take action upon any matter not agendized for possible action on today's agenda when you are called on for public comment please state your name for the record and begin speaking the timer will begin when you say your name and you will be a four to three minutes if you are an attendee in the zoom meeting and would like to make public comment at this time please raise your hand lastly while in this room please be respectful warnings will be issued to the presiding officer if there is disruptive behavior and you will be asked to leave Chambers if the behavior continues on that note I just we received public comment um for a future agenda item that was forwarded to the Planning Commission and has been entered into the record I think you have one more request to speak for him on this item I did not receive any voicemails for this item okay thank you Michelle yeah we do have uh Kelly Orr does not say if you wish to make a statement uh happy to read your comments or you're welcome to come to the microphone please do thank you my name is Kelly Orr for the record I'm resident of Ward 4 North Valleys Reno have been so since 2019. I've been a resident of Nevada Northern Nevada since 1997. I really speak to all of you when I see each one of you vote every month on building out in the North Valleys and it's laughable I want more of your areas and your Awards built on with the infrastructure that we have so build in your neighborhood not North Valleys it is not sustainable you're approving commercial big warehouses more residential the lack of schools the lack of roadways again it's a broken record we're all here saying the same things to you and you're still approving growth you need to go back to the City of Reno to the people that are hired to survey the lands survey the sewer systems and the water structures and the infrastructures I mean you're putting rock on mud it's adorable and laughable so I brought a photo that I'm gonna put here for you guys this is when I have my cup of coffee every morning I think let's see and I'm Nino this is from a movie I'm dating myself here it's Mr Mom uh with Michael Keaton you're doing it wrong every day you approve something in the North Valleys you were doing it wrong I urge you to do it correctly with more due diligence and care for what the city needs not what the city wants thank you thank you very much is there anybody else in the audience that would like to speak at general public company Mr Vice chair we do have somebody on Zoom that wishes to make a comment on this item so whenever you're ready for that okay thank you go ahead thank you they wanted to make money hang on just a second okay like not just yet hello my name is Lisa Manning I live on 1545 Corona Court this is is a property that's on the south side of the Grand Point townhome South they're seeking a 20-foot or they the current standards are for 20-foot setback for structures they want 10 feet that will put these properties right on my fence line there's going to be three homes and people traversing right along the fence line right there I'm concerned about fire I'm concerned about drainage I'm currently there's a standing pool of water on this property near Grand Point um I'm concerned about uh the um privacy that we have with people just walking right that bit behind us and the noise that may happen because of having those residents so close in proximity to our own property I'm concerned about uh traffic I'm concerned about a lot of things but I I really want to encourage you guys to oppose giving a waiver for the 10 foot setback it's going to negatively impact myself and several neighbors along those property lines they're not going to have I don't think anybody else are on surrounding that property has to endure that in your asking those Property Owners along that Southern Line to absorb the cost of some of this including reduced property values values pardon me um and I want you to think about if this were your home that you're going to live in for the rest of your days and where you're going to have your children and grandchildren be and what would you vote for behind your own house thank you can you please go to the uh go to Michelle and film uniform for us you filled out a comment card for item 4.4 but since you spoke on this item I hard okay so if you wish to speak on 4.4 then I already have it again great okay Donna feel free to go ahead okay am I um [Music] for item 4.2 but um was informed that it would be pulled from your agenda so that's why I'm trying to speak at this general public comment opportunity and um my comments about item 4.2 you'll get them at your next meeting so I won't go through that now but I have uh something to bring up which is a conceptual issue which relates to what the two prior in-person speakers brought up which has to do with how uh the city's kind of screwing up on its planning and implementation and um the greatest possible for nurses everything is being granted to everything and it's it's causing some big problems and I think it's time to think about what do you really need to make this happen versus what do you want in case you want to make it bigger bigger bigger bigger in terms of changing zoning and approvals that have gotten changed I think that creates America some problems because give it the most permissive zoning available and by God at some point somebody will be using it and it may be far more than somebody needs and you have an upcoming proposal at your next meeting or honest to God it sounds like the applicant is threatening you they've they've actually um written all of their comments their what these waivers and variances and such and then they're kind of telling you what horrible things are going to happen if you don't give it to them and I'm thinking there's just too much pre-negotiation before it ever comes to a public hearing and along the way many people made many decisions that allowed the applicant to believe that this was a just and right thing to do and that they would be granted this waiver yet surely they must have known the waivers may not have been granted so I I have a I'm having a process problem with many of the things that I'm hearing at at these meetings and many of the documents that I'm looking at and it really has to do with um um down lower in the ranks I suppose from you there's a lot of negotiation going on a lot of things like this person just speaking about so please don't cut back the sex you know 10 foot is nothing for a setback so why do you have to cut off three more feet of this 10-foot space or raise the mountain just another five feet it's not really necessary to make a project viable and it harms the neighbors and I don't think there's enough attention being paid to the public or to public process and if I'm out of time that's okay but that's I just needed to let you know that you'll see it in my comments for the next project but it really sounds like the applicants have begun to threaten you with all the horrible things if you don't approve this building we'll have to redesign we'll have to do all this the horrible work and then you know they designed it that way if you don't approve it More's the pity but for them not for everybody else so please consider the public a little more strongly in your decision-making process um then you maybe currently are sometimes because the impact on the surrounding areas we are the people after all right so thank you very much for your time and um I guess you'll see a slew of comments when my items that I wrote about actually end up on your agenda that's assuming Warren way is not going to be on your agenda do we know that yet I mean thank you for your comments oh I also want to let you know that thank you so much thank you I need to tell you this you had chat disabled so I couldn't respond to your question in the chat ma'am thank you very much we appreciate it Michelle did we have anybody else who wanted to speak in the audience right now I did not receive any other request to speak forms okay thank you all uh we're going to move on to item number four public hearings the Planning Commission does have the power to move items around we are going to move item 4.2 up in order as we we have a request for continuance with the applicant like to come up and speak on the record 4.2 applicants for item 4.2 the for Warren way uh rezoning we are requesting a continuance to a future meeting uh we would like time to take in public comments that we just got last night and to evaluate what we're specifically going to ask for so um I understand we've missed the February 1st and so we'd like to ask for the March 1st which gives us two opportunities to go to the NAB which we couldn't do over the holidays because it was canceled Etc thank you uh I know we weren't thinking of doing date certain Jason if you want to chime in so for for this item it will not be a date certain just because it will need to be re-noticed depending on the outcome of the the project okay no problem and we do have the opportunity to have any public comment if anybody would like to speak have you put in a request for speak form um wait yeah Michelle go ahead I'm sorry okay um since we're on item four two we do have some voicemails there were correspondence received that was forwarded to the Planning Commission and has been entered as part of the record I did not receive any um request to speak wait hang on I did request I did receive a request to speak um from Donna Keats on this item via Zoom so we have her um standing by and then um I believe you have I have a request to speak from here you want to do the voicemails first or do you want to take public comments yeah let's start The Voice voicemail first um if Donna is ready we're ready for you Donna what do you want to do Donna first before the yeah we'll do Donna first Donna alrighty well I'm back I I thought this would be delayed but I'll tell you what I was gonna say now I I um wasn't at the meeting in a clinic last night only I joined late so I didn't hear the whole meeting but um I want to point out that the master plan land use designation SMU which is one way puts the high density developments at Major intersections um they're gonna they were gonna request an mf21 which is only one step less than the maximum residential density allowed anywhere and the parcel isn't at a major intersection or even at a minor intersection so I want to suggest it would be appropriate to step this request down to an mf14 rather than mf21 Because the actual density and intensity of the uses are less than are indicated by the underlying zoning Maps which is what you always hear about I think the comparison should be made with existing uses and density not just with the zoning the mf-30 properties in the area are not developed to mf30 density and nor are some of the mf-14 properties and a three-story building is incompatible with adjacent residential and Commercial uses so there are some uses Allowed by right in the mf-21 that I think this is a bigger problem the in these bigger things that I was just talking about when you approve those zoning more than is needed what comes along with that are uses Allowed by right that are incompatible so if a property is sold or not developed as intended you've just given it a whole bunch of permissions that are really incompatible and that's a broader picture problem like with industrial commercial Etc in this particular Warren Way instance warehouses could be of we're talking about Moana and Peckham basically between moan and Peckham on Warren way right in town warehouses are allowed in mf21 there are a lot of things in there that people will come in and propose if this if the housing doesn't open and I think um I would like to ask you to be a little more conservative and give them what they need not more than what they need um like you've done it before with uh the Globe Plaza let's give you even more decibels that you asked for I mean what the heck was that about I don't know can't figure it out but it was disturbing to a lot of people so there are parking issues Lisa's probably got all these notes down and they're probably going to retool everything so they don't really need to say too much more about that but in the bigger conceptual thing please pay attention to what the allowed uses are in zone changes that are not necessary for a project development and be careful about how much extra you give them because it snaps back and the people in the area really get hurt by it when there's other things with these other things come in the same thing with the cuts and pills why do they really need to take off two and a half feet of the 10 foot setback I mean really so they make another nickel it's just not fair so thank you very much for your time I appreciate it thank you Don appreciate your comments we do have a request to speak for from Andre Marino who does wish to make a statement in opposition come on up yo three minutes away for Raven's Nest which is due south of the the adjacent proposal here um I want the council to take into consideration parking is very difficult in this area um in the fact that also if it is rezoned into mf21 and we all know I'm I'm a licensed realtor in good standings in the state of Nevada we know that this is an issue and we've got daycare right across the street with little kids running around so if it is if it is allowed to go to 21 who knows what it's going to be and how much parking are they going to allow we don't have ample street parking as it is uh as a resident in that location so um I take into consideration that part if it is allowed to go to three stories then we have another eyesore like we do downtown with the Vermont properties that have been allowed to go through stories as well um in Midtown area that just doesn't look right in our area so um if that would be taken into consideration we'd greatly appreciate it because I'm representing the tenants that that do all live in that area also we don't have enough sidewalks we don't have any sidewalks through parts of that town or through through parts of Warren way right there so I don't understand how we're going to rezone this and where is all the people going to park and where these kids people going to drop off their kids which is dangerous we also have a swimming pool that's in that area as well too um that's a private swimming pool where swimming lessons are given during the summer time and that gets busy as well too so if all this can be taken into consideration we greatly appreciate it thank you thank you for your comments and we transition into the voicemails oh yes please do thank you hi my name is Andrew Marino and I live at 3677 Warren Way Unit C um from what I understand you guys are talking about increasing the um of foreign footage for or the amount of people or amount of dwellings that will be allowed at 3655 or in way I from what I understand that's going in front of the commission um that's just a tremendous amount of um of uh dwellings on that facility or in that on that property um I would appreciate it if we could keep that zoned and two-story not allowing a three-story units to go in there it's just we have enough congestion on warm way plus we have a daycare across the street and parking is at a premium on Warren sometimes we have three to five cars that can't even Park in our own facility so if somebody could please um talk to the Planning Commission that um that we at the 3655 and adjacent would appreciate it if we uh if this was not allowed to go through or if it is allowed to go through keep it at two-story I would appreciate that thank you have a good day bye hi my name is Jacqueline Batten I live at 3667 Warren Way um I'm calling regard to 3655 Warren Way LDC number 2300029 uh I wanted to say that I think at mf21 is too big for this area the parking would be quite difficult as it already is also not in keeping with the neighborhood um I just wanted to put that out there and you have a good day foreign hi my name is Laura Beth Lathrop and I'm calling in regards to case ldc23-00029 project name 3655 Warren Way zoning map amendment I just wanted to call and say that I completely against this I think it's already a very nice simplified area and adding 21 units across the street from where I live would make it extremely congested we don't need that height in that area um so I would just like to express my strongest opinion to not allow the multi-family zoning to go through thank you Marcy Ross and I'm calling in regards to um ldc2300029-3655 Warren way and I live next door to that property and I wanted to say I'm not opposed at all to a multi-family resident I am opposed to ms21 I think a three-story units would not be uniform to the rest of the neighborhood we're all mf-15 I also think with the new swimming pool it would just be an eyesore to the community so please think twice before you put this into process thank you so much bye-bye foreign that's it for public comment okay thank you anybody else in the audience wish to speak on item 4.2 okay that said uh kick it to the commission for a motion of continuance no date certain uh Mr chair if I could just put this for the record um and I said this before I believe that when this comes back before us uh these uh voicemails need to be replayed um I think it's imperative I think it's vital to the decisions that we make that we hear everything at the same time and this could be months out we don't know so I I would just like to put that on the record I think we should be hearing this again thank you Mr Vice chair I'm prepared to make a motion sorry I forgot the case number already uh case LDC 23-00029 3655 Warren Way rezoning move to continue the project uh not date certain uh pending Reno re-notification and potential resubmittal commissioner Villa Mobile second thought motion okay we have a motion in a second all in favor aye continuance approved thank you all okay moving back now to item 4.1 case number ldc2300016 TCA Leroy street we will now take a presentation from the applicant for the record Andy drilling uh with wood Rogers representing the applicant uh for the TCA properties Leroy Street uh single-family tentative map and major site plan review this item was scheduled for your last meeting you saw two other projects so there will be obviously some some redundancy from what you heard at the last meeting but I do want to go through through that uh just to uh you know for the record so this project site is located on the south side of Interstate 80 um south of the existing Terminus of Rob Drive the overall projects consist of two Parcels this is located on the furthest west parcel the overall project area consisting of these three separate projects a little over 35 and a half or 34 and a half acres with a mixed master plan designation of suburban mixed use and single family the case tonight is all master plan singer single family and then the mixed zoning of General commercial and sf3 so the zoning then is sf3 on this parcel tonight this property is vacant and was not necessarily A associated with the previous grading activities so that's why we have you'll see in the project request we have the grading included at this time this is within the city limits it's bound by I-80 on the North side as I mentioned it is associated with three of these TCA projects so the three that are located here are shown on the screen the green area was a multi-family project approved at your last meeting the town home project in the middle was approved at your last meeting and so what we're looking at tonight is the furthest west in blue the single family detached portion all of these are are linked by Common infrastructure and so each one because they were submitted separately had to stand on its own and its own merits and so in the Civil plan sets for each of these you will notice that you know each one extent includes the extension of Rob drive and a new collector roadway that ultimately comes down terminates into a cul-de-sac here in the in the subdivision we're looking at tonight and then there's a gated emergency only access connection to Leroy Street so this project details this is a tentative map for 16 uh single family detached lots and then major site plan review for cluster development as well as grading that results in Cuts greater than 20 feet in depth and fills greater than 10 feet in height it's about six and a half acres it is it does trigger the hillside development ordinance portion of code but code now clarifies that anything less than 10 acres doesn't actually have to go through the major site plan review process however we are still held to the same standards that are in the hillside ordinance so on this property we could have over 20 Lots but when you go through the hillside ordinance there's a density reduction Factor calculation that you go through and that's where we kind of up with the 16 Lots those then are clustered into the more developable portions leaving some steeper slope areas over here as open space this is a local Street standard uh through this portion of the development so there is on-street parking there's only a sidewalk on one side if you recall from the previous cases last meeting we only had sidewalk on the south side of this new collector roadway that's because it's you know the the north side of it is right up against the freeway it's not really a good spot to put pedestrians there's also no pedestrian generation on that side of the of the road so it didn't really make sense to have sidewalk on that side so we continue it along the South Side as it comes into this local now local Street section in the detached portion and then ultimately ends at this emergency Access Road gated emergency access there's a cul-de-sac here so there's no public connection other than maybe Trail access people can walk down that but there would no be no vehicle connections I know that was a concern that was raised hang on for just one second we need control of the Mouse real quick sorry just just give me one second we have to bring Alex back into the meeting I was on a roll sorry for interrupting your role Andy Andy go ahead no worries um so uh just to reiterate no public vehicle access it does turn this roadway does terminate into a cul-de-sac this is a gated emergency access only it's only 20 feet wide so you would not have that Public Access vehicle access onto Leroy Street just make that very clear it does ex and it would include that extension of Rob Drive one of the um comments or discussions in your staff report and and conditions of approval is on Parks and open space we looked at this in the context of reimagine Reno master plan um there's criteria in there for service territories for neighborhood parks and Community Parks generally speaking neighborhood and Community Parks serve to service territory of one to two miles so this exhibit shows that our project area located in the middle of that Target there has three to four neighborhood community parks to the north of us in addition there's several trailheads trails along the turkey river that also provide recreational opportunities in addition to that we do we did submit this kind of pocket park recreation plan so in the context of the single family detached there will be some trails and some you know pocket park type amenities uh on the hill kind of Hillside sloped areas here more than likely in this area you know your pocket park amenities are going to be more you know kind of dog type dog stations benches things like that you know Vista points so the more traditional pocket Parts with amenities would be located in the town home or multi-family portions one of the major aspects of this project is is kind of the comprehensive traffic study that was generated by Headway Transportation Lawrence here tonight so the TCA traffic only generates a small portion about 3 000 daily trips 194 am peak hour trips and 240 PM peak hour trips however this is kind of an interesting area where it's it's it's a plateau here that really is um consists of four four property owners that are all serviced really off of this extension of Rob drive and so we looked at a comprehensive traffic study to try and anticipate um what the traffic generation would be so that the property owners could be working together in order to appropriately extend those Services into their projects to in order to serve them so the proposed improvements are an extension of Rob drive and then essentially a a collector roadways that go east and west and serve the various properties it would ultimately modify the ramps on both the North and South sides of the Rob Drive terminal there um in the staff report we did provide um had we provided this analysis to look at a phased approach to these improvements we're not obviously going to build uh the full boat um day one it's going to be metered over time as the as the the improvements are actually necessary to accommodate for the traffic and so because the TCA properties in general all three of them this one we're talking about tonight is only 16 lots a very very small amount of traffic that's generated from this project but taking all three of those projects into consideration when you add the existing peak hour volume of of the first phase of improvements which really would be extension of Rob drive two lanes a stop sign and then a new on-ramp portion to the existing Loop ramp there so folks can head eastbound on Interstate 80. these improvements generate 1520 trip capacity existing trips that are using that so everything kind of coming out of the north is just over a thousand trips the TCA adds 240 that's that PM peak hour trips that's the most they're adding and there would still be a capacity of 220 trips in in that facility looking at Future phases so as additional development comes online for the adjacent properties the next phase would be a widening uh um expansion of lanes across the bridge some work on the North side for some additional turn Lanes still would operate in a stop sign or a stop condition that generates a lot more of just about 1600 trip capacity again with the you know the existing trips and then the TCA trips about 310 trips would then be available ultimate build out would be the addition of traffic signals at both the North and South interchanges here ndot requires that the warrants are met before those go in and so you would see that kind of phased over time as development continues to occur you would see those improvements happen so in phase two you would be putting in the conduit setting the stage doing the roadway improvements and then ultimately in phase three installing that those signals um so with that that concludes our presentation we are um in agreement with SAS recommendations and would be happy to answer any questions thanks thank you appreciate it and we're going to get a presentation from the city hi bro good evening Planning Commission my name is Brooke Oswald I'm an associate planner with development services once again go over the project site we're looking at approximately six points six four acres of that larger site there were two previously approved in our blast Planning Commission that was a tentative map for the town homes and the multi-family development those have gone past the appeal period at this point and are approved um this specific request for tentative map we're looking at 16 fam uh 16 Lots those are detached Lots they'll be single family lots and we do have that major site plan review looking at the cluster development now cluster development is taking they have that sf3 15 000 square foot Lots they're reducing those down to about 7 100 but what that does is the it in doing that they're able to squeeze them together and provide that additional open space so you'll see as we look at this you'll see those open space buffers both on the East and the uh south side or the west and the south side of the project site the project site is uh generally located as mentioned it's a plateau there's there's we have Rob drive as the main access and we're going to see emergency accesses on this and additionally we'd anticipate additional emergency accesses that we saw additional development to the east uh to the uh north of the site you have many commercial and residential uses we have some commercial nodes including a gas station uh Hotel uh several uh retail and other services provided just across I-80 there and then to the to the south of the site is a large steep grade so it really limits any any Development coming off that side and those other impacts that we would anticipate from a development uh the key issues as we looked at this is that citing building design or and looking at that compatibility uh the grading and the availability of those public services and infrastructure so this is uh just so uh you know where we are this is the Leroy Drive where Andy uh mentioned that we'd anticipate seeing that emergency gated emergency access onto uh Leroy Drive and this being The Interchange area that uh Mr Durling outlined of the improvements that would be anticipated as development occurs on that plateau and then this is roughly our project site so we're down the other two uh projects that were approved we're to the east of this and we're looking uh at the West End of the property at this point once again that does have a sf3 zoning that's three units per acre and then we have a hillside calculation so when that was done that allowed for 16 units and they chose to Cluster those and move those together which which provides some uh preservation of some Hillside there and some other open space and then provides the opportunity to provide landscaped buffers between surrounding properties a number of reimagined Reno um um policies uh looking at that con concurrency management those neighborhood connections uh open space grading transition to those unincorporated or County Open Spaces we're starting to see County Land there's a number of County Parcels down in here some larger Lots making sure that we're making that transition appropriate there and then the larger network connections um as staff's looking at this we do have another development proposal in right now that's in the west side of Rob that is uh the Heiser project I will be I am the Planner on that and we have been working with both uh all the Land Development developers in that area and Property Owners to make sure that we're meeting all our emergency services our connectivity and that is we're going on we're trying to look at this as cohesively as we can with as many property in order as we can so and we do have a consistency of uh of the consultant being representing both both the uh um applicant tonight and then some future applicants that we'll see to the west of this once again this is the area we're looking this is that connection on to Leroy Street and our our main connection that we would anticipate on Rob and our overall three projects being on this Eastern side looking at we'd anticipate uh probably two more property owners and and additional uh proposals in the future coming in to look at our side so if we go to the far right that is the multi-family unit that was approved in the middle we're seeing the tentative map that was approved for the town homes and then we're on the far left here looking at the 16 homes as you can see you're seeing that uh transition from a denser product um the town home product or single family attached product down into a detached project so the the density is really scaling back as we move to the East and that's in line with many of the higher densities sit on the plateau where we have major grade changes and and a and a great sort of distance between those existing homes and that we see below and as we move to the the West we see that density decrease being more in line with the uh existing homes that we're seeing in the surrounding area wrong way so as we look at the overall uh site plan I have the area laid out in green that will all be landscaped additionally as mentioned was before there is that emergency access on De Leroy that is gated it will be gated from the the beginning that will be just restricted to fire access but we will see the uh that ability for pedestrian traffic down that area this is looking at that connection up off the townhome project and then once again our connectivity onto Leroy uh this is a tentative map a major site plan review staff did go through all the findings for both of those were able to make all the findings with the uh conditions that were provided in the staff report with that I'll leave you with a recommended motion and I'm available for questions as needed thank you thank you Brooke appreciate that very much uh we'll open up to the Commissioners for disclosures we'll start with commissioner Johnson thank you Mr chair commissioner Johnson uh familiar with the site and previously spoke with the applicant's representative and received and read emails commissioner Villanueva previously visited the site for the other two projects associated with this project and I that's my only my only disclosure thank you commissioner Armstrong I read and received emails and I met with the applicant's representative commissioner Munoz red received emails and I'm familiar with the site commissioner Gower I um familiar with the site received and read emails and met previously with applicants representative commissioner draculitch I've read and receive emails and familiar with the site commissioner Felton same disclosures I also visited the site and I spoke with the applicant's representative almost forgot about you Alex sorry buddy all right thank you now we'll open it up to public comment Michelle do we have any request to speak forms I did not receive any requests to speak forms for this item no voicemails were received previous I'm sorry previous public comment that we received at the January 4th meeting have been entered as part of the record for this meeting as well and have been provided to the commission and I don't we didn't have anybody register on Zoom for this item either okay thank you and anybody in the audience like to speak on this item okay with that said thank you very much we'll open it up to the Commissioners for questions of the applicant or the city sure commissioner's All-Star this is gonna be for Andy uh you had on one of the slides uh it was the um the 16 properties laid out and I believe it was 789 yes what is the elevation change in distance from the property down below that across the Leroy so you know I I did skip over um in the clustering of this you know I mentioned that we were preserving the hillside over over uh on the east side over here in addition to that we do have a landscape buffer that would also be included on this side 20 to 30 foot landscape buffer as well so we have a buffer along that side that does help make up some of the grades so these Lots do sit up a little higher the cuts and fills portion of the request we do exceed the cuts more than 20 feet in this location that's the detention Basin so cutting for the Basin Pond there and then just along this back Edge there's a sliver fill that just exceeds that 10 feet so these Lots sit up just a little bit higher than the adjacent Street grade okay thank you commissioner Villa win Ava please [Music] thank you for coming back um last meeting January 4th meeting did we have those traffic information that you provided at this meeting right Andy drilling for the record yes you did we did okay so can you go into a little bit more detail regarding the trips so all right do you actually have your engineer I mean maybe it might be yes Lauren Chilson with Headway is here so he can speak to the specifics if you like okay yeah that'd be great just kind of and then did you work with the city on City's Engineers or did you guys just provide did you guys just create this on your own working with the uh no we've Lauren Chilson Headway transportation for the record we've worked with ndot and City staff through the process as there was a lot of interest in a in a comprehensive and cumulative traffic study for the entire Plateau as we call it and so that's what we performed in cities reviewed and we've gone back and forth a couple times okay so I'm looking at this project obviously I'm doing it as a standalone because that's how it's being presented um but the so the trips on average what I mean my concern is that it's connected to that Highway and then it's going into that smaller Community um and I understand that there's that gated that gate for the emergency access but what's an I mean on average are these normal numbers I you know I'm not a traffic engineer I don't know what normal is or what's safe um can you just elaborate on what you look for when you're looking at these numbers sure absolutely first I think I'll just start by saying the the 16 Lots would generate about 16 peak hour trips which is a really a very low number then the numbers that are that are cited here are TCA properties um in whole so all of those pieces put together right so you're seeing here the cumulative TCA properties and then of course we've prepared the cumulative analysis for the entire Plateau Andy mentioned those numbers a little bit earlier too just know that we we looked at all properties in combination identified the improvements because we're working for all of those applicants in one's traffic study here very intentionally as we as requested by the city we identified all the improvements that would be necessary and then backed those out to phases based on the phasing of those various projects so in in short answer to your question these volumes are very are very reasonable for the for the properties that we're talking about all of TCA they're very normal they're very typical we've used standard National rates and we've used a comprehensive analysis to test and prove out all of these uh recommendations that are that are presented here and again that that access to Leroy is gated there will be no project traffic through there so if I'm reading this correctly it says so when phase threes done and all the properties are working together during during peak hours and again correct me if I'm wrong the peak hours is 2025 trips so 61 is that is that what that means that's correct at the time that we finish all of those improvements with phase three and all of these known developments are in that we're planning for there will still be a remaining capacity in The Interchange of those 2025 trips or about 61 in order words we're over building the improvements for this project there will still be a tremendous capacity left in that interchange okay and then again for the last maybe I just wasn't paying attention hard enough the last time but we're for the other two projects did we have that future what what those what that Highway was gonna look like as far as the out I mean because I don't remember that so as far as like how it's going to connect and because I feel like this has more detail but maybe I just again I could be wrong so for example the stop lights the stop signs all of that was that all presented the last time it was it's all in the master traffic study and I have um exhibit here on the overhead that shows that okay can you go into detail for me a little bit more on this because this is really what my concern is so if you can do so maybe just a little bit of background on the connection I know that was a topic of discussion last time recall that the access rights and that connection for the South piece of Rob Drive have already been obtained that was performed back in 2008 when the when those access rights were purchased by Flying J from ndot that still sits so the access is granted it's known at this location as the extension now comes the part where we identify with these projects what improvements are necessary at that known connection point which is the extension here okay so what we have is ultimately a traffic signal at both ramps a four-lane road here plus turn Lanes a new on-ramp coming on to hook onto the hook onto the from Rob drive on additional lanes and one additional Lane on the off-ramp here and a traffic signal and two lanes off of the ramp here so obviously a number of improvements to make these projects all work together and leave that remaining capacity okay all right thank you commission Chicago please thank you um thanks Lauren I actually have a question for for Andy on this one any one of the comments that we received um after the last hearing before this one was questioning the increase in traffic to Leroy Street as a result of maybe misna navigation to the site what what will be the official address of this site and it so the city and and the county um sorry Andy Durling for the record uh the city and the county do the addressing for projects um and so with the extension of Rob drive and then what we're calling Hanson Parkway that terminates they would all have Hanson Drive hypothetically addresses because this is a secondary emergency access it doesn't get a road name um it doesn't it's not identified as a public street right it is a emergency access for emergency vehicles only ambulances Reno fire Reno Police so it would not have an address off of Leroy it would have an address Hanson okay thank you commission minions if nothing further I'm ready to make a motion okay please do the case number of ldc23-00016 TCA Leroy Street uh based on compliance with the pickle findings I move to approve the tentative map major site claim review subject conditions listen to staff report and I can make the findings through Mr beltswald's second commissioner Villa I just have a couple comments that I want to make before please do I after the last meeting the January and I thought a lot about the project just I you know I couldn't get out of my head I was like is this is this did I get enough information is this you know did I make the right choice and so I you know reviewed and and that's my question was surrounding the same facts you know art is a traffic study you know going to get us to where it's safe for those residents that are currently there that it's not gonna you know be detrimental to the current residents that are there and so with this project I am going to vote differently than I did on the last two projects um because I've just I've had more time to think about it it's I didn't want to make a snap judgment vote that I um you know I I didn't think I made the right choice necessarily the last time but then again I didn't feel like I had all the information at the time that I needed um as far as my personal decision so in any case long story short I'm going to vote differently this time all right we do have a motion a second do we have any other discussion [Music] all right Michelle can we do a roll call vote please felto yes Mark Johnson yes Diddy draculich yes Peter Gower yes Arthur Munoz yes Sylvia Villanueva yes Harris Armstrong yes okay motion passes all right thank you congratulations [Music] all right moving on to item 4.3 when case number ldc23-00025 Riviera planned Community we will take a presentation from the applicant thank you good evening Commissioners uh thank you in advance for your consideration my name is Mike Vicks with Monte Vista Consulting I also have Don Clark from cathexis with me presenting today we'd like to introduce you to the Riviera plan Community um I'm new at this so let's see the property is located at 2100 Riviera Street and it's a 0.3 Acre Site the existing residents will be demolished in association with the proposed improvements its own mf-14 and has been zoned that way since about 1947 so this is uh Ben's own multi-family for quite some time the master plan designation is mixed neighborhood the project will consist of five units condominium development so they will be sold individually additionally we will be upgrading utilities parking will be provided below partially below grade and underground parking garage there are 10 spaces provided and then two additional spaces will be available on the street for guest parking we have also that parking ratio meets the City of Reno standards as well as ite standards um we'll be installing a landscaping throughout that we will be making drainage improvements and uh common area open space improvements one thing to note the existing residence is located essentially on the Southern Property Line once it's demolished we will be adhering to the 20-foot setback standards so we'll be actually increasing setbacks when compared to the existing condition oh uh drainage was brought up as a concern so we wanted to address it the the site is located in FEMA flood zone X and therefore out of the flood zone if if you were to look at the lowest level of our development and compare that to the established flood elevations in the Truckee River there's nearly four feet of additional freeboard above the flood zone so there should be no flooding issues the current site drains essentially from Riviera Street to the adjacent properties and with the proposed improvements we will be redirecting a majority of that drainage to the existing City infrastructure in Riviera Street a small portion of the site will uh still drain to the rear and in order to improve drainage conditions further we will be installing a small infiltration area back there to hopefully vastly improve drainage in the area there are several surrounding uses that are very similar there's a two-story apartment complex directly to the West there's also a two-story car apartment complex directly to the north and then although they're all Zone multi-family to the South Southwest and to the direct East are single family homes one thing we would like to point out is with the mf-14 zoning District this this development could move directly to permit without any public hearing or entitlements if it was developed as Apartments which this this is a viable project as Apartments the owner wishes to sell them off individually as Condominiums therefore were before you here with the tentative map application to provide for the the four or five individual Lots which will be sold but if this was Apartments we would not be here before you today uh here is a picture of the existing multi-family building that is to the west of our development it's a two-story CMU structure they've got you know minor Landscaping but nothing significant this is a picture of the existing apartment directly to the north this is our the driveway to our site right here again a two-story masonry structure at this point I'm going to hand it over to Don to go over the aspects of the building because he's much more qualified to speak to that than I am thank you for your time and I'm available for any questions uh relating to the site if you have any thank you thank you um hi Don Clark with cathexis the Architects for the project and we can debate about my qualifications for it um actually I'm going to see if I can go back to that slide so one of the things we looked at um like Mike said this is actually the entrance to the site as it exists today we're moving into the middle of this site so this will be landscaped and access to this part of the building right here so we've got a front porch that that works off of that we split this with um a drive down to the parking and then we have another unit here and as you look at the building what we've done is we've we've used so this is allowed to be 35 feet in height I think our highest spot is in the middle of about 30 feet we drop down to about 20 to 22 feet in this area the back two units dropped down to about 22 feet as well and height um the materials on this are a mixed of Stucco the the tan color you see is all cedar siding and then we have some Fiber reinforced cement also we actually built a physical model to show about this show the setbacks and how we're making sure we stay behind them from a height and as you uh in the zoning from the street level the height leans back so that you have to continue to make sure you're addressing how how much it may or may not impose on the street um one of the concerns that came up in the earlier hearings was concern about privacy from The Neighbors in the backyards like Mike said before this is the existing structure right here so we'll be pulling this back 20 feet here we're also planting some larger trees back in this area as well one of the concerns we had in designing this was the fact that we also are concerned about the Privacy for the people that are here so it's kind of a mutually reinforcing design of privacy in the two areas where we have a five foot setback that's actually required all along the outside edge this is actually a deck along here and then the only place we come to five feet are in this location where we have an entrance to this unit here an entrance to this unit here we have a solid Waller than a small window up high and then a window in the backyard so we actually create privacy for any folks in both directions we can't see into the backyards of these um and so we have we've been we and then everywhere else we're roughly 10 feet of setback even though we're only required five so we've we've been uh using that as a a kind of a guide for what we're trying to do even in these areas on the buildings this is actually a two-story volume so it's only a ground floor access so there's no unit that sits here that looks back in the into these two yard areas it's further along and looks directly back there's not a lot of fuss to this um we really um paid attention to the standards we didn't try to do anything where we needed any kind of a variance so we request the approval of the tenant map and we're here for any questions that you have done now a presentation from the city thank commissioners Carter Williams assistant planner for the record foreign well before you today is a tentative map request for a five-unit condominium project the project is located within Ward 1 south east of the intersection of Idlewild Drive and Riviera street it's located within the mf-14 zoning designation and has the master plan land use designation of a mixed neighborhood so the property is a little over three tenths of an acre in the immediate vicinity of the property there are a number of multi-family apartment complexes that the ones closer to Idlewild Drive are two stories in height um and then there's two duplexes that are further down along Riviera Street um so staff believes that this is a this adds to the mix of uses um within the area by providing an attached single-family product condominium product um and it gives the opportunity for um individual ownership and with this sort of density um so with the maximum density from mf-14 with density bonuses up to six units are allowed so the applicant is proposing five one less than the maximum [Music] um the proposed site is shown here generally the application The Proposal will have will be bringing the uh landscaping and drainage into conformance um or improve the the drainage and reduce the number of accesses from the two to the two to one um along the site proposed building design is here and like the dawn did an excellent job of giving presentation on that but the uh one of the um techniques that are used elsewhere in the city is breaking up the building Mass across the block Frontage to give distinct almost a distinct appearance of two separate residences so that that's demonstrated here this is a view from Idlewild Street with the existing developments on either side of Riviera Street and then the step back diagram that was shown in the the previous presentation this is a code requirement for side and front front property lines the applicant's proposal also provides it on the rear which is in a requirement in addition to the 20-foot setback um also um with this the staff recommends a condition for site lighting to reduce the amount of um light overflow onto adjacent properties normally this is required for residential residentially adjacent properties for non-residential development we're going to we're looking to expand it for this project before you are the findings for a tentative map through staff's review and Analysis we um can make all the findings and on the screen is the recommended motion I'm available for questions thank you appreciate it we'll get it to the Commissioners for disclosures commissioner Gower if you want to start us off please thank you I have received and read correspondence and familiar with the site commissioner same disclosures Armstrong same disclosures commissioner Villanueva I'm familiar with the site commissioner Johnson received and read emails and familiar with the site commissioner valta commissioner Melton same disclosures commissioner Dracula's same disclosures all right we will now open it up to public comment for this item first we have Eric Robbins wishing to make a statement in favor and after that we will have Tim hosfelt come up Eric come on up Eric are you in the room oh okay Eric is not here all right next up Tim hosfelt uh wants to make a statement in opposition thank you three minutes gosh can hardly cover it my name is Tim hosfeld my wife and I have lived at 1419 Samuel away we've lived in Reno for 40 years and in this neighborhood for 37 our home is our most significant investment my wife was a teacher I was a pastor and so this is our Nest Egg our house the same is true for many in our neighborhood because it's not a very wealthy neighborhood living in this neighborhood for the past 37 years though we decided to stay in this home for the rest of our lives about three years ago and we began preparing our house for a time when I'm bedridden which is coming in a couple years 10 just as we were finishing our improvements we learned about this project as great grandparents we have concerns about privacy for our family the project has several windows in the back uh I know that was downplayed a little bit but if we see if I can do this right is there a chance you can pop that up it's only because I'm sorry I'm sorry you'll see numerous windows on the south side looking at my house and my neighbors so there are privacy issues the second thing is our concern I'm terrible with this the second thing is that we are uh all concerned about the value of our homes uh this project will cause some of my neighbors to go uh be underwater with their home loans because of our home properties being devalued by this project a lot of people don't understand this so I've created several slides that will combine the architect's renderings with photos to illustrate my point this it's not the first one this is the last okay where to go sorry I just had it whenever it comes up it will show that's not yet uh we'll show the property as it is today the thing that I the point that I wanted to make was the developers paid no attention whatsoever to the uh the the homes around there uh this this doesn't complement our neighborhood it doesn't complement anything uh in our neighborhood and boy if you could get those pictures I've spent days trying to get them up is there is as it is today and this is what it's going to look like after it's in uh they're they're the artist's renderings have all been really a few more seconds go ahead let me show you the last one this home is right behind it you can see what uh you'll what people will see right behind this 14 19 14 15 Samuel away my home's on the left but no one is going to pay top dollar for this home and the value of our homes all of us are going to suffer the thank you Tim we need to respect the others in the room wishing to speak we do appreciate your comments though uh next to speak is uh I'm sorry I'm going to butcher your last name Jennifer Mata laraine yeah you wish to make a statement in opposition my apologies yes I meant for the record I'm here um I live directly behind the development that you guys may or may not approve hopefully you will not approve it um as my neighbor has mentioned I have many concerns just like my neighborhood family I call my family because I've lived there for five years and they have been nothing but supportive caring loving they have lived there most of them like Tim said 37 years I've only lived there five and I felt like I've lived there all my life I'm asking you guys to reconsider this project I moved here from California every year welcome um I'm a teacher I came out here for a better life from me for my family I chose this neighborhood let me repeat that again I chose this neighborhood not only to be a teacher in this neighborhood it's well middle but for my daughter to go to Hunter Lake to swamp middle to Reno High I am proud of my neighborhood I'm proud of my family neighborhood you guys letting this condo come in it's not gonna make it better I live directly behind it 25 feet from where I'm standing to where that wall is construction is going to start I'm going to have construction workers practically in my backyard for the next two years the damage that could happen to my yard I have a dog I have a six-year-old that's here today bedtime 20 minutes ago I'm asking you guys I'm pleading with you guys I have so many concerns well not that much time to go so I'm looking at the security I'm looking at the Privacy I'm looking at the devaluation of my property that I'm spending my heart my hard teacher money on that I've worked hard for my community and I'm asking you guys to work hard for me now please please reconsider it especially in the back windows I have people now people I don't know looking over my six foot wall that I have and they're going to be able to look into my backyard as my daughter swimming in the swimming pool I'm asking you guys to address this I'm asking you guys to address if you guys do push forward with this and you guys do approve this I'm asking you guys to consider the construction the damage that the construction can do the underground parking how is that going to look we're on riverbed I worked that Swope they're under construction right now riverbed that delayed our project at Swope I'm asking for flooding issues they say that there it should and as a teacher should it's very difficult word to handle and I want you guys to think about the flooding issues if it floods it's coming into my backyard my backyard is going to ruin my backyard not theirs on top of it I'm asking about shadowing 35 feet tall that's how high they're going to be think about my Desert Sun winter sun it's coming over into my backyard I appreciate your time thank you very much thank you thank you next Fred Contreras would like to make a statement in opposition and after Fred will be Anna O'Brien foreign good evening I'm Fred Contreras I live at 1411 Samuel way which is adjacent the street adjacent to the Riviera project I live right next door to Jennifer uh to the east of her um currently I understand Reno is growing and we're doing projects all over town I understand that it's a growing town and things are going big and it's going quick but I plead with you guys to think about the mass of this project in a residential area that is just such a quaint residential area like Jennifer said we chose this neighborhood we chose to live here for a reason you know we knew there was a little bit of apartments around the area but on our streets and everything else there was nothing going on the magnitude of this project for two years of what it's going to bring to all the residents around us is just it's a shame that the dust everything that's going to go on the the privacy issues like they're talking about you know one of my main concerns is a infrastructure right now we have a lot of issues with what the City of Reno is probably out there pumping our drain our sewer drain on our street once a month in fact they were just out there the day before yesterday again so the infrastructure with the sewer just is a huge issue to me not knowing how this thing is going to plan out my background is construction as a superintendent I built a lot of buildings here in this town so I know what we had to go through to get approvals to make things better to get things going for this town like I said the biggest issue that I can see is a privacy they've got two and a half stories and they got sun decks on top people are going to be looking into these yards now the pre uh previous tenants that were in the house running this unit this house before you use the top of this house as a sun deck also and they were up on top and this was only a single story house and they could see into our backyards now the single story compared to a two and a half story with a sun deck on the top roofs we got to think about that you know you got to think about what we're doing in this area I mean Tim tried to show you some pictures of what it's going to look like it just does not fit the neighborhood at all and we're going to plead with you guys to just you know think about this a little bit more I have no objection about building but going so high isn't there a way to do this keeping it down lower it that's my objections thank you thank you Anna O'Brien feel free to come up to the podium making a statement in opposition and after Anna will be Scott right foreign my name is Anna O'Brien I have lived at 2040 Idlewild Drive for 40 years my family has owned this house for 55 years and I'm just going to go with the little sappy story as to what's going to happen to our family we had intentions of living in this house for many generations I know my daughter wants to live there and raise her family and her her daughter her son may want to live there and raise their family and one of the things that we've been doing all these years is gardening in this area that's going to become a dead zone because of this 2.5 tall building because of this building we will know the the garden will not receive sufficient sunlight to be able to bring in the Harvest that we've been accustomed to bringing in all these years [Music] um this area is enjoyed by the family in the summertime in the wintertime and now that this building is going to be there we won't be back there enjoying this area because we don't know who's going to be looking down on into our yard they're going to be strangers how are we going to make friends with them why would they make friends with us maybe we'll get lucky but our garden will be gone and basically that's just the simple statement that I want to make is that's the long-term generational effect that this building is going to have on our family and everybody that lives in this neighborhood forever and ever thank you for your time thank you Scott Wright please feel free to approach the podium and after Scott uh dalen O'Brien wishes to make a statement in opposition as well all right good evening Commissioners my name is Scott Wright I'm also at 2040 Idlewild Drive and O'Brien was my girlfriend's mom I've lived there for 10 years that's a generational house that was bought many many decades ago I took over that garden and these two and a half story roof decks will now be shading my garden and looking into it and I'll have five trash enclosures that will be right there on the fence line that I don't believe was mentioned in either the staff report or the applicant talking about it and although I do not agree with staff's recommendations and lack of um uh better approvals um I appreciate that all the time you guys have today to work through all this uh first the the only way they're really reaching this dwell in units per acre um and any sort of density bonus is by implementing this underground parking that I feel we didn't really go into detail at all when the applicant um and staff went over it um this is something that's not found anywhere in this area um and it's completely unprecedented for adjacency to single family houses uh this is not some Saving Grace from not building apartments today but it's really just a distraction to them not utilizing their parcel properly and attempting to maximize all limits such as height and setbacks um in the online report and the presentations there were no side photos those just seemed like Google images that they took pictures of the two apartments one which was across the street along Idlewild and not Riviera and they didn't really show any photos of any of the single family houses the real adjacent Parcels there's about five of them that are single-family houses that weren't in any of those photos either from staff or the applicant um the unfortunately placed mf-14 Zone which seems to be obviously just unthoughtfully given to Parcels near the intersection is being abused by these out-of-state applicants there's major privacy and capabilities incompatibilities uh taking place after zero effort was made by the applicant to reach out to any of us we made lots of comments at the NAB meeting um meeting the applicant for the first time and nothing was really addressed the staff report says the height was adequately addressed nothing has changed um and I understand that reaching out is not a requirement um but it does show that this development is really not trying to be built in good faith I understand our community is aiming to grow I've been I worked in the development community in the past most of us really don't have problems with it if they change this house I think it's a five bed three bath if they want to build these apartments overnight they really could have just changed this into a Triplex no one would have died in an eye there's no two and a half story roof decks looking into our yards um and we would not all be here right now um this is really just demolishing compatibility and just putting something that doesn't look like the neighborhood at all if I really wish those um elevations were up with actual site photos I know the first presentation from the audience here attempted to do something these are things that the applicant really should have done this is just not even close to what the city should be trying to accomplish so thank you for your time thank you [Applause] all right our uh dalen O'Brien please feel free to come to the podium as you wish to make a statement in opposition and after him will be Nathaniel Bass hello um sorry I'm like shaking um so I'm against this project I am part of a multi-generational home Whose Garden fence which has been mentioned before runs along the property in question my family has been tending to our vegetable garden for over 40 years my grandmother my mother my mother's uncles who some have passed have actually built the walls and laid the paths all of our garden is all Blood Sweat and Tears that our family really cherishes um my partner and I of 10 years have been playing with it we've had an ornamental pumpkin Garden we've had just experimentational above ground planter beds um I okay I grew up in this house that's sorry 2040 Idlewild Drive which is right along the back fence line I grew up in that house and I spent hours playing amongst my lilac bushes and stealing raspberries off of our raspberry Gardens um by allowing this project to be built you will be robbing my family because I intend to be inheriting this property so this will be my my babies that are going to be at this house that won't have this Garden that will lose all of the sunshine the future generations of my family the joy of our garden will be taken from us the the southwestern Sunshine exposure will be gone this complex will be kind of a visual Corruption of our neighborhood and I'll block My View From the mountains the sunsets everything when I wake up in the morning when my parents wake up in the morning when my baby is in the future wake up in the morning um letting this gentrification thrive in our neighborhood just kind of seems a little out of place it's not really a metropolitan area it's not Midtown it's not really downtown I understand that there's apartments nearby I grew up next to them and people do come and go but we also know the landlords and they've been really gracious as apartment neighbors um I just it's kind of strange I don't know I yeah it's being up here talking like this my house is the original House of Idlewild Drive The Men Who Built the California building built this house for themselves to live in while they built the California House it's a historical landmark it's made out of Riverbed Rock so is the house that will be demolished which I think is a shame because it's against the law to build houses with riverbred rock now um I don't know I just think this project didn't take any consideration who will be affected by it we'll lose our fence lines for two years potentially we have a new puppy I'm not really sure what we're gonna do to take care of that I know it seems really small talking about all this this way and I'm sure there's more important things I could say but this is my family's home it always has been my all of my siblings all of my nieces and nephews Dan Knapp has played in that backyard um just like baking like you won't approve this project just because oh it's just like my worst nightmare that I never knew could exist till a couple weeks ago thank you your time thank you Nathaniel feel free to come to the podium and after him will be Tina Dills wishing to make a statement in opposition could you bring up the slide with the picture of the zoning on it for me is that possible I have one that I can show it but I wanted to show I have pictures of the houses that Scott was talking about and I wanted to just show examples of what's around in the neighborhood so if you could bring what's that sure whatever has zoning of in that area if you have that slide available that would be awesome if not I'm okay I'll just show you the pictures go ahead and you can put your pictures on the overhead and then you can state your name for the record we'll start the timer they're pretty big so I'll just do one at a time okay so my name is Nathaniel Vass I live at 2161 Riviera street I'm I don't know if I'm the only reason Riviera Street resident coming here but this is quite a concern for our street there the edges of the street are Zone multi-family but it isn't consistent with what how this how the neighborhood has been developed um the zoning is old outdated that clearly that the neighborhood is a single-family resident type neighborhood the multi-family resident homes that are there is this right here this is a duplex and this is a multi-family residence that is right next to that apartment building that had the Riviera on it so this is right next to it and then this is more closer to the development proposed development this is across the street this is also duplex so these are the multi-families that they're saying are around their development um I can show you let me show you on this map real quick so this is where the proposed development is these two houses are the houses that I'm saying are the mf-14s that are currently duplexes this is my single family right there so I'm really close this building will definitely affect my housing values it's an emotional issue for all of us and I feel like my neighbors did a great um great job sharing that part of this my concern is really more with what it's going to do to the neighborhood with parking and track where they're going to do things simple things parking underground parking it's snowing right now who's going to remove their snow where there's where's the remove snow going to be placed Riviera doesn't get plowed we haven't had a plow any of these snowstorms so where are they going to put their snow that's a real issue parking 10 units underground say we get a snowstorm they're parking on the street there is no street parking we're so close to Idlewild park that we get individuals coming to Iowa parking on our street this evening when I was coming here this evening there's an individual from one of the apartment buildings that couldn't find parking at their own building because they only have one parking spot per unit on those older buildings they didn't have the same parking requirements so those individuals infill down Riviera street so I believe that this development will just make that even worse their trash can layout there have five units that's 10 trash cans they're supposed to be two to three feet spacing between each trash can so they're trying to put 50 nearly 50 feet of trash can along a road that has no place to place a trash can that section of Riviera is actually marked red no parking and you're not supposed to be laying up trash cans in that area so those are pretty easy things that just make this not make sense I don't think the developer really took any consideration of the neighborhood it's a extremely inappropriate design underground parking in that neighborhood is just I don't understand how this is even a thing I think that I believe in in Phil housing I really do I think developing taking urban areas consolidating housing great idea but this is not the way to do it who's going to afford these these condos what is the price point going to be at we're not creating truly affordable housing I hear that all the time and this is not going to be that this is one of those stories that it will be affordable but it's not going to be I propose that we do something that has on-site parking for all units us dumpster for trash no roof no on top decking for Nathaniel lounging on the roof I understand do appreciate you and conforms the look and feel of the neighborhood thank you guys for your time and I wish I had more into the three minutes thank you and please come check out the neighborhood and understand what we're trying to say about this thank you all for your time Tina Dills please approach the podium good evening my name is Tina Dills I live down the street on Idlewild Drive so I'm not even as close as the residents that you've heard from already and I feel a great impact from this project and I felt compelled to come in and speak to you as quixotic as it may be for me to speak to the Reno Planning Commission I am opposed to this project in its current form the proposed development does not fit within our established character of our area and it is completely out of context in where it is placed to be summarized it's too tall and it's too ugly I keep hearing people say it's got underground parking it doesn't it has partially below ground parking which places the entire building above grade level so there's no interaction between those people and the street Walkers I walk my dogs past that house all the time I've spoken to the neighbors on that street all of the Neighbors in that house will be six feet above my head so if I want to speak to them which the windows actually don't come out onto patios so I'm not really able to speak to or interact with them like I am all the other residents on Riviera it's six feet above my head and none of the renderings are the neighborhood buildings around it shown so thank you Tim for those wonderful pictures that actually show it doesn't fit it's way too tall for that area it's going to Tower above of all of those apartment complexes that I keep hearing and the duplexes next door it's going to be a leviathan compared to those buildings it is completely the wrong design it's a massed structure that has no context through the historic neighborhood that it's placed in the first thing you see when you look at that is the giant gaping hole where the driveway is it's not got on street parking it has partial submerged parking and I really feel sorry for whoever is going to clear a North facing shaded sloped driveway from snow that's going to be a problem along with putting the snow places it's going to decrease our rockability it decreases our tree canopy and it decreases our quality and our place of living it's neither responsible nor well-managed growth and you can hear all of the neighbors speaking to it just doesn't fit our neighborhood in summary we don't mind if you put in a duplex or a Triplex or apartment complex this particular building is simply too small or Too Short Too Tall and it doesn't fit into the neighborhood it was designed by a min max in Minecraft it is not speaking to the historic character of the neighborhood those little details and we would be fine with it if it was a normal apartment complex like we have next door if it had some contextual um relationship to the rest of the neighborhood we'd be fine but in its current form I am deeply opposed to this project anywhere in the historic Southwest neighborhood thank you thank you Michelle saw The Quest For Speed forms I have anybody online or any voicemails we do not have anybody online register to speak correspondence was received oh wait correspondence was received no voicemails were received somebody just raised their hand on Zoom hang on ready for whoever that is I believe we're moving Jennifer Heron into the meeting just one Jennifer if you're ready thank you Jennifer can you hear us yes I can now sorry I have a sick baby which is why I'm not there in person okay you have three minutes to make public comment s thank you um I live on Samuel way not as close as all these other people um but I do have a um a few things to point out and I agree with the gentleman on Riviera about the trash cans because that's a problem even in my neighborhood with um I think they only showed storage in there for five cans so it doesn't even give people the option to recycle if they want to um and then yes putting them on the street I don't know why that street is painted red I don't think there's a fire hydrant there so it could be that there's site um issues um site distance issues to the intersection so I was concerned about that they're also adding a significant amount of impervious area compared to what's existing there they show a basin on this back sliver of the property which seems like it's going to be in conflict with the Landscaping that they're proposing to provide privacy to those behind them and I don't see how they're gonna maintain that infiltration and sedimentation Basin with just walkways how is Machinery gonna get back there to clean that out um I'm wondering about the noise that's going to carry from these two and a half story um Decks that are above everything else in the neighborhood and facing a lot of open space with the park there and the river um I'm curious about the garage if there's going to be a a gate there not just for snow removal but vehicle stacking coming in and out it's very close to that intersection looking at my list here I also don't totally understand how they get five units because if it's a third of an acre parcel on their zone for 14 doesn't that make that four and a half so I'm not sure how they got five but that's my last my last comment thank you thank you Jennifer appreciate that anybody else online Michelle I don't believe so anybody else in the audience which is speaking on this item and not at this time sir I'm sorry you've had your time we appreciate your effort though um if you do wish to make a comment please go to Michelle huh oh know this gentleman in the back two why don't you just go ahead and make public comment and then come back and fill out the public comment card okay please state your name for the record when you come up you'll have three minutes live at 2970 Idlewild Drive so I'm down the street from that I'm I'm in shock over what this is it looks like it got darn Warehouse going in you guys come on we gotta you gotta think about what was just said to you by all these people it just seems to me that suddenly something like that gets built and then the rest of Old Southwest will start looking like warehouses so and one thing I can tell you about where I live we have underground Rivers there okay all the snow and rain guess what lots of water into the houses okay so be let I don't know if the engineers knew that or looked at that I hope you guys had a soils survey whatever anyway I'm just telling you I didn't come here for this but I mean oh my God and I was here before you for the other uh complex that hasn't been built yet yay but in in any case um I'm I'm in support of all the Neighbors on Samuel way and Riviera and Idlewild later um don't want to see that I believe it should be modified so that it fits with a with the community thank you mrsville uh Villanueva for your uh issues on parking or traffic really appreciate that um in any case uh I just wanted to express my support for my neighbors up the street from me thank you thank you please go and fill our request as before please thank you [Applause] looks great I got one more go ahead it looks like your name's coming my way well I'm Mike Madeline my wife spoke earlier um so I live right behind it for your state name for the record sorry Mike Madeline I got it sorry um I live right behind it at 1450. so I guess one of the major concerns for us is uh the drainage right if it's all going to be coming our way it's going to flood our backyard that on top of um putting it in a two and a half story what was built to me as a party patio on top right I don't know I just kind of like to put that in perspective of everyone here if that was moving next door to you how would you feel it'd be pretty rotten um I want to put up this photo for Tim who's he couldn't do it earlier so Maybe okay so here's here's our house can you bring the microphone with you so we can hear you please I'm sorry so the first one was our house and this is the one with the rendering behind it right so not only is it going to Tower over above our house figuring out people partying Up on the Roof yeah I don't think so um this is our neighbors with the garden sorry neighbors with the garden and this is how they would look right it's going to be hard to grow stuff that's not around here so um you know I would just like for you guys to take into consideration what our neighborhood is and what it will become with this project thank you thank you very much [Applause] okay thank you all for your public comment appreciate it we're going to kick it to the Commissioners for questions of the applicant or the city can you close the public comment oh close we close public comment my bodies can't get to the commission for any questions Mr chairman I'll start go ahead thank you um to the applicant please and I'll I'll follow up with staff with a similar question but can you just describe the the Outreach process that you've had with the community to present your plan and the feedback that you've received during that process so there there has not been an extensive one we did have it go have a NAB meeting and we went through that public process for the comments and then we took the comments and we we felt like we did address them um we didn't meet with the neighbors um it's designed within the standards and we also knew that if it was Apartments we would just be able to go build uh one of the things I want to make sure uh the neighbors do understand the roof area that was being called a roof deck is actually not a deck that's on top of the building it's actually tucked in the middle that you can only access internally and it only faces the street so you can't see the neighboring properties at all from that and it's not above so I want to assuage some of the concerns about some of that so thank you and I just wanted to get back to my original question so just confirming that you went to the NAB yeah we did there was not other Outreach in the the comments that went out for the noticing and then had the nav meeting and then but we did not do other Outreach okay thank you yeah thank you Mr chairman thank you commissioner Gower yeah they are Commissioners with questions commissioner Johnson thank you Mr chair I'm actually going to ask staff question first order so just want to understand from the way this was presented as I'm understanding it from your presentation were Zone demo 14. so by right this could be a single unit as an apartment complex the reason we're looking at this is because it's being broken into a tentative map for individually sold units is that yeah Carter Williams assistant planner for the record that is correct yes okay um so I guess the second question is there is in that zone um if we built a another single family residence or a duplex or a Triplex um are the any of the requirements that are looked at the setbacks change do the height requirements change or is that all based on the zoning of the property the heightened setbacks are this would be the same yes and none of the property characteristics would change we would lose the capacity to that one condition on lighting that is not something that's generally applicable to other Residential Properties okay so um under that scenario a large two-story building could be built 20 feet away from the property line in the back um by right we're just looking at it because it's multiple units for individual ownership that is correct yes okay um and then the follow-up and I'll ask you this from looking at it and I can follow up with staff um I heard during the presentation there was some discussion in the applicant's presentation about modifying utilities and draining image for the site to tie into existing City of Reno infrastructure so in what does that mean in staff's mind with respect to storm drainage for the property so the currently the storm water flows are being directed towards other adjacent properties so with the grading on the lot in this inclusion of the infiltration Basin it'll direct the um most of the storm water flows to the the street um so to connect with existing facilities okay and then I guess the the other thing we heard during public comment there was some concern about sewer capacity obviously this is an increase would be an increase in the number of fixture units tied to the Sewer uh is has the city looked at or been involved with uh planning any sewer infrastructure upgrades in this location so with the application a sanitary sewer letter was submitted that identified that the um that the impacts would not trigger a full report to be submitted and that was accepted by the engineering division as acceptable um based on the the added correct activator there okay uh thank you and Mr chair I have additional question to the applicant if that's okay if anybody wants to please go ahead okay um so for the applicant there was a number of questions that were raised about uh the location and availability of trash um units receptacles for these five these five units is where on the site and you can pull up the plan if you would like are these indicated to go on the site plan or storage because it appears that the internal portion under the deck is bike storage or some other so I'm I heard some information in public comment I'm trying to wrap that with the site plan that I'm looking at uh let me Mike Vicks for the record motivates Consulting yeah if you can use the mouse because I can't see the siren back there it fell off I didn't see it I apologize um oh now I got to go back the the trash storage is along this uh in this area right here so that there's a little Trash enclosure um that that is for individual role to the curb dumpsters with uh no on-site management and there's no way for a an actual dumpster to work on at this location you know the city code won't allow it in the front setback and so this is the only way to provide trash service okay and so we've we've located that here along the Eastern property line and I'll be screened in an enclosure okay screened to which side I believe all four sides yeah and screen it's screened from the from the neighbors and it it opens can you state your name for the record please uh this is Don Clark again for Texas it's screened towards the neighbors completely and it just opens up towards the unit so okay um thank you for so the the access would be from there down the sidewalk and out to the street from that location okay um and like other single family they pull them out to the street there's there's no alley access here so actually I live in the old Southwest and do the same thing so um and then and I I didn't look and I was gonna I forgot to ask uh Carter on this so um since these are individual sale there's no is there intended to be or a requirement for any type of um HOA or individual representative for both Landscape Maintenance and snow removal Mike Vicks for the record yes a condition of approval is that there is an HOA uh in in acted as part of the final Subdivision map which will govern Landscaping general maintenance snow removal Etc so there will be an overall maintenance Association created and they will they will have uh everything you know specified in the final HOA documents regarding maintenance Etc okay all right um I'll turn it back to Mr chair if there's some other questions from Catholic Commissioners thank you commissioner Villanueva please good evening um this is for Carter so commissioner um Johnson touched on this briefly the he touched on the this is M this is Zone mf14 and a development like this is permitted by right can you explain what that means yes so when a development is permitted by right it means that no additional discretionary review is required so it doesn't go through a public hearing process or through an administrative discretionary process so um it would it's considered a ministerial review so it goes straight through to the building permit for review by reviewing agencies okay and then so what are we reviewing today this is a request for a tentative map so for the subdivision of the parcel so that there's an opportunity for individual ownership okay so and I'm just I know you touched on it briefly I just want to reiterate that for for those listening and this project the what is the height of this project height um so the roof top of roof is at 28 feet at the highest point and then there's a parapet that extends to I think I believe it's 33 feet okay what's the limitation for height in this zoning area in the mf-14 zone the limitation is 35 feet in height okay okay I will cave you out that the the parapet is allowed to extend four feet above that so that so there's an effect of 39 feet allowed so this Falls within that 35. correct height okay the he heard a lot about shadows and what is I mean is this is that something that the city or the applicant and you know we need to consider in this type of project is shadows and how that impacts or is that something that needs to be like looked at and reviewed or is that something that is considered at all in something like this the code contemplates a specific trigger for when we start looking at shadows and it's it's applicable to any type of development so when a building exceeds 35 feet in height we'll request a shadow analysis whether it's through this process or the building permit process because that this this the building can't exceed that um it from a code perspective there it's seen as um no different than any other development throughout the city okay so it's not really it's not triggered in this case as far as like how that's going to impact the neighbors correct that's that requirement would not be triggered and I know I did see a condition I'm sorry can I keep going please do uh the I did see a condition six construction hours so I did I mean it does start pretty early is that standard 7 A.M on Monday through Friday is that standard construction hours that is a standard condition that we apply to most projects so that those hours are standard yes okay is that something we could potentially modify is it customary to modify can we change that if if it was maybe you know if the applicant was willing to work with some of the neighbors yeah if there was I mean the condition can be modified it's not established in code um it's more of a policy and how we okay and then my two more questions and so that I know the HOA the covenants and conditions we kind of touched on that so I actually won't go into that but parking can you just elaborate a little bit on parking and then is there going to be Ada parking for single-family um residences the Ada parking is not required I don't is there yeah there's nothing Ada parking isn't provided for this um specific and so each unit is required to you two parking spaces per code um I had spent five with ten spaces and and this that's being met in this correct all right thank you chair thank you commissioner Armstrong please uh this is also for the city thank you Carter so a lot of the issues I've heard raised this evening are around privacy and compatibility specifically with design I understand the zoning aspect of why it fits but can you maybe drill down more into the rationale of the city of one how is privacy actually mitigated effectively to address some of these concerns and two when you look at compatibility especially with the house that's you know directly behind it it doesn't appear to necessarily fit in the community so for to address the Privacy um issue uh the city for there's not really a code there isn't a code requirement generally throughout the city for privacy and it's not related to the findings um so From staff's perspective it's um it's not something that we're we're analyzing for this request um from the uh compatibility perspective there are wall articulation standards that are built into code um most areas in the city don't have a specific design style or architectural style that were that needs to be met to address compatibility so from From staff's perspective we're looking at is this building meeting um these wall articulation Design Elements um which there's a number of them that include wall plane offsets and variations in Building height um and are they meeting um um others streetscape standards that are required for any single family development um and those were all being met those those um Design Elements would be addressed either through this process or the building permit process as code it's not something that's established through um this review it's something that would be it's just a code requirement thank you Commission on your nose please thank you it's gonna be for Developers with with everything that's been said tonight and obviously if you wanted to go in and build an apartment building um I believe it's a six units that you'd be able to put on that that's correct okay and 39 feet would be the maximum height you could go yes without a site review or what is the benefits for you and why are we going through this route instead of you guys just building so this is Don Clark from cathexis again um it actually is to raise the value of the property too the owner wants to keep one of the units for himself and maybe two of them um and by doing them as condos the quality of construction the quality of materials is actually higher including the maintenance and the the the ongoing care of the property as well um that does require the reserve maintenance that is continued so that's actually the reason why it's it's not if it was going to be a lower quality project and it isn't an affordable housing project it's actually seen as a high-end project from their their eyes um they would have gone to six units and probably gone to the pro to the setback lines which this stays quite a ways away from pretty much the whole perimeter of the building and and tried to fill the whole Space so that's the that's the reason okay thank you commissioner velto I didn't want to forget you about you being virtually you have any questions no just discussion whenever we get to that point okay I I have one question for the applicant just can can you enhance a little bit more about the underground parking I guess I didn't get a really strong understanding what that's looked like and how that's being built in here so driving into the site we actually go down it's a it's a half story so it lifts up the front units up a half a story we could have gone deeper but it would have pushed the the parking deeper which would have been fine kind of geometrically but it would have taken the back two units and actually lifted them up which we didn't want to do so we we tried to contain it so we could keep those even lower they're about 20 to 22 feet so a typical two-story height on the back two units and then only took the area that was pushed up further up near where that um the apartment building is and that's the only section we lifted up and then we stepped the building back down towards the street so a lot of it was actually trying to to balance not going too high for as much of the building as we could but also get to 10 get to 10 spaces and the covered parking is actually great for snowy they'll have to snow shovel the driveway but you don't have to shovel the parking spaces which is a whole other thing so so covered parking obviously spaces is going to have garage doors or those opening closing are those openings has one it's a gang parking get one garage okay and then there's access up into the center of the project now okay gotcha thank you commissioner Villa wave go ahead thank you this for the applicant um would you be willing to Inc I guess slightly reduce those hours of construction maybe move it from seven eight and I I mean I don't know if that's something though you know might alleviate some of the concerns I mean I don't think it will but some of the neighbors obviously did have concerns about construction um is that something you guys would be open to or the opportunity it's not an answer I can give I'm not the the champion on it it's it's I would say it's likely they wouldn't want to because that's normal construction hours across the city and as you're getting I mean Mark could speak to this well as you get to subcontractors and other things it's you know the it's pretty typical that that's that when construction starts around yes we understand construction is disruptive when it's happening so and the um design do we get actually this might be for the city but maybe you can answer it do we does it does this design come back to us for review as far as aesthetic and compatibility with the neighborhood or is no that's not something okay because I didn't it's just a more contemporary design then what's next door for sure okay and I'm not an architect so maybe if I don't know if commissioner Johnson's willing to chime in or any of the others familiar but I know that was another concern that was raised is the compatibility as far as the look um and you know I don't want to say no to this project I think you know well within your right to design it um quite honestly but it'd be nice if you could be empathetic to some of your neighbors and uh you know consider some of their concerns I can't force you to do that but you know it'd be nice if you can consider that I I am sympathetic to to their concerns so I'm not dismissing their concerns we're also it's kind of both sides of the street we're also next to two very monolithic flat roof apartment structures that are literally this actually tucks up into and next to so we use this project in a contemporary way which if you see kind of everything that's being built now is is much more flat roof contemporary lines but also broke it down I think in the articulation in the building and split it so it was two small structures that approach the street and it breaks down in between and then it steps down in the back so we we really were trying to pay attention to the impact it would have in the neighborhood and the transition from the two apartment buildings down to the single family that goes to the West so thank you chair thank you Mr chairman I have one more question commissioner um Carter question for you to follow up on my first question did you present this at the NAB I was not president at the nav normally staff um rotates so we're usually not the we may not be the person who who's who's the case manager at the NAB you know who was at the NAB presenting it or representing Mr winter yeah so do you know can you tell me anything about what happened at the NAB meeting if there was comment if because I didn't see anything in the packet in terms of feedback from the Nam I didn't get any public comment from the NAB um members themselves um and many of the people that were at the NAB were here to voice their concerns um so I'm not aware of the specific discussion at the NAB okay thanks Mr chairman can I can I just start discussion because I want to just build off at that point sure go ahead um yeah for me the the the proposal itself um relative to our findings um I hate to use a cliche term but it really checked all the boxes I didn't have any issues relative to the findings the concern that I have is that we have a process with a neighborhood Advisory board that is intended to provide the type of feedback that we receive tonight earlier in the process um so those conversations can can happen and be provided to the Planning Commission frankly I feel uh a little bit blindsided with with the community um objection to the project and that's that is one of the biggest opportunities for the neighborhood Advisory Board is for the community to present your concerns and have a conversation with the with the developer of the project and hopefully resolve some of those concerns um like I said I don't I don't necessarily based on the the comments that were provided based on the answers to the questions that we've received based on the underlying mf14 zoning of the property um The Proposal is within the right um and it's actually less intense than could actually be built on the property so from that perspective I mean I can make all the findings but I feel like there's a missed opportunity here for the the project proponent to be um a good neighbor to commissioner villanueva's point and and just have these conversations ahead of time and maybe they occurred and and I don't know about it but um like I said I just feel like we're we're hearing all this opposition and it's really really surprising so thank you Mr chairman for that opportunity to provide those comments Jason Garcia LaBeouf planning manager for the record um just to shed some light on the process um through our current development services review process items that become before your commission there we look at the awards and then we line those up with the corresponding Ward NAB date and those are typically the staff does not do a separate presentation as part of that process but typically the applicant will and be available for discussion and questions and then through that process typically we'll see comments or review comments in this case I see there's a couple comments that were submitted through the NAB process over to staff so we had those and kind of addressed some of those but of course there's been a lot more comment tonight but I just wanted to at least bring that to the commission's attention that while we don't necessarily do a staff presentation typically the applicant will do some form of Outreach through that process so Mr chair if I could just respond to Jason and I it wasn't any sort of um you know a slide on staff or or anything like that I appreciate that response I um like I said I was just surprised of the the reaction that we got here tonight and was wondering if um we missed something in the process or you know if something happened on on the way here so um appreciate that feedback thanks yep please yeah thank you um yeah commissioner Gower I'm with you on this that I'm a little surprised by uh a lot of the comments that are coming from the public um at the same time I'm not so sure that we can hold uh not against the applicant given that they showed up at the NAB and oftentimes in the past when we've heard that applicants were not listening to members of the public we hear that in public comment we'll hear that from a member in the public that I spoke to the applicant a dozen times or three times or talking about the nap and they just gave me lip service or or didn't didn't care and I didn't hear that from anyone in the public so that tells me that I I can't necessarily hold that against the applicant as we go through that and I'm not suggesting that that's what you're saying uh more just that's how I'm looking at it um but I do concur with you that I can make all the findings on the projects given what's permitted by right and that this is less intense of a project um that that really helps me be able to make the decision and a lot of the concerns the neighbors have brought up like the height the property values blocking sunlight into the garden all of those concerns would still exist if they were to pursue the alternative of an apartment complex but we'd have absolutely no discretion and it might be worse so I I don't think we should uh make perfect the enemy of their good or in this case the like relatively better when there's a worse option that's allowed by right that we have no no say over um so because of that I can I can make all the findings and I'll be voting in favor of the project any other Commissioners with discussion oh please blue thank you Mr chair commissioner Johnson um I think I appreciate the comments um regarding the process I will say that there was in our packet uh at least a half a dozen um copies of the request to speak forms from the NAB from the same residence that we've seen here tonight all of which marked you know in opposition so I'm not maybe not quite as surprised by the um you know the opposition perhaps the number and the uh um you know intensity of it was was a surprise but maybe not the the challenge um there are certainly some items about this that I can see being concerning but um probably the biggest one and I I've heard a lot of it tonight and uh is is the compatibility issue and and um thankfully for all of you I didn't get into a big architectural discussion with the other architect in the room um because every one of us in this room has a different idea of both Aesthetics and compatibility so this could have been designed any number of different ways but I can guarantee you that the standards that Carter spoke about for the city would not allow this building to look like the buildings across the street or the single-family buildings next to it the articulation standards require those ins and outs those ups and downs those material changes so whether this is the ultimate aesthetic version or a Minecraft build as I heard tonight is really in the eye of the the beholder so holding that against the project is not something that we as a commission really can do the Aesthetics as long as it meets code is what we need to look at certainly it doesn't look like anything else that's there and I could make some suggestions to the applicant to perhaps consider some more traditional at least details or ways of looking at things but I don't know that that's the aesthetic that they're going for so um a lot of the questions that I was asking in my presentation and I appreciated both staffs and the applicants answers um the intent of the development of the intent of the code review is to do things the way you know we want to improve the situation so we want to improve the drainage we want to improve the utilities that wants to happen certainly there's some challenges that go with it but we're not looking at a zone change we have an existing Zone this is allowed by right and it could be worse so when you're hearing the Commissioners say they can make all the findings it's based on the fact that this is not we're not asking to change anything in code we're just looking at something that complies with that so um well I and and what I also want to say is in looking at this I do see that uh the the back side is lower it's 22 feet to the top of the parapet roughly that's a two-story building that's a two-story building 20 feet away from the setback line that's what you would get if somebody came in and built a Triplex right now with parking out in front of it it would be the exact same footprint in the back um and it could be worse it could be taller so I think there is some stepping down for that and I do see that the exterior decks are internal to the project I will say the the you know as an architect I struggled with some of the the presentations in here so I can't imagine you know just trying to understand what was going on so I I really understand the issues in trying to see that but there are no roof decks that are looking out the height could be worse uh the Aesthetics are a matter of opinion um so really I think just to follow up on the conversation it is a it is the kind of project that we typically are asking for at this commission we're looking for infill we are looking for density um preferably in a situation where we don't have to change the zoning to do that and that's what this is so um it is it is a change but it is sort of allowed it is allowed by right and could be worse so I appreciate the discussion um but again in looking at the findings that we have this is a project that meets those findings and could be significantly worse with respect to some of the items that we've heard this evening so thank you Mr chair thank you any other discussion I would sure I would make a motion if there's no discussion go ahead sir in the matter of case number ldc23-00025 based upon compliance the applicable findings I moved to approve the tentative map subject to the conditions listed in the staff report and I can make all the findings commissioner villanueval second okay we have a motion in a second all in favor I have further discussions I'm sorry my apologies go ahead commission me yes um I'm I'm empathetic to this and and this is this is a very frustrating one because like the Commissioners have said this checks the boxes it does and nobody wants a larger building right behind them nobody does and for anybody to come in and say oh yeah put a two or three story building 39 feet tall behind my house I couldn't think of anything greater you're not going to hear that unfortunately there are findings that we have to go by we do not have a choice on this um compatibility for the way it looks I I kind of agree I don't like the way it looks but that's my opinion I'm not allowed to put my opinion in this so it is frustrating so with that being said I do have to agree with the Commissioners but not as willingly as I'd like to so thank you okay any other discussion all right Michelle do you want to do a roll call vote please yes belto yes Johnson yes draculate yes Gower yes Munoz no Villanueva I'm sorry could you we're taking a boat here could you please hold your pause thank you I'm sorry Villanueva yes thank you Armstrong yes the motion passes six to one um Mr Vice chair could you read the appeal process into the record please yeah definitely regards to the appeal process any final action not including recommendations or failure to take action by the Planning Commission may be appealed to the Reno city council by the applicant the mayor or city council member or any person who is aggrieved by the action or inaction and appeal together with fees must be filed with the city clerk with intended business days starting on the day after written notice of action is filed with the city clerk who the applicant has elected to use the former zoning code in effect prior to January 13 2021 as authorized per RMC 18.01.602 appeals must be filed within 10 calendar days starting on the day after written notice of the action is filed with the city clerk and if the 10th day 10th calendar Day falls on a weekend or holiday when the clerk's office is not open the appeal may be filed the next business day foreign 4.3 I request a short break yeah I was just going to say and we're going to take a short 10 minute break we'll be back at eight 36. all right thank you all for coming back in after that short break we will in our now start with item 4.4 casing over ldc23-00026 Grand Point townhome South we will start with an presentation from the applicants representative I can't hear you is it working out there it's working now uh good evening commissioner Stacy Huggins for their record um with wood Rogers representing the applicant uh in The Grand Point townhome South project uh just to start with a little bit of background on the location of this site this is a 2.2 acre parcel um located on Grand Point South of its intersection with Mayan for those of you that might be familiar there's a post office directly north of that to the west of the project site is a commercial center there's a Raley's in that shopping center and then to the South and the East the subject site is surrounded by a single family residential this property is and has been identified as a ideal opportunity for infill development looking at the master plan and the zoning on this property excuse me the master plan is Suburban mixed use and the zoning is multi-family 14 which allows up to 14 units to the acre that zoning in particular serves as a good transition between the higher intensity commercial uses to the west and also the single-family residential to the East and the South so we are here tonight seeking approval for three parts to this project if you will the first is a tentative map for 30 townhouse units there's also a cup for more than 20 units and that is we're just mentioning I'm sorry worth mentioning that the code actually says that if you have between 20 and 100 units it's a minor conditional use permit which would be approved or reviewed administratively but because we were coming forward with a tentative map we elevated it and bundled it with the tentative map so that you all would have an opportunity to review the entire project as a whole in addition to those two entitlements we're also seeking approval um of an alternative equivalent compliance and that is specifically for a setback along the South property line as well as to modify the location of the street trees as they pertain to this project so looking at some of the project details um this project these 30 townhome units have been designed as a cluster project which allows some flexibility in lot widths and lot sizes as a part of the cluster development the units have been oriented so that the driveways and the garages are actually in this case internal to the project and what you see facing the perimeters of this project is actually the front door of the project um not not a traditional a single family attached product in most cases there will be no in the case as you see it here designed there will be no vehicles backing out onto the north access road that North Access Road does provide Ingress and egress to the post office primarily you can see it provides access to the rear of the post office where the employees as well as mail delivery trucks go ever every day so these units were designed intentionally to have access internal to the site which supports the road design as presented here is a common area along the Eastern Edge that was preserved primarily as a result of topography we were trying to minimize our disturbance on this site and so because of the steep slope on that East Side we retained it as a common area not to be disturbed with the exception of the Landscaping um uh one thing I want to mention um historically there's been a lot of discussion from the neighbors to the South about not wanting through access at backer way so the project was designed with um an Eva coming to the south in tobacco way that will be gated on both sides it will not be a through Road providing access between backer way up to Grand Point um the 30 units we did a trip generation analysis where um by code we are well below the threshold for a full traffic impact analysis so looking at the trips that are anticipated with this project we're looking at approximately 200 average daily trips and 15 PM peak hour trips the Trap or the current road Network in the area consists of collectors which have been designed to accommodate this type of traffic looking at the buildings themselves so each unit um or this project I'm sorry uh consists of two three and four unit buildings you can see those on the site plan um I don't know if this mouse works oh there we go um the four unit buildings are primarily uh over here on the east side the two packs and the three packs are mixed within the interior of the site each unit will have a garage a two-car garage so the parking is really provided with each unit minimum parking requirement for single family attached is two per unit um so in addition to the parking spaces required for each unit there are eight guest spaces on site you can see those here on the Eastern side of the project and then there's also room along Grand Point for on-street parking that would be be about four spaces as designed the project includes private streets that are 28 feet wide this street circulation and this design has been reviewed by Reno fire department and been approved for for their circulation purposes uh I mentioned the common areas again there's this large common area on the east as well as everything you can see in Green in here the roads because they're private will also be considered common they will all be maintained by a homeowners association responsible for cleanup and you know any snow removal that might have to happen and then I do want to point out that on this plan there are approximately 65 trees shown just a quick glance at what the architecture of these units will look like and um I I picked here as examples this is the three pack um if you want to imagine a fourth unit on the end there they generally look the same um the top will be the front again that's facing the um perimeter of the site if you will and the bottom picture is the rear which is oriented uh internal to this site on the or in the mf-14 zoning designation the maximum allowable Building height is 35 feet and two and a half stories these units are designed at 26 feet to their roof Peak so we are within or actually below the allowed Building height for the mf-14 and here's just an example of what the two unit buildings will look like um so just talking or looking at the alternative design equivalence compliance sorry that's a new terminology for me um we are asking for um the opportunity to reduce the South Side setback uh I mentioned earlier that because um we elevated the minor conditional use permit to a cup so that the whole thing could be reviewed as one package um the conditional use permit requires a 20-foot setback when you are adjacent to single-family zoning in the multi-family District so we needed a cup because we were over 20 units um so we are the code says if you need a cup you need 20 feet um if we weren't doing a cup uh or if we had um really just kept this as a minor conditional use permit which would have been reviewed at administratively uh we would not be required to provide 20 feet along that South property line so we would be required to provide 10. and as you can see on the site plan on the um overhead or on the in my PowerPoint we have a minimum of 10 feet on the Far West corner and then the setback varies as it moves to the east um with the maximum setback at 17.4 feet we believe that the alternative equivalent compliance at 10 feet meets the intent of the code and to further mitigate for that we offered and there is a condition that requires us to plant additional trees along that setback um so just quickly so you can see what the conditions look like out there the picture on the left is taken from um the lower right hand corner looking up the fence line just so you can see what the conditions are um within those existing homes there is a mature Lush Landscaping along those fence Lanes within those adjacent Property Owners backyards and the picture on the right really shows the same thing just from a different angle looking at it from Grand Point looking to the east so again I mentioned that we agreed to provide some additional Landscaping along that South Boundary so you see a row of trees here these were not originally included in the proposal but um to offset and mitigate for that reduction in setback or in order to meet the 10 foot what would have been the 10 foot required setback um we are agreeing to provide those trees along that South property line to help mitigate in addition to what was already being provided so these trees were all already part of the front yard requirement so we added um 17 trees along that South property line and increased the total trees on the site to 75. um that is um our project I do want to just mention these are for sale Townhomes they do provide a good transition between the single family detached on the south and the East between the commercial to the west and the Civic post office to the north the project brings another housing option that can help to fulfill you know the need for us attainable housing in all of Reno but specifically in this area they're not there's not another product up there like this um and then the project does meet several master plan policies related to infill and Redevelopment neighborhood connections one thing I I neglected to mention right now there is no sidewalk along Grand Point in front of this property so there's sidewalks south of here and there is sidewalk in front of the post office but there's a gap and so this project will make that improvement with curb Gunner and sidewalk along there to further make the connection to the schools that are south of here that much safer for children um that summarizes our project I am available for any questions as is the rest of our team thank you very much thank you all right we'll now take a presentation from the city good evening members of the commission for the record Leah Brock assistant planner with development services City of Reno and this evening this late evening I am presenting The Grand Point townhome South application the subject site is currently vacant and it's 2.25 Acres it is located on the east side of Grand Point Way just south of Mayan and a couple of blocks north of Winnemucca Elementary School today's request as the applicant stated is for a tentative map for a 30 lot single-family attached townhome subdivision in the mf-14 zoning District over 20 units requires a minor conditional use permit and the applicant did Elevate that to a full conditional use permit to be heard by the commission along with the tentative map request and the alternative equivalent compliance for that reduced setback and the residential street tree requirement again the subject site is located in the multi-family residential zoning District that zoning District does allow for 14 units per acre and again that minor conditional use permit is required for the single single family attached development with 20 or more units if it was multi-family it would be more key issues here were overall site design compatibility with surround and compatibility with surrounding development the proposed tentative map includes 30 single-family attached townhome units which yields a gross density of 13.33 dwelling units per acre this is within the maximum density of 14 dwelling units per acre site design features the Paseo orientation with vehicular access provided from the street Frontage and pedestrian access from that Paseo Frontage the garages will be set back six feet from the street to discourage parking in the driveway and condition number eight is that ccnrs will restrict vehicle parking in those driveways to keep those streets free of traffic yep regarding compatibility with surrounding uses as the applicant stated to the north as the post office to the West is that commercial specific plan uh District which is uh commercial center with Raley's and then to the South and to the east we have that single family eight unit per acre dwelling eight per eight unit eight dwelling units per acre zoning District sorry it's been a long day to get to mitigate the impact on the surrounding residential neighbors the hours and days of construction will be limited per condition number six so the request for the alternative equivalent compliance is for two different things one is for the street trees we require two Street trees for each lot um however in this particular case the interior streets function more like alleys with this six foot driveway rather than front yards so providing Street trees would impede the vision triangle and probably conflict with the utilities because the utility boxes are set out there as well so the applicant has required requested an allowance to provide the equivalent number of required trees on the front door side of the units and or the common areas and staff does support that request the second request for alternative equivalent compliance is a little bit confusing because this is an inconsistency in code so I want to make sure that this is understood so what Reno Municipal Code says is that any project requiring a conditional use permit in a multi-family District shall have a minimum 20 foot setback from any property line of budding a single family District so let me let me read that again any project requiring a conditional use permit in this particular case this doesn't require a conditional use permit this requires a minor conditional use permit so if the applicant came forward with this and all they were requesting was that minor conditional use permit to allow for over 20 units this would be a reviewed administratively we would look at it we would say there's a 10-foot setback required here it's met it's approved but in this particular case because they escalated it to the conditional use permit they're subject to these increased standards and so when staff looked at this we said okay if this was multi-family it would be 10 feet if this was processed as a minor conditional use permit it would be 10 feet so to go above and beyond what we want to do is we want to do an alternative equivalent compliance and then not only do we get the 10 feet that would be required but keep in mind too that that's that's 10 feet of landscaping that's a common area there so it's not people's backyards backing up to this we're getting increased screening along that side we're getting the trees planted every 30 feet and the roof height on these could be potentially 35 feet given the zoning District that would be allowed by right but as the applicant stated I think the tallest buildings at the peak are 26 feet and I think a couple of the designs were 25 we measure it from the median of the pitch so it's actually less than that so just want to throw it out there that if this came forward with a multi-family design it wouldn't be subject to that criteria and these buildings could be much taller so staff isn't supportive in support of the request for the alternative equivalent compliance and condition number 11 has been added to get trees planted every 30 feet along that property line that property line regarding public comment on this on this project as of yesterday when I turned in this slide we had four letters of opposition and two letters from NAB the NAB members both were in support of this application and they cited that this was infill transitional development and compatible with surrounding development and uses in the area um the opposition that we received was citing traffic the reduced setback which I understand the concern there adequate infrastructure noise pollution and number of units uh as of today we received a few more letters and I think a voicemail of opposition which were forwarded to the commission for your review so I think we're at seven in opposition just to give you a number with uh one of those just concerned in one of those neutral also we added condition number seven to include that RTC smart trips program with every sales document just to try to get people reducing the number of trips there on the board are the conditional use permit findings staff does recommend approval subject to the conditions listed in the staff report we have we have more findings of what I could fit on one slide so here's the tentative map findings and here are the alternative equivalent compliance findings again staff has been able to make all the findings and does recommend approval subject to the conditions that concludes my presentation the recommended motion is on the screen and I am available for questions thank you thank Lee appreciate it we'll go to the commission for disclosures commissioner velta with us virtually my friend yes um I spoke with the applicant's representative I believe I received an email and I'm familiar with the area commissioner Gower commissioner Gower uh previously visited the site spoke with the applicants representative and received and read emails fisherman you know some familiar with the site and red and received emails commissioner Armstrong I met with the applicant's representative read and received emails familiar with the site commissioner Villanueva no disclosures Mr Johnson familiar with the site received and read emails and spoke with the epland's representative commissioner draculitch same disclosures all right we will now move into public comment I do have two request to speak forms we'll kick it off with that we have Lisa Manning who wishes to make a statement in opposition hmm my apologies for speaking out a turn earlier I this is my first experience with this process um my name is Lisa Manning I live at 1545 Corona Court I'm one of the property owners just the south side of this development my concern is with how close these units will be to our homes and our property line one of the things I'm really concerned about is privacy I know that trees are proposed but who knows how long it'll take for those trees to mature and help I don't know how much that's going to help as we have um residents Traverse right along the the fence line there um I'm concerned about noise I'm concerned about drainage and I don't know if that was one of the things that was mentioned but I know I certainly had mentioned it in one of my questions to Leah this is all going to be pavement and rooftop we sit a little bit lower my my property sits a little bit lower than this current property and I worry that um you know in this time of atmospheric river that we're going to end up with some of that water in our backyard and our house it's down below that [Music] um so there are a lot of things I'm worried about traffic is another one I know that you that it's considered uh capable of accommodating the traffic but just know that there's a only two ways well there's three ways out of this area there's going to be a lot of cars trying to get out onto Mayan and Rob and people drive very quickly on these streets we've got a lot of high school students that drive crazily on these streets um it's going to be a mess I'm not opposed necessarily to having the multi-family units there I'm just you know as some of that other Arena residents that have talked about other projects you know this is gonna this is my investment this is my life's work I've everything I have is invested in this home and we've got now um people that will just be just on the other side of the fence and these are front doors that just come right up I mean in my neighborhood nobody's front door is sitting in somebody's backyard um it's I think if you have standards for a 20-foot setback why have them if you're going to just wave them I think um yeah I don't know if I have much more to say about it but it's you know these are people's lives that are invested in their properties and we want to be able to um enjoy our properties and not have a lot of noise behind us and not have people walking right behind us one of my questions I guess is you know what is their proposal for drainage and what is our recourse if there's problems with it another question I have is um you know what do we you know can there be a wall preventing you know people from like looking through the cracks at our fence and stuff like that um that's just my thoughts thank you for your comments thank you for your time thank you next up to speak is Ian Franson wishing to make a statement in opposition hi my name my name for the record is Ian France and I'm a resident at 1518 backer way I'm a long-term resident I grew up in this neighborhood and I chose to stay in this neighborhood um I just realized this morning that this is actually two separate projects so bear with me and speaking twice but um could I get that map that overhead view up here um just to point a few things out I'm really not sure the developers did all their homework on this one because uh as the last speaker just said there are issues with drainage there were some issues with this map uh the pictures didn't seem to do justice to this area um I walked through here you know 10 times a day sometimes going to the grocery store I ride my bike so I feel every crack in the road the traffic's bad the roads are bad and uh there's some things uh know the the smaller one where you can see all the units um maybe with the trees and stuff in there similar to that Okay so uh where to start so if you look at I can't really okay so if you look at the mouse oh okay thank you thank you okay so if you look okay first of all I'm right I'm right here and I've lived here a long time save oh there's a lot of pedestrian traffic right here and I don't see any access for pedestrians the high school kids walk through this dirt field they walk down like this it's the same way I walk it's the same way all my neighbors walk and it looks like pedestrian access may be shut off I'm not sure about that so that's one concern I have another concern well a few concerns hard to know where to start seems like a few few things and this are a bit misleading okay so this right here this is a concrete drainage ditch uh I don't know how that's going to go for a common area or how those trees are going to fit in there because this is It's a drainage it was built with a ditch this ditch this concrete runs below below all our houses through our backyards these people on these properties uh on Shadow Park who are not here to represent themselves they don't have solid fences so that's a big privacy issue too ah whoops sorry Okay and like these trees here uh these trees are already here you can actually see them right here this is the post office they already have these trees here so that's a bit misleading um right here right here and this is not a built feature but this is a small Gulch and Creek it is currently flooded this is currently a flooded Creek that drains into here and I don't know I don't know if y'all really did your homework or how familiar you are with this piece of land um have you walked it I don't I'm not sure I'm not sure that you have but I really think that this and I'm trying to repeat myself the next one you know uh this seems kind of ad hoc like they just put it together they're really shoving them in there like this is going to be really dense there's a lot of traffic here already okay between the elementary school that was crowded when I went to it 25 years ago uh the post office which is busy all day every day look right is this is a one way in one way out for this post office all the post office traffic from the back all the workers everyone who goes to the post office they come out here they turn here they go up here I have been in gridlock here on Grand Point for 15 minutes because it's very hard to turn left onto my hand sometimes because it comes around in a blind Corner okay so between all that and the raleys it's going to be way more traffic than we're used to and the roads are already bad it's going to decrease our quality of life thank you for your time and your consideration thank you Michelle do we have anybody online who'd like to speak I don't believe so um we did receive correspondence for this item we're looking voicemails were received um all were forwarded to the Planning Commission we'll do want to transition into the voicemails please go ahead foreign I live at 1679 Shadow Park Drive the backyard our backyard backs up to the property of Grand Point townhome South proposed um unit of LDC Larry David's Charlie's 23-00026 and I am totally against having public housing back there um between littering garbage sounds we already have base people driving by recklessly with wild-based music all night and smells from drugs to cooking smells would travel right into our homes and I have no trees blocking the back end of my household so back into my property dips down and then it on the other side of our property then is a goalie it's supposed to be the County Drainage line it needs to be cleared out it has lots of weeds and huge cinder blocks of cement and alcoholic beverages and everything over the years that have collected back there and it's not you know it's not it's not beneficial at all anyways um Everybody driving in at night time their headlights would come into our property we would have no privacy we can see straight out to that property from our kitchen table from our bathroom bathhead and from our master bedroom so there would be absolutely no privacy for us whatsoever I know my neighbors have trees so that's not quite an issue for them um but I also work at the billinghurst middle school where a lot of kids are unattended Austin Creeks Austin Crest Apartments Ambassador Drive apartments with all of the teenage you know delinquent and everything like that all the crimes that we've had in our neighborhood have come from Austin Crest or just up by McQueen um once once they've been traced back so we have disruptions during the middle of the night we have smells we have no privacy and um littering um crime for teenagers or whatnot would be jumping fences I don't even care if they put a cinder block wall up that's not going to stop them um at any rate I'm totally against it I don't mind a bank or home Alzheimer Alzheimer's house Hospital clinic um you know something like that that would you know have respectful operation hours and respectful property but um you know we have bought our homes I've been here 15 years my neighbors have been here 25 plus years and there's new babies and three of the homes around me and sounds and every is invasive we already have all the sounds from the post office at 2 30 in the morning 2 20 in the morning and 4 30 in the morning um but especially late nights on hot summers we have to leave our windows open and this would give us absolutely no is that it my name is Valerie Santana and I live on backer way and I'm calling regarding [Music] ldc23-00026 the Grand Pointe Town Home South I am support supporting this building but I do want to put in for the record again my concerns that the access point on backer way not be a main entry point but a fire access only point because there's going to be a lot of traffic problems there already is a lot of traffic problems even though that road is currently a dead end because the maps tell people to go through there so both for the community that's going to be built and those around it we really appreciate it if that would definitely stay in emergency access point only and not for entry and exit in and out of the community as part of the planning thank you yeah that's it thank you anybody else in the chambers wish to speak tonight on this item okay we will close public comment and move it to the Commissioners with questions for the applicant or the city commissioner Gower thank you Mr chairman um Stacy I think I'm going to start with storm water actually so we might need an engineer as well but I'll I'll pose the question and you can defer it to who you want to we heard some concerns and questions about storm water and the public comments that was one of my questions going into the um the hearing tonight how does the project accommodate storm water what's the capacity of the existing system um to take care of the storm water from the site sure I'll help show you what's happening there now and also how the project will actually um solve some of the problems okay thanks good evening Mark Zenda Gordo for the record so so this figure this upper portion of this figure the area that's in blue is the area that is currently draining to the South off-site onto what looks like four neighboring properties possibly five that easternmost property the Suncrest unit 2B civil plans that were built many many years ago showed some temporary interception swales that were to be built along that South Boundary that was many years ago I think just due to lack of Maintenance and those being silted over there there really are no interception swales there now so that that area that's in blue which is roughly 1.6 sorry can I can I ask you to use the mouse just to clarify where you're talking about when you're pointing so yeah maybe you can just point on the overhead there yeah so this area that's in and that's that's the that's not the the property that we're looking at right that's the northern yeah it is that's the that's the Southern Property so this is um this is backer way okay so you have two separate exhibits post office is up here okay and this is the site gotcha sorry it's hard to do without looking at it so this area that's in blue is roughly 0.6 Acres this area is currently sheet flowing onto these these Lots here um with this site this this diagram down here shows that this area that's in green is all going to be in an area of drainage that gets intercepted with the site so it gets drained or intercepted through swales drainage inlets pipes and that that sort of thing so in the fully developed condition none of this area that's in blue is going to drain to these Lots it will all get intercepted it'll be routed to an existing 36-inch City of Reno Public storm drain that's built within backer way and runs up to Grand Point okay trying to follow the arrows it's like connect the dots um and then can you talk me through what's going on on the Eastern portion of the site with that drainage sure um as it was mentioned there is an existing drainage along the Eastern side it's an existing open drainage there's a 15 foot drainage easement on on this property on the neighboring properties to the east there's an existing 25 foot drainage easement so this area that's in pink that's up here is the area draining currently to that Eastern um Swale so in the fully developed condition dropping down to this lower figure the area that's in purple is the area that will then still drain to this Eastern Swale so what what that means is that there's roughly 60 percent less flow that's going to go to this Eastern Swale in the fully developed condition because it gets intercepted and then routed to the 36-inch public storm drain see that last number one more time just so I 36 percent less there is 60 less 60 less in the fully developed condition going to the Eastern Swale than there is now okay thank you I think that that covers my questions there um follow-up question for Stacy if I could regarding the landscape plan um one of the commenters brought up the Landscaping potentially being within some of that drainage infrastructure is that how you read that too on the Eastern portion of the property maybe we can show the landscape plan if you will give me just a second I have a conversation foreign so Stacy Huggins for the record um so the first thing I want to show you and I guess just to focus on the south project this this looked at both because we did cross sections for for both projects but um looking at the South project here uh we did Three cross sections across the bottom and then the two of them across the East and so to to really answer your question commissioner Gower I'm going to start by showing um the cross section that was labeled number six so that would be this cross section right here okay just for for location purposes so in this cross section you can see um the proposed unit set back from the pl 11 feet with a four foot sidewalk along there and a retaining wall and then behind the retaining wall will be a drainage swell as Mark mentioned and then the property line so the trees will actually be located some of them are located on this side of this sidewalk area and then there will be additional trees planted in here in this drainage swell area those additional trees that we're providing to mitigate for the reduced setback are in that soil area DC how does that work if they're in this whale trees are in the soil sorry just double checking yep and if we want to come back to it it's fine I'm just I'm trying to reconcile the location of the vegetation relative to the drainage I misspoke no no I I missed so my my fault sorry about that the the second row of trees are actually located right on this side of the sidewalk not in the soil okay so you have an 11 foot section four four foot sidewalk area and then trees on both sides of the sidewalk okay the trees on the far south side of the sidewalk are columnar trees to ensure that they fit along there okay so up against that retaining wall correct okay um what about the trees on the Eastern property line so if we if you bring up the landscape plan they're there's vegetation proposed along that side of the site too and there was a comment made about that vegetation potentially being within the drainage infrastructure that's already there I have another exhibit hold on which I really tried to be so organized and then I organized myself out of organization that's what I'm looking for thank you sorry about that so um the landscape plan that was submitted with the tentative map is preliminary right it's kind of our best guess of where we think trees and shrubs and other landscape elements might be planted so this plan has been um pushed along significantly further since we submitted the tentative map so what you see here uh is a more formal Landscaping plan for this site and so you can see that um well you will see uh the trees that are planted on the east side are again closer to the West edge of that common area where it is not concrete within our project boundary I think that's what you're getting At The Mention Of the concrete within that drainage area um my understanding is that the concrete portion of the drainage is actually on the adjacent property owner's properties not within our property boundary okay that that's what I was trying to get at is where that drainage is relative to the property and what's being proposed on the site the concrete portion of the drainage is not within this project boundary okay great thank you Mr chairman I have a few other questions but I can pause there and let other Commissioners jump in here let me share Munoz go ahead thank you Mr chair my question will be quick uh that's gonna be for Stacy the on backer Street um the picture shows that it looks like there's two gates there where it comes into the property is there still going to be pedestrian access in this so kids walk into high school or people walking to the market can still get through there or to the uh post office yes that so that area that um the arrow is pointing to will be paved so that fire trucks can get through there the gates are just intended to make sure regular vehicle passenger vehicles can't get through there but it won't cut pedestrian traffic off through there um so people will be able to continue walking through this site um utilizing The Pedestrian paths that are provided with the project right sure commissioner velto do you want a chance to chime in uh no questions right now thank you though commissioner Villanueva or the so I know you're asking for the 10-foot setback versus I believe what would be a 20 is that right my understanding that correctly from the neighbors um so can you go into detail about that for me a little bit what why that's needed why we can't do the 20 and why this development is required at least in your opinion or the applicant's opinion requires that variation sure so um so the the image on the screen really shows um you know this site is very much constrained and it's very narrow um the access road on the North End um provides access to the post office both to the customers and also the employees and the trucks in the back so we don't have a lot of opportunity for wiggle room on that particular access point it's a it's a known constraint on this property um and then the development surrounding it is also obviously a known constraint so in order to work within the narrowness of this project um we looked at laying out this site in what we thought was the most efficient way that also really took into consideration earthwork impacts so what you see here also minimizes earthwork as much as we can um the 20-foot setback as staff mentioned um in their presentation and I also mentioned in mine um really only came up because we elevated the number of units the review of the number of units to a cup so that the Planning Commission could look at the project in a hole the 20-foot setback would not be required if we wanted to put one building along the South Boundary it could be 35 feet um it if it wasn't tentative map it could go straight to building permit so we think that providing the 10 feet actually meets the multi-family 14 zoning District set back and we think that by providing the additional Landscaping along the edge we're actually creating a better situation for the properties to the South it's also worth noting that those um seven units facing south are the front door of the units and probably do not see a lot of activity because people are going to pull in their back into their garage which is on the back and they're going to go inside their house they are most likely not going to be traversing up and down that fence line to get from their home to anywhere else so the 20 isn't because of the height it's because of the units the 20 foot setback is triggered because of the number of units but in code it a conditional use permit is only triggered if you're over 100 units we technically only needed a minor conditional use permit um and we could have gone that route and asked staff to review and provide you know their approval if they sought if they agreed with it and then you would have only been reviewing the tentative map Lots not the setback um portion of this project but again we understand that the Planning Commission likes to review the project in a whole and so we elevated it to a cup as opposed to a minor conditional use permit and now we're asking to be allowed to have a 10-foot setback on that South property line instead of 20 feet commissioner Johnson thank you Mr cheers um Stacy you put a section up in response to commissioner gower's questions um wow oh I thought I thought I did something wrong usually usually what happens um there were a couple questions that that raised for me um if you can find that in your uh in the overhead again sorry Michelle can we get the overhead again so one of the questions that came up from Json property owner to the South was some concern about some screening so there's a couple things that I'm seeing here one there's a retaining wall do you have an what is the material that that retaining wall is constructed of because we don't have oftentimes we'll have a condition for what's required for a retaining wall and I didn't see that in this this project so I just as a disclaimer this is um not you know the the necessarily the right color for this wall but this is what the wall will likely look like and then it will have a railing on top that's similar to what you see here um but it'll only be four feet in height not this what you see here is a six foot railing on top for this project it will only be four feet on top of the retaining wall okay so that and is that does that retaining wall to appears to be a very height does it extend the entire length of the South property line yes it does Okay so from because we have it looks like the the four or five properties to the South there's very distances from this some of them are side yard setbacks some of them are rear yard setbacks so it looks like this one is to the east so it's a side yard setback and then we would have in the center that same situation but with additional so that this is the the section cut there that you're showing okay so the other ones would have the same assembly of retaining wall and um guardrail fencing above that okay correct wall will extend at some varying degree of height along the entire South Boundary there okay um including on the other side to the east side of backer [Music] no thank you for clarifying that because that okay okay so I appreciate that um answer so then and I guess just to to follow this further because you mentioned one of the questions that commissioner Munoz had about circulation through here so if I was looking at the way to go from the route off of back our way is that sidewalk that's adjacent to that we're looking at the cut through does That Sidewalk open up to the emergency access on back our way okay and you know where I'm going there's a requirement there's a finding requirement for pedestrian safety and so I'm I'm looking at how the potential site circulation through here would go if you would go from back away instead of going along the roadways if you would get onto that sidewalk which it appears then provides you access in some fashion out to Grand Point I'm gonna put that landscape plan back up there so that you can see um this landscape plan doesn't show a sidewalk connection right here um but again the gate isn't going to preclude people from going around the gate and it will connect they can connect to sidewalk that goes up on this side of this unit or they could connect to the path that goes along here so there's a grade differential between the edge of that sidewalk and Backer way okay okay thank you thank you Mr chair I'll turn it back to commissioner Gower thank you good thank you Mr um Stacy the I I honestly on First Look the well when it comes into Focus they're the the site plan looks a little chopped up I guess um can you just kind of talk me through the rationale for this particular site plan again with the constraints and then what that Hammerhead on the West Side what the requirement is there and why it doesn't connect through back to um the entrance Street I can um I think that the exhibit in my PowerPoint might be a little bit easier to read from if you guys wouldn't mind flipping back to that [Music] thank you so again you know looking at the narrowness of this site the road is 28 feet in width it meets fire requirements and City of Reno requirements for Street design um we needed to have this as a hammerhead to also meet fire turnaround requirements um so it that that meets the fire requirements um I am making an assumption that you are trying to understand why potentially this road does not um cut out to the north is that a fair direction that you are headed yep heading that way okay um so I I think there's you know there was some discussion about should this road loop around and tie in Tobacco Lane um you heard um at least one resident that called in that said they really did not want access into backer Lane and I mentioned early on in my presentation historically these neighbors to the South have been opposed to the traffic coming through here um because they did not want a significant amount of traffic um coming this way and we um agreed to that and held to that um because it was something that had been talked about historically with the landowner and so as the new developer we said okay we can do that and we can make it work and meet all the city requirements which is what you see on this plan um we heard some concerns about you know and as part of looking at whether we could make the 20 feet the 20-foot setback work along the South Boundary um there was a suggestion to consider bringing this road all the way around the south side and looping it back up for a secondary access out here um we explored that I do not in my opinion think that having a road along this South access makes this better now it puts all of the traffic back here because essentially if you do that and you eliminate this private Street in the middle all of these units turn around and the driveways and the back of the house is now facing this direction where to the south on these South units right um so cars are now backing out of their driveways in the direction of these existing homes or their headlights are shining in the direction of these existing homes and on the North side if these units are flipped they are backing out of their homes onto this private Drive access again where traffic going into the post office creates a conflict with traffic coming out of these units on what is a six foot deep driveway not a 20-foot deep driveway so they really don't have an opportunity to stop they're backing out of their driveway right into the street and so it created some challenges so um we we do not you know think flipping this and having the access out here works we had conversations with the City of Reno engineering staff they also did not agree with having vehicles backing out onto this street so two other things to just sort of um consider we when we looked at this design and the opportunity to potentially bring you know even this road come out this way this access point is too close to the existing intersection with Grand Point in order to meet the intersection spacing this would um have to be about 200 feet from this intersection which actually aligns it back here with these current driveways and the reason for that is that Reno fire will not this would have to be considered a road and um a a public Street has to be 200 feet back from the intersection if this was a driveway and it was serving less than 20 units then it would only have to be 50 feet from this existing intersection as you see it here um this only fits to 45 feet so we we maybe could have gotten to 50 but we do not believe Reno fire would have supported this design because it serves more than 20 units so the other option just so um you know that we looked at everything we did consider what would happen if we brought in Access again if this road came all the way around and came down along the South and came out to Grand Point the driveway um for this existing house directly south of us is too close to this intersection um and then the distance between this potential intersection and this potential and this intersection has to be a minimum of 400 feet and the distance between those would have been 160. so there was no wiggle room for us to make the circulation on this site work let alone the fact that engineering staff was not supportive of these units flipping and putting a Paseo in the middle of the units with the units backing out onto the street does that answer your question yeah thanks for walking through those scenarios um and appreciate you looking at those Alternatives I guess the the last follow-up question I have on that um is why 20 units then or why why the number of units being proposed what's what's the magic number there um just to clarify the 20 unit threshold is a fire department regulation we're asking for 30 units 30 minutes sorry foreign why not I um 30 units is below the mf-14 density and um we can make them fit on this site based on this design with the street sections the way they are okay thank you Mr chairman if I could have a oh Christian you want to jump in there I just wanted to follow up with staff on the the setback consideration please do thanks Leah no problem so the all the the aec and the findings associated with the aec put us in a little bit of a interesting situation so we have a particular finding number four under that that says that doesn't result in essentially any less issues yeah you had it on your your last slide there no greater impacts occurred so how how does staff make that finding and what is your suggestion for Planning Commission making that finding based on your interpretation of the code So based on my interpretation of the code there's not going to be a greater impact because we're still meeting the 10-foot side setback that's required per the mf-14 zoning District so if you look at code and you're looking at multi-family residential 14 units per acre and you look down the chart and you look at side setback it's five feet and then it says except when adjacent to single family residential it's 10 feet so the side setback for the zoning district is 10 feet in this particular case um there's no greater impact on the neighboring properties than any other development that would be occurring on that property and again when we looked at this this is this is an inconsistency in code because basically what happened is that the applicant was held to this higher standard of 20 feet because they chose to bundle the minor use permit with the tentative map to be transparent when they came before this board so in a way they were being punished for for bundling that and presenting it all as one application rather than piecemealing it into the City and letting one be an administrative review and then bringing the tentative map before the board if they had done that they wouldn't even need an alternative equivalent compliance so when I look at the mf-14 zoning district and I look at the findings for the alternative equivalent compliance there's no greater impact on those neighboring properties than it would be under any other development with a 10-foot side setback and actually their exceeding code by planning those trees thank you okay I'm gonna digest that for a second turn it over to commissioner Munoz thank you Leah and like is this going to be for the developer um looking at the site map that you have and then the two properties that are already to the South uh closest to the shopping center the last two on the hammer head to the South so S15 and S14 as a vehicle makes a left-hand turn South there the headlights are going to be pointed directly at the backyard of the second property off of the cul-de-sac there to the South what mitigation or what is the developer planning on doing to screen the headlights coming to that area um I think the last one before that was a better uh other way I think right there so yeah those are the same image but um you see Huggins for the record so um again as part of the um and the condition that requires it but also um we we acknowledged that so we agreed to provide additional trees here along this South property line right along here um we could certainly consider um you know adding a second um piece of landscaping here to further buffer that if um you think that would be appropriate okay if that's definitely something you consider that's going to be something I'm going to have to get to make the findings for that um because of the elevation um and the the elevation pitch you have uh that you showed us a couple people ago who were talking um the headlights are going to be elevated and coming in so I I would in order for me to to be able to approve this I'd have to have some sort of screen other than trees I mean you could have literally six trees side by side and the gaps that are going to leave between headlights are going to come right through that so I would definitely have to have something else there if if you guys are willing to make some some kind of um an extra condition for that I I hear what you're saying I think um I probably need a minute to just confer with that developer on what might go there um I guess I do just want to mention that um and and I I understand the headlight concern um this existing resident is 45 feet from their PL so and there's as you can see um here there's um significant Landscaping that already exists along this PL so I just mentioned that for consideration um I I caution us about putting in a very tall wall there um but and I don't know that that's where you're going but I'm not sure what else we might put there besides Landscaping I'm not I'm not looking for a while I'm looking for a more solid type of landscaping okay okay well um if you would be willing to kind of let me talk through that with the developer I think we can and maybe there's some other questions the developer has heard you um so I think that they might be talking about it themselves if there are other questions for me I can try to answer them in the meantime or I can take a minute and talk to them what's your villainueva thank you chair so um Stacy is is that your name Stacy okay Stacy um the um since you're going to go back and talk to the developer can we present to them the idea of reducing the number of piece I'm not against the development itself I just think that we're trying to do more than this lot allows for um but maybe reduce the number of units if that's something you can discuss with them as well because it didn't seem like you had a really good answer for me as to well not for me but for the commission as to why you chose that number again I I like the development overall generally aside from I feel like you're just I think the applicant's really pushing the boundaries with what's you know compatible with that spot and in the neighboring um and the neighbors um so yeah please get back to them about that commissioner Armstrong did you want a chairman yeah thank you chair this one's for the city and it's on our favorite topic of the alternative equivalent compliance so I'm trying to wrap my head around the rationale for it and I can follow where you're going I guess I would like to know if there have been similar projects that have requested the same kind of aec and if the remedy was similar um but do you see where I'm driving out like how we dealt with this before was it satisfactory on maybe a comparable project Leah Brock for the record I'm trying to think if I've processed anything I've processed a few for alternative equivalent compliance and an alternative equivalent compliance is a fairly new thing in code it's only been around since since we updated code two years ago and um it only pertains to the development standards In Articles 8 9 and 10 of Reno Municipal Code so there's only a very small limited section of things that you can apply for an alternative equivalent compliance because this setback is not a step back standard of the zoning district and it's a design standard for the compatibility between the two zoning districts um I can't think of any situation where we've dealt with anything like this before alternative equivalent compliances can be used in in like I said any of those design standards but I can't think of anything offhand where we've done this and I'm looking to Jason and he's shaking his head so I don't think so thank you Jason Garcia the planning manager for the record um in this request there's kind of two components for that alternative equivalent compliance um the street tree part is something that we've seen in other projects but to Leah's point for the setback part that we don't really have any examples of that so it's sort of a yes and no situation thank you Mr chairman I was hoping that someone else would bring up parking so I didn't have to bring out parking but I got to ask about parking um and Leah since you're there I'll I'll ask I mean how does staff look at this so there's no driveways we're asking residents to park in their garages there are I think eight visitor spaces parking along the street that's enough parking well I do know that we've designed like this before these short driveways and uh in previous projects that that I looked at we had these six foot driveways but then we had the sidewalk behind them so in turn what happened is people park on the sidewalk they Park half in the driveway and half in the sidewalk so when we looked at this design approach we looked at the fact that we weren't going to have those sidewalks there so it really limits that there was definitely concern that people are going to park on these streets and it's only 28 feet in width and it could potentially block it but um the applicant has agreed to include ccnrs that allow for no parking everything is going to say no parking and they have their eight visitor spots which did we increase the visitor spots no it's it's eight okay so design standards uh for this type of development require two parking spaces per unit and they do have that in the garage okay all right I'm gonna follow up with Stacy on that if I could okay thanks thank you thanks Leah Stacy two questions um first one about the the garage depth the second one about the the parking spaces the visitor spaces I'll ask about the visitor spaces first um is there any sort of mechanism that that we could employ to prevent people from residents from parking a third vehicle there for example yeah um Stacy Huggins for the record uh yes um we um have talked about it uh on our team and we can definitely um you know include a note about that in the ccnrs and then we will also put signs in those parking areas that clarify that those are guest parking spaces only and cannot be used by the residents have that as a condition yes okay great um and the question about the garage depth and it didn't really come come to my mind until I started looking um again at the Aerials of the adjacent properties and you just see a lot of um just larger Vehicles is that a consideration that we're limiting ownership to people who have smaller vehicles yeah um I don't I don't believe that that is the intent they are standard garage depths um it certainly could limit someone who wants to buy one of these units um but I I we are not designing a project that meets the you know monstrosity vehicle if you will it would have a much bigger impact on this project if we had a 30-foot deep garage which is not consistent okay I'm not trying to be sarcastic I'm just trying to understand what the implications are of people and the reality of people owning certain vehicles and that was leading into my request for um the visitor spaces which I think we've addressed and is there opportunity anywhere else for someone with a larger vehicle to park that vehicle um they could park along Grand point where we cannot sign that because it's a public street so that's a public Street anyone could park there correct okay thank you could while I'm here um Mr chair can I respond to commissioner munoz's question go ahead I'm sorry no it's okay um commissioner so I I had an opportunity to talk to our team um during that time and so I just want to just mention um because they informed me so where that road comes up to that South property line right here the road is actually in three feet of cut so it actually is coming in lower than the current property south of here so we um just so you know that the headlights are not going to be shining into those adjacent properties but we would be willing to plant a hedge along that portion of the road um understanding that it's not gonna be you know 10 feet tall because we're already in Cut but we can agree to put a hedge along that portion of the road that will mitigate headlights a foot worth of I mean it's really just a foot like headlights on cars are about four feet from the ground so we're three feet in the ground there okay thank you that satisfies me sure great um and then just to answer I'm commissioner villanueva's question about losing a lot um we cannot lose a lot on this site um given the infrastructure that's needed and um also the continued conversations within our region for more attainable type housing we believe that 30 units is appropriate for this site and still um meets all the Intensive code so commissioner Villa Nueva good I actually have a question for this for this so Leah before I get started I just want to acknowledge I understand what both you and the applicant said as far as you know this could have gone a different route we may not have even have seen this uh project but unfortunately we have seen the project and so um and that means we're on the record and that means there's precedence and so um I did kind of in and out here what commissioner Armstrong was asking um and maybe I heard incorrectly but what I heard and I could be wrong you said that you haven't had uh something similar as far as the setbacks uh like what you're asking for here so my concern again is we're looking at potentially setting precedent for something like this um that maybe could have you know been handled administratively but that's not the case obviously no we're on the record and now other projects may come forward that potentially don't necessarily fit into um or nests aren't necessarily compatible with the situation but then they're going to point to this project and say well they did it over there and there's nothing really different about this project than was that that you know that happened in that project and so that's kind of my concern and that's why I asked about the applicant about potentially reducing the units because I want to see a project like this move forward because I think it is appropriate and but I still need to make the findings and I still need to be able to make that that call so did I understand correctly this is my question did I understand correctly that there was we haven't seen a project like this or at least that you can recall that you can recall that that is correct but again I I just want to reiterate that alternative equivalent compliance is not an option for all sections of code it only pertains to sections articles 8 9 and 10. so this is within article 9 and we have seen several that I several um aecs that were in that same article but not specifically this standard the standard what do you mean this this particular standard which which is the standard that says um any hold on I'll pull it up that says quote any project requiring a conditional use permit in a multi-family District shall have a minimum 20-foot set back from any property line abutting a single-family District so that is within article 9 it's not it's not in the other sections of code so we would be setting precedence that you can obtain an alternative equivalent compliance for items in article 9 because we have done them in article 9 before okay thank you commissioner velta ibigua you need to jump in at all those topics anybody have any more questions or would you like to slide into discussion okay we'll move into discussion commissioners oh there we go yeah commissioner Valdez commissioner topics for discussion go ahead yeah so I want to address the some of the topics that are brought up about um that the number of the number of units I'm a little concerned with us pushing back on that we don't necessarily know the kind of uh we don't noticeably what they're trying to do or what they need to do in order to be successful in the project so I'm concerned about us limiting it even though there was an answer that maybe wasn't as in-depth as to why the number 30 was chosen uh generally though I think they've done a lot of good things with this project with the space I think this is the type of project that we want to see which is a housing that's more attainable more affordable it's while it's more in the suburbs still an infill type project and more of a density project uh near Commercial which means some people it could be somewhat walkable for folks and I I do think this is an interesting project and good for the area because this type of housing is not necessarily commonly found in that part of town industry thank you if no other discussion we can entertain a mo commissioner Gower please thank you Mr chairman um a couple points on discussion I I hear what commissioner velto was saying and um appreciate all of the responses to the questions and um I think for me the the two considerations number one is that the number of units being trying to fit on this site is resulting in a site plan that generates compatibility issues for me um it generates compatibility compatibility issues along the southern property line which play into this aec consideration the the mechanisms of how staff is interpreting code and the findings that we have to make for that that aec um request or I still can't quite get my head around that because I look at finding four and it's asking is this creating a bigger issue from 20 to 10 and it does but staff is essentially saying that we really need to just kind of um not consider that because it could have been processed differently so I'm trying to reconcile that but I think fundamentally it's a great infill project and infill projects to commissioner velto's Point address a lot of those things that we're looking for at the master plan level with those goals but when it's done in a way that um is just trying to put too much onto a site I think it it does a little bit of Injustice not only to the site but to the surrounding property owners and I feel like that's the case here I feel like we're just trying to squeeze you know a sidewalk and Landscaping and drainage swales into such a small area along these property lines um that you know I questioned is that is that the appropriate intensity for the site and is there a better way to do it and we heard that there isn't really necessarily a better way to do it so that was my follow-up question then what about the number of units um that's what we're reacting to I'm having challenges with some of the findings in addition to that aec finding so that's where I'm at thanks [Music] commissioner Villa William please thanks I just want to add to discussion and kind of reiterate a lot of what commissioner Gower said I think this could really be a good project for the area I think it's the type of development we're looking for but the way it's being presented the way it's done it's it makes it really difficult to make the findings um I feel like I mean I'd be open to maybe continuing this and you know seeing what options are available um things we can work through um I I'd like to see a project similar to this be you know approved but it's just really hard for me to make the findings um as presented so [Music] so commissioner Johnson thank you Mr chair commissioner Johnson I'll just weigh in maybe looking at it you know I I definitely understand some concerns about the level of work that's going on here in the density but I think some of those in my mind I appreciate it actually more than anything kind of the the engineering discussion about some of the changes that are being made I mean I think there's a recognition here of some of the challenges and a real effort to address those with the way that the site is being created and worked with and that and so you know on first blush I maybe didn't react to it as maybe the overbuild that I'm hearing about here and and I guess one of the the ways that I looked at it was you know the the setback along the South and some of the grading that's a result there is you know interesting because we've got one of those situations where we have streets and a cul-de-sac so we have existing residences whose backyard backs up to what would be a side yard here and there's concern that we're looking at it but if you zoom out a little bit those same houses have a less than 10 foot side yard to the backyard of their neighbors because they're on a cul-de-sac so there's I guess precedent for you know this sort of side yard backyard setback situation that we're looking at the alternative equivalent compliance is a slightly different mechanism than say a deviation where we're really looking at specific standards and code that we're going against I understand the rationale for using that here because it's more like a you know an articulation standard or a glazing standard or something along those lines where we were looking at a way of mitigating it and so this I don't think is setting a precedent it's a the alternative compliance here is for us to review if the additional trees and the situation with the adjacent properties you know are the trees and the situation you know suitable as an alternative to the 20-foot setback that's really what we're being asked staff finds it in a way because code in another place would require 10 and we're meeting that to me it's that's not the question it's you know are we doing enough to address that reduction and that's a that's a matter for debate I don't know that trees every 30 feet are really doing that um especially looking at two trees on either side of a sidewalk in an 11 foot section before a retaining wall I'm not sure how those are going to grow so I'm not sure that you know we're necessarily getting there with what is being proposed but I'm not I'm looking at it more from the standpoint of this is a you know it's a unique situation um the the setback there is essentially a it's like a side yard setback if we were to do this a different way so um I know I'm not necessarily responding one way or the other to the questions but I think you know the applicant has done you know some due diligence to make this work on the site in a way that you know I I think responds to some of our concerns ultimately if that is applicable or not I guess is you know for each of us to decide but I think I I don't look at this as potentially overbuilding I think they're doing everything that they can to sort of fit within the parameters of a challenging site in a way that maximizes both you know the the land use capabilities and the the housing that we're looking for so that's my point for discussion um I do think the you know the discussion about the findings there are a couple in there that you know get into you know compatibility with the neighbors and some traffic issues but the alternative equivalent compliance I think is more of a design aspect for us to review than an actual benefit or you know something that we're putting on the property as opposed to you know imposing something to the adjacent one so thank you Mr chair thank you any other points of discussion we want to entertain a motion commission Armstrong good uh yeah assuming no more discussion I'm ready to make a motion okay thank you in the case of ldc23-00026 ground Point townhome South uh based upon compliance with the applicable findings I moved to approve the tentative map conditional use permit and alternative equivalent compliance subjects and conditions listed in the staff report Mr Bell to all second we have a motion a second any discussion commissioner Villanueva before I go I you know I unfortunately I can't make the findings I really want to be able to see this project move forward except the way it's presented and the way it's designed now I can't um you know unfortunately I'm a no vote but I you know I wish we could have been I could have gotten into uh to a yes um but that's where I am thank you commission unions yeah thank you commissioner um we had two discussions uh two additional conditions one was a parking restriction signage and the other was the uh the hedge of The Blocking for the driveway would you be willing to add those into your condition into your motion I'm trying to include those in my motion okay are we allowed to do that and then also get a second on that I'll add that into my second okay good to go with that okay great so we have a motion a second with those two added conditions if there's no other discussion we'll go to a roll call vote please Michelle Bell two yes Johnson yes draculich yes cower no Munoz yes Villanueva no Armstrong yes motion is five to two it passes it passes thank you good luck with your project uh before we move on to 4.5 I did want to address time issues we have uh three more items up obviously we'll hear 4.5 question for my fellow Commissioners how we feel about 4.6 and 4.7 for the sake of the public in the room um how are we feeling about pushing to 4.6 it sounds like 4.7 when we need to go to another meeting um unless you guys want to go deep so open to discussion on that uh thank you Mr commissioner Munoz uh I do have concerns about 4.6 and I believe that is going to be a uh it's going to be a longer one as well um which is going to take us well past the 11 o'clock hour um so I do have some concerns I don't know what our uh what the ability of us to do anything tonight what that is but I I am concerned fellow commissioners I guess I would I would look to staff I have I I never like taking a an item that has public here for uh and postponing it because they're already here so um I I would I guess Venture I would like to hear the items that people are here for this evening uh even if it means that they run late um because I don't I'd rather hear them while they're here than Force the public to come back at a later date that's just my feeling not that I want to stay up till one o'clock in the morning but I also don't want to put an imposition on that's my thought so to have it right would you want to hear items four six and four seven tonight um I guess my question would be I would like to hear as many items as we possibly can especially those items that we have request to speak forms on in the public here to see so I would defer to staff and Michelle I haven't seen the forms I don't know how many people are here for which items I have a requests to speak forms for um 4.6 and 4.7 I believe you have one for have 1.4 if I have in my hand yes and we also have voicemails for um 4.6 uh commissioner Villanueva I think because we do have so many people in the public and they've been here all night just like we have I yeah I mean I'm fine sticking it out um but uh I guess we'll talk to you all I was just gonna say you can take those items out of order if you wanted to go ahead commissioner Armstrong I agree with all the comments that have been said we have a lot of people here that are very interested in the remaining agenda items they've been very patient to make their comments so I would like to push through and give them that opportunity commissioner velto you want to chime in sounds like enough people support us continuing uh I would hope that if it's possible we could have less agenda items on these meetings because it's difficult to uh balance this obligation with other obligations we have though I do think it's important to have the public be heard okay I think I guess just the way I was looking at it is if we're going to make it to 4.7 we're probably you know at our Pace starting that you know well after 12 from what it appears Maybe I'm Wrong there but as long as we're all prepared for that can I suggest that we move to 4.6 I believe the majority of the people in the room are here for that according to the can we do I mean yeah I mean I think I agree with that if we can take it out of order I mean what do we have we have public comments for 4.6 and 4.7 in the majority for 4.6 we do have public comment for 4.5 which is coming up next Stacey's here to present for 4.5 and 4.7 oh okay we have Derek Wilson here for 4.6 there's no pretty answer here Mr chairman I'd recommend that we just continue on with the agenda click on the next agenda item and just keep going perfect thank you if everybody's good with that we'll do that okay thanks I just want to bring it up thank you very much we will move on to item 4.5 case number ldc23-00027 Grand Point Townhomes North and we will start off with a presentation from Stacy with wood Rogers uh so I'm here on this project for Grand Point Townhomes North uh so this property is on the north side of the post office and just so that you are all aware if you haven't noticed um these projects are very similar the north project is very um similar to what um we were just talking about on the south project so I will try to kind of quickly touch on the things that are similar but this is a 5.1 acre undeveloped primarily undeveloped undisturbed parcel there has been in the past some um stockpiling on this property which was done as part of the post office being developed as well as when Mayan was constructed so if you drove by the site before there was snow on it you may have noticed some disturbance out there that's what that is from um it is against excuse me surrounded by existing residential and the commercial development to the west and it is again another um great opportunity for infill development where services and infrastructure are readily available to support development of the project this piece of property uh still it's master plan Suburban mixed use the zoning on this piece of property is neighborhood commercial which does allow single-family attached Townhomes um as we're being proposed with this project so for this project we're looking at a tentative map for 78 units code does require a conditional use permit for more than 50 units we need a conditional use permit because we have fills that exceed the 10 foot threshold on this site and then it's also a cluster development which triggers a conditional use permit and then similar to the South project we are seeking the alternative equivalent compliance to address the location of the street trees and again that's because the street trees are located internal to the project inside these Paseo areas rather than along the streets where you would typically see them in a single family residential development um same concept for these units they are oriented with the rear or garage side towards the street and the front of the units are oriented either towards the perimeter or into um the per the paseos in the middle uh all of those paseos have pedestrian connectivity through them so that there is full connection through this site um internal and also external uh similar to the other project in front of this piece of property there is no curb gutter or sidewalk so with this project we will complete the sidewalk gap on the east side of Grand Point so now you will have sidewalk that extends the entire length of Grand Point on the East Side in addition to the sidewalk along Grand Point as I mentioned there are pedestrian paths internal to the project that connect from the north to the South and actually provide access out to those sidewalks um with this project with the 70 um eight units we are looking at a 526 average daily trips from this project and 40 um peak hour trips as I mentioned before that's below the threshold for a traffic Improvement analysis um or a traffic study um but I do want to just um you know for the record mention that we did a trip generation that looked at both projects combined and combined the two projects generate 55 PM peak hour trips so we're still well below even with those two projects if you do have questions about the traffic um Lauren Chilson with Headway transportation is here and can answer questions related to that um again same as uh in the previous project we have a mix of two three and four unit buildings each unit has a two um car parking or garage um on this site we have um a little more guest parking um internal to the site so the original plan um had parking guest parking spaces in this North West Corner up here and then three more spaces down here in the lower Southeast Corner um and since we made submittal we have been able to identify three additional guest spaces over on the east side of the project and then we were able to squeeze in one more parking space up here in this North West corner so now the project um as as it's shown here will include 11 guest on-site spaces plus a long Grand Point um again because it's a public Street there's room for about 10 additional spaces so there would be a total of 21 available guest parking spaces associated with this project and similar to the South project we will sign those we are good with a condition that requires that they be signed so that they are just for guest parking the streets same same design in this project 28 feet wide private streets the common areas are all still maintained by the homeowners association and the common area does include this area along the east that's been preserved as common area with this project as this project is shown here there's approximately 148 trees on the site I mentioned that we need a conditional use permit for the fills so it's a grading cup we are in excess of the 10 feet in that area shaded in blue there we're exceeding it by six feet um so it's not a large fill if you will there but you can see in the picture and I know it's a little bit hard to see this area to the right or this would be the West this is the post office and the post office is actually a split level building so this part here is higher than what's happening down here and then what you don't see below this current grade condition is the parking lot and the back of the post office so in order to even out this property or grade it out and make it level we have to bring in some fill as I mentioned it is in excess of the 10 feet and then to support the fill there will be a wall along this southern boundary that will make sure that the there's no impact to the post office parking lot or the post office parcel to the South same unit Concepts again front door oriented towards either the streets or the paseos you can see the two-car garages with them in the NC zoning similar to the multi-family 14 the max allowable height is 35 feet and the only difference between um this site and the previous site is the number of stories here are allowed to be three stories but as you can see in these architectural renderings of the um units these are proposed as two-story units at a Max height of 26 feet and again same this is the two unit two-pack unit uh that is our project uh again these are for sale Townhomes provide a good transition between single family detached and the adjacent commercial uses continues to provide um you know an opportunity for housing that does not exist in this portion of um town and meets the master plan policies for infill and Redevelopment neighborhood connections and building orientation and with the added condition regarding the no parking in the parking lots we have reviewed all the other conditions and agree to them and we're happy to answer any questions that you may have thank you Stacy we'll now take a presentation from the city looks like Lee again for the record Leah Brock assistant planner with development services City of Reno moving on this evening I'm going to be presenting the application for Grand Point Townhomes North again the subject site is located on the corner of Mayan and Grand Point it is just over five acres at 5.1 for this request we have a tentative map for a 78 single family attached townhome subdivision we have the conditional use permit for over 50 residential units feels greater than 10 feet in that small area on the south and cluster development again this is a request for alternative equivalent compliance to vary from the residential street tree requirements the subject site is located in neighborhood commercial zoning district Key issues analyzed in this request our overall site design and compatibility with surrounding development one thing that I do want to point out here is that the zoning on this partial was changed from professional office to Neighborhood commercial in 2019 that designation is consistent with the site Suburban mixed use master plan land use designation I believe that there was another development that was planning on going in at the time and that was the reason for that zone change but it never came to fruition so overall site design here is 78 units um which yields a gross density of 15.29 dwelling units per acre the neighborhood commercial zoning District does allow for 30 units per acre so it's well less than that we have the same design as we had on the previous one with the two fronts with the garage the six foot driveways and the Paseo again condition number eight is going to restrict the vehicle parking in driveways in this particular case we do have grading happening on that lower portion of the site there as Stacy pointed out there are fills greater than 10 feet in height up to 16 feet in depth that is adjacent to that uh post office that's there to the South also again on this one even though we just have the residential off to the east we are limiting the hours of construction regarding compatibility with surrounding uses we have single family on just that one side South is the post office located in the public facility zoning District to the east I'm sorry to the West is the commercial specific plan district and to the north across Mayan you have a single family sf8 or sf6 I'm sorry that might be mixed up right there so the project has been designed to Cluster the development a waste away from the eastern boundary line that's adjacent to that single family residential approximately 0.45 Acres of common area will be preserved and landscaped back there along that concrete drainage ditch which will just further limit the impact on the adjacent residential for the equivalent alternative equivalent compliance in this case it's just to deviate from that street tree requirement so as we talked about last time there are two Street trees required for each lot the applicant is asked to not have them there because it impedes Vision triangle it interferes with utilities they will be planted elsewhere uh condition number nine requires the HOA or equivalent for maintenance of those common areas and condition 10 is that equivalent number of required trees planted in alternative locations regarding public comment we received eight letters of opposition and two letters uh from Dad members again with support uh for the infill transitional development and saying that it's compatible with surrounding uses same concerns as last time only without that setback issue traffic adequate infrastructure noise pollution on the number of units we did add condition number seven for the smart trips program to be included with all sales documents on the board are the conditional use permit findings and here are the tentative map findings and alternative equivalent compliance findings staff has been able to make all of the findings as does recommend approval of this application subject to the conditions listed in the staff report that concludes my presentation the recommended motion is on the screen and I am available for questions thank you thank you Leah kick it to the Commissioners for disclosures commissioner Johnson if you can start it off please thank you Mr chair Mr Johnson received and read emails familiar with the site and spoke briefly with the applicant's representative commissioner Villanueva no disclosures commissioner Armstrong I read and received emails I met with the applicant's representative and I'm familiar with the site Mr Munoz read and received emails and I'm familiar with the site commissioner Gower received and read emails familiar with the site spoke with the applicant's representative commissioner velta uh commissioner Belton same disclosures commissioner Dracula's same disclosures we do have two request to speak forms we'll start with those uh starting off with Joanna Morrow uh wishing to make a statement in opposition and after her will be Ian Franzen I'm sorry and I meant to open public comment my apologies but we had a Johanna Morrow she's on Zoom so oh she's on Zoom okay foreign sorry am I am I there yeah we can hear you um would you like to make public comment on this item yes thank you okay um I was in the house all night and I was sorry I was joining you I but I had to come home get my kids this is a small enclosed area with a residential homes as was discussed sandwiching the post office with both um housing units that have just been discussed um this is a small a short road that is only about three car widths wide and it's only about two blocks long with kind of a tight curve you guys said you're familiar with the area um there's um two busy streets the T-bone each one of those uh ends of the streets both man and Simmons which we've had um car accidents at both intersections we've also had crime where people have had their homes broken into just behind these where these units is proposed to go into one of my neighbors homes is still being um repaired from the last previous break-in and we have had um as mentioned some dumping and um loitering that has led to alcohol and drug um people hanging out where they can be not be seen from the street so they like to come up against our property line my house is actually located just kiddie corner behind the post office so the last unit's mentioned by the filth would be right outside my kitchen um and also would be have clear view right into my master bathroom in my bathtub and my master bedroom so this creates a very um uncomfortable feeling for me to have housings this close we do have a number of pets along this street line we have a lot of neighborhood protection where we keep track of each other's the sounds and smells and everything so that we can help keep protection of each other on this street line also I'm sorry I'm nervous also um it's something I'd notice is that the post office has sleep disturbances at 12 20 a.m 2 20 a.m 4 30 a.m and 6 a.m when the vehicles um at six a.m the vehicles have to do their inspections where they all have to honk their horns before taking their vehicles off the property but at the other mentioned times they are busy loading about 8 to 12 pallet jacks onto and off of big rigs and so during each of these time zones you're here um that is a very much sleep disturbance um there is also right behind the post office kitty corner of this property is a Coyote Den buried right behind the property right behind right next to my house um so there would be an animal disturbance and there's also a consideration of uh the dumpsters um that would increase smells and exhaust coming right into our houses um so my concerns and the concerns of my neighbors that I have talked with um smells noises crime loitering pets and um traffic are all our concerns thank you thank you as well all right we'll stay in the chambers here and Ian Franson if you could come to the podium please hello again this one hi so just because something's legal that doesn't make it a good idea okay I mean that's we could probably agree on that in concept not necessarily applying to this um I've lived here a long time and if you approved the last one by gut tells me you're probably going to approve this one um talking about 108 new units on one street that's already high traffic okay that already has big cracks so they don't fix the street properly they put in tar and it just makes bumps on either side of the crack and I ride a bicycle I feel everyone I see the kids crash on their skateboards there are car accidents there is gridlock there's gridlock on a two-lane Suburban Road that's not really normal and we want to put another 108 units there like is this hurts me this hurts me this lot this lot is a place where I could find peace and I know they're going to build something there like I get that it's an open space and you know we value these structures more than I don't know dirt and Sagebrush or straight state flower everyone seems to think is a weed but I just I know it's gonna it's gonna reduce our quality of life I'm looking out for my neighbors okay like I may not live here the rest of my life and whether or not to sell my house does depend on how things change after these are built I'm really 50 50. I may leave this neighborhood which I grew up in because of these two developments okay like this hurts me and like I know that that's not policy that's not the law the law doesn't reflect my feelings okay but it is going to reduce quality of life for the people in this neighborhood it's going to reduce our home values it's going to increase crime it's gonna be more pressure on the roads and schools okay that are already so far beyond overcrowding how come how come we only build housing and don't build new schools don't build new Fire Stations don't build you know infrastructure just cramming and cramming more housing in and this is I'm just talking even Beyond this one development it just seems like that's what the City of Reno wants to do is just increase the population without increasing the proper services and infrastructure for all these people so like this is this I I've chosen not to speak on a lot of developments that I was concerned about because I was waiting until it came to my front door until I actually had to actually had to be immediately affected because I know I will be affected by this I know my neighbors will be affected by this and it's the only it's not going to be a benefit to us it's not going to be a benefit to the neighborhood it's a benefit to the developers bank accounts that's it sorry I mean that's that's that's the way I see it okay and everyone's a title to their opinion and I'm not telling you all how to do your jobs I know you're seeing if it's legal you're seeing if you think it fits but let me tell you about this these programs are a square peg and a round hole I mean at the end of the day like I I don't I can't dress that up I just it makes me sick to the pit on my stomach you know I value open space I value going down the street and seeing my state flower I value knowing that I live in the Great Basin because there is still Wild Desert patches in my neighborhood and if you take them all away I might as well be in Cleveland you know I'm gonna have to I'm gonna have to go farther and farther just to find peace away from the traffic thank you for your time thank you Michelle do we have any other correspondence online um we did receive correspondence on this item that was forwarded to the Planning Commission and has been entered into the record no voicemails were received and I have no other request to speak forms for this item I think anybody else in the chambers wish to speak on this item uh can you please uh fill out a request to speak form oh yeah you know what go ahead and speak and do that afterwards if again yeah foreign this is Lisa Manning again I've lived in this neighborhood for over 20 years I don't think that the the traffic study that has been done will really adequately address the traffic issues of this development that is a lot of people it's more than the surrounding um single family home dwellings are feeding out onto these streets there's going to be back up multi-car backup I don't know how they're going to deal with people trying to get on demand and and those that can't get there because it's backed off onto Rob and then trying to exit out um it's going to be a lot of cars I I don't see how that this is going to be um managed well I there's going to need to be some additional traffic either stop signs or stop signals or something to help manage this you're going to have a lot of busy rushing drivers out on the road again with this particular development I am still concerned about drainage and I know it doesn't matter really to the other one but when you plant trees close to things those roots are going to grow into drainage um it's going to be an issue when we have dumps like we've been having um so that's all I have to say thank you for your time thank you anybody else wish to speak in the chambers okay we'll close public comment and kick it to the Commissioners for questions of the applicant or the city commissioner Munoz thank you I'll start this is going to be for the city uh Leah um just a quick question why not why has there been a consideration for a stoplight at the corner of Mayan and Simmons I think I'd have to defer the question to engineering because they reviewed the traffic information and were direct connection to the Rhodes department on all of that okay thank you this is going to be Mike I'm like uh maybe the Developers uh Stacy maybe you could touch on that if or do you know anything about that or why there wasn't a consideration for a stoplight there Lauren Chilson with Headway Transportation may I just confirm your speaking of Mayan and Grand point intersection excuse me Grandpa yes I apologize um again this we have not evaluated that uh the level of trip generation is so low that it uh that it's a trip generation letter level uh no analysis is required technically the intersection is pretty standard configuration so um on the surface there's no reason to go evaluated a traffic signal need there not that it it couldn't be but it certainly wasn't in our scope of work at this time okay let me get into this a little deeper then um so there was no traffic studies done on the road because this wasn't going to generate enough traffic in order to set that off correct that's correct it's not required and even both projects together doesn't trip that threshold for a study either now my my concern is with the Raley's and the shopping centers there um one of the main exits for that and it's an exit that I've used before drops right across from where the new entrance exit will be for the uh the North Point sure wouldn't that require wouldn't that set off some kind of alarm of hey maybe we need to check this out a little bit further um to make sure we're not impacting the neighborhood because I can see how this this even though maybe itself does not generate a huge problem the existing neighborhood and the shopping center as a whole probably do impact that significantly um is there any mechanism whatsoever that would set off some kind of um a need for a traffic study or anything is there anything in the works that would make that do that other than this property does anything looked at as a whole uh again I can only speak to the requirements for this study if there was other base issues I assume the city would have brought them up and asked us to address them that was not done okay and I apologize I know this isn't all on you and I was hoping that the city would still be here for this so um that's kind of where I'm going with this so um that's all I have for now if I could cut in for a second Jason Garcia LaBeouf planning manager um just to speak on Mike's behalf um they did review this and um I believe it is below the threshold so it didn't trigger that traffic requirement um so the development services engineering division was satisfied with that um I am trying to see if we can get a hold of somebody for that but if we could maybe come back to that uh commissioner draculitch yeah I kind of wanted to when we get to there I had the same question about what will trigger the point where going north on Grand Point I know that left turn is not pretty I've done that and I've done a couple of turns that go across that traffic and so I'd like to know what that mechanism is and what what the plan was or what the perspective of a city I don't know if you have want to chime in on that left turn specifically um it looks like there's enough Lane for you know left Turners and people turning right onto Mayan but that could stack up pretty quick I understood and I hear you loud and clear what I would offer is that there are alternate ways to exit the neighborhood right you can also travel South on Grand Point go over Simon's and if during congested periods and make a u-turn on Rob drive right there are there are alternate ways to travel for those Peak periods where a left turn is congested that's not to say that there is never congestion there I'm not I'm not saying that at all I'm just saying if that's a concern at peak times there are alternate travel routes and you know I mean we install traffic signals when they meet warrants I suspect this one's not in that Park I don't know that for certain um that could be evaluated by the city at a later date but it certainly wouldn't be trigger you know a signal wouldn't be triggered by this magnitude of project in my opinion thank you and once again it's like commissioner Munich said we know this this question really doesn't fall on to you so maybe if we get back to that all we'll we'll continue this on if any other Commissioners have questions outside of traffic Mr chairman I'd like a similar explanation on the storm water flow as we receive for the previous project from the applicants engineer if I could Mark said negorta for the record so this very similar to what we showed on the on this outside the area in pink that you're seeing right right now is the area that sheet flows to the east and ends up in the open Channel that runs along the eastern boundary again there's a 15-foot drainage easement on site 25 foot drainage easement off-site so this is um what is happening now in the in the current condition when fully developed the area that's in green is going to be intercepted through a system of swales train inlets pipes and it's going to be routed to an existing 18 inch storm drain pipe that was stubbed to this site and that's and point to it it's right down here so the the area that's in green again gets intercepted channelized and then routed to this pipe the area that's in purple is the area that would be left to sheet flow to this open drainage on the east side so similar to the the South project which saw a 60 net reduction on the North side it's actually 80 percent foreign thank you commissioner velta do you want to chime in while you're over there oh yeah uh no I don't have any questions right now thank you though okay it doesn't doesn't seem to be much else any luck with Michelle getting hold of Mike okay all right looks like we have to Wing that one there's no other questions for the applicant or the city we can shift into discussion commissary Gower thank you Mr chairman I'll start discussion I'd say unlike the previous um the southerly project I feel like the the intensity of development and the way it's laid out on the site is more appropriate on the North Parcel and I think it just mitigates some of the compatibility issues that I had on the southerly property and it's just an overall better site plan with better flow and it it just fits better um fundamentally my biggest concern is this the traffic and particularly that that intersection there at Grand Point in Maine it would be great to get some more information from the city on on how they looked at that that particular consideration because it does relate directly to our findings of the infrastructure available available to accommodate the growth thank you commissioner Johnson thank you Mr chair commissioner Johnson um I agree completely on traffic I think that's a that's a question I guess the the one thing that we do have is that we know they've reviewed it we know that there is this accesses directly onto Grandview it's the only access so I would like to hear it from Mike but it does sound like they've reviewed it uh I guess one thing that I wanted to to weigh in on we did hear some some public comments some concerns about items other than traffic some you know some concerns about um you know the the potential for crime and some other issues in this area you know clean up vandalism those kinds of things um usually those decrease when vacant lots are developed um you have eyes on the street you have people that are there uh to to you know the the bad things happen when nobody can see it and so when we develop these infill sites a lot of those issues go away um and as far as you know from an open space standpoint you know this this has always been intended to be developed and when I look at the area from an open space standpoint I think we saw it actually earlier tonight there's a you know a park and an open drainage area just to the east of this that's existing open space that's in zoned in open space and that in perpetuity so this is always intended to be developed and I think the development will not be you know detrimental in the ways that we're hearing I think infilling vacant property tends to make those decrease so um that's just my take on what I've heard this evening and and I do agree I think this is um you know a little bit better layout for the the site so thank you Mr chair great commissioner Villanueva sorry it's getting late uh Commissioner of Illinois before the record yeah I agree with a lot of what was said um with I also think that this is a good site for the this particular type of development because of where it's located is info but there's also neighboring um commercial grocery stores which is nice because it can potentially assist in alleviating some of the traffic flow when it's that close and that connectivity for other forms of transportation there's also I think a bus stop and transportation right there um with regard to the Open Spaces you know a little you know commissioner Johnson touched on this a little bit but also it is there is a balance here when dealing with private land and Open Spaces I'm very much Pro open spaces and public lands and I'm theoretically the more we're able to develop you know you know in a smart and thoughtful way in in their in the inner city the more we're able to protect those actual public lands and those Open Spaces um because theoretically and so all right thank you looks like Mike just chimed in does anybody want to commissioner do you want to fire off your question again for him sure Mike either thank you sorry if we woke you up yeah no it's kind of late yeah Mike is here uh we're turning with the uh the north project here um we're trying to figure out why a we we know the the the project itself isn't enough to generate a traffic study but with the shopping center right there and with the um the already the residents are already in the area why is there or why why has it not been brought to light or why has it not been um proposed that there have been a stoplight put at the corner of Mayan and see if I'm drawing a black person in the Street North Point Grand Point well I I would imagine because the the thought was that the warmth would not be met now as a traffic study been done for the entire area no it did not to my knowledge but this project in and of itself uh and the South project um I don't know it just didn't seem to rise the level of doing a full comprehensive study for the entire area in my opinion okay and so let me ask you this going forward if this project is passed what is the next step for residents in the area uh the city the Planning Commission how do we get a traffic study done in that area to help alleviate some of that traffic um if a stoplight is warranted at that intersection we we would we would commission the RTC to investigate that and we have our own internal people that can do that as well okay that's all I have for Mike okay figured I'd get a similar answer too so satisfactory and the questions why we have them commissioner velto uh no questions would I'd be ready to make a motion okay if the Commissioners are good but that looks like commissioner velto was ready to make a motion go ahead no matter of case number ldc23-00027 based upon compliance I'm sorry is yeah based upon compliance with the applicable findings I moved to approve the tentative map conditional use permit and alternative equivalent compliance subject to the conditions listed in the staff report and I can make all the findings commissioner Armstrong for the record I will second we have a motion and a second any discussion Mr Johnson just posing the question again about the added signage requirement as a condition if that can be added to the motion and the second commissioner velto good with that that added signage condition I I certainly will thank you commissioner Johnson Armstrong to your second as well yes we have a motion in a second any other discussion all in favor aye aye aye any opposed motion passes unanimously good luck with your project I'm gonna throw it out there do we need a five minute bathroom break before we start four or six okay we'll make it quick five minutes we'll start back up at 1105. to our seats keep cruising everybody Chambers too Chambers too Chambers imagine Garrett all right thank you all we're gonna move into item 4.6 ldc23-00018 Aspire at North Hills we will take a presentation from the applicant good evening thank you Derek Wilson on behalf of the applicant great thank you um so our project is a multi-family complex of 192 units multiple buildings six of them are three story one of them is a two-story building a clubhouse amenities Landscaping fairly standard fairly familiar multi-family layout um the project team the owner has been in the Reno area uh for decades um they own the Raley shopping center directly adjacent to our project um so a community-minded guy he's been a good Steward of the site he's worked with the library out there for years so a strong presence uh the Builder would be 10-mare construction again a local company strong track record uh plenty of examples of of quality projects from tanamera those are just some quick shots of some existing 10 America projects so quality residential look an asset to the area there's the project site North Hills Boulevard on the South Side Golden Valley on the east side that's the rally Center joining our project on the West Elementary School on the North side some residential adjacent to our site and then commercial existing commercial property on our Southeast and South so there's our site plan again I think that's a layout that people are probably familiar with moderate sized buildings broken up across the site zoning is in place no zone changes no master plan changes needed with this site parking distributed around the site Rec area Clubhouse [Music] we also have on the site highlighted some of the fencing and screening so that North property line in particular that Northeast property line uh some upgraded fencing going on there I'll describe that more fully in a minute um that yellow line if you see that Northeast building adjacent to Golden Valley there's a yellow line there that section of that building would get some enhanced sound mitigation measures for people inside the building so triple pane windows possibly some enhanced installation on that wall so some some sound barrier there because their adjacency to some of that existing commercial uh there's a there's a fast food drive through there that would get some landscape screening and then uh landscaping or if necessary a low wall to block any headlights so a secure fenced and and buffered site uh there's a zoning as I said the zoning's in place no changes needed the important Point here is that we're in the GC Zone our project's allowed in the GC Zone with the approval of a conditional use permit it's just the number of units that that triggers the cup process we could go out there and build uh up to 100 units 99 units by right we could just go out there and build those go straight to building permits so it's our it's our unit count that triggers this cup um I think that that the higher unit count and the public review process is is going to create a better project than uh than just going out there and going straight to building permit [Music] um design features uh we're above the parking requirement we've got a 101 spaces above the code requirement uh storm water retention uh we're almost 30 percent above the code requirement um upscale architecture uh residential look to the project to blend with the area minimal grading required the site's been graded for decades it was graded as part of the original rallies development it sat vacant ever since so I think finishing off sites like that is a good move our road access is in place no new public roads our driveways are in place no traffic patterns but change in the area that we we're going to use the existing driveways uh sewer uh flows to tell morph so we're not we're not burdening uh the North Valleys with with any additional sewer flows um the open area landscape area exceeds requirement uh that's a that's an architectural example of the site that would be the the building um at our northeast corner this image doesn't highlight it very well but there's a there's a peaked roof on their residential style roof on there a variety of materials uh quite a bit of building articulation that's a that's a view of the three-story building again variety of materials and colors uh compatibility so the the site's been Zone commercial for years uh so development has always been anticipated on this site um this is essentially a mixed-use project the rallies under the same ownership as a project site so we have essentially a commercial and residential development uh under same ownership and functioning together The Vineyards at Galleria that's an example of a similar project I have an exhibit of that coming up uh that's in fact an identical land layout land use pattern as our project additionally it was also built by tanamera so they have experience with this kind of project with with putting uh multi-family adjacent to commercial on one side single family residential on the other uh this proposed use is is quite a bit less intense than than some of the commercial uses uh that that are allowed on the site uh I think that uh uh residential is going to be quieter a better architecture uh less traffic less noise generation than some of the potential commercial developments um the project is also an infill project uh it's it's adjacent to a school shopping Center employment areas a project like this minimizes area-wide traffic approximately this is the best chance to to minimize area-wide traffic I realize we're bringing new residents to that neighborhood but we're not bringing uh extensive uh required car use if you if you if you don't pursue projects like this infill projects surrounded by development close to existing roads you're looking at development further out you're looking at development out on red rock or somewhere on the fringes so a project like this is the best way to minimize the burdens on our existing infrastructure um uh no expansion of city services no new streets no new uh sewer facilities just the just the laterals to the project uh City master plan strongly supports the project of this type we hit some of the biggest policies in the master plan made for additional housing desire for infill projects desire to intensify existing underused sites we squarely hit all those major goals of the master plan neighborhood communication I went to the Nab in October I was well received they they from I understand they did not offer any comments on the project but at the at the meeting there was some agreement that it was a quality project we met on site with a group of Neighbors in November these were neighbors that lived on copper Vista Court directly adjacent to the project I provided email responses to to all the city emails that came in offering more information or to talk to people there was I have to point out there was an additional batch of emails that came in today either came to me today I didn't have a chance to respond to those so that was five or six additional people if they were hoping for a response I'll be happy to talk to them um a second on-site meeting with a neighbor group uh in December and then during those all those neighbor meetings we had ongoing fence landscape and building design um discussion uh and and from those discussions uh we made some project revisions uh the Northeast building was originally three stories we dropped it down to two stories uh we had some enhanced Landscaping that we agreed to uh and as well as some fence changes and I'll get into that in a second uh we we were with that lowering of the building we we lost 12 housing units so this is a view from a neighbor's property on copper Vista Court we had authorization from them to to get this image and behind those trees uh is is our two-story building of our project so it's set back quite a ways uh from this existing house it's behind two fences and and two lines of landscaping um that's a that's a spring or or Summer View there's a winter View [Music] so you can see the building in the far background there's a there's a fence uh that we're gonna the fence in the foreground is an existing fence belongs to the neighbor that's going to stay then we have a second fence that we're adding behind that plus uh that row of Evergreens in the back uh We've committed to working with the neighbors on the exact placement of those Evergreens so at the time of planting they can stand there and say you know shift it this way shift it that way to get the maximum Advantage uh from their perspective and those are we've agreed to enhance tree sizes at time of planting this is a fence this image was distributed to the to the neighbors on copper Vista they gave us visual um approval that they were satisfied with this fence design that's a that's a synthetic durable fence uh should be long lasting 10 Americas had good luck with that product at some other sites uh so we we got some buy-in from The Neighbors on on this fence design this is an excerpt from the site plan that shows our enhanced landscape uh screening along that Northeast property line we've agreed to put trees closer together 20 feet on average uh that's that's above code and enhanced tree sizes foreign traffic obviously North Valley's traffic is is a hot button issue I recognize that that there will be people that live here with cars and they're going to drive them uh but again a project like this close to the freeway close to destinations that are walkable uh and and easy to get in and out of the site you don't have to drive through any other neighborhood to get to our site it's it's projects like this that minimize our area-wide traffic loads um we're we're adjacent to elementary school we're close to North Valley's High School uh adjacent to a whole line of businesses um uh we have a traffic report conducted by a local traffic engineer no off-site deficiencies were identified in that traffic report intersections continue to function uh service levels uh remain acceptable uh this project does not uh push us into traffic deficiencies anywhere around the project Alternatives so uh as I said the owner has has owned the site for for uh I almost I learned tonight is closer to 19 years during that time they've they've actively marketed the site they have always envisioned that they would get a commercial tenant in there they've had 20 letters of intent signed from different uh retail commercial operators they were never able to get those projects off the ground uh not from not through the fault of the current owner but those companies couldn't approve those projects they they didn't have the population density that they're required to put in a project on this site all of them came back and said when you get more houses we'll we'll be happy to talk to you again so pursuing a residential project in this site is not from a lack of trying to get commercial in there additionally we had our traffic engineer look at a sample site plan of commercial development on the site he did a fairly small development of I believe 30 000 Acres with one drive a 30 000 square feet with one drive through he generated 5 000 daily trips per day we're well below that we're we're at 1200 trips per day so again a small commercial development would generate far more traffic than we're proposing here I think that his analysis was kind of conservative at the same intensity rate as the rallies we could fit about 80 000 square feet of commercial space on this site so obviously that traffic number would jump up Additionally you get some compatibility issues with commercial I think you get likely to get loading docks or blank walls on the on the north side of the project that would be closer to that residential more visible from that residential um our project now essentially provides a buffer between existing commercial and single-family residential so our project is likely to be quiet it's residential it's just people living there and additionally it provides some sound buffering from the freeway and from that intense commercial that's already there uh this project is what I would call A Classic land use pattern you got the freeway you've got intense commercial development you've got our site multi-family and then it tapers to single family in the back that's extremely common land use pattern in fact it's I mean the zoning is set up that way to encourage that kind of Feathering of density so we're we're complying with that classic land use pattern and the reason it's classic is because it makes sense and it works and and you'll find it everywhere in the world uh so this is a quick example of a similar project inside the red circle is a multi-family project built by tanamera this is out in Sparks it's directly adjacent uh to retail on one side and to a single family on the other so again that's a that's a very standard land use pattern and it works fine that project was was built in in coordination with Costco they they liked it they had no problem with it and it and it works now and it's been a successful project uh support for projects so uh the the owner uh contacted businesses that some of his tenants or other businesses that are around the project and they all said uh that they would support more residential in that area and that they need it for them to be successful uh as I mentioned he's worked with the library has a good relationship with them and has has worked hard to keep them successful even during the recession um so existing existing tenants out there restaurants and potential tenants have all said the same thing they've been very uniform in their response they need more house they need more rooftops they need more population in the North Valleys before they're going to see more investment in commercial uses so we can wish for commercial use is all we want the reality is they're not ready to make that investment so a project like this is an encouragement to additional commercial development it's a completion of of the neighborhoods out there thank you all right uh so that's all I have I'll be happy to elaborate as needed we have a project team here so there are specific questions about traffic uh or about tanamera uh we we have people here to cover that thank you thank you we'll get a presentation from the city the lovely Lee again thank you [Music] thank you and again a mission for the record Leah Brock assistant planner with the development services City of Reno uh this one as you guys know is going to be the Aspire at North Hills project the subject site is approximately 8.64 Acres it's consists of four Parcels located on the North located north of U.S Highway 395 with Frontage on both North Hills Boulevard and East Golden Valley Road to give you a little bit of background the subject site was annexed into the City of Reno in 2006. the site has never been developed but was graded flat in the past most likely during the construction of the adjacent Shopping Center in 1986 key issues analyzed in this were overall site design and compatibility with surrounding uses the subject site is located in The General commercial zoning District this does allow for a maximum density of 45 dwelling units per acre the proposed density is approximately 22.2 dwelling units per acre as the applicant stated a conditional use permit is required to develop a hundred or more units in that General commercial zoning District which is why we're here tonight the proposed project includes six three-story apartment buildings one two-story apartment building and one Clubhouse with Associated common areas Recreation areas and amenities prior to issuance of any building permits for vertical construction plans shall be approved demonstrating those amenities including the clubhouse the private Recreation amenities barbecue areas dog Recreation America dog Recreation areas children's playground consistent with exhibit B and our staff report so that is the condition and then also conditions number 13 and 14 are regarding coordination with RTC on that future expansion of North Hills Boulevard which is expected sometime in the Years 2026 to 2030. also we're adding the RTC Smart Trip program for all tenants to that as well as the applicant stated the proposed project will include the vehicle access from both North Hills Boulevard and Golden Valley Road and through the Raley shopping center vehicle access points will utilize existing curb Cuts there's no new driveways or Street configurations required additionally there's an existing emergency access road across the site running from Golden Valley Road to Alice Smith Elementary School which will be maintained regarding compatibility with surrounding uses here you can see the chart showing the uses surrounding the site it's mostly commercial except for the single family residences and the school to the north per Reno Municipal Code the land use screening is required for a new multi-family development along property lines abutting public facilities and single-family residential zoning districts to provide the adequate land use screening between the proposed apartment complex and the elementary school condition 5 requires a landscaped solid or semi-opaque buffer along that shared property line and in coordination with Washoe County School District the applicant has agreed to maintain a pedestrian path between Golden Valley Road and the elementary school also the existing emergency access road will remain in its present function to allow emergency access to the school also we've had a condition where Washoe County School District will review the final building plans to verify that pedestrian access connection and the emergency access road back to more compatibility with surrounding uses per Reno Municipal Code minimum land use screening required between a multi-family development and the single-family residential zoned properties on copper Vista Court is a six foot high solid wood fence plus a five foot wide landscape buffer so all that is required is six foot solid and five foot of landscaping however there's an 18 foot grade change between the subject site and the houses on copper Vista the applicant solicited feedback from the property owners on copper Vista and worked with City staff to modify their project design for increased compatibility with these adjacent single-family residences as a result of those meetings additional screening will be provided there is an existing six foot tall wooden fence which the applicant explained and condition six is going to be that that existing six foot wooden fence shall not be disturbed condition seven is for the six foot decorative fence to be installed including the Landscaping that the applicant showed in his presentation also to further mitigate the impact on the residential zoning District we have limited the days and hours of construction we have Shield required that all lighting be shielded and exterior lighting on that side will be limited to 12.5 feet in height to further increase compatibility with the adjacent single-family homes the applicant reduced the height of the apartment buildings adjacent to Copper to Copper Vista Court and eliminated the third story reducing the building height by nine feet and eliminating 12 units condition 10 limits the mounting height for all exterior light fixtures on the apartment buildings for the single family homes to 12.5 feet foreign public comment um agency comments were received and incorporated into this analysis the applicant presented this project to the ward 4 neighborhood Advisory Board all the way back in October and has been working with the community and working with staff to mitigate some of these concerns ever since then so the main concern expressed by the public comments is the impact of development on traffic in the North Valleys which we know we've heard we've heard over and over there are also additional concerns expressed related to school crime and the need for more commercial options in the area also I do want to point out that there were two public comments that were in support of this proposed development regarding traffic the intersection of Golden Valley Road and North Hills Road and the project driveways on both Golden Valley Road and North Hills Road Road were all analyzed it was determined that all three intersections will operate at acceptable levels under all study scenarios also again the regional transportation plan identifies that North Hills Boulevard will be widened from two lanes to four lanes between Buck drive and Golden Valley Drive somewhere between 2026 and 2030. the conditional use permit findings are on the board for your review staff can make all the findings and recommends approvals subject to the conditions of approval listed in the staff report that concludes my presentation the recommended motion is on the board and I am available for questions thank you thank you I appreciate that uh we'll open it up to Commissioners for disclosures commissioner Gower if you want to start it up thank you I received and read emails familiar with the site and met with applicants representative fisherman news I received and read emails I'm familiar with the site and briefly spoke with the applicant's representative [Music] Armstrong I read and received emails I briefly or sorry I met with the applicant's representative and I'm familiar with the site [Music] commissioner Johnson received and read emails uh familiar with the site and spoke with the applicant's representative commissioner valto uh commissioner Balto same disclosures commissioner draculic same disclosures all right we'll close disclosures and open up public comment we do have several requests to speak forms here we will start off with Danny cleus um I do say you want to make a statement and don't do you want to come to the podium okay Danny please for the record everything he said bogus retention detention ponds we're going to go above and beyond well guess what they haven't worked they will never work and I got proof overhead Michelle that is the main ditch going down Lemon Drive guess how much rain we had that day 0.6 inches that all comes from Golden Valley that all comes from your warehouses that the detention ponds still don't work told six years ago oh yeah we're gonna get on it we're going to have the code enforcement out there we're going to be busting these warehouses and everything for it guess what it's never happened 0.6 inches it's crazy traffic on North Hills and Golden Valley Boulevard Earth is ridiculous and tell anything gets done with that Highway and he can say all that all developers have been saying this for the last six years well if we build it they'll work right there then how come we have a highway traffic problem morning noon and evening accidents every morning every evening and sometimes in the afternoon is crazy if that Road's not going to be widened North Hills until 2030 he doesn't build until these Retention Ponds get built and they get governed by you guys that said you're going to govern them no I don't care if you build a rotation Pond as big as their place no schools anybody ask the school district if they were full because they've been full since 2017. so you know you could build whatever you want there it's just going to add to that which goes to Swan Lake which Swan Lake does not have an exit he was showing the thing in Spanish Springs that's all good because that all goes to the Truckee River you know what happens when Swan Lake overfills it floods my house guess what flood insurance doesn't cover it because we have different soil out there so you guys can talk he can talk all he wants about that oh we own the property forever oh we don't need a traffic study everybody's going to work out here so there won't be that much traffic well there's too much traffic right now you guys haven't been doing your due diligence and waiting for it to clear up thank you Danny please hold your applause thank you uh next up is Robin Loveless I would like to make a statement in opposition and after Robin would be Kelly Orr hi hi my name is Robin Lovelace and I just want to say you guys the Reno City Planning Commission and the City of Reno you guys are the ones who are responsible for our traffic problems every single project I heard tonight oh they don't have to do traffic mitigation because that number of people isn't enough to do a traffic study but you just you guys were just concerned with the last project that you just passed that people can't turn left on man and it's the same thing in our community it's the same thing on these freeways I've lived in Washoe County my entire life and my entire life all of the roads in Washoe County are a decade behind the spaghetti Bowl going up north down up up to North Valleys every day there's accidents and it's you guys that keep okay approve everything so where's the infrastructure approval where's the money for our roads and then a lot of these people Amazon Tesla they come in here tax-free bringing all this business bringing all these people but not helping our roads and and go ahead just go ahead and keep on approving all these big projects with no backup 2030 for North Hills Boulevard isn't cutting it for 2023. thank you Kelly Orr would wish to make a statement in opposition and after Kelly would be Selena Kelly or for the record I'm a resident of the North Valley since 2019 and seeing extensive growth to this area with no sustainability on infrastructures or commercial builds that allow for our area to thrive um the gentleman speaking with the apartments mentioned The Vineyards of the Galleria saying it's similar but it is quite different they are surrounded by three different sustainable grocery shopping centers gyms eateries multiple shopping opportunities we have a I think it was called a row uh we have a row we are the largest ward in Washoe County and we have a row not a shopping Community because unfortunately people that own the Raley's and other big commercial out there have not gotten um all these letters of intent these people that want to build and have commercial excited enough to do so they have not come to the table and said look what the city is building we have homes here homes here homes here homes here homes everywhere but what do we not have we do not have the commercial infrastructure to support all of the residents we have to what do we do when we go home we have to go back out to go to dinner after a sporting event we can't eat in our neighborhoods we have to go somewhere else that can service a football team a baseball team a soccer team of a cheerleading team a wrestling team you name it there is no sustainability for our children for us adults that want to go have a nice dinner a small little quaint plate South Creek pizza for Twisted Fork in South Reno South Reno has created sustainability in its neighborhoods to thrive so traveling is so short-lived another parking like we made roads that go sideway streets on Lemon Valley military is a joke because it has bike lanes and there's no street lights so people are dying by running on these roads and biking on these roads because there's no lit area because what it's zoned for um you have Lemon Valley with sidewalks Lemon Valley Drive you can't walk on them for Miles because it's covered with snow you you cannot get give me an apartment complex that's going to now feed in more people to live there go to school there eat maybe once in a while there because they all have to get in their car and go somewhere you have to you know you'll over Raley's will be empty every day you can't there would be food insecurity every day which maybe brings in that Raley's some more money in his pockets for buying more food but no we need commercial we no longer need housing I would much rather have more houses out in Red Rock because the city needs to build more Transportation opportunities for residents out there already in Cold Springs there is already low income apartments going in in Red Rock there's movie theaters bowling alleys uh I mean I can go on for days what gets me excited about living in the North Valleys when I see opportunity and more housing more stress on our sewers everything is not enough thank you for your time thank you all right next up Selena Selena Munoz wants to make a statement in opposition and after her will be Richard Pruitt my name is Selena Munoz for the record I am a leadership student I am also student body Tech at North Valleys High School I am 17 and also one of nine kids I have been at North Valley since my freshman year of high school and to say the least the first thing I noticed is how crowded the schools were from taking into middle schools Cold Springs and O'Brien our student population continues to grow at the school I find myself trying to get through the Halls from one classroom to another being shoulder checked bumped and even tripped on the way sometimes it feels almost impossible to get to class on time and after we're in the class we can hardly fit just today I had somebody shoving the back of me trying to sit into their seat and we were both normal sized people and just there was no room in the classroom for both of us to sit um North Valleys is overcrowded from schools to students riding buses trying to find a seat on the bus can be a huge struggle and if you cannot you must sit on the ground and I actually have a picture of a bunch of students sitting on the floor on the way to school and this can be like a really big safety hazard if we are in to get into a crash or anything like that there is a kid right there on the floor you can't stand it's dark um most of the time it's just hard to get to the school and every now and then we'll have bus driver shortages where due to the large amount of students you must or the buses won't pick you up and so it's called a no bus week and you must find your own way to get to school which takes away a lot of like learning rights that students are given and during these weeks if you can make it near the parking lot you get stuck in traffic from around 20 to 30 minutes causing more problems uh starting to drive I've noticed how far everything is we've been when wanting to hang out with friends we must drive 22 minutes to get to the movie theaters but that's only when there's no traffic with traffic you can expect your drive to be twice that amount coming from a big family every now and then we look forward to eating out and sitting down at a restaurant but that is virtually non-existent in the North Valleys High School due to lack of developers Vision one day I'm looking forward to sitting in a position like the city council or planning Commissioners to ensure that my children will go up in a city that makes public a priority that's it thank you all right next up Richard Pruitt would like to make a statement in opposition and next up is Haley troyan hi there thank you my name is Richard Pruitt I lived at 4 30 copper Vista you've heard that used couple times I moved there two years ago I've been in the North Valleys for since 1985. I want to say what this gentleman said here is not truthful to you you guys have done a good job out there with the sewer you put the light in at uh beckworth Drive Rex there every other day I'm three houses away from that and I'm one house away from your subdivision that you want to put up there where it doesn't belong and why I say that is is because my mother-in-law is Catherine proved sir sir address it or address the dice please yes I'm sorry before this gentleman's clients bought it it was never the vision of Catherine Pruitt who owned it prior to being sold to Raley's our families lived in that Valley for a long time and we've been involved in all of the community efforts to move forward I'm proud of what we've done out there but I don't think you should allow this guy right here to give you a dishonest approach to the reality of this I moved from over in silver Knolls to where I live on copper Vista one house away from where he's talking about oh by the way there's nobody in my neighborhood on copper Vista that I've talked to who is in favor of this if he took pictures of it in this stuff that he put up there then I really would question him this whole project it really needs to be looked at from a couple of things my wife is in a wheelchair now I remodeled my house so that she could have access to everything because it was the best house I could find in the North Valleys because I love the North Valleys and what he says is is that there's no congestion there the congestion is so bad I can't go outside in my backyard in my backyard because there's so much traffic there's at least every day I'm retired every day 20 buses all the construction that was done the the pit up there in the North Valleys the Golden Valley pit is trucked in truckloads every day jake brakes all day long and now you want to put three-story building in a place where we need access as the people who have paid for decades our taxes and this is what we get I don't think if you take the time to really go out there and look you'll see what I'm talking about they're looking down on people's houses from 40 feet above is how they're going to be looking down there look at the the Culvert that runs in the back of that the road they said was not going to to uh have any any new improvements I I could show you on paper where their property is draining onto my property cost me a thousand dollars when I bought the house because the water from their property runs through my property thank you [Applause] next up Haley troyan wants to make a statement in opposition hello testing testing um uh good evening everybody um my name is Haley troyan for the record the first thing that I just thought was interesting is Washoe County Assessor says the owner is selective golden North LLC and um Mr Wilson stated that they were a local company when you look them up on the Nevada Secretary of State it says that they're a foreign company based out of California so I just wanted to state that that's not part of my argument I just found it interesting um I'm a Reno native I was born and raised here um I went to North Valley's High School in Golden Valley and I was the first graduating class um I created a petition on change.org I did it three days ago and I got right now I have 1 695 signatures and those signatures are stating that we don't have the infrastructure for the people that we have Mr Wilson stated infrastructure won't come unless there's more people um this the the gal Kelly I believe talked and said we're the biggest ward in our pardon me in our area um I did some comparison um I used my virtual Chevrolets on Google Maps and I walked um the North Valleys and I walked Spanish Springs um I also did some research so um 89506 and 89508 zip code has about 59 000 people just for those two zip codes that's not all award for um for Spanish Springs 89436 and 89441 also have about 59 000 people the North Valleys has three full-size grocery stores 36 eateries give or take you know I was on Google Maps um and 14 miscellaneous stores such as CVS Walmart AutoZone O'Reilly's True Value Big Lots Grocery Outlet Pet Station um Spanish Springs about the same amount of people they have six full-size grocery stores 52 eateries and 24 miscellaneous stores AutoZone Big Lots Grocery Outlet Office Depot Home Depot Kay's Jewelers Mattress Firm um Tires Plus Best Buy Michael's craft store a Boot Barn Maurices more furniture PetSmart Dollar Tree Ulta World Market Kohl's Ross Bed Bath and Beyond there's just we don't have anything multiple people have said there's not even a good restaurant for us to go sit down at and like not a good restaurant like a Denny's I mean there's you find Denny's and and very low demographic areas and we don't even have a Denny's you know like um and so I'm against it and the 1600 people almost 1700 people on my petition are against it because we're lacking the infrastructure um and I know I know that the you guys are looking for codes is it taller is it short enough does it you know does it fit in the property but the residents of North alleys want infrastructure we don't want more Apartments um I don't know what my petition can do and I don't even know if you guys are the right people to bring my petition to but in three days I got 1700 signatures for people who want infrastructure restaurants wider roads wider freeways and not apartments and that's all I have to say thanks for your time thank you Michelle do we have any correspondence voicemail or online correspondence was received we did have voicemails from the previous meeting that we were requested to play during this meeting no other voicemails were received um I think that's it so we'll transition into the voicemails right now right thank you all right hi my name is Richard Williams I live in the North Valleys and um I'm calling to request that you folks do not approve the 204 unit apartment complex on North Hills and East Golden Valley Road there is absolutely no way on the face of this planet that this area can handle that much more traffic on 395 North and it's there's no way there's no way okay that's my public opinion thank you foreign Holt and I believe the project number is ldc23-00018 Aspire at North Hills please please do not build the 204 unit apartment complex or homes in that area we are too crowded out here in the North please please don't build it thank you for your time hi my name is Veronica Rivera and I'm calling in regards to project LBC 2300018 Aspire at North Hills and it's a 204 unit multi-family residential development that I am opposing to because we have uh a lot of traffic here in Golden Valley already and our elementary school is overpopulated so I completely opposed to these apartments being built in this neighborhood if you have any questions please reach me at 775-409-2956 thank you okay hello my name is Luis Mike Deanda I'm in the Golden Valley Lemon Valley area uh you guys are trying to build apartments by Burger King I believe in the Golden Valley area we're already congested uh we already have enough traffic just please stop building more Apartments it's getting congested a lot of accidents uh just please stop building more apartment buildings in the Golden Valley Lemon Valley area thank you bye is that it thank you that's it for the voicemails we don't have anybody on Zoom that which is to speak either and then but I believe this lady would after 495 copper Vista Court my husband and I have been there we were the first residents on that cul-de-sac and we're retired we enjoy looking at the mountains with those buildings being built up that way we bought that place because we had a school behind us a retaining pond across the street and what this does it blocks our view of the mountains we have Mountain views from our living room from our kitchen and it's very upsetting to have three-story apartments that we're going to have to start looking at when we're retired and we're enjoying our home and now we're thinking about moving um that area is desperate for a restaurant if you wanted to put a restaurant in it makes sense nothing else makes sense in that area nothing at all um I can see a restaurant there there's nothing in that whole area you have to go downtown or to a casino or something to go get something to eat it's ridiculous it's all um Taco Bell fast food places so if you wanted to build something like that at least it'd be lower but we've been there for 22 years and it's just like bratty can Logan said they made us all these promises when we bought into this place and it's all been a bunch of Lies you know they promised you the world and then you don't get it you know you can promise to build a fence behind there with trees but you know what I wouldn't count on it I I just don't you know I just don't see that and I know we have to time when we leave our house and when we come home because the traffic is so horrific it's all the way out up to the next lights if you were to get off the freeway and go up to the next one it's backed up completely all the way past um um the bank Wells Fargo you can't you have to time it to get in and out and I walked my dogs daily and there's so many people buzzing down the roads hot rotting they don't stop there needs to be speed bumps through some of this these places because you can be in front of the school the school is my backyard Alice Smith school and I Like My Views I don't want to have to move [Music] um anyway I thank you for your time thank you all right next up we have Natalie Larson Natalie Larson for for the record um I am a resident on copper Vista Court and I'm one of two residents who have had ongoing um Communications with Derek and Jared as the one of the residents that he said he's been speaking to which is accurate um I wouldn't exactly say that we're for the project we've been working with them in order to cover our own butts just in case this thing does get pushed through at least we have some things in place that we were proactive in kind of helping ourselves while you know you guys get your whatever um traffic what else is there more to say about that we all know and privacy and so if we can pull up the um the map of this complex I have said several times and they've shot me down personally about this one particular building which is a problem which is the problem that we've been speaking about with Derek and Jared um I have asked them to just delete that building like we've talked about it several times what to do it's the three story that was reduced down to a two-story is the one he's speaking about and I'm like just get rid of the damn building like that's why we're a problem because that building is backed up to our cul-de-sac and Tom's backyard specifically who's the other resident who we've been talking to with him and they're like yeah well if we delete that building then we don't have enough front doors and then financially it doesn't make sense to build it in the first place and I'm like okay then don't if you can't delete that building and make us happy then don't build it at all and to the second point that I wanted to make was that Derek when we've talked we've spoke about this you know we want a restaurant we're great we're hoping for some infrastructure some something that's not residential and he says that the whole the the property owner has several times put in requests for restaurants whatever and have said yeah we'll do it but we don't have enough we don't have enough residents out there or whatever like we don't it doesn't make sense for us to put our restaurant on your property well the thing is that if you put Apartments there now you can't take that back so if you build Apartments because that's what fits today and then eventually you have homes going everywhere and then you want that restaurant you can't now put it there because this is a conditional use permit it doesn't fit the property it's not a good fit it's a round peg into a square hole that's just not appropriate so I calling you guys to just we don't need this please vote this down you can't once you build these you can't take it back thank you thank you anybody else in the audience wish to speak okay with that said we'll close public comment and open it up to Commissioners for questions of the applicant or the city that's true I'd love to start please do uh Leah it's gonna be for you to start off um I'm hoping you can give us a little bit of insight one of the major things that we're hearing and we're going to continue to hear um is the traffic in the area what is the plan for 3.95 to be widened when is that supposed to be completed by do you know um I don't know I'm not sure if Mike Michelle is still on but he would probably be the best person to talk about Road improvements Mike are you there good afternoon uh I'm planning to Mr Mike Michelle with engineering manager uh to be honest with you I don't know when that's planned to be that stretch's plan to be widened okay I know that North Hills have planned to be widened in 2026 to 2030. as far as the freeway goes I don't know and can you tell me when the last time a traffic study was done for North Hills Boulevard a traffic study was done from North Hills North Hills Boulevard in conjunction with this project it analyzed the intersection of North Hills and Golden Valley and analyze the intersection of North Hills and the project driveway okay and there was uh I want to say six months ago there was an apartment complex project proposed down the street and they had done a traffic study for North Hills Boulevard at that time as well correct okay and that was the one behind the uh Grocery Outlet there and that one was denied because of the traffic uh am I correct on that that is my recollection okay okay that's all I have for now any other Commissioners with questions commissioner Villanueva question for the applicant it's brought up which is that is that an issue on the site drainage drainage yeah is that some someone said something about flooding yeah that's not something I'd heard um my response would be that the way you fix that is is you put something there you build on it despite the opinions that I heard about uh engineering I believe drainage and detention basins do work uh and and if we install that on this site it would it would fix any existing problems if there are any is there a detention Basin plan for this site oh yes yeah above the code requirement okay because there is risk of flooding so you guys had to put in a detention base and is that right there's a risk of flooding in that any site can theoretically flood but we're not in a flood zone no okay all right thank you commissioner Armstrong this is for the applicant sorry is uh a little slow there but so a lot of the comments we've heard are related to lack of commercial development and the petition that was brought forward to the commission started three days ago they did kind of a comparison between Spanish Springs and North Valleys looks like there's similar population density but you've indicated that there were issues attracting commercial development specifically to the area could you maybe opine on why that is like what what's kind of driving those discrepancies because on its face it looks fairly similar yeah um maybe in aggregate it's similar um but uh Spanish Springs uh is a large housing area to the north and it all kind of funnels into one spot so everyone's going to do all their commercial uh Acquisitions they're shopping in that one area then they're going to disperse back to the home North Valleys is more spread out uh there's Lemon Valley is a Golden Valley it's it's more distinct areas when a retailer looks at a site they they put a pin on the map and then they draw some circles around them they look you know what is it what's the population in that in that area in that one Circle you do that in Golden Valley you don't you don't get the sort of density that you're going to get in Spanish Springs so it's it's just not there yet commissioner Gower thank you Mr chairman Derek can you just elaborate a little bit more on commissioner Bill nueva's question about the storm water and talk to me a little bit more about the the destination of flows for this site and what the the proposed on-site detention retention looks like and how it functions sure it would be pretty easy for me to get out of my knowledge Zone here but I'll give it an initial shot and if you want more then maybe we turn it over to Mike Michelle but on-site detention some of that will be in ground detention so it'll be um a loose loose crushed rock kind of thing that will will absorb water basically an underground Pond kind of arrangement we're uh we're almost 30 percent above the code requirement so these are these are basically depressions on site that funnel water from our site rather than sending it on to somebody else's property it funnels into our site into these basins and it and it is retained there and then slowly trickles out either into the ground or into storm water runoff but it's slowed anything we build there would allow for for these systems to be much slower runoff than what happens now where does it drain now where's it drain now where where does this whole I guess region this area drain to um ultimately like what's the what's the low Point yeah uh I'd be I'd be much more comfortable having a civil engineer discuss how to address this question okay um if I could shift gears then Mr chairman um and maybe uh Derek I'm gonna ask staff this next question okay Leah we um we've had a lot of conversations in the North Valleys about growth and implications of growth on things like sewer infrastructure storm water uh traffic essentially you know the elements that um the city can provide infrastructure wise and then that contribute to quality of life From staff's perspective how do you evaluate individual projects knowing that contextually for this area there are those overarching considerations and you you mention it in your staff report do we hear about traffic over and over again and I just want to before you answer um in this case this project it is in my opinion with the design as proposed it meets the city's code requirements for a development it means the master plan requirements for infill for mixed use for compatibility with adjacent sites having said that we're hearing a whole lot of input about the implications of this type of development and other similar developments in this area so how do we as a city address those concerns and think about it project to project I don't know that sold a tough question probably for 1207 A.M um but I think it's fundamental to answering a lot of the the questions and concerns that we're hearing it is and and thank you commissioner Gower for the record Leah Brock um that's a lot of question for 12 something at night uh so once when I'm looking at a project that's anywhere in the City of Reno I'm looking at the zoning and the master plan so I'm looking at isn't consistent does it require that does it meet the requirements and the standards of the zoning district is it appropriate for compatibility is it Meeting those compatibility standards and then I sort of move into the master plan what you know is it is it meeting the goals and policies is it consistent with our goals in the area and the answer in this case on this one is yes when it comes to traffic I have to rely on the engineering team to provide those comments and coordinate with Public Works to tell me what their if it meets the requirements for their code and in this particular case uh engineering came forward and said we've evaluated these intersections and it and it meets this threshold now if we're talking bigger picture about what we're going to do about traffic in the North Valleys in general um I think that maybe that's something Jason can talk a little bit about because that's we're talking amendments to the master plan and vision plans and things like that into the future and I know that you know we just we just did the master plan in 2017 so it's not that this is an outdated document and these were the goals and the policies established at that time five years ago excuse me if I could follow up on Leah's discussion Jason Garcia labeou planning manager for the record um Lee is mentioning of the master plan um in our in the planning department we take what was approved um by our uh both Planning Commission and city council and use that as our guiding policy document so we we look at that in terms of whether a project comes in and is compatible so these cases Case by case that come in that's when you see these staff reports address the different issues and um meet or what we're trying to present is the different findings for the different types of projects so that's essentially what's in the agenda packet it kind of goes through and it outlines those things now specific to kind of the conversations for tonight uh we depend on our other agency partners so talia's Point um RTC ndot the school district through the project processing process we send those consultations out to those different agencies and receive feedback so just so that the community knows and all the people that have come tonight we rely upon the input from those different agencies in this circumstance for this project we heard from some of those agencies we heard from RTC we heard from the school district and I believe that's attached in your your packets so that's where we have these conversations and through that process I know the commission is familiar with the process but we come up with those editions of approval and so the idea is to mitigate or hopefully resolve some of those issues so there isn't an impact or there's reduced impacts so that's where you see the more detailed conversation into the the infrastructure components now that being said without kind of diving in the details and probably Mike Michelle could explain this way better but on the engineering front that's where we really look you know with our Utility Services Department as well as our public works department they are keeping tabs on those um you know levels and and capacity issues and other things like that so part of the review process is to evaluate that and so there's certain areas of the North Valleys that we take you know that we're closely monitoring that and there's future projects and a similar can be said for other agencies and their responsibilities I know and for instance using the school district I know that's not the top of your question but um in that circumstance we got response and feedback on estimated levels of kids and other things in the school in the local schools are relevant to this project and when that will be mitigated when they're potentially adding a new high school and things like that so long kind of conversation but hopefully that kind of addresses some of those areas I don't know if Mike wanted to really add to that but or Leah um I just wanted to add that I had an answer to the question about when the 395 improvements were going to happen and I just looked at the regional transportation plan and it's 20 26 to 2030 so it's sometime in that time frame it looks like it's phase two of the project thank you I appreciate the answers to those questions and I guess as a follow-up are you getting the answers from So You coordinate with those agencies and you get feedback from those agencies are you getting the information that you need to be able to confidently say that these projects will not create impacts and I think Jason I'm glad you brought up the school district because I was going to ask that question I mean North Valley East High School is already over 100 capacity 2030 it's over 125 percent capacity until a new high school is developed I mean uh how do we reconcile that with the phasing of projects and knowing that in a given time frame there's going to be a deficiency of infrastructure on a magnitude of 20 plus percent over capacity in high school and Jason Garcia will do plan a manager for the record um in those circumstances we really rely on the coordination with those agencies you'll notice some of the conditions for this proposed project we've set that up that way um that uh in when the development actually comes forward that there will be necessary coordination and plans presented to the city to address some of those areas of concern so in addition to that some of the I'll call them partner agencies but some of the different agencies that have responded to through that consultation process we've worked closely with them to kind of get a better idea even if it's just a Time range of when those updates or changes or new facilities will be built so some of the city things we have a better idea on as far as kind of infrastructure components but again we relied upon that consultation project our process for a school district and other agencies so thank you for that and I guess the last question then is so we're seeing these individual projects come through we look at them based on their own merits with those considerations is there would there be a point where the city would say you know what the the time frame for the expansion of 395 you know indot isn't moving forward with that soon enough that it just doesn't make sense to pursue new development in this area because the infrastructure capacity isn't going to be there with the city at some if that scenario played out before we got to an individual project would would the city say hey let's hang on a second let's we've got a situation here with infrastructure whether it's schools or storm water or roads so we're not moving forward with projects knowing that that infrastructure isn't there is that mechanism there to say hey well let's wait a second that to answer that that depends on the type of issue for a lot of the infrastructure issues such as sewer or other limitations that is something that that would have to be addressed so there there could be potential limitations on that but again we're trying to plan ahead for that in those respective areas for those improvements traffic is a little bit of the different story because yes we look at and evaluate when projects come in if they're above that threshold we had a conversation about thresholds earlier some of the smaller projects don't necessarily have that in this situation we have had a traffic study conducted because of of the project size that gives us a little more information on what we call the level of service so again Mike's world he could probably you know spin around a million different ways but we in that it's a little more we it depends on uh who's really responsible for the project and that's when I say that um there's some roads that are n dot there are some roads that are City of Reno so it just really depends again on our partner agencies so there's some types of infrastructure where we have a little more control as the city where we work with and other types of infrastructure that's where we rely on those different agencies so to Leah based on all that where your your recommendation for this proposal it's on the information provided and the partner agencies we were able to make all of the findings and recommend approval okay thank you commissioner Villanueva question for the applicant and I guess the city I don't know who this is best for but for timeline what so get this you know say we get this approved what does the timeline look like for when we would actually have people in you know residents living in these building units yeah I'm I'm guessing it would it would be in the order of 24 months-ish but I'm but I would guess 24 to 36 months okay so about two years that's Craig Rowe with 10 American structure excuse me I I think we need your his name for the record excuse me this is uh I'm Craig Rowe with tanamera Construction and development engineer or what's your no I'm we're actually we're we're a developer and we're we're going to uh build the project and we're also so you're an applicant or applicants well yeah I guess we're yeah we're working with the applicant we're contracted with the applicant to help him uh design it and build the project [Music] okay so sorry I had my question and do you guys know who I am anybody you don't know okay no well I I I I I know who you are after just now presenting yourself but I don't know who you are as a person oh okay so sorry no I I I I I I've been here since since 95 and done close to 3 billion in in development throughout the community the Reno tile Tech Center Sparks galleria shopping center Reno Corporate Center Double Diamond Ranch single family homes okay the development we've we've been here for a long time done done a lot of development in the Reno and Sparks area okay and then question four so I'm reading this letter uh from Washoe County School District or Washington schools and it looks like they had a concern do we do the applicant or the city or applicant I guess address the concerns with regarding to I guess it butts up against the school um where the county was the school district's concerns addressed yes absolutely uh there's a there's a walking connection to the back of the school now uh we're going to keep that we've agreed to work with this with the school on that we want that that's a that's an asset for us we expect people to walk to that school all right thank you uh champ please go ahead commissioner I just want to jump back to the question that was asked earlier I understand that Leah gave us mentioned the regional um the regional transportation plan and I was curious if the applicant had any more information about the regional transportation plan that seems like an important point when we're evaluating this project Lauren Chilson Headway Transportation thank you for the opportunity to speak about that a little bit I think sometimes we get lost in understanding exactly how Regional Transportation Planning and funding in this community works and we have a very well established system it's called the regional transportation plan it's performed every five years and updated by the RTC and with partner agencies Washo Sparks Reno and MnDOT through that plan all the improvements are identified region-wide that are needed for all of the master plan in hand those projects are then programmed and put in the funding mechanism at that point an impact fee the Regional Road impact fee system is created and the amounts due for every project including the small ones don't that don't get a little traffic study because they're so small they don't go without paying a fee every project that comes to the cities and the county pays the fees based on that Regional Transportation plan and the impactful program established by the agencies every one of them those monies go into the coffers and they get put back out to projects projects like the lemon DDI that just got built to the tune of 11 million dollars projects like the Lemon Drive widening study that just got built backwards signal Red Rock and Moya signal Red Rock and Silver Lake signal all of those things that have been going in in the last few years come through that program and that's how the funding occurs everything in that Regional Transportation plan is agreed by ndot and RTC including n dots planned the overhead please for 395 which shows three phases right now phase one actually par Boulevard was phase 1A the par interchange just got built that was phase one phase 1B is the next segment from McCarran up to um Golden Valley slated for 2023 and I happen to know that project's still on track the next phase is one is two which goes from Golden Valley up to stead Boulevard program for 2026 as stated by n dot right there and that project is in design so these things are happening I understand the frustration I understand traffic comes before Solutions come that happens because if the traffic doesn't come you don't spend the money there that's just the reality of it we have that's why everything in the RTP is prioritized and yes it takes a little bit of delay but these monies have to come in the projects have to be prioritized and then they get spent and there's evidence of that in North Valleys and so I'm not I'm not saying there's no congestion we all recognize there is but there's a plan to address it and it's a regional transportation plan and funding system so please just remember that in the conversation I think that gets lost sometimes but it all those things are behind the scenes I do have I I won't keep going where it's late in the night but I do have the phasing for spaghetti Bowl improvements the freeway improvements all of those things if you're interested commissioner question I kind of went on a dry drop there yeah appreciate it there's no other questions want to go to discussion commissioner Munoz thank you commissioner um Mr chair the frustration for me and a lot of projects that happen in the North Valleys comes with a lot of Silence from the North Valleys and I have called on the North Valleys and I've called on board for time and time and time again to show up show up this impacts you this is impacting you and I am basically up here making decisions on my own with no feedback from the Ward 4. thank you for showing up this is a big deal this is a big deal this this impacts our community this impacts me personally this impacts you personally and we keep getting the same the same song and dance oh we need to put more houses up there and then we'll put some some retail we need to put more houses up there and then we'll put some commercial we need to put some more houses up there and then we'll put some restaurants and with every project that comes in on a commercial property like this they soak up another property we can no longer use for the things that we need up there it happens every single time and I'm gonna I'm gonna I know staff works extremely hard with what they do and I know they they take great care in putting these reports together and putting these these these uh the staff reports I know they take a lot of time in doing that but I am in a big to differ that the big picture is not being seen here the big picture has not been seen for a year and a half in the North Valleys and time and time and time again it's another bid project another big uh 300 houses another 200 houses another 400 apartments another the list goes on and on and on and on for the last the last two years since I've been here and it's been Non-Stop and we keep hearing well they're going to fix the roads they're going to fix it we know they're going to fix the roads they've already told us they're going to fix the roads and we do not need this project for the roads to get fixed it's happening but hearing and I was waiting to hear what is the timeline for this to be built out when is these would you get another thousand trips on our road when is that going to happen maybe 36 months maybe 24 months and the the roads they're telling us well maybe 2026 probably 20 30 is when it's going to happen so you're going to get your roads people but let us throw another 10 000 houses up there we have another another set of uh residents going in in Cold Springs that we're waiting for construction to start just up the road from here where uh our traffic study was just done in Washoe County right across from the high school hundreds of more homes are going in there which is going to impact this and those will be done in the next 12 months 12 to 18 months so you're telling us let's just throw another bunch of houses up there and another bunch of apartments and yeah we're going to catch up eventually we've caught up we've caught up the roads are we're overwhelmed up there we don't have places to shop we don't have places to eat it took my wife two hours to drive 10 miles the other day to get my son to class two hours to for 10 miles and anytime I get from the spaghetti Bowl on rush hour traffic is when I tend to get home every single time I know I'm going to spend at least 35 to 45 minutes to drive 10 minutes but we got to keep waiting for the roads till maybe 2026. and I'm going to ask the commission here that I'm a little torn because I like this project I like the project I think it's a good looking project in five years we are not ready for it now we cannot sustain any more of this building up there right now it's got to slow down somebody's got to come to uh stand up for the North Valley say enough's enough we can't we can't live with this anymore you're killing us up there that's all I have thank you commissioner commissioner go ahead good so I anytime we have these projects um in the North Valleys commissioner Munoz you are a great advocate for the community you live in and you always raise these issues and I've you know I agree with you I want to see more commercial I want to see the roads improve North Valleys and I want to see a lot of things change but what I'm struggling with with this product in particular is that it seems like it's designed in a way or where it is mitigates the traffic impact because in theory a lot of those people will be getting onto the highway and they've compared the assessment the effect of having that residential versus actually having uh commercial in that area and the effect of commercial in that area is not going to be would be worse and more burdensome on the roads so given that there's a path directly onto the highway and that the I think the alternative on of commercial would still have an effect I I struggle seeing that this would drastically affect traffic as to the need for commercial there's a lot of area or a lot of Acres immediately surrounding this parcel this property which are his own commercial and if commercial were cost effective at this point we would see commercial projects and that may be my bias and may just be how I look at growth and development but I can't fathom that it would make sense for uh a developer to choose to build residential as opposed to commercial when there's lots nearby that are Zone commercial Zone GC and they're just not being built on so I I don't necessarily think that um there's a trade-off here between what it is you want to see happen and uh this lot being used for residential because it's close to a school would achieves a lot of the goals in the master plan it's an infill project it's potentially walkable I think it checks a lot of boxes for what we're trying to do but I I hear you and I I struggle because I wish we could tell applicants when they come forward we want you to build this there's a need here for commercial there's need here for restaurants I want you to set up to build uh to make sure that restaurants go here but I don't know if we have that power and that's where I've I've struggled and we've had differences of opinion in the past it's just I don't know how to do that with some of these projects when I think it checks the boxes and I don't see commercial in their surrounding areas being developed even though that's expressly allowed and could be developed without coming to us so I guess those are my thoughts thank you and I'll piggyback on that I just always am so proud to be a commissioner with you you're you're passionate and you're looking out for your people and you live there and and you know and I usually end some of these meetings and talk to you afterwards and try to get greater insights so it's always calculated for me to the point of commissioner velto specifically to the GC that's abutting the highway I do see that as you know most likely to be the better place for future shopping malls restaurants you know maybe a bigger box or like a Target or something that's more useful um but we've got some vacant Parcels right there this would be the better place for the residential in my eyes and the one thing that always catches me off guard is every time we have an applicant come up who you know going back to the uh item that we had a couple months ago just on the other side of Walmart they were talking about how they've been shopping this as a commercial site that that parcel for a commercial site for whatever years they can't get someone to buy it they're holding on to it they're seeing it as more viable as residential and we more or less prove that project and it kind of feels like we're in the same place again here is this you know ultimately the better use for this area and that's where kind of land it's just it's incongruent because I do believe you guys are lacking uh commercial uses and Retail and shops but why isn't it being built where is it you know and we've also have heard from other owners of shot uh places like off of uh shopping centers off of lemon that have you know empty spaces or businesses not doing as well as they'd like and struggling to stay up and so it's just incongruent it doesn't mean that it's not real with what you're saying but it always just catches me at some might I can't get over but anyway those are just my thoughts commissioner Johnson thank you Mr chair um I think it was interesting um listening to commissioner gower's line of questioning because the he made a comment kind of what's the fundamental question here which is exactly what I had written down here because there was this extreme disconnect between the presentation that we had from staff and the applicant with respect to all of the specifics about this project and everything that this project is doing in its immediate vicinity and then all of our public comment is speaking about all of the broader picture and commissioner Gower asked the question far more eloquently than I could have ever done with respect to how staff is looking at that because this has been a question for a long time I think you know uh a couple of years ago we we had a discussion in this this very commission about what is the what is the last project or what is the project that's too much and we always seem to be asking that question and um the answer never seems to be this one because you know to the point there's other factors involved that we um some of which we control and some of which we can't control and you know to commissioner Munoz is it is it coming and they keep saying it's coming so we keep approving everything because it's coming so I guess that is just a a fundamental question of at what point in time do all of the findings based on a specific project and its specific neighbors um does that look out beyond that so it's not just mitigating the traffic and looking at the traffic at this particular intersection but mitigating the traffic that can't be mitigated as a part of this project and therefore are we you know can we make that finding and I I bring this up not knowing the answer to that but appreciating having the ability to have that conversation because this is a project that as was pointed out by both actually I think every commissioner the fundamentals of this match everything in our you know desired approach to infill previously graded were not on the outskirts we've got infrastructure in place it's all there it it checks the boxes but there is and has been that bigger picture and I I really appreciated the one comment and it was an interesting way to look at it you know we asked a lot of questions of Staff about the potential for a traffic light and a right hand versus left-hand turn you know on the last project which does not demonstrate the level of traffic issues that we have here and we were questioning that and wondering about that and then we turned around and we look at a project that has a level of service D already immediately adjacent to it and just beyond that of in you know Highway that is not functioning um and need we should be asking that same question on a much bigger broader level and I say that both for the commission and for the staff so um I appreciate the discussion it's an interesting question because we're balancing a project that on its merits makes sense but on its location and potentially its timing could be problematic so that's sort of the follow-up and the appreciation of the discussion that we have had here this evening go ahead commissioner thank you uh commissioner for the record um I asked to be on the Planning Commission when I I heard the spot was vacant and I was asked to talk to a group of developers to interview me basically to see if I was okay for the job to see if my views lined up with theirs I knew what they're doing I knew why they wanted to question me and I knew what needed to be done for me to get here to protect my community I knew it needed to be done and this last November the community spoke up and said enough's enough 's enough we're going to elect somebody new we're going to move on and we're going to try and do what's right for the community we've had in the last three days 1700 people signed a petition saying absolutely not we do not want this up here it doesn't work for us right now we've had and I I'll get on Facebook and I'll look at the North Valley pages and see what people are saying about this nobody wants this up here nobody wants this up here and I once again I'm going to say I'm a little bit torn because I like the project the project does check the boxes the project is a good fit maybe I I and you you all know from from past discussions I despise losing more commercial property to residential because we can't get that back once it's gone once it's gone it's gone and I've been in numerous meetings and numerous sit-downs uh talking with people in the North Valleys that are telling us space is running out we are running out of space and uh commissioner velto brought up a great Point uh the spot next to the freeway um right off that was looking at being developed within the last six months it was looking they're looking to do something there but they cannot get an ingress there they're actually having to take the Ingress through the post office and the post office didn't want any part of it so they are trying to build their they are trying to do commercial there um a hotel restaurants those things are being looked at up there but they couldn't use the property it wasn't adequate I just don't buy the the a sit-down restaurant um a clothing retailer one of those places isn't going to be viable there because everybody you're hearing tonight is screaming for it everybody online is screaming for it everybody on the petitions is screaming for it and I know it's a very small percentage of the people that live in that area that are wanting the same thing so once again I'm going to implore you I think this would be a good project five years down the road when our roadways are fixed and when our freeway is widened think this is a good project but the North Valleys cannot handle any more congestion and from here on out I think any projects that are large scale like this need to be seriously looked at as a whole for the entire North Valleys and Ward 4 not just the street that is sitting on or the streets where it intersects are where the exact traffic study is going the the entire area needs to be looked at very carefully because the impact and the burden that we're placing on these people is detrimental it's detrimental and it's I'm going to be the first to say it's getting hard to live up there it's getting very hard to live up there and my wife has asked me numerous times is it time to go yet because I'm done with this and I don't want to leave my home I don't want my children to leave their schools but if this continues I don't see any other option and and I don't want that for our city and I don't want that for our residents up there so I implore you please take a really hard second look at this it's not the time for it it's just not the right time for this commissioner Villanueva thank thanks thanks for allowing me to add to the conversation um so I'm also torn on this because I agree it's a great project it's just schools are Beyond capacity and the infrastructure really isn't there right now so I'm torn because as you know as commissioner Roberto said we can't tell the developer don't build this build restaurants build you know other commercial we don't have that kind of authority and I frankly they have property rights that's the reality of it that's our underlying you know our purview we look at that um so we can't do that but we what is in our purview is this you know Public Safety schools um you know the timing of it the infrastructure all of those things are in our purview so I am torn and I I think you make very strong and very on point arguments so that is that's kind of where I am right now looks like maybe there's no more discussion want to entertain a motion in any direction commissioner velter I'll make a motion in the matter of case number ldc23-00018 based upon compliance the applicable findings I move to approve the tentative map subject to the conditions that I can make all the findings commissioner draculation L second we have a motion in a second any discussion Mr chairman my point of discussion is that we're at a Crossroads again in the North Valleys with individual projects in my opinion it's not fair to use the f word fair for to penalize this individual property owner with a proposal that complies with all of the elements of the code in my opinion if the city came forward or if the community came forward with data and specific evidence relative to an individual project that says this project tips the scale it is it it tips the scale and past it we cannot move forward with any future development then that's that's it and the the future projects are on notice that the North Valleys can handle no more the city responded to me and my question saying that based on the expert opinions of the other agencies based on the model that Lauren Chilson outlined of how For Better or Worse our community um deals with funding infrastructure using development under that model that's what that's what we have to to live with and operate in and make decisions in relative to specific projects and until that changes and there's information specific that says this project doesn't meet those findings because of this this and this then time and time again we're going to be in this position of of having to answer these types of questions and make these tough decisions so I I don't have the compelling counter information to what staff presented to what the applicant has outlined to be able to say that this is the project that we draw the line in the sand with thank you any further discussion Michelle can we do roll call vote please Bel two yes Johnson no yes Gower yes Munoz no Nueva this is a really tough vote um but I'm gonna vote Yes Armstrong yes the motion passes five to two would you like to read the appeal process into the record please the appeal process any final action not including recommendations or failure to take action by the Planning Commission may be appealed to the city Reno city council by the applicant the mayor or a city council member or any person who is aggrieved by the the action or inaction and appeal together with fees must be filed by the city clerk within 10 business days starting on the day after written notice of the action is filed with the city clerk all right we move on from that item into item Four Points oh can we wait until everybody okay all right let's get going with item 4.7 case number ldc22-00077 P Vine employment center mspr we will take an application from the uh a presentation from the applicant oops thank you pubine employment center major site plan review uh this is for grading and impacts to a major drainage way um for those of you that may not have been on the Planning Commission um and may not be familiar with this site uh so this project area outlined in Blue on the screen um is located south of Red Rock Road and where it intersects with North Virginia Street so it's on the south side of 395. it's 210 acres and it was annexed the let's see if I can make this very clear there are 11 Parcels um where my cursor's at that were officially annexed into the city um last year and then um following the annexation the entire project area went through a master plan Amendment and a zone change and so what you see on the screen here is what was approved the master plan was approved as mixed employment with the green areas as Parks Greenways and open spaces and then the zoning on the property technically is SPD specific plan District the specific plan District includes a handbook that outlines uses as well as several design standards this SPD was intended to outline and bring forward a path to bring a real jobs housing balance to the North Valleys one of the things that you know in a addition to being able to bring some employment to these areas in red or purple the SPD carved out an area here immediately adjacent to the off-ramp that is was reserved for commercial uses as a gateway to this development so we do anticipate future commercial uses within this front area and then the rest of this intended for employment type uses this is just so that you can see that what the handbook really does include there are design standards in the handbook related to architecture Landscaping screening parking walls lighting sustainability this is the first project that really brought forward its own sustainability requirements and we spent a lot of time working with a number of people to make sure that those sustainability practices associated with this project brought forward a good project in the future so those things all apply and I really mentioned that because you are likely not to see future entitlements on this project because it's within an SPD we addressed a lot of the design standards within the SPD with the exception of grading and impacts to the major drainage ways which is why we are here today uh again major site plan review to allow grading in the major drainage ways there are two of them as well as allowing cuts and fills on the site that exceed the thresholds and just to point out the disturbance of the drainage ways and the grading are really to support um the construction of the road through the site which again was approved as part of the SPD you can see here it extends access through this area and perpetuates it to the parcel to the South which is in the City of Reno already previously prior to the SPD the only access to that parcel to the South was this um dirt road that did not provide great access to a parcel that was in the city so this really improves the access for emergency services as well as for the city in general so I'll start with the major drainage ways as I said there are two drainage ways identified on this site we did a major drainage ways analysis um as we would have expected these drainage ways are located in the areas that were identified as pgos through the master plan and the SPD handbook so you can see those two drainages on this map the drainages are primarily undisturbed within the project area with the exception of possibly some folks who've been using this area to access through the private properties in the past uh generally the flow patterns will remain their current alignment with on-site detention and retention basins to provide volumetric mitigation at 1.3 to 1 as required by the city for the North Valleys um as designed the road crossing culverts can double as detention basins to slow and control the velocities so the impacts to the drainage ways are specifically these Road Crossings so there's one here and there's one here and those Road Crossings will just be a standard your typical box Culvert there really isn't significant amount of drainage running through these to justify anything larger than a standard box culvert on the grading and cuts and fills element of this request um there as you can see on this exhibit um there are three colors shown here I'm going to start with this brownish color this brownish color represents a previously graded Disturbed portion of the site there is an existing entitlement for a borrow pit here it has been Disturbed for a number of years and just going back so you can really see what that looks like this is that area so that brown area represents this scarred area on the site it is entitled they have been taking materials out of that area for I think about 10 years um so so that's the Brown area and so then when we look at the um the other areas um the green area which primarily is located here on the south end and in this um southwest corner over here really the the point of these cut areas is to take this dirt from back here and and move it to the front if you will or to the north um in these areas that are identified in blue for the fill and so we're really trying to balance the earthwork on this site and that's why we're asking for permission to do a mass grading effort why we are exceeding the cuts and fills on this site um the uh by doing this as a mass grading effort we actually can reduce the duration of time that large vehicles are on the site I mentioned that the masquerading allows us to balance it um you know if we were just gonna build um just the road we would have to bring um materials from off site if we came back and did just pad a you would see in the future additional we we would potentially have to bring materials on site or export materials off-site it just doesn't balance and good practice is to try to balance the earthwork on a site of this size and a project of this magnitude um I do want to note that the handbook requires that the Disturbed areas are treated with either formal landscaping or revegetated with Native lands or native seed mix so you won't see a long-term you know graded areas in addition there's a condition on this project that building permits have to be pulled within 24 months of the grading so you may see some Disturbed ground for a while but know that there has to be a building permit within 24 months so it will not be long term um I mentioned the mass grading rather than pad by pad limits noise traffic impacts on the surrounding area um and really it's it's just a more efficient way to to grade this overall project and get this road built and constructed cross these drainage ways and handle the drainage that's necessary I just wanted to point out a couple of conditions that were included in the staff report I mentioned condition two requiring us to apply for building permits within the first 24 months condition eight was included to comply with the Wildland Urban interface the wooey code requirements and that was also noted as a requirement in the handbook so I think that's just to make sure that we we meet that requirement condition 10 requires the areas designated as open space be deed restricted or dedicated to a land trust that was also something that was in the handbook and then condition 11 requires a phasing plan to address to address mitigation efforts on the surrounding properties and so all of those things are in place to make sure that this grading approach on this project is you know taking the neighbors into consideration but also being in conformance with the handbook um so in summary the drainage ways will be maintained in their natural condition except for the roadway Crossings again there are two of them the masquerading is better with the natural Contours of the site and actually allows us to limit the duration of noise and traffic and large equipment on the site the cuts and fills will be mitigated by sight or building design and the areas proposed for masquerading are consistent with the land use plan that was approved in the SPD that is my presentation we've read the staff report we agree with all of the conditions and I'm available as well as our engineer and our traffic engineer if there are other questions thank you thank you we'll now get a presentation from the city to never say this but good morning Planning Commission uh my name is Brooke Oswald I am a associate planner with development services run through the project site it's looking about 210 Acres so this was before this commission back earlier in 2002 at the first of the year went through several hearings a Planning Commission uh moving through um on through city council and through Regional it was approved that's why we have the standing zoning that we have which is a SPD which is governed by that handbook that special handbook very similar to a PUD the background on that to the background zoning is a mixed employment so if not specifically addressed in the the zoning uh handbook it would it would go back to our Emmy zoning be addressed there so we have kind of that backstop on that Sony uh the project site is located uh this this is Red Rock Road and the intersection of 395 stead Boulevard and uh what we do is a unique this is the railroad track that runs uh just to the South project site look really quickly at some other industrial areas we do have in the surrounding area uh up by Silver Lake and uh just across from that these are across 395 to the north uh the two uh blue stars are representing Federal lands so we have these large open space Parcels in close proximity looking at those with that this uh the one on the bottom there is headed up towards p-line so with that we have many natural drainages that sort of run down that that those areas as the applicant mentioned and and was demonstrated um we also have some denser housing that we're seeing across 395 so that barrier 395 we're seeing that uh some denser housing in that area we come in a little bit closer looking once again that's Red Rock Road just so everyone orients we have uh two residential areas a County residential areas uh lower density we also have a animal park within that area so just kind of a unique park within that SPD several conditions that require walls be built limitations on time upgrading other things so we work through a lot of those compatibility through that SPD handbook in the first phase uh the request is for a major site plan review that's for cuts and fills and disturbance of a major drainage way this is unique because we don't actually have a development project usually you'll see a building or something associated this is a mass grading project I think there may be a few of you who saw something similar to this on out on Mount Rose Highway project that we did similar to this the also the disturbance of the major drainage way we're looking at two major drainageways they are just disturbed by the roadway and utilities that would cross that no other disturbances are within those the cuts and fills on the site are we're looking about 55 foot Cuts 55 foot fields so sizable cuts of fills moving about a million and a half cubic yards of dirt so this is this is a big Mass project movie of moving this dirt um now looking at it and moving in this way there's many Advantage we're reducing that time long their ability to um to balance the site the reduction of overall impacts on the neighbors as that happens additionally we're able to re-vegetate and manage that so we have a condition That's Unique on this that prior to the building permit we're requiring that they have a phasing plan that's where they're going to stockpile it's how they're going to move their dirt that's how they're going to do that there's also a requirement how they're going to mitigate those impacts on those neighbors during that time additionally we require that they show that they have water so that we make sure that our our are um the the any sort of dust debris that sort of stuff is essential that we do that at that time that will also have an oversight by the county on that too so there's an additional backstop but we have required that that they assure us that they're going to have water to that site before they start um cutting in the dirt um so it facilitates that initial grading we'd anticipate additional grading will be coming back in as the applicants representative mentioned we may or may not see additional discretionary review there may be something that kicks off with with distances to the residential but that initial design sort of covered a lot of that so this is really setting up for that vertical development to happen we don't have any vertical development at this time but would anticipate within that 24 months they have to start turning in conditions we do that specifically we want to make sure that vertical development is going in in a timely manner after this Mass development so we don't have a disturbed Earth for a long period of time um there's a number of conditions too that are looking at Future development this is our chance we may not have a future discretionary view so you're seeing some lighting you're seeing some other things uh the uh applicant mentioned the woolly standards which are Wildland Urban interface the reason those are in there so there it is mentioned the handbook we have some additional things in there that's some one is the fire access and making sure they're maintaining during that construction that we can get a fire truck up there we have a number of of uh vacant land just to the south of this project and then the federal land we've had fires on Peavine and last for a couple years and we really want to make sure that we we can provide a safe access for our fire up through that project site additionally we have we're requiring a HOA or or another mechanism to maintain the wui standards so they're working together as a group up there and making sure those major drainage ways and some of those other things are kept in shape that we can protect that so that's where that's a little bit unique uh look at the zoning uh once again uh as you can see the outline of that the pgos is sort of protecting those major drainage rays and creating those buffering uh we'd anticipate large format buildings the SPD allows for a larger format building in there as the applicant mentioned there is a commercial node uh just off the the interstate there the S PD handbook will describe all the standards and requirements it's a zoning it also requires uh standard and set uses the thing that's unique about this is that commercial zoning will not allow any residential housing it's strictly limited to commercial development within that there are several master plan policies this is supportive of as as was shown as that work that balance of of we're seeing a large amount of Housing and that Workforce being the actual industrial Hub being done we have the state and federal roadways so we we have worked with ndot and RTC to make sure that we are making sure that intersection and that um the design of the interface between North Virginia 395 Redwood Road will be improved to to meet the traffic studies we have initial traffic study we'll continue to see traffic studies as we come in to make sure that we're meeting that or traffic cities or other sort of means to to make sure we're meeting those things concurrency management you know that as we're seeing the uh tomoir will be extending water lines we're going to have a sewer line extended Additionally you know there was a previous discussion of sewer we are seeing that expansion of our our sewer in that area that will be coming online and and you know serving the needs of this project just really quick to go over that SPD the base Employments the mixed Zone it does allow for 24-Hour operations which is different than the uh Emmy the building formats can be over 500 000 feet that's why we're seeing those large pads up there we have the enhanced buffers screening landscape protection of the drainage ways and enhance sustainability requirements uh there there has a public input this meeting did go to the NAB additionally the prior um uh zoning master plan had neighborhood meetings and a lot of the initial comments from that were incorporated into the SPD handbook we do have one modified condition in uh after that the staff report was published uh there were some concerns about there's a requirement that they build a wall and we wanted that wall built before that grading just to provide that extra protection to those neighbors um we would like just because there may be some grading required it was it got tricky on the timing of that so we we want them within that first 30 days of that mass grading to make sure that Wall's going in there's some grading that's going to have to happen to accommodate that wall and the way it was written before is they had to have the wall in so it's a little Chicken and the Egg thing there so that will read as we move forward it will read as as proposed uh staff this is uh sorry not attendant map it's a major site plan review staff could make all findings and I will leave you uh with a recommended motion available for questions thank you this is late thank you Brooke um okay we'll now open it to Commissioners for disclosures commissioner velta you look awake you started off uh I spoke with the applicants representative I received and reviewed emails and I am familiar with the site commissioner Johnson thank you Mr chair commissioner Johnson same disclosures commissioner Villanueva I am a March 2022 meeting that we have as well thank you commissioner Armstrong I read and received emails met with the applicant's representative and I'm familiar with the site sorry it is late commissioner Manus I'm familiar with the site and I briefly spoke with the applicants representative Mr Gower familiar with the site received and read emails and spoke with applicants representative commissioner Dracula's same disclosures we will open it up to public comment I've got a few requests to speak forums we will kick it off with uh Gary overhost if I got that right and next up will be Kelly Orr Gary Overholt um for the for the record um good morning Commissioners um I'd like to start out by saying that uh once again we've seen a developer coming into the North in the ward 4 with plans for the develop of it essentially another Warehouse uh project in the name of P Vine employment center as for the case tonight I feel the speculation of if we build it they will come um there's no intent and purpose there's nobody coming in you're building a pad is basically what you're doing uh so we're that's an unimproved parcel it's going to need sewer water electricity telephone I.T all that has to be installed it's listed in the site plan as such depending on the provided entities performing those Services the sewer will involve digging up Red Rock Road to connect to the existing system water will also have to be brought into the site which will involve digging up the streets again with you know causing detours and traffic delays and who's paying for these improvements the developer or the taxpayer so directly south the proposed site is a Peavine mountain and it's got two huge bowls that fill up with snow um and at all even in the public notice it says that there's two major drainages that will be impacted um this could become a problem as we've seen in the recent weeks as most of the Retention Ponds are full right now so the super pads that they are projecting will create more runoff and what what happens then also they hit list the ability to operate 24 7. um how do you compensate the existing residents that live in the proximity closest site have lived in a rural setting for as long as I can remember and I've been there 25 years so the warehouses don't improve traffic they cause more Kinder Matthews is advertising spare space excuse me available on their warehouses a short distance away whereas Ward 4 just another Reno Tahoe industrial center for the city because that's all I see from Golden Valley all the way to Stead from 395 to the railroad right away warehouses with spark with neighborhoods sparsed in between the warehouses aren't nice Neighbors at all let me tell you it's I see it every day I live it you know this is this uh these buffer zones they talk about uh the light pollution and the noise pollution do not thank you have a good morning thank you as well next to speak is Kelly Orr I wish to make a statement but is indifferent says here I can't say I see Kelly and the crowd don't blame her yeah uh next would be Timothy stoffel wishing to make a statement in opposition feel free to come to the podium sir Tim stoffel10515 Trail Drive I live right on the edge of this project uh my properties at grade with pad B and I will have this whatever I saw they happen to build this property because I'm sure they're going to use this to build these warehouses what are these warehouses a million square feet that's half the size of the Tesla gigafactory do we really need stuff like that up there we really don't this is not compatible with land uh 55 foot cuts and fills I mean this is terraforming this is science fiction stuff here's a here's a picture of a 40-foot field that happens to be along Highland Avenue we're just this is what's going we're gonna have in our land behind us here I know that doesn't show up real well but it's it's it's it's ghastly and this is what they want to do to this land up there it's and the amount of pollution that's going to cause even if they're moving this the dirt on just the local thing is going to cause a problem can we see a map of the of the proposed area for this uh in any case the prevailing winds up here are gonna are gonna blow all that dust and all that diesel exhaust and stuff like that over my property over the zoo and over the other people that happen to live up there and uh this is this is not going to be good for any of us furthermore the the terror I live right or is there there's a mouse up here right here I don't see the well never mind I don't have enough time to do that but in any case yeah right that the zoo is the zoo is in that little corner right in there and then I live right on this corner right here and uh the winds blow diagonally like this across so all the dust and dirt and diesel exhaust everything like that is going to blow over my house and blow over the zoom blow over the other people that live in that neighborhood and uh you know they've already you know shown the cancerous from Diesel particulates and stuff like that uh furthermore this project is going to uh result in you know as a special as a developer where it's going to be unsightly we're going to lose our Dark Skies I'm an amateur astronomer I'm probably going to give that hobby up if they build this stuff uh we're gonna lose the wildlife we have in this area we've got all sorts of wildlife now that's gonna be gone when this is done or have constant noise pollution we're gonna have constant diesel exhaust and uh very importantly I'm going to talk about this in a minute is the runoff from this uh one of those two drainage ways happens to run through through the zoo and that drainage way goes through a very critical part of the zoo and and that water is going to be polluted with anti-freeze and motor oil and anything else that runs in there because if you look carefully their diagrams they've got garbage draining from the roadways into there they need to model if they're going to build this they have to modify that so nothing drains into that drainage way because our most valuable animals live there we can't you know spend 30 000 bucks in a new line or tiger every couple of years because they've killed it with a pollution of the river furthermore the light pollution from this besides messing up my astronomy is even more importantly is going to mess up the the circadian rhythms of the animals the noise is not going to help either so this is going to have a very negative effect on the zoo I built I built I built my house there to be a buffer to the zoo and I have a great deal of my lifetime invested in that zoo and that's a cultural uh important thing in the city we don't want to see that Rune please don't allow this project thank you next up to speak is Norman huckle I'm noting in opposition did you want to make a statement okay it says here please do Norman huckel I am currently board president at the Sierra Nevada exotic Animal Park we've changed our names so anyway I know time's going real fast but what I did not hear from the city planners I did not hear anything about the the mining history that goes with that area um I don't know if you can see it real good but see those little red uh things that indicates mining povil which is located up on Peavine was a mining area when we do water samples up at our at the animal park we find that there is remnants of that of that time just like in other parts of Nevada where Mercury is horrible so I would I would encourage your research staff to go up to UNR and do some more get the soil sample of their soil reports from the EPA they're all public record I look for them online they're not online so they're still just in paper I would just do that before you start turning that dirt up okay we are concerned about our wealth we are concerned about we have had animals die the and the and they're all public record what happened to them it's from something in that in that water in that soil okay so you know the mining history do you also know in 1950 Reno closed the landfill and then they started dumping trash in the North Valleys so those are all landfills up there guys I didn't hear that either tonight so please please get your guys to do more historical research on these areas so that nobody has to worry about oh my God the animals are dying because just be careful all right um that's really important I worked at UNR for 32 years so I know there's a lot of government documents that people don't even know exist but they are available and some of them are very much online as as well as the historical um stories about the The Dumping I think this dead Air Base may have used some of that area for dumping there were like seven of them up until like until we opened up the one the only one we have in this area in Lockwood okay so anyway I'm just giving you that um we but yeah hearing about all this churning up of the of the sand and the dirt um I think please uh check that check make sure that soil isn't going to be a problem we want to work with a developer and and I'm I'm totally unopposed if things are done right 24 7 sounds horrible especially and you guys need to be some good news that Zoological Park is doing great it's a great it's a true Community Asset so please be happy Mr monio's Cheryl would love to meet you if you haven't met her already but if I'm thinking being that I'm the board president if there's any way um if you want to have like maybe Community meetings up there you could probably do it if we could get a like a building thank you very much for your time appreciate it thank you guys thank you for staying all right do we have any correspondence online or voicemails correspondence was received forwarded to the Planning Commission we did not receive any voicemails um I don't believe we have anybody on Zoom that wishes to speak anybody else in the chambers want to uh speak tonight okay we will close public comment and open it up to the commissioner for questions for the city or applicant commissioner Munoz I guess I'll start again thank you Mr chair uh this is gonna be for City for Brooke please uh the last gentleman did bring up some good points uh with the soil and we have definitely had some uh areas in the other side of the hill of P Vine that were area of concern um has this been addressed and what can you tell us about it so we work with the Washoe County Health on this um there are areas identified throughout the valley one of those being out Red Rock area in that area along Steamboat Creek I've worked on both of those this has not been identified as an area of concern but I can reach out to them and confirm that if you wish yeah I very much and then obviously if that is identified then they would go through the prop proper processing we'd look at what is called a wrap plan that's how they're going to deal with with any sort of contaminants or anything on site so is there anything specifically that we need either City needs to do to I guess kind of put them on notice to make sure it's something they're looking out for or how can we um make sure that those steps are taken so it's not kind of overlooked well I mean there is an option of a condition that just says the county health shall be uh you know shall be uh can consulted prior to a building permit to to confirm that no uh no adverse chemicals or other things are within the soil so I'm happy to write something like that sounds good thank you foreign ER Gower thank you Mr chairman um could Brooke I have a question for you but I want to ask the applicant another question first thanks DC it's related to storm water so feel free to punt to Gabe if you need to um just hoping to get a little bit more clarity uh in a 1am version of a deep dive on stormwater retention detention on site particularly as it integrates with the two drainage channels going through the site I will defer to Gabe thank you thanks Gabe good morning Gabe whitler Odyssey engineering for the record so just quick engineering recap on drainage in in the North Valleys obviously where where it drains to a closed Basin we're mitigating for two things um one is uh flow rates so that's where detention will come into play we can't increase the rate of runoff that leaves our site from the Native conditions so that's accomplished in a in a couple Fashions here we'll be using a combination of detention ponds which collect developed runoff hold it and release it at it at a restricted flow rate by mechanical means so that you're not increasing the runoff caused by urbanization in this case we're going to continue to implement uh uh what the railroad has done not not that they necessarily did that on purpose but um what happens is when you you develop a roadway like we have to cross the drainage ways with our roadway we need a culvert system to allow the drainage to go through but that allows you to then use the Upstream volume of that natural base and to control those flows so you let it back up use a control structure so you're not increasing the flow Downstream that happens at the railroad with undersized culverts just because they're old we'll use a little more technology and advanced engineering to control those flows but that's that's how we'll control the flow rates um we also have to mitigate for the uh 100 Year 10-day storm event at a 1.3 to 1 ratio with retention so that's water that we will capture developed runoff hold it on site that water cannot leave as a surface flow it has to infiltrate or evaporate so that's where you see these large ponds that when you drive around you see them with water standing water but that's what they're intended to do is hold that water so that it doesn't end up in the lake and increase the lake level because it doesn't have any way to discharge either so nope you'll notice if you look closely at the grading plan the pawns uh are shown are pretty vanilla at this point because they'll be massaged with the site as each site is developed those ponds will then be located accordingly um to ensure you know obviously that the volume is there but also it's when you're dealing with multiple drainage basins like this site contains It's tricky to make sure you're out enough flow into those basins so that they accomplish what they're what they're intended to do so it's it's a pretty intricate site as far as taking the off-site flows and making sure those are safely routed through the site at the same time mitigating you know increases caused by development and then in addressing the the retention as well so yeah I appreciate that Gabe and follow-up question on the the maintenance of those those facilities that you're proposing from an engineering perspective what's needed to maintain the functionality of those facilities and how do we ensure that happens it's all privately maintained it's the responsibility of the developer landowner to continually maintain those uh facilities and the as part of the permit process will have what's called an operation maintenance manual that manual will spell out storm events specific things that need to happen simple things like cleaning inlets and making sure that your storm drains flowing properly watching for erosion and other things that need improvements or or mitigation above and beyond what may have happened during construction um for a retention Basin the biggest issue you're going to have is is sediment that gets in there over time fines that get into oftentimes these will have a a large bottom that's contains a a cobble or something that is is really pervious it allows that water to infiltrate because that's the only way that the one maintenance issues um but an a manual is prepared during the permit process to to spell all that out for the owner and in a large development like this there's typically a an association if you will that oversees maintenance for landscaping and drainage that sort of thing when you have a large amount of infrastructure great thank you Mr chairman if I could just follow up with um Lindy would you mind just kind of spelling out how how you approach the the maintenance of this at other properties and just making sure that we have the assurances that this is going to happen of the storm water facilities yes Wendy dollar with panettone development for the record um so typically prior to or during construction we will put in place an association that is the response or it's the responsibility of the association to maintain the property maintenance of the drainage ways as well as the landscaping and all of that and that's standard practice for you on almost all of our projects and that system has worked well and functioned to maintain the functionality of those systems yes okay thank you yeah Mr chairman I if I could follow up with a unrelated question to Brooke go for it Brooke question I have is related to the findings for a major site plan review so um originally when this came before us as an SPD request I was not in favor of it because of the compatibility concerns um I understand that our scope is different but we still have a finding under major site plan review that is compatible with surrounding development can you help me just think through that finding because it's my understanding that it relates specifically to the proposed grading and cuts and fills certainly and and that was that's obviously always been a concern of ours so that that as I mentioned that compatibility we looked at that all the way back to the zoning right and and employing a lot of those um conditions or other things that we'd see in an industrial development adjacent to commercial or in close proximity we've included those in the handbook for that sort of back Assurance we're seeing those buffer distances so those were those green areas that you saw so we're seeing that being set back additionally uh we are limiting uh truck traffic so this is kind of looking at a long scope not just the grade in itself but that truck traffic will be limited off those those roadways uh completely that are adjacent to the residential as I mentioned before the wall coming in on that area prior to the the mass of the grading you know within 30 days to try to cut down on some noise and glare within that we've limited our construction hours so we limit those to certain hours outside of you know our general uh poor area you know if they're pouring at night or larger pores but those still require administrative approval so we have we look at those again and make sure it's appropriate make sure neighbors are notified or what we feel is appropriate to mitigate for those um Brooke sorry to interrupt I I appreciate that I guess my the the focus of my question is the decision space related to that particular finding is it is it in fact related to the the compatibility questions that you're laying out for the future use and development of this site or is it because the major site plan review is specific to my understanding the the grading and the cuts and fills I'm trying to reconcile the applicability of that finding relative to the scope of the what we're looking at what what our decision space is yeah because if it's the things that you're talking about I've I'm going to wind up where I wound up on the last one because I don't think it's compatible even with these mitigation factors but if the decision space is limited to the grading and the cuts then that changes how I'm approaching this it is limited to what's before you which is our grading and our Cuts right and that impact of those gradings so those would relate back to the conditions we put in place of of making sure they're providing a plan that shows how they're going to fade mitigate any potential impacts or that compatibility of that as they move through that process of mass grading okay thank you thank you Mr uh and I would just add the storm water just to add um from the city's point we also have a stormwater uh Basin inspection so we go out and regularly inspect that so there's another oversight from the city on those just to to add to that great thank you for adding that bro thank you Mr Sherman thank you Mr chair question I think this is probably going to be for Gabe because it's engineering related from your grading plan um I I can't tell from the scale that we're at but the backbone roadway that's going in what is the slope on that as it goes between pads A and B looks like it climbs up the hill and then levels out yeah I I believe it it maxes out at eight percent but um was the the most extreme grade okay I'm trying to get from the bottom of the hill to the top of the hill okay and then does it go up again once it gets past the other that's that's on the I guess the West West Side so when it gets to the east side is it going up again at a similar grade yeah so it comes off of of Red Rock and um is a significant grade to get up to the the two upper pads it flattens out in that area and then as it heads East crosses the easterly major drainage way again it gets steep that roadways really just intended to provide access to the the neighboring properties so the area kind of passed on the east side is not intense it's to finish out the backbone roadway but it's not intended for exactly yeah it's really intended to serve whatever development happens to the South and is that is that a public city of Reno Road or a private road it's it's proposed to be a public dedicated roadway because it will serve potentially development to the South the south side of the railroad tracks that's that's their primary would be their primary access and and so in in that case making it public roadways is uh probably the most important thing to do okay thank you who's now if I can follow up question for Brooke so and I'm assuming this was again this is looking back to the SPD but obviously you know looking at this roadway looking at the extension of services all of that um has been contemplated and the city believes that those Services both from a utility standpoint and road maintenance and access and everything else can be maintained by the city in that area with this with this development correct once the development is built and that's at the developers expense to extend those services and everything and the roadway is built we'd anticipate being dedicated to the city and it would be under City control in our maintenance from that so okay and that's that's what I thought and that was all just to follow up that was all reviewed by the city during the SPD process correct and then confirmed as we went you know we've had more discussions of of that as we've gone and obviously as I stated before there's other roadway improvements and some other things that will have to happen with RTC ndot and that and that who that ownership will be determined at that time according to the roadway and how that works so we'd see other roadways and different things happening off site thank you and Mr chair unrelated question for Stacy no part that's right I figure if I keep asking different people questions it keeps everybody awake um Stacy so I'm looking at the the grading plans for this and one of the the comments that you made at the beginning and one of the big selling points for the um SPD was that Gateway area with the potential and even looking at the plans you know there's a lot of uses that are in the the you know that was intended for kind of uh commercial retail uh type thing um but it doesn't look like any work is being done on those as a part of this Mass grading is that correct that is a correct statement sorry Stacy Huggins for the record you are correct there is not grading happening on those pads at this time and is that because there's not any work anticipated over the next two years or because the grading requirements can be handled on a site-by-site basis there has not been a project identified on those pads as of now okay but we are also looking at a development for a bunch of other pads that we don't have anything in front of us for on that those likely be developed under um potentially different um ownership entity um so to keep them separate panettone which we are representing tonight for this grading project is doing the grading for their pads in anticipation of developing them and going vertical with them um the commercial piece will develop but it will likely follow the industrial or the employment pieces because those employment generation or generating businesses will actually support that commercial use in the front Okay thank you appreciate that thank you Mr chair yeah any other questions from the commission move to discussion commissioner Villanueva um in order to save time I'm not gonna my position for review case we're looking at other things those are a lot of the things that I didn't like about it the first time so I'm just going to incorporate by reference pretty much everything well everything I said in the last meeting in March 2022 and that'll save us some time thank you any other discussion items topics unless commissioner velto let's go uh commissioner valta first Mr virtual over there uh you guys I want to keep this kind of pretty brief but I think the what we're looking at now has changed and I think it's important for us to look at with a fresh set of eyes understanding that the scope is now a little bit different um I think staff adequate very well and the applicant also explain address some of the concerns that we heard from the public um I think I can make the findings uh and I'll be voting in favor of uh I'll be voting in favor of Passage commissioner Gower yeah thank you Mr chair and thanks commissioner velto for for making that point I it's my understanding that the the decision space has changed as well I mean before we were looking at a looking at it and more of a master plan and a zoning level and compatibility of uses at that scale and now we're looking fairly narrowly at um the disturbance and the draining drainage way and and Grading consideration so it's my interpretation and that's why I asked Brooke and I think he confirmed for me that the the space that we're being asked to decide on is related to those two factors how this proposed grading uh is influencing the drainage ways and considerations related to um cuts and fill so I'm I'm not considering the the SPD or the compatibility or where this thing is located because I fundamentally don't think that that development is appropriate in this location that's why I voted against it originally but since it is before us and it has been that part has been approved and the scope has changed based on the findings um now in my decision space now I can make the findings which commissioner Johnson you were technically next thank you um I appreciate the comment from commissioner Gower because he's he's exactly right I think there was a you know fundamentally I don't like anything about this location or the scale of this project and that being said this is a different space to look at um and I certainly appreciated the question that was asked to Brooke but I still go back to you know that first item a under the major site plan review about the proposed design is compatible with surrounding development um I I can't wrap my head around a 55 or 60 foot cut and fill as being compatible with the development or lack of development adjacent to that so regardless of you know the zoning or what was envisioned in the SPD we're looking at a mass grading project in an area that has never been graded to this level and so to me I I appreciate that the the compatibility with the surrounding development has narrowed but I still have to make that finding based on the level of earth work and you know that we're looking at here so I I do think and and I will say there are two items in front of us the disturbance of a major drainage way which I think they are handling very appropriately but the grading and some of that is involved in the roadway and I appreciated that comment but the the work required to create the the mass grading that they're having here is you know there is a surrounding development of that that is a hillside going up and you know single-family residences and the freeway adjacent to it and I look at that and and I am not able to make that finding even with the the more narrowed scope that we have just because of the the you know the excuse me the nature and the magnitude of the grading that we're doing out there so I appreciate where you're coming from and I certainly understand that but I'm still narrowing it down and I still can't reconcile that around the site so thank you Mr chair commissioner Munoz thank you commissioner Johnson I Can you I'm going to ask you to elaborate a little more on that what would if you can't answer this what would make you comfortable with the grading what would you need to see to become so so I think the concern that I had from the very beginning was that this wasn't a large-scale footprint type of building area there was a hill there was a natural development everything else and the modifications that were going to be required to accommodate that and the compatibility of that with the surrounding area I fundamentally had a problem with so now what I'm doing is I'm stepping back and I'm looking at this and I'm saying okay we have a special planning district we have a mixed employment Zone and we have a handbook that lists any number of items that can be provided in that zone the majority of which do not require a hundred thousand square foot or greater pad to be created for them so while I know that that is what is in front of us now and I know that that was what was envisioned all along seeing the actual earthwork now that's required to make that on what was you know presented as sort of a gradually sloping site you know the the area just you know looking at the roadway and I appreciated Gabe's you know work to get an eight percent grade out of that but when you look at the the grades as that road comes around the corner um there's a over a hundred feet of grade difference between that road and the level of the large pad and than putting a warehouse or what I mean sorry there's no vertical but just looking at that in relation to what is out there right now I I can't reconcile that as being compatible so to your point what would I see I don't know the answer to that other than I wouldn't expect to see graded slopes of 70 plus feet in the development so thank you any other topics of discussion or we can entertain a motion I'll make a motion oh did you have a topic of discussion uh sorry commissioner valto uh commissioner Villanueva has that I just want to say I I appreciate the comments and I just respectfully disagree that you know the we yes we are looking at um you know we're looking at different components in this you know with this particular application in this particular meeting at this particular time but I still think you know we still got to consider compatibility grading which here which commissioner Johnson already covered and then infrastructure and utilities I mean we I I get it four minutes away from the nearest fire station um but we just got done with a huge discussion about how the infrastructure uh is really poor out there right now and um we just you know I approved a project that I I believe to be you know appropriate but you know we're why are we not looking at infrastructure for project like this which is completely inappropriate um and we're talking about big rigs and um you know going down those streets and again a lot of stuff that I covered in the last meeting that I'm not going to reiterate in this meeting because it's not going to matter anyways um but again I just respectfully disagree thank you commissioner Gower chiming back in I want to get out of here as much as everyone else does but I got to make sure that we're we're doing it right Brook can you can you respond to the commissioner's comments about the decision space and what we're looking at here because this is fundamental to my decision and being able to make this particular finding sure and I want to back that up so our previous decision we were looking at a master plan and zoning map Amendment our findings are very different on that and how we look at that compatibility we're looking at very large scale we're bringing it down a little bit more with that SPD that decision is done that has been approved so what you're looking at is under what you're given which is the zoning now which is the SPD and what it what it dictates and what it says is allowed or not allowed then additionally what you have before you tonight is a mass grading so we're looking at that grading and that compatibility of that grading and how that works so you know you've seen two discussions on on on two different folks looking but it it is narrowing that in down to the specifics of what is before you tonight and compatibility of the grading broke relative to the surrounding uses is irrelevant as as we look at the grading and and potential the the impacts obviously right so you do have you you do that is that is there yeah I think there's valid you there's been a very valid discussion on both parts of how how that could be looked at or done and the infrastructure to Commissioner of Illinois so as we look at that infrastructure that infrastructure was determined previously as we look at zoning we looked at that larger infrastructure and did the the um did a determination there that that infrastructure was close or in place or could be brought to the site and and you know that's at the developers um at cost to do that I just don't feel like that answers my question with regard to infrastructure I I mean what does that mean what what you just said and again it could be because I'm tired but what does that mean like so so we looked that from our Public Works our engineering uh working uh with outside agencies so the transportation looking at our fire so you know if we expanded that into our fire services and and that so sewer will have to be expanded from the site is it on the other side of 395 that can be it's physically can happen we're seeing that expansion of our sewer system so we feel comfortable that that expansion could hand will handle not only this development but other development as we see we have tumwa is uh has plans to extend that's our Trucking Meadows Water Authority has plans to extend the water line that will come to the site they do have a will serve letter to the site currently so we would see that water line coming in transportation wise the applicant is working with ndot Nevada Department of Transportation our regional transportation to make sure the connectivity and the and and how that connects into uh the intersections of Red Rock 395. I don't mean to cut you off I don't mean to be rude in any way by doing that I'm just trying to save time because I've been told that we aren't supposed to consider those things because they don't matter and then you're saying that that does matter and we do need to consider those things those those were considered at the zoning so okay so right now so why does it say here key project issues and staff analysis focused on compatibility compatibility grading availability of Public Services utilities and infrastructure am I looking at the uh let's see because they're conservative okay drainage grading results and cuts okay I see so I was looking at the wrong thing okay disturbance of a major drainage way grading resulting Cuts deeper than 20 feet okay yeah yeah as we do further analysis that's sort of the focus we are so we have that larger obviously grading is very important the major drainage way is very important we need to make sure we you know we once again did an analysis of our Public Services infrastructure and and transportation okay so I I do want to correct myself I apologize so I was looking at the wrong area correct um but my answer doesn't change so but thank you I do appreciate it I do apologize and thank you for your patience no no need to apologize at two in the morning okay looks like no more top is the discussion what I can see commissioner velto unmuted himself for a reason um I think it's important to remember we're focused solely on disturbance of a major drainage way as well as the grading I think with that limited scope I can certainly make the findings and with that I'll say in the matter of ldc22-00077 based upon applies the applicable findings I recommend the Planning Commission approve the major site plan review subject to the conditions listed in the staff report and I can make all the findings we have a motion commissioner draculich I second we have a motion in a second and discussion uh yeah if we could just add in the oh yeah the modified the modified that's if if they're willing to agree to that for whatever governing agency will govern that whatever uh I ran this by the uh applicant and what we would what I'm proposing is that uh prior to a grading permit being issued uh the applicant will submit a phase one soil report that's an environmental soil report for staff to review and then we can review it at staff and we feel if we need to elevate it at that point we can elevate it okay thank you and would you mind putting that in commissioner valto yes commissioner I would like to incorporate that additional condition thank you thank you commissioner Dracula shall incorporate that into my second any other discussion before roll call vote Michelle if you may please Phil too yes Johnson draculic yes yeah we're let me skip you for a minute yes yes Munoz yes but I want to go on record to say that only because of the limited scope of what we are focusing on today can I meet these findings uh under other circumstances or this is a wider scope I would not be able to meet him so yes Villanueva no Armstrong yes motion passes five to two could you read the appeal process into the record please foreign process any final action not including recommendations or failure to take action by the Planning Commission may be appealed to the Reno city council by the applicant the mayor or city council member or any person who is aggrieved by the action or inaction and appeal together with fees must be filled or filed with the city clerk within 10 business days starting on the day after written notice of the action is filed with the city clerk all right we are moving on to item number five adjacent I think you know what to say there good evening Commissioners um if it's okay with the commission I would like to postpone that to the February 1st meeting for the training I think everybody here let's let's do it we're good we need a motion for that uh dude please do okay can we get a motion to move that item number five to the February 1st meeting commissioner Armstrong ISO move to move the commissioner training to the next meeting on February 1st we got a first and a second all in favor aye great moving on to item number six uh give us the uh no report there's a meeting next week excellent moving on to item seven uh Jason gave us the penny tour buddy there's four items on the next agenda that have been noticed and a training thank you okay thank you Commissioners okay closing items seven movie item eight commissions commissioner suggestions for future event agenda items anything notable I would suggest we have a limit on the number of agenda items I'd rather have more meetings than longer meetings just a suggestion something to think about okay we're coming uh closing item number eight moving to item number nine public comment this item is either for either public comment or any action item or for any general public comment we do have uh looks like oh councilwoman Megan Ebert here um oh I do not wish to make a statement but in opposition oh okay no that's okay and also we have Danny cleus he wishes to make a statement in opposition two that's a picture of our nice canal October 21 it had 2.5 inches of rain the picture I showed you earlier earlier tonight 0.6 inches of rain it's the same thing what's changed out there in two years stupidity that's what changed out there more warehouses more building and you guys still don't get it what you guys do up the road affects me I'm a Washoe County resident I'm not City of Reno and you know what's funny three years ago when I was coming here all the time you guys must have a book that says the same thing that you guys read every day because this is what was on the thing the last meeting that I had with you guys before my father passed away was enough enough out here when is enough going to be is this is this one going to be enough is this one going to be enough is this one going to be enough it's still going on today [Music] that was three years ago for planning manager you need to get the hold of the dri report look what your buildings are doing Downstream it's sad it says that a Washoe County resident I can't even get the sheriff out there you know why because the sheriff is too busy over in the Reno area taking care of the criminals over there you guys can't even do anything your sewer guess what four years ago oh we got plenty of room in our sewer oh no we don't have any room we got to build more to our sewer that's how things get done you know what highways and everything widening that Highway 395 is it going to be done until the spaghetti bowl is done just because they're doing intersections it doesn't mean that highways are going to be done that highway is not to be expected to be expanded until 2036. I've been to the indot meetings I've been to the RTC meetings I've been to the Sparks meetings I've Been Everywhere and when I couldn't go I watched them on YouTube it's not hard guys the last project that you guys just approved guess what before you guys annexed it it was Washoe County's project I had meetings with the owners of that land they wanted houses and apartments there they got it approved what changed now they want warehouses in the same area same parcel of land thank you anybody else in the chambers wish to speak a public comment at this time all right Michelle any other correspondence that need to be aware of over there oh councilman I'm so sorry I looked away too fast my apologies [Music] on for the Planning Commission uh just really emotional about tonight's meeting it might be because it's well past my bedtime but um there are things happening in my ward that are being ignored and that's why I ran for city council and that's why I was able to beat the incumbent as a first-time candidate I don't know what I was doing but I knew I was unhappy what was going on in my ward and enough people agreed with me that I won that election we have people showing up pleading with you to listen to us we live there we know what we're going through we're not being heard that includes me my next steps when I leave here is to reach out to that woman with that signature or that petition with 1700 signatures and I'm going to ask her to invite every one of those people to come and give public comment at this next meeting you think this is a late meeting now I'm going to do everything I can to get everyone from my ward that is unhappy to come here and explain to you why things aren't working out there and as far as needing specific data so that you can have a reason to say no let me know what data you need if it's car fatalities accidents pedestrians hit by cars overcrowding in our classrooms lack of funding for our schools let me know what numbers you need and I'll try and get that for you okay I also have some video to show you bear with me here I don't know if you guys can see okay uh this was a retention pond it's kind of blurry right now right now right here if we pause that's where they're putting in homes can you talk into the microphone so we can yeah those little bits sticking up that's piping that's where they're putting homes this is Dr Horton this is on Military the permits I just checked on the Washoe County Assessor's website were issued in October 27 22. this is not an old project that needs to get fixed up this is what we're currently doing in my ward I'm going to finish playing this I'm going to run it again so you guys can see the white water because I think you missed it when it was blurry this is my neighborhood this is walking distance to my house this is what I get to worry about when we have rain and snow I was so upset that I became a council member to deal with this and now I get to sit here and still be helpless I don't know how you guys can go home and sleep tonight with the way that you guys voted because I know that I won't so thank you for your time thank you anybody else in Chambers wish to speak I with that said we will I do I just want to say right to those okay yeah well let me know okay yeah that's fine let me close uh public comment item number nine uh if you want to make common good now foreign for the record I just want to thank those who stayed and uh the young unit uh Muniz what's her first name what's this Selena thank you for staying I know you probably have school tomorrow so appreciate it this is uh Alex melto for the record I think it's completely inappropriate for the body that reviews us to make uh statements like we're made tonight and try to pressure us to vote a certain way and demean us for engaging in deliberative process I think that's completely inappropriate I think that's important to be said that would never happen in a court a Appellate Court would never go to a district court and tell them why they were wrong and try to shame them into making decision it's not how this process is supposed to work all right thank you commissioner velto item number 10 uh motion for a German all in favor aye